Question

Toward a behavior-analytic understanding of jealousy and compersion in romantic and sexual relationships Glenna Hunter a and August Stockwellb

aChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, Ottawa, Canada; bChicago, USA

ABSTRACT Jealousy is the emotional response to a real or imagined threat to an important relationship, and is a common source of distress within romantic and other close interpersonal relationships. In contrast, compersion is the experience of joy in response to a partner experiencing emotional or sexual attraction toward and interactions with another person. In this paper the authors present a contingency analysis of jealous responding and identify ways in which contingencies may be altered to produce a reduction in jealous responding in situations in which this is a targeted goal. Contingencies involved in compersive responding are also pro- pounded, with suggestions as to how compersive responding may be fostered within relationships in which compersion is a goal.

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 3 January 2020 Accepted 6 September 2021

KEYWORDS Jealousy; compersion; monogamy; consensual non- monogamy; behavioral contingencies; emotion

I love thee not as something private and personal, which is your own, but as something universal and worthy of love, which I have found (Thoreau, 1980, p. 219).

Jealousy has been a common theme in poetry, prose, and song and a preoccupation of romantic couples for centuries. Jealousy has been identified as a common source of distress within romantic relationships (Elphinston et al., 2013) when one partner suspects that the other is attracted to someone else. Matters of jealousy are frequently the cause for couples to seek counseling (De Silva, 1997), and jealousy is particularly problematic when it is related to violence and abuse that occurs within relationships (American Medical Association, 1992; Dittman, 2005; Hettrich & O’Leary, 2007).

Jealousy is not the only response that may occur when one’s partner experiences sexual or romantic feelings for another person. In contrast, compersion is the experience of joy in response to a partner experiencing emotional or sexual attraction toward and interactions with another person (Aumer et al., 2014; J. Deri, 2015; Eve, 1985; J. H. Deri, 2011; Hypatia from Space, 2019; Mogilski et al., 2019). While compersion is little talked about in the context of monogamous relationships (though see Aumer et al., 2014 for an exception), it is considered particularly important in promoting the well-being of con- sensually non-monogamous (CNM) relationships (Aumer et al., 2014; J. Deri, 2015; Eve, 1985; J. H. Deri, 2011; Hypatia from Space, 2019; Wolfe, 2003). CNM relationships are those in which partners agree that each may engage in romantic or sexual relationships

CONTACT Glenna Hunter [email protected] The authors would like to thank Deric Toney, Worner Leland, Rivanna Jihan, Jessica Gamba, Sara Beck, and anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2021.1981751

© 2021 Norwegian Association for Behavior Analysis

with others, with the full knowledge and consent of all involved (Conley et al., 2013; Mogilski et al., 2019). CNM relationships exist in a number of forms which are typically categorized based on the degree to which the extra-dyadic relationships are primarily sexual in nature, as in the case of swinging and open relationships, or emphasize emotional involvement and commitment, as in the case of polyamory (Grunt-Mejer & Campbell, 2015).

While there is a paucity of research on compersion, there is a rich body of research on the topic of jealousy spanning a range of theoretical perspectives (Demirtas-Madran, 2011; Duma, 2009; Pines, 1992), including evolutionary (e.g., Easton et al., 2007), socio- logical (e.g., J. Deri, 2015; J. H. Deri, 2011), cognitive (e.g., Bauerle et al., 2002; Schumacher & Slep, 2004), and neurobiological (e.g., Harmon-Jones et al., 2009) frame- works, each of which have yielded important insights. In contrast, the body of research on compersion (e.g., Aumer et al., 2014; Balzarini et al., 2021; Duma, 2009; J. H. Deri, 2011) is relatively small. Neither jealousy nor compersion have been examined from a behavior-analytic perspective.

What follows is a preliminary foray into understanding jealous and compersive responding through a behavior-analytic lens, focused on the direct contingencies1

involved in these collections of responses. Implications for reducing jealous responding are discussed, as well as possible ways of fostering compersive responding in situations in which compersion is a desired outcome. In keeping with much of the research on this subject, the authors will discuss jealous responding as it occurs in the context of intimate relationships but do so with the recognition that any time two people are in an important relationship (e.g., friendship and family relationships; Parrot, 1991) the opportunity for jealous responding exists, and with the hope that the framework suggested may be extended to other types of relationships as well. Furthermore, whereas the degree to which jealous responding is perceived to be negative or positive varies across different cultures and subcultures, in this paper the authors strive to present an analysis of jealousy without negative or positive valence. Instead, they attempt, without judgment, to present jealous behavior as a natural response to the contingencies within the relationship.

Defining jealousy

Attridge (2013) provides a definition of jealousy standard of those commonly used in jealousy research: “an emotional response to the real or imagined threat of losing some- thing of value from a romantic relationship” (p. 1). This definition can inform a behavior-analytic account of jealousy with further specification of what is meant by emotional response, as well as threat to something of value.

Jealousy: an emotional response

In a number of studies, researchers have attempted to catalogue specific response topographies that characterize jealousy. Typically, participants are first asked to remem- ber a situation in which they have felt jealous (e.g., L. Guerrero et al., 1995; L. K. Guerrero et al., 2005), or to imagine situations2 that may induce jealousy, such as their partner engaging in sex with or falling in love with another person (e.g., Attridge, 2013; Barelds & Barelds-Dijkstra, 2007; Marelich, 2002; Salovey & Rodin, 1986). Participants are then

2 G. HUNTER AND A. STOCKWELL

asked to list (e.g., L. Guerrero et al., 1995; L. K. Guerrero et al., 2005), or to rate on a Likert scale (e.g., Attridge, 2013; Barelds & Barelds-Dijkstra, 2007; Bryson, 1991; L. Guerrero et al., 1995; L. K. Guerrero et al., 2005; Marelich, 2002) the actions that they did/would do, and the thoughts and feelings that they had/would have in the situation. The participants’ responses are then grouped into categories such as those found in Table 1.

Jealousy as described in research is commonly conceptualized as being divisible into the components of behavior, cognition and affect (Guerrero et al., 2005), or actions, thoughts, and feelings (Kim et al., 2017). In a behavior analytic approach, these three components are not viewed as fundamentally separate processes, but rather all are viewed as behavioral responses (Anderson et al., 1997). Thoughts and feelings, rather than being non-behavioral hypothetical constructs that affect a person’s behavior, are construed as private events (i.e., events observable only by one person) that are behavioral responses as much as are overt behaviors. While the role of private events in the analysis of behavior continues to be a point of discussion between behavior analysts (Anderson et al., 1997; Schlinger, 2011), private events are generally afforded no special status, but instead viewed as being subject to the same environmental contingencies as overt behaviors (Moore, 2000; Skinner, 1957, 1974). Briefly, thinking is behavior, such as talking, that typically occurs at a covert level such that it may not be observed by others besides the person behaving but that nevertheless is governed by environmental contingencies in the same way as overt behavior (Moore, 2000; Skinner, 1957, 1974).3 Feelings are recognized as “conditions of the body” (Moore, 2000, p. 50) that come about in response to the circumstances under which they occur, and that can thereby be understood through an analysis of the contingencies involved. Therefore, the triad of actions (overt behavior), thoughts (covert behavior), and feelings (conditions of the body) may be analyzed in terms of environmental contingencies.

A traditional analysis of emotion, which corresponds to a lay understanding of emotions, would posit that emotional behavior (e.g., yelling) is caused by the emotion itself (e.g., anger) or that emotional behavior is a way of expressing the emotion felt. This position is clearly reflected in a study by Guerrero et al. (2005) in which participants were asked to remember a situation in which they had felt jealous and to describe the emotions

Table 1. Categories of jealous responding. Response Category Examples

Negative affect expressiona Showing sadness or anger Solution oriented

communicationa Talking with their partner in a constructive way, self disclosure, providing explanations

for their reaction Distributive communicationa Yelling Active distancinga Ignoring their partner Avoidance or deniala Denying being jealous Violent communicationa Threatening their partner Surveillance restrictiona Spying on their partner Contacting the rivala Telling the rival not to see their partner any more Manipulationa Trying to make their partner feel guilty or jealous Compensatory restorationa Trying to improve the relationship, trying to become more attractive to their partner Violence towards objectsa Breaking objects Intropunitiveb Blaming self Emotional devastationb Rumination, depression, crying Need for social supportb Talking with friends

aL. Guerrero et al. (1995). bBryson (1991).

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 3

that they had felt as well as the way in which they had communicated with their partner about the situation. The authors then correlated the reported behavior with the reported emotions and explained the behavior in terms of the emotions. For example, those who reported having felt hostile were more likely to report that they had used violence, from which the authors concluded that the violence may come about due to underlying hostility. This conclusion comes about from circular reasoning: Why are they threatening their partner? Because they feel hostile. Why do they feel hostile? Because they are jealous. How do you know they are jealous? Because they are threatening their partner.

A behavior-analytic approach avoids circular reasoning in that emotional behavior is not considered to be caused by emotion. Rather, the feeling of jealousy (the privately experienced conditions of the body) and the emotional behavior (both covert and overt responses) are seen to be the result of the same environmental variables (Moore, 2000; Skinner, 1953) but not causal of each other even though they are temporally contiguous. That is, a person did not yell because they felt jealous when they found out that their partner had kissed someone else, but rather, they yelled and felt jealous when they found out that their partner had kissed someone else. An analysis of jealous responding there- fore requires an examination of the contingencies between the responses and the circumstances under which they occur.

Jealousy: a response to a threat to something of value

The definition provided by Attridge (2013) points toward circumstances under which a response is considered one of jealousy: the real or perceived presence of a threat to a valued aspect of one’s relationship.

Valued aspect of a relationship Many characteristics of a relationship may be valued by those in the relationship, and those characteristics which are valued vary across relationships as well as between people in a relationship. For example, one person may value time spent working on common projects, or the way in which they co-parent with their partner. Another may value the way in which they and their partner discuss and share worldviews. While an exploration of the variables that determine what a person values in a relationship is beyond the scope of this paper, it is important to acknowledge that each person comes to a relationship from a different learning history that affects what they value in that relationship.

A valued aspect of a relationship (VAR) may be identified as some abstract quality of the relationship characterized by a set of behaviors and their related reinforcers that maintain continued responding specific to that relationship (Hunter & Stockwell, 2019). For example, Sternberg (1997), in his Triangle Theory of Love, lists the abstract qualities of intimacy, passion, and commitment as components of love that characterize relation- ships. Terms such as intimacy, passion, and commitment suggest classes or patterns of behavior whose consequences serve as reinforcers. For example, behaviors such as talking about feelings, and sharing secrets may fall under the umbrella of intimacy – behaviors which may be reinforced by one’s partner responding in kind. Engaging in acts of physical affection or sexual interactions with another person that occur at high rates, high magnitudes, or both may fall under the term passion. Commitment can be con- ceptualized as relationship-related behaviors that persist across time and circumstances,

4 G. HUNTER AND A. STOCKWELL

including adverse situations (as in the traditional Christian wedding vows: to have and to hold for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health). Another term of particular importance to the discussion of jealousy is exclusivity, which refers to certain responses that occur only within the specific relationship. For example, physical exclusivity refers to the practice of engaging in physically affectionate behavior (e.g., kissing, cuddling, or sexual behavior) only with one’s partner, and emotional exclusivity to engaging in certain social responses (e.g., self-disclosure, saying “I love you”) only towards one’s partner.

VARs may also involve reinforcers obtained outside of the interactions between the people in the relationship. For example, being in the relationship may bring about an increase in social status: community members may interact with the people in the relationship in a way that results in increased contact with reinforcement by those in the relationship. Practical benefits such as increased financial security or support in child rearing may also constitute VARs.

Throughout this analysis, contact with a VAR refers to contact with another’s VAR- related behavior or with opportunities to engage in VAR-related behavior. Under circumstances in which VAR-related behavior results in reinforcement, contact with a VAR is synonymous with contact with reinforcement (Hunter & Stockwell, 2019). The introduction of the acronym VAR does not suggest that any process is in play over and above reinforcement; the acronym is used simply as an efficient way of referring to specific reinforcers contacted by virtue of being in the relationship.

Threats to a valued aspect of the relationship A threat to a VAR refers to any event or condition that signals a decrease in the frequency of another’s VAR-related behavior or in opportunities to engage in VAR-related beha- vior, and therefore signals a decrease in reinforcement available. For example, if the attention of their partner is a valued aspect of the person’s relationship, the arrival of the partner’s friend may constitute a threat to this VAR given a history of the partner shifting their attention away from the person and toward the friend. The friend’s arrival signals a decrease in the partner’s attention, and thus, in circumstances in which the partner’s attention serves as an effective form of reinforcement, the friend’s arrival signals a decrease in reinforcement available.

A threat to a VAR may also be any event or condition that reduces the reinforcing effectiveness of contact with one’s partner’s VAR-related behavior or in the consequences of one’s own VAR-related behavior. For example, even if physical intimacy is a VAR, after one discovers that one’s partner has been cheating, one’s partner’s physical affection may no longer function as a reinforcer as it did prior to the discovery of betrayal.

As Attridge’s (2013) definition of jealousy suggests, the threat may be either real or imagined. A real threat may involve environmental events which relate directly to a loss in reinforcement (e.g., a partner stating “I want to spend more time with other people”), whereas an imagined threat may constitute a situation in which there are some, but not all, events present that have preceded that change in the past (e.g., a partner spending more time out of town than usual). It is important to note that, for either type of threat situation, the person may not have a direct history with these environmental events leading to loss of reinforcement and may instead be engaging in rule-governed behavior. In the example above, a person may not have had a previous partner who began taking more out-of-town trips and then

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 5

disclosed their infidelity; instead, this person may be operating according to the rule, “If they take more out-of-town trips, this means they are cheating on me”. This rule may have been stated by someone in the person’s verbal community or presented through media messages, or it may have been self-generated (see Hayes et al., 1998; Rosenfarb et al., 1992; Skinner, 1945).

Much research into jealousy presumes that exclusivity – be it emotional or sexual or both – is the VAR to which a threat would evoke jealous responding (J. H. Deri, 2011). Participants in jealousy studies are typically given scenarios to read which depict hypothetical situations in which their partner is either engaged in an emotional or sexual interaction with someone else (e.g., Attridge, 2013; Marelich, 2002), or else asked to imagine such a situation (e.g., Shackelford et al., 2000), and then asked to rate how they would respond in such a situation. The underlying assumption upon which these studies lie is that any deviation from exclusivity constitutes an act in response to which a person would respond with jealousy. This assumption may be valid to many people in monogamous relationships but would not necessarily be so for those in CNM relationships. Thus, it is important to consider that threats to aspects of the relation- ship other than exclusivity may evoke jealous responding. This recognition is impor- tant when examining jealous responding that occurs in the context of CNM relationships, in which sexual or emotional exclusivity is not a defining aspect of the relationship.

Within any relationship, specific agreements govern the behavior of those in the relationship. These agreements serve to maintain the VARs and may be implicit or explicitly established by the people in the relationship. As the agreements serve to maintain the VARs, any breaking of an agreement constitutes a threat to a VAR and may set the occasion for jealous responding. For example, in most monogamous relation- ships each person in the relationship agrees implicitly to engage in sexual behavior only with the other partner and with no one else; sexual exclusivity is presumed to be a VAR. Any situation in which the agreement is broken, such as if one partner engages in sex with another person, constitutes a threat to sexual exclusivity, and is likely to lead to jealous responding on the part of the other partner. Partners within CNM relationships, who agree that each partner may engage in romantic or sexual relationships with other people, may establish agreements as to what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable behavior regarding each person’s relationships with other people (Cook, 2005; Hardy & Easton, 2017; Hypatia from Space, 2019; Veaux & Rickert, 2014; Wolfe, 2003; Wosick- Correa, 2010). These agreements are often created through direct and ongoing commu- nication (Wosick-Correa, 2010), and established so as to ensure that each person con- tinues to contact that which they value in their relationship with their partner. Honest communication is one example of a possible VAR. Partners in a CNM relationship may agree that it is acceptable for each person to date other people so long as they first talk to their partner and that they honestly answer any questions or respond to any concerns that their partner may have. If one partner breaks this agreement and dates another person without first talking with their partner, or if they lie to their partner about dating someone else, this situation would constitute a threat to honest communication, and may thus lead to jealous responding on the part of their partner.

6 G. HUNTER AND A. STOCKWELL

Contingency analysis of jealous responding

Emotion, which is suffering, ceases to be suffering as soon as we form a clear and precise picture of it.. (Frankl, 1963, p. 117)

A contingency refers to “the relations between the responses and other events” (Lattal, 1995, p. 210). While both operant and respondent relations are no doubt involved in jealous responding, the current discussion focuses on the operant relations involved, and therefore on the roles of events that serve as motivating operations (MOs) and discri- minative stimuli (Sds and S∆s) as antecedents, and consequent events that serve to reinforce, punish, or extinguish jealous responding.

Interlocking contingencies

Situations of jealousy that occur within a relationship involve the behavior of at least two people: the person engaging in the jealous response and their partner. The behavior of each person in the relationship has an effect on the other, and so, to fully understand a person’s jealous responses, one must consider the actions of their partner and vice versa (Ridley, 1996). Considering the interlocking contingencies at play for both partners mirrors the approach of Toney and Hayes (2017) in their analysis of interpersonal conflict, which in turn reflects Skinner’s (1957) handling of verbal interactions.

The behavior of other people, such as the rival, or other community members (both in person and on social network sites like Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, etc.) may also play a significant role in how a situation of jealousy unfolds (Martínez-León et al., 2017). For example, if a person’s friends respond sympathetically to the person’s accusational complaints about their partner, accusational behavior may be maintained. For the sake of concision, the behavior of others will not be included in the analysis of jealousy that follows, but the authors recognize that a truly complete analysis of certain situations will require consideration of others’ behavior as well.

MOs

MOs are commonly defined as events or stimulus conditions that alter the reinforcing or punishing effects of other events (the value altering effect), and alter the frequency of behaviors that are affected by these events as consequence (behavior altering effect; Laraway et al., 2003; Michael, 1993). MOs that serve to increase the effectiveness of events as reinforcers or punishers are referred to as establishing operations (EOs), whereas MOs that serve to reduce the effectiveness of events as reinforcers or punishers are referred to as abolishing operations (AOs; Michael, 1993). Recognizing the role of MOs aids in analyzing the contingencies involved in both the experience and expression of emotions (Lewon & Hayes, 2014; Toney & Hayes, 2017).

Establishing operations that are pertinent to jealous responding may involve those that affect the reinforcing effectiveness of contact with a person’s partner and the likelihood of behaviors occurring that produce contact with the partner. For instance, the time a person spends with their partner may serve either as an EO or AO with regards to further contact with them. Situations not directly related to the

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 7

relationship itself may also serve as EOs or AOs. For example, stressful events at work, illness, or conflict within other relationships may serve as EOs that increase the effectiveness of contact with a person’s partner as a form of reinforcement and increase the likelihood that the person may attempt to contact their partner; in contrast, compelling projects at work or positive experiences within other relation- ships may serve as AOs. It is important to note that one cannot categorize events as EOs or AOs based on the features of the event, but only by their effect on behavior. For example, one person faced with a parent’s terminal illness may turn to their partner for comfort, whereas another person may withdraw and spend time alone. For the first person, this event serves as an EO with regards to contact with the partner that increases the likelihood that the person will attempt to contact their partner, while, for the second person, this event serves as an AO decreasing such a likelihood.4

Two antecedent factors may be drawn from the definition of jealousy that are suggestive of MOs. The first is the presence of a VAR – something that constitutes a source of reinforcement, the loss or deprivation of which would serve as an EO – and the second is the presence of a threat to the VAR – the presence of which would serve as a reflexive EO.

Deprivation of a VAR as an EO In cases where a person experiences a loss of some valued aspect of their relation- ship, this relative deprivation functions as an EO for that which was lost. Contact with the VAR increases in effectiveness as a reinforcer and behaviors that have led to increased contact with that VAR in the past may be evoked. Some forms of jealous behavior are suggestive of the effects of this EO. For example, a number of partici- pants in a study by Guerrero et al. (2005), when asked to imagine instances in which their relationship had been threatened by their partner’s attention to a rival, reported that they made efforts to increase their attractiveness to their partner. Plausibly, deprivation of the partner’s attention due to the presence of the rival had served as an EO increasing the value of attention from their partner and had evoked behavior – attractiveness-enhancement – that had in the past resulted in gaining that attention.

EOs related to aggression Decades of research have shown that exposure to aversive stimulation or to extinction schedules increases the chance that an organism will engage in aggression (Lewon & Hayes, 2014), and that novel functional classes of aggressive behavior can emerge in response to an outside party contacting reinforcement when an organism does not have contact with reinforcement (Andronis et al., 1997). One interpretation of these findings suggests that aversive stimulation and extinction serve as EOs that momentarily establish the products of aggression – such as signs of damage to another – as reinforcing (Lewon & Hayes, 2014; Michael, 1993; Winston, 2016). Note that damage need not be physical damage, but may be signs of emotional hurt as well, such as expressions of guilt, remorse, or sincere apologies (Toney & Hayes, 2017; Winston, 2016). Toney and Hayes (2017) describe both verbal and non-verbal features of apologies that are generally considered to reflect sincerity, such as changes in facial expression, crying, and statements of being in

8 G. HUNTER AND A. STOCKWELL

pain, and suggest that these “signs of sufferance” (p. 140) may be that which serves to reinforce the aggressive behavior of the person who has been victim of someone’s offending (i.e., aversive) behavior.5

If a person experiences a reduction in contact with some VAR or the presence of a threat to the relationship, this aversive situation may serve as an EO that momentarily increases the effectiveness of signs of sufferance as a reinforcer, such as signs of guilt, remorse or apology from their partner. Furthermore, if a person’s attempts to re-establish such contact with the VAR encounters extinction, the likelihood of aggression is increased. For example, if a person’s partner is less responsive to their bids for attention because the partner’s attention is diverted toward a rival, the person’s bids for attention will contact extinction. The reinforcing effectiveness of seeing the partner hurt increases, and aggressive behavior is evoked until the partner expresses remorse, or otherwise shows signs of sufferance.

A number of jealous response forms described in the literature (see Table 1) involve forms of aggression, such as distributive communication, violent communication and violence toward objects (Guerrero et al., 1995). Active distancing and manipulation (Guerrero et al., 1995) are less obvious forms of behavior that may inflict suffering on the partner. Intropunitive responding (Bryson, 1991) may also be viewed as a form of covert, self-inflicted aggression. If this interpretation is correct, an intropunitive response may occur when a person whose learning history has resulted in the elimination of outwardly aggressive behavior nevertheless experiences conditions (e.g., extinction) that establish the results of aggression as reinforcers. Rather than aggressing overtly, the person resorts to aggressing covertly (White, 2008).

Justifying aggression: evidence of betrayal as transitive EO A transitive EO is one that establishes another stimulus or event as an effective reinforcer or punisher (Michael, 1993). If one event serves as an EO for a second event, it may also serve as a transitive EO for establishing those conditions necessary for the second event to come about. For example, the message “call your partner right away” establishes speaking with one’s partner as a reinforcer, and also serves as a transitive EO momentarily establishing access to a phone as a reinforcer and evokes phone-seeking behavior.

The presence of a threat to the VAR serves as an EO for aggression, but also as a transitive EO for evidence of the partner’s wrongdoing – justification for the aggression (Winston, 2016). Engaging in aggression toward another person without evidence of infidelity or other wrongdoing is more likely to be punished by the denial, indignation, and distancing of the other person, not to mention by the disapproval of friends and family, than it is to be reinforced. However, under evidence of the partner’s culpability, such behavior may be considered justified or even condoned. Confronting one’s partner with direct evidence of infidelity is more likely to be reinforced by signs of sufferance (e.g., crying, apologizing, etc.) from the partner and by support from one’s social community (Martínez-León et al., 2017).

The presence of an imagined threat to a VAR therefore may increase the reinforcing effectiveness of any further evidence of one’s partner’s wrongdoing and evoke behavior that results in an amassing of further evidence. In this way, the initial threat functions both as a conditioned EO establishing the reinforcing effectiveness of signs of sufferance of one’s partner and as a transitive EO establishing the reinforcing effectiveness of those

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 9

conditions under which injurious behavior is more likely to be reinforced by such signs of sufferance (Winston, 2016). Spying, monitoring, and vigilant behavior that results in the accumulation of evidence sets an occasion in which confrontation and accusation may be reinforced.

The threat: partner’s contact with the rival as a reflexive EO In situations of jealousy, the threat to the relationship typically takes the form of a rival: another person whose presence puts in jeopardy some VAR. The presence of the rival or the partner’s contact with the rival may function as a reflexive EO.

A reflexive EO is one that signals some form of worsening and establishes its own offset as a reinforcer (Michael, 1993). For example, a partner’s angry look may serve as a reflexive EO that signals a possible worsening of one’s situation (e.g., partner yelling), establishing the termination of the angry look as a reinforcing event and evoking behavior that in the past has led to the elimination of the angry look (e.g., apologizing, bringing flowers).

A partner’s contact with the rival may be correlated with a decrease in availability of a VAR, or signal that reinforcement is not available for VAR-soliciting behavior, thus functioning as an S∆ for VAR-soliciting behavior. The partner’s contact with the rival functions as a reflexive EO establishing the removal of the partner’s rival-contact as a reinforcer and evoking behavior that has led to such a reduction. Some forms of jealous behavior, such as confrontation and accusations, may serve to punish and thereby suppress the partner’s rival-contact behavior, or at least evoke behavior of the partner that suggests they will reduce their contact with the rival in the future (a consequence that, through rule-governance, may function to reinforce the jealous behavior). Behavior that results in increased attention from the partner, such as compensatory restoration (Guerrero et al., 1995) may serve the function of distancing the partner from the rival, in that any increase in the partner’s attention often also entails a decrease in the partner’s attention to other things – including the rival.

Anxious jealousy: responding in the absence of a threat Jealous patterns of responding may perpetuate even when no rival is present to pose a threat, as is the case with individuals said to be experiencing anxious jealousy (i.e., a jealous response occurring in the absence of a threat to the relationship; Barelds & Barelds-Dijkstra, 2007). If behavior topographically similar to jealous responding has been reinforced in the past by an increase in intimacy with one’s partner, future situa- tions that function as an EO for intimacy may increase the likelihood of such responding even in the absence of the rival. As an example, a person may experience a situation that serves as an EO that establishes quality time with their partner as an effective reinforcer, such as stressful interactions with co-workers or an illness. These EOs increase the likelihood of behavior that has in the past resulted in increased quality time with their partner. If the person has a history of experiencing greater quality time with their partner after having made accusations of emotional or sexual infidelity, they may make such accusations even in the absence of any evidence of such infidelity. The features of the situation (stress at work) and the behavior (accusations) seem incongruous, but they are functionally related; the situation serves as an EO that establishes quality time as an effective form of reinforcement and evokes behavior that has resulted in such quality time in the past.

10 G. HUNTER AND A. STOCKWELL

Such patterns of behavior can become deleterious to a relationship. Indeed, anxious jealousy has been found to be negatively correlated with reports of relationship closeness (Barelds & Barelds-Dijkstra, 2007; Barelds & Dijkstra, 2006).6 As discussed further below, interventions to address anxious jealousy will need to put particular focus on helping the individual to accurately tact the conditions that occasion their jealous responding and to adjust the form of their responding to more accurately reflect the relevant contingencies. In this way the individual may respond more effectively to the contingencies in a way that allows them and their partner to resolve the situation.

Consequences to jealous behavior

The partner’s response to the jealous behavior has a great effect not only on how a situation of jealousy resolves, but also on how similar situations unfold in the future. To illustrate, two possible responses and their related effects will be discussed: reinforce- ment of the jealous responding by the partner’s conciliatory response and punishment of the jealous responding by the partner’s denial and deflection response.

In the analysis that follows the jealous behavior is assumed to be aversive to the partner and to function as a reflexive EO in that it establishes termination of the jealous behavior as a reinforcer. The authors recognize that this is not the case in all relationships as, for some, jealous behavior in a partner is seen as an indicator that the partner values the relationship (Attridge, 2013; Aumer et al., 2014) and may in these situations be considered a response to be encouraged rather than reduced.

Reinforcement of jealous responding: the example of conciliatory responses When faced with the jealous behavior, the partner may respond with conciliatory behavior in the form of reassurances, apologies, or other placating responses. Conciliatory behaviors such as crying and apologizing are likely to serve as an AO in that they immediately reduce the reinforcing effectiveness of signs of sufferance as a reinforcer (Winston, 2016) and hence reduce jealous responding. The conciliatory response may also involve promises to refrain from contact with the rival, which may further serve as an AO that leads to a reduction in jealous behavior.7

Furthermore, if the conciliatory behavior effectively re-establishes the VAR that a person relates to as being under threat, such as emotional or physical intimacy, the re- establishment of the VAR functions even further as an AO for the jealous behavior and may lead to the immediate reduction of this behavior.

Conciliatory responding may not only serve to reduce jealous behavior in the immedi- ate, but also serve to reinforce the jealous behavior. That is to say, under similar circumstances a person is more likely to engage in jealous responding, given that jealous responding has been met with their partner’s remorse, distancing from the rival, and re- establishment of the VAR. In turn, the immediate reduction in jealous behavior (the reflexive EO) serves to reinforce the conciliatory response from the partner. The aversive aspects of the interaction are eliminated; peace is restored. When faced with jealous behavior in the future, the partner is therefore more likely to respond in a conciliatory manner.

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 11

Figure 1 illustrates a scenario in which a person (Partner 1), deprived of time with their partner (Partner 2) due to Partner 2’s long work hours, reacts to the sight of Partner 2 texting a friend from work by accusing them of infidelity. The condi- tions of deprivation of the VAR (interaction with the partner) serve as EOs increasing the reinforcing value of both access to the VAR and signs of sufferance in Partner 2. The sight of the Partner 2 texting a friend functions as a S∆ signalling lack of availability of the VAR contingent on the non-jealous VAR-soliciting responses in partner 1’s typical interaction repertoire, and as reflexive EO establish- ing the removal of the S∆ as a reinforcer. Partner 1’s jealous response (accusation of infidelity) functions as a reflexive EO for Partner 2, establishing cessation of Partner 1’s jealous responding as a reinforcer. Partner 2 responds to the jealous behavior by reassuring Partner 1, by apologizing, and by putting the phone away and attending to Partner 1. These conciliatory responses reinforce Partner 1’s jealous behavior and serve as AOs, reducing the likelihood of further jealous behavior at that time. The cessation of jealous responding reinforces the Partner 2’s conciliatory response.

Figure 1. Conciliatory response to jealous behavior. Deprivation of the VAR serves as an EO increasing the reinforcing value of access to the VAR and of signs of sufferance in Partner 2. The sight of the Partner 2 texting a friend functions as a S∆ signalling lack of availability of the VAR and as reflexive EO establishing the removal of the S∆ as a reinforcer. Partner 2’s conciliatory responses reinforces Partner 1’s jealous response and functions as AOs reducing the likelihood of further jealous responding. The cessation of jealous responding reinforces the Partner 2’s conciliatory response.

12 G. HUNTER AND A. STOCKWELL

This episode also constitutes discrimination training with regards to Partner 1’s jealous responding: As the jealous responding is reinforced in the presence of the partner texting the friend, the partner texting a friend will acquire a discriminatory function (i.e., become a Sd) for jealous responding.

If Partner 1 is in fact responding to a betrayal, for example, if Partner 2 has broken a relationship agreement and thereby introduced a threat to some valued aspect of the relationship, conciliatory behavior may well be the balm required to restore the peace. Furthermore, Partner 2 will be able to avoid encountering the jealous behavior of Partner 1 in the future by abiding by the agreements of the relationship. If, however, the jealous behavior occurs solely in response to the established Sd (the sight of Partner 2 texting a friend) even when Partner 2 has not broken an agreement, the results will differ. Even if Partner 2 can defuse the jealous behavior in the moment through apologizing and appeasing, they are never- theless not able to predict or avoid Partner 1’s jealous behavior in the future. The content of the accusations (e.g., “You’re cheating!”) do not align with relevant EO (deprivation of interactions with the partner) nor the maintaining consequence of the jealous behavior (e.g., increased interactions with the partner), and Partner 1’s behavior will appear unpredictable to Partner 2. Over time this pattern may well lead to resentment, as the Partner 2 begins to wonder, “What did I do wrong this time?”

To summarize, while a conciliatory response may reduce jealous behavior in the immediate, it may also serve to reinforce the jealous behavior, thereby increasing the future likelihood of jealous behavior under similar circumstances in the future (Martínez-León et al., 2017). The immediate reduction of jealous behavior occasioned by the conciliatory response in turn reinforces the partner’s conciliatory behavior, thereby increasing the chance that such a response will be made again whenever jealous behavior is encountered. Thus, a cycle of jealous and conciliatory behavior may become entrenched in the relationship unless measures are taken to detect and avoid such a pattern.

Punishment of jealous responding: the example of denial and deflection Conciliatory behavior is not the only possible response to jealous behavior, and other reactions will lead to different relationship outcomes. When faced with a partner’s jealous response, a person may attempt to eliminate the aversive stimulation through denial (i.e., stating they did not engage in the stated response) and deflection (i.e., changing the subject). When accused of infidelity, the accused partner may protest or counter-attack. Such a response may have the effect of terminating the accusations in the moment through punishment – thus reinforcing the denial behavior – but may do nothing to address the EOs that evoked the jealous behavior in the first place. Without re- establishment of the VAR or removal of the threat, the jealous behavior is likely to continue to occur, albeit in a different and possibly covert form (e.g., in the presence of others besides the partner). The person may cease engaging in accusing behavior but engage in other responses (see Table 1). The denial and deflection response in fact may evoke punishment-induced aggressive responses on the part of the person engaging in

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 13

jealous behavior. If this pattern escalates and persists in the relationship, one or the other partner may opt to escape the aversive behavior of the other entirely by leaving the relationship.

Figure 2 illustrates a scenario similar to that depicted in Figure 1, but in which the Partner 2 responds to Partner 1’s accusations by protesting and making a counter- accusation. This denial and deflection response punishes the accusing behavior thereby decreasing the likelihood of that form of jealous behavior. However, the denial and deflection response does not alter the conditions that established contact with the VAR, signs of sufferance of the partner, and elimination of the partner’s contact with the rival as effective forms of reinforcement, and so Partner 1 is likely to engage in other forms of jealous behavior.

This episode also constitutes discrimination training with regards to Partner 2’s denial and deflection response: As this response is reinforced in the presence of their partner’s jealous responding, Partner 1’s jealous responding will acquire a discriminatory function (i.e., become a Sd) for Partner 2’s denial and deflection response.

Figure 2. Denial and deflection in response to jealous behavior. Deprivation of the VAR serves as an EO increasing the reinforcing value of access to the VAR and of signs of sufferance in Partner 2. The sight of the Partner 2 texting a friend functions as a S∆ signalling lack of availability of the VAR and as reflexive EO establishing the removal of the S∆ as a reinforcer. Partner 2’s denial and deflection response punishes Partner 1’s jealous response, but does not alter the conditions that function as EOs.

14 G. HUNTER AND A. STOCKWELL

Treating jealousy

How does a couple best navigate when they encounter a situation in which jealous responding occurs? If the couple is troubled by the situation and if they state an interest in preserving the well-being of the relationship, some form of treatment, be it formal or otherwise, may be required (Ridley, 1996).

The discussion that follows involves the treatment of jealous responding in the context of a relationship between two people and focuses on the role of both the person engaging in jealous responding and their partner. In presenting these approaches the authors do not presume to cast judgment on the behavior of either person. That is, they do not mean to imply that the behavior of the person engaging in jealous responding nor the behavior of their partner is in any way wrong or abnormal, but rather look to variables within the dynamics of the relationship that can be changed to result in less jealous responding and an increase the well-being of those in the relationship.

The intervention approaches suggested presume that both partners are interested in eliminating the cycle of jealousy in the relationship. In particular, it presumes that the partner is motivated to decrease jealous behavior of their jealous lover. This is not always the case; as has been discussed, the partner may in fact be motivated to evoke jealous behavior if jealousy is seen as an indicator of the importance of the relationship to their partner (e.g., Attridge, 2013; Aumer et al., 2014). If this is the case, then jealous responding in one partner will reinforce jealous-responding-inducing behavior of the other, and a cycle of jealous-responding-inducing behavior from one partner followed by jealous responding of the other may occur through the life of the relationship. Whether or not this cycle is strengthening or deleterious to a relationship in the long run is a matter for discussion and for empirical research.

A caveat: The interventions suggested are by no means exhaustive, nor do the authors suggest that they will be applicable or sufficient in all situations. For example, interven- tions that would be required in situations in which one of the partners has seriously breached a relationship agreement and in which agreement-coherent behavior must be re-established and trust rebuilt are not discussed at length in this paper. Indeed, in such a situation jealous responding may not be a focus for reduction, but may in fact be instrumental in re-establishing the boundaries of the relationship. Similarly, situations in which there is risk of abuse or exploitation of either partner will require further careful considerations, a discussion of which is beyond the scope of this paper (though readers are encouraged to read Guerin & de Oliveira Ortolan, 2017, for such a discussion).

Tacting the contingencies

The alleviation of distressing emotions is often that which brings a person to seek help. However, to echo Toney and Hayes (2017) in their analysis of conflict, the goal of treatment “is not to address or relieve the emotions of the individuals involved, but instead to modify the social or environmental conditions related to the behaviors that gave rise to the conflict and those that might lead to the resolution” (p. 129). Resolving a conflict between two people in which one person is responding jealously requires modification of the social or environmental conditions that give rise to the jealous responding. As succinctly stated by Moore (2000), “one changes feelings by changing

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 15

the contingencies that cause the conditions one feels” (p. 51). Distinguishing between feelings (conditions of the body) and emotional behavior (overt and covert behaviors), and the contingencies under which they occur thus has practical repercussions with regards to treatment.

The verbal operant of tacting is of relevance here, defined as a response controlled by some nonverbal stimulus and maintained by generalized social reinforcement (Skinner, 1957). Teaching an individual to tact the contingency between their jealous responding (i.e., their feelings, thoughts, and overt behavior) and environmental events, rather than to simply tact the feeling alone or only the conditions that brought rise to it, allows the individual to select and engage in overt behaviors that may more effectively allow them to contact reinforcement while minimizing negative repercussions (Layng, 2006; López, 2002).

It is important to note that both perceptual and self-report responses are sensitive to the consequences that follow them, which can present challenges related to ensuring the accuracy of responding in situations involving jealousy. (For an account of response bias as it relates to perception and self-report, see Azrin et al., 1961; Goldiamond, 1964; Robbins et al., 1995). As a result, it is crucial not only to ensure skill development of the tacting response as it relates to contingencies related to jealous responding, but to also ensure that reinforcement is available to establish and maintain accurate (honest) responding.

Changing the EOs

Situations said to induce jealousy function as EOs that increase the reinforcing effective- ness of regaining whatever VAR is under threat, decreasing the partner’s contact with the rival, and possibly causing sufferance to the agents of hurt – the partner or the rival. A natural place to start in treating jealous responding is to address each of these EOs directly.

Noncontingent reinforcement: increasing contact with the VAR Noncontingent reinforcement (NCR) is a behavior reduction procedure that involves presenting the reinforcing consequence of the behavior to be reduced on a time-based schedule rather than a response-contingent basis. One of the ways that NCR is hypothe- sized to reduce behavior is by the elimination of the EO for the behavior through satiation (Iwata et al., 2000; Wallace & Weil, 2005).8 In other areas of behavior-analytic research, the delivery of the maintaining consequence on a dense, non-contingent schedule has been shown to be effective in reducing behavior even in the absence of extinction (e.g., Carr et al., 2000; Dickinson & Charnock, 1985; Lalli et al., 1997; Lattal, 1974), which makes NCR an appealing treatment approach when refraining from reinforcing the targeted behavior is impractical or unlikely, or when the side effects of extinction such as aggression are best avoided.

As previously discussed, jealous behavior serves to increase a person’s contact with the VAR that has been adversely affected by the partner’s contact with the rival. It stands to reason that an increase in the non-contingent contact with the VAR, such as an increase in quality time, physical affection, physical intimacy, or emotional intimacy (Labriola,

16 G. HUNTER AND A. STOCKWELL

2013) would serve to reduce jealous responding by essentially reversing the state of deprivation. Additionally, NCR can also enhance the discriminative properties of the relationship as one where the VAR is available and at relatively low response cost.

Some attention may be needed to identify the aspects of the relationship that have suffered and are lacking,9 but if the aspect is accurately identified, the process of increasing the VAR could both lessen the likelihood of jealous responding and increase a whole repertoire of relationship-strengthening behaviors at the same time (Cano & O’leary, 1997). Achieving this result may require a change in the behavioral repertoire of the partner (e.g., more frequent statements that they are emotionally committed to that person and to the relationship; Labriola, 2013), but this repertoire may come under a rich schedule of reinforcement once acquired if the jealous partner reinforces their response (e.g., responds with similar statements or ceases jealous behavior), thus increasing the likelihood that the partner will continue to provide NCR. NCR thereby sets the relationship up to be a rich source of reinforcement of relationship-related behavior for both partners. NCR may be particularly helpful in the treatment of anxious jealousy, in which no actual threat to the relationship may be addressed, but in which jealous responding may nevertheless be evoked by conditions that serve as EOs for contact with the VAR.

Removal of the reflexive EO: eliminating the threat The threat, in the form of the partner’s contact with the rival, serves as a reflexive EO in that it establishes the removal of one’s partner’s contact with the rival as a reinforcer. Eliminating this EO would thus involve elimination of the partner’s contact with the rival. In treatment of jealousy that emerges due to infidelity, this is in fact advised as a way of healing the relationship (Mayo Clinic, 2016). Certainly, elimination of the presence of the rival is likely to be an appealing resolution to the person experiencing the jealous response and may in fact be a powerful step toward resolving a situation of jealousy.

This approach is not without its problems, however. The degree to which elimination of one’s partner’s contact with the rival is feasible, reasonable, or even functions as a reinforcing consequence at all will vary from situation to situation (Hunter & Stockwell, 2019). If the rival’s relationship with the partner – outside of romantic entanglements – is significant, eliminating contact could involve eliminating important aspects of the partner’s life. For example, if the rival is a co-worker, true elimination of contact would require the partner to leave their job, which may be too drastic a resolution to be tenable. In this situation, the couple could come to an agreement that partially fulfills the aim, such as agreeing that the partner sees the rival only at work and not in social settings. This resolution, while less drastic, may or may not suffice to reduce the other partner’s jealous responding. Furthermore, within CNM relationships, the elim- ination of a partner’s contact with a rival may be more problematic than in the case of monogamous relationships. In CNM relationships, each person is permitted to have other partners, so long as agreed upon parameters are followed. The expectation for one partner to reduce contact with the identified rival may constitute a violation of the agreed-upon parameters of the relationship and set up further conflict within the relationship.

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 17

Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior

As discussed earlier, treatment with regards to emotion is not a matter of eliminating the emotion, but of teaching a person to become aware of the contingencies that the person’s emotional responses signal (Goldiamond, 1974, reprinted 2002). In this way, adaptive responses to the contingencies involved in the emotional responding may be taught in order to allow the person to more effectively respond to the contingencies and to maximize positive outcomes. In the case of jealousy, the question shifts from “how can I feel less jealous?” to “what does this jealous feeling tell me about what I want or need?” (Labriola, 2013; Matik, 2002).

If a person identifies that their jealous responding is occurring in response to a threat to a VAR, such as quality time, then behavior that increases contact with that VAR, such as requesting more quality time from the partner, may serve the same function as the jealous behavior and so replace the jealous behavior (Goldiamond, 1975; Hunter & Stockwell, 2019). If the partner responds in a way that reinforces this direct request, the relationship will be strengthened (i.e., the partner will continue to access the VAR). Thus, the privately experienced jealous feeling functions as a Sd for tacting the contingencies signaled by that feeling. The person may then ask for what they need or want, rather than engage in overt jealous behavior. If the person’s request is reinforced by their partner, the conditions that evoked the jealous emotion in the first place (the EO) will be remedied and a decrease in jealous responding can be expected.

As with NCR, this approach may be particularly helpful in the treatment of anxious jealousy, in which no actual threat is present. A person who engages in jealous respond- ing in the absence of a threat may have a narrow behavioral repertoire in which jealous responding is one of their few ways of requesting what they want or need from their partner. If the person is taught other ways to effectively request VARs this response class is expanded, and they have less need to rely on jealous responding to gain access to that which is important to them in their relationship.

Figure 3 illustrates the same scenario as was illustrated in Figure 1 and Figure 2, in which Partner 1 has been deprived of time with their Partner 2 due to Partner 2’s long work hours, which establishes the effectiveness of time with Partner 2 as a form of reinforcement. In this scenario, however, partner 1 has a learning history that allows them to respond to their jealous feelings by tacting the relevant contingencies, and then by making a clear request to their partner. When they see their partner texting a friend from work, Partner 1 responds to the jealous feeling that they experience by tacting the contingency that the feeling signals (i.e., deprivation of the VAR: “You’ve been so busy; I have missed you lately”), and making a request for more time with their partner (i.e., contact with the VAR: “Can we spend some time together?”). Partner 2’s response reinforces the Partner 1’s request for contact with the VAR, and their response is in turn reinforced by Partner 1’s expression of gratitude.

In order for alternative behavior to replace jealous behavior, this alternative must encounter reinforcement that can compete with the reinforcement encountered through jealous behavior. In cases in which the partner is unable to provide suffi- ciently strong or immediate reinforcement, the partner experiencing the jealous

18 G. HUNTER AND A. STOCKWELL

response may need to recruit others in their social environment to reinforce the alternative behavior. If a therapist is involved, the therapist may reinforce the person’s reporting of having responded to their jealous feelings by tacting their needs (i.e., communicating honestly) rather than by engaging in jealous behavior. The therapist may also coach the person’s partner to respond in a way that reinforces the person’s honest communication. For example, the therapist may praise their client who reports having asked their partner for reassurance rather than yelling accusations of infidelity and betrayal when they experienced jealous feelings. The therapist may then use aspects of behavioral skills training (i.e., instruction, modeling, rehearsal,

Figure 3. Jealous feeling as discriminative stimulus (SD) and differential reinforcement of alternative behavior (DRA). Deprivation of the VAR serves as an EO increasing the reinforcing value of access to the VAR and of signs of sufferance in Partner 2. The sight of the Partner 2 texting a friend functions as a S∆ signalling lack of availability of the VAR and as reflexive EO establishing the removal of the S∆ as a reinforcer. Partner 1’s privately experienced jealous feelings serve as Sd for requesting the contact with the VAR. Partner 2 reinforces Partner 1’s request by acting to re-establish the VAR.

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 19

and feedback; Dib & Sturmey, 2012) to teach the partner to communicate this reassurance in a way that the person who is struggling with jealous feelings is able to respond to. The partner may even learn to detect and respond early on to the jealous behavior,10 gently prompting their partner to identify and communicate what it is that they need.

Defining compersion

There is something extraordinarily empowering in knowing that compersion is not the product of luck. (Hypatia from Space, 2019, p. 32)

Jealous responding is an expected, and many would argue understandable, reaction to learning that one’s partner holds romantic or sexual feelings for another person. Antithetical to the societal norm of jealousy is the experience of compersion: feeling happy or joyful when witnessing one’s partner’s happiness in the love of another person. The word compersion was first coined by members of the Kerista Commune (Eve, 1985) and is a term commonly used by those who practice polyamory and other forms of CNM. Within the polyamory community, compersion is viewed by many as the ideal response to one’s partner’s other relationships, and a goal to be aspired to (J. Deri, 2015; J. H. Deri, 2011; Hypatia from Space, 2019; Wolfe, 2003). Indeed, compersion has been found to be predictive of relationship satisfaction for those in consensually non-monogamous relationships (Aumer et al., 2014).

While comprehensive lists of the range of compersive responses are not available as they are for jealous behavior, examples of compersive behavior may be gleaned from both academic (e.g., Duma, 2009; J. H. Deri, 2011) and popular (e.g., Hypatia from Space, 2019; Veaux & Rickert, 2014) writing on the subject. Compersive responses may be covert, such as thinking “I hope the other person is good to my partner” (Duma, 2009), or the experience of sexual arousal, as reported by one participant in J. H. Deri’s (2011) study of the experiences of polyamorous women: “watching them hug, kiss, snuggle, love, have sex with that person, is so hot I could almost die from it. It’s not even a vague pleasure. It’s like Oh my God, right. It’s the hottest thing ever” (p. 167). Compersive responses may also be overt, such as talking supportively with one’s partner about their other relationship (Hypatia from Space, 2019), spending time with one’s partner and their other partner (Veaux & Rickert, 2014) or taking care of the children to allow one’s partner the time to go out with another person (Hunter & Stockwell, 2019).

Very little psychological research has been conducted on compersion and the factors which promote compersive responding. Balzarini et al. (2021) found that simply having had past experience with a partner’s extradyadic relationships may increase a person’s potential for experiencing compersion. When presented hypothetical situations, both monogamous and polyamorous participants in this study were more likely to report that they anticipated they would respond positively (i.e., compersively) rather negatively (i.e., jealously) to their partner’s extradyadic relationship if the participant had had real-life experience with such situations. However, apart from this intriguing finding, there is little to be found in research to suggest how compersion may be fostered.

20 G. HUNTER AND A. STOCKWELL

In other words, there has yet to be an analysis of the variables that increase the likelihood of compersion within a relationship. What follows is a preliminary behavior analytic analysis of compersion, defined as emotional responding that occurs under circumstances in which contact with evidence of one’s partner’s romantic or sexual relationship with another person serves as a reinforcer. Using this working definition, the authors examine the putative antecedents and consequences involved in establishing and maintaining compersive behavior.

Contingency analysis of compersive responding

Under what conditions does a person respond with compersion rather than with jealousy? What contingencies establish contact with evidence of one’s partner’s other relationship as a reinforcer and increase the likelihood of behavior that results in such contact? What follows is a brief discussion of antecedent and consequent variables that could potentially serve to promote and maintain compersive behavior.

Antecedent variables

In contrast to situations of jealousy, the presence of a rival is distinctly missing from situations of compersion. Instead, the partner’s other romantic interest (hereafter referred to simply as the other) is viewed as a welcome presence, or at the least, an innocuous presence. The effect that the partner’s contact with the other has on the availability of the VARs likely plays an important role in determining compersive behavior.

Within CNM relationships, those who express that they experience compersion typically do not identify exclusivity as a VAR. Instead, they emphasize other aspects, such as honest communication, commitment, personal responsibility, personal growth, respect, and equality (Cook, 2005; J. Deri, 2015; Duma, 2009; Séguin, 2017). The presence of a partner’s other interest may in fact be correlated with an increase in contact with VARs. For a couple that values honest communication, the onset of a new relationship provides opportunities for honest communication to occur. Be it the emotional intimacy that comes from discussing feelings regarding the new relationship, the extra care taken by each partner to affirm the value of the original relationship, or the increased physical intimacy brought on by the excitement of the new romantic interest, any interaction between the original partners becomes infused with highly potent reinforcers. In this way, the other is not a threat to the relationship – a reflexive EO – but is rather a Sd that signals increased availability of reinforcement contingent on interacting with one’s partner. In fact, when asked to rate their satisfaction with the communication within their relationship, those in CNM relationships respond with higher ratings than do those who identify as monogamous (Mogilski et al., 2017), and that those in CNM relationships report higher levels of intimacy in their relationships than those in monogamous relationships (Morrison et al., 2013).

Whereas a certain degree of loss may be inevitable when a partner begins a new relationship – if only in that less time is available to the original relationship – if the loss is offset by increases in other VARs, then the response may yet be that of compersion (Mogilski et al., 2019). For example, when a person starts a new relationship, they may

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 21

spend more evenings away from home as they are out with their new love interest, but may also ensure that the time they have with their partner is particularly high-quality time, spent doing activities that may allow for emotional intimacy. The increase in quality time thereby offsets the impact of the time away. In situations of compersion, the presence of the other results in a net gain rather than a loss to the relationship.

This balance of loss and gain of VARs with the onset of a new relationship may explain the experience of those who report that they experience both jealousy and compersion simultaneously (J. H. Deri, 2011; Hypatia from Space, 2019; Labriola, 2013). Reports of this experience may reflect that the person is responding to a simultaneous decrease in contact with one VAR (e.g., loss of time together) and increase in contact with another VAR (e.g., increase in emotional intimacy).

Consequences to compersive behavior

Sources of reinforcement for compersive behavior may come from the partner’s response, such as clearly stating that they appreciate the support, and the emotional intimacy experienced as the partner discusses their feelings for the other. If expressions of appreciation and experience of intimacy function as reinforcers, then the likelihood of behaviors that preceded them will increase and be maintained. Reinforcement may also come simply from seeing signs of one’s partner’s happiness (e.g., smiling more, reporting being happy). Alternatively, the source of reinforcement may be more subtle and occur in the form of the alignment of the person’s compersive behavior with their beliefs and values (i.e., verbal rules related to positive reinforcement, in this case specific to relation- ship behaviors). If a person’s values with respect to relationships include respecting the autonomy of each person and espousing non-ownership of one’s partners, then support- ing one’s partner as they form a relationship with another person is a way of bringing one’s behavior in line with one’s values.

Variables that may foster compersion versus jealousy

What are the conditions that lead to compersive responding rather than jealousy in the face of one’s partner’s romantic or sexual involvement with another? Numerous factors are no doubt involved including cultural norms (J. H. Deri, 2011), one’s social commu- nity (J. H. Deri, 2011; Hypatia from Space, 2019), one’s relationship history (Balzarini et al., 2021), the characteristics of the other (J. H. Deri, 2011; Marelich, 2002), the agreements within the relationship (Wosick-Correa, 2010) and schedules of reinforce- ment contacted through the relationship. An in-depth analysis of each of these factors goes beyond what can adequately be covered in this paper, and so the scope of the present discussion is restricted to the schedules of reinforcement specific to the original relation- ship, and changes to reinforcement that occur with the onset of a partner’s new relationship.

22 G. HUNTER AND A. STOCKWELL

Schedules of reinforcement in the original relationship

A rich schedule of NCR or of contingent reinforcement with respect to relationship- related reinforcers may act as a preventative of jealous responding and increase the chance that compersive responding can occur (Hunter & Stockwell, 2019). As loss is inherent when one partner develops an interest in another (e.g., loss of time and undivided attention), a rich schedule of NCR or of contingent reinforcement with regards to the VARs within the original relationship may mitigate the effects of this loss, such that the loss does not evoke the jealous responses. If the original partners regularly lavish each other with valued relationship-related reinforcers such as attention, physical intimacy, and emotional intimacy, the reduction in access to some of these reinforcers will not sting as much as if these reinforcers are hard to come by. In contrast, within a relationship characterized by sparse schedules of reinforcement, a person is more likely to respond to any threat to relationship- related reinforcement with jealousy rather than compersion. There is already not enough to go around and so they must respond in whatever ways that maintain the thin schedules that exists.

Recent research by Kim et al. (2017) offers partial support of the hypothesis that NCR can reduce jealous responding. In this study participants were placed in situations designed to induce jealousy.11 The participants’ partners, who served as confederates in the study, viewed images of adults of the same age and gender as the participant and provided high ratings when asked a) how attractive they would rate the person, and b) how willing they would be to date them, while the participants recorded their partners’ answers. Participants were then asked to complete questionnaires regarding their current thoughts and feelings. They were also asked to rate a set of images, in the same way that their partners had done. A high rating of these images was interpreted as retaliatory behavior (in lay terms: getting back at their partner) which was considered to be a direct measure of jealous responding. The authors found that, among the participants who tested high on a measure of anxious attachment,12 those who received physical touch from their partner while their partner was engaging in this putatively jealousy-inducing behavior were less likely to report that they were experiencing jealousy and more likely to report experiencing positive feelings (e.g., happy, playful, cheerful, loving) than partici- pants who did not receive the physical touch. In other words, non-contingent physical touch from a romantic partner buffered against the jealous response, and led to reports of increased positive feelings after the jealousy-inducing situation. Interestingly, the authors found that touch was correlated with decreased reports of positive feelings for those who tested low in anxious attachment, which demonstrates that the psychological function of touch cannot be presumed to be the same for everyone. Also of note, touch did not influence the degree to which participants engaged in retaliatory behavior, which high- lights the difficulty in selecting measures of overt behavior that consistently covary with reports of jealousy.

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 23

Changes that occur with the onset of the other relationship

Even within a relationship in which the couple agrees that additional relationships are allowed and in which access to reinforcement related to the VARs is easily and frequently obtained, the beginning of a partner’s new relationship introduces a change to the original relationship and its corresponding reinforcement schedules. Naturally, the focus of time and energy, or response allocation, will shift for the partner embarking on the new relationship, and their original partner is likely to observe these changes. However, the changes need not necessarily lead to lower density of reinforcement specific to the relationship as might be imagined, and the type of changes will influence whether the new relationship engenders jealous responding, compersive responding, or a combination of the two for the original partner.

The onset of a new relationship may serve as a context that encourages the original couple to continue to invest in their relationship and to assure each other that the relationship is valuable. The couple may take extra effort to schedule time with each other and to do those things that show their commitment. In other words, the onset of a new relationship reminds the couple not to take their relationship for granted.

Emotional intimacy is for many people a vital and valued characteristic of a romantic relationship. People who experience compersion report that the experience of listening to their partner talk about their feelings about another person brings them closer to their partner (Cook, 2005). The existence of another significant person in a partner’s life allows the opportunity for the couple to engage in emotionally intimate behavior, and hence contact reinforcement.

Furthermore, the effects of the other relationship on one’s partner are important as well. If the additional relationship brings one’s partner additional opportunities to access reinforcement (e.g., attending certain events or taking part in certain hobbies with the other person that the original partner is not interested in but that are highly preferred by their partner) resulting in signs of joy in the partner (e.g., increase in smiling, reporting being happy), and if seeing signs of joy in one’s partner serves as a reinforcer, then the onset of the additional relationship signals an increase in contact with reinforcement.

If the onset of one’s partner’s new relationship is correlated with increased availability of emotional intimacy or some other valued aspect of a relationship, the onset of the new relationship does not function as a reflexive EO. The new relationship is not correlated with any worsening and therefore does not establish the removal of the additional relationship as a reinforcer; the new relationship is not a threat. Instead, the additional relationship serves as a Sd signaling the availability of reinforcement contingent on relationship-related behavior.

Past contingencies have an impact on current behavior, and a stimulus change acquires its discriminatory function based on a history of correlation between the occurrence of the stimulus change and the increased availability of reinforcement (Michael, 1993). A person may need to directly experience an increase in reinforcement correlated with the onset of an additional relationship first before the additional relation- ship loses its reflexive EO function and comes to serve as a Sd. Even in an ideal relation- ship a person might still react first with jealousy rather than compersion until their behavior has come under the control of these new contingencies through direct and repeated experience.

24 G. HUNTER AND A. STOCKWELL

Conclusion

In this paper, a conceptual framework was presented regarding the direct contingencies involved in jealous and compersive responding. The authors acknowledge that much more remains to be explored before a complete account of jealousy and compersion can be claimed. Questions abound. For example, what is the role of derived relational responding in determining what a person values within a relationship? Do specific learning histories involving relations between concepts such as jealousy and love predict rates of jealous or compersive responding? In what ways does a person’s history of direct reinforcement or punishment in the context of past relationships determine their propensity to engage in jealous or compersive responding in current or future relationships? How might an operant analysis of attachment (e.g., Gewirtz, 1991) inform an operant analysis of jealousy and compersion? Within CNM relationships in which relationships with other people are allowed, are there characteristics of the other person that determine whether they serve the role of rival or of a welcome addition to the lives of the people involved? Are there biological determinants to whether a person can experience compersion and are some people physiologically predisposed to experience compersion, or is this an experience equally open to anyone provided the contingencies to support it are in place? What social and political contexts influence the extent to which jealous or compersive responding occurs within a relationship? Do different types of jealousies identified in the literature, such as obsessive jealousy and anxious jealousy, involve distinct sets of contingencies? How can the experiences of individuals who report co-occurring jealous and compersive responding within the context of the same relationship be most effectively conceptualized?

Understanding the functional relations involved in jealousy can help us to discover ways to help people who find themselves and their loved ones negatively impacted by jealous responding. A behavior analysis of jealous responding allows for a practical, compassionate, and non-judgemental approach to seeking solutions. For those who select compersion as a goal within their relationships but struggle to achieve that ideal, understanding the variables that strengthen compersive responding can help them to establish these in their current relationships and move toward the relationships that maximize contact with reinforcement for all involved.

Notes

1. This focus on direct contingencies is a matter of practical constraints. The authors recognize that factors other than direct contingencies are involved in the phenomena of jealousy and compersion, and acknowledge that a complete analysis requires consideration of the indirect and verbally constructed contingencies involved, some of which are suggested by research from other theoretical perspectives. For example, research in cognitive psychology (e.g., attribution theory, Bauerle et al., 2002; cognitive dissonance theory, Schumacher & Slep, 2004) and sociology (e.g., J. Deri, 2015) suggest variables worthy of further investigation. The interested reader is encouraged to delve further into these bodies of jealousy and compersion research.

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 25

2. Despite the convenience of presenting participants with hypothetical situations, the validity of this method may be questioned, given that the correspondence between measures of attitudes (i.e., what a person says they would do) and behavior (i.e., what a person actually does) tends to be very low (see Lloyd, 1994).

3. Skinner noted that the differentiation between overt and covert responding was that of a continuum, rather than of distinct categories, and argued that there “is no point at which it is profitable to draw a line distinguishing thinking from acting in this continuum.” (Skinner, 1957, p. 438). Nevertheless, contemporary psychological writing routinely parses out think- ing from acting. Making the distinction between covert vs overt responding allows behavior analysts to join the conversation, all the while keeping an emphasis on the behavioral nature of the responses.

4. Shifts in a partner’s allocation of responding may reflect changes in reinforcement density associated with each response, rather than MO effects. As per the matching law, a person’s responding will be distributed between response options proportional to the reinforcement density of the respective responses (Herrnstein, 1970). While this phenomenon does have important implications, the scope of this paper precludes a full discussion of the matching law as it pertains to jealous and compersive responding.

5. The term signs of damage emerged from basic research on operant conceptualization of aggression. As this term may be misinterpreted by those unfamiliar with its origins, in the remainder of this paper the expression signs of sufferance will be used in lieu of signs of damage.

6. Barelds and Dijkstra (2006) found this correlation to be true only for heterosexual men, gay men, and heterosexual women, but not for lesbian women.

7. This effect would only be expected, however, if the partner’s verbal behavior and non-verbal behavior typically align: that is, if the person has a history of sticking to their word.

8. An alternative explanation for the effects of NCR suggests that behavior shifts according to the matching law (Fisher et al., 1999; Hagopian et al., 2000) That is, with NCR, rates of reinforcement are shifted such that they are higher for response topographies other than the one to be reduced. Responding shifts towards non-specified response topographies and away from the specified one according to the shift in reinforcement schedule. Holden (2005) has called into question the practical implications of distinguishing between these alter- native explanations in the context of treating challenging behaviour, however it remains to be seen whether one explanation will show more utility over the other in the analysis of behavior in the context of romantic and sexual relationships.

9. The popular book “The Five Love Languages” (Chapman, 1995) lays out a form of pre- ference assessment specific to relationships. While this particular assessment has not been validated through any empirical means, it has popularized the notion that each partner may recognize and value various expressions of love differently.

10. This suggestion aligns with Goldiamond (1975), who advises that ignoring a partner can potentiate social attention as a reinforcer. Goldiamond suggests that it is helpful to learn to read your partner’s patterns of behavior so as to reinforce less costly ones and depotentiate social attention to minimize the emergence of costly patterns.

11. Significantly, this study is one of few studies that examined participants’ responding to actual situations designed to evoke jealous responding rather than relying on participants’ verbal reports regarding either hypothetical situations or their past experiences, which is the standard procedure in most of the research on jealousy.

12. The concept of anxious attachment stems from attachment theory, which postulates that a person’s style of relating to others may be categorized into distinct types: anxious, avoidant, secure, or disorganized, and that these styles stem from a person’s early experi- ences with their primary caregivers. See Moors et al. (2019) for a more thorough account of attachment theory as it relates to romantic relationships, and Fern (2020) for a discussion of attachment as it relates to CNM relationships. See also Gewirtz (1991) for a behavioral interpretation of attachment based on operant learning.

26 G. HUNTER AND A. STOCKWELL

Ethical statement

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animal participants per- formed by any of the authors. This article does not contain any funded research. On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCID

Glenna Hunter http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3516-5502

References

American Medical Association. (1992). American Medical Association diagnostic and treatment guidelines on domestic violence. Archives of Family Medicine, 1(1), 38–46. https://pdfs.seman ticscholar.org/d3fd/8f15635c120aae74699db1419280b2355fa9.pdf

Anderson, C. M., Hawkins, R. P., & Scotti, J. R. (1997). Private events in behavior analysis: Conceptual basis and clinical relevance. Behavior Therapy, 28(1), 157–179. https://doi.org/10. 1016/S0005-7894(97)80040-8

Andronis, P. T., Layng, T. J., & Goldiamond, I. (1997). Contingency adduction of “symbolic aggression” by pigeons. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 14(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF03392913

Attridge, M. (2013). Jealousy and relationship closeness: Exploring the good (reactive) and bad (suspicious) sides of romantic jealousy. SAGE Open, 3(1), 215824401347605. https://doi.org/10. 1177/2158244013476054

Aumer, K., Bellew, W., Ito, B., Hatfield, E., & Heck, R. (2014). The happy green-eyed monogamist: The role of jealousy and compersion in monogamous and non-traditional relationships. Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, 17(1), 77–88. http://www.ejhs.org/volume17/happy. html#F1A

Azrin, N. H., Holz, W., & Goldiamond, I. (1961). Response bias in questionnaire reports. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 25(4), 324. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0044192

Balzarini, R. N., McDonald, J., Kohut, T., Lehmiller, J. J., Holmes, B. M., & Harman, J. J. (2021). Compersion: When Jealousy-inducing Situations Don’t (Just) Induce Jealousy. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50, 1311–1344. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/k3tzf

Barelds, D. P., & Barelds-Dijkstra, P. (2007). Relations between different types of jealousy and self and partner perceptions of relationship quality. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 14(3), 176–188. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.532

Barelds, D. P., & Dijkstra, P. (2006). Reactive, anxious and possessive forms of jealousy and their relation to relationship quality among heterosexuals and homosexuals. Journal of Homosexuality, 51(3), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v51n03_09

Bauerle, S. Y., Amirkhan, J. H., & Hupka, R. B. (2002). An attribution theory analysis of romantic jealousy. Motivation and Emotion, 26(4), 297–319. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022871104307

Bryson, J. B. (1991). Modes of response to jealousy-evoking situations. In P. Salovery (Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and envy. (pp. 178–207). The Guilford Press.

Cano, A., & O’leary, K. D. (1997). Romantic jealousy and affairs: Research and implications for couple therapy. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 23(4), 249–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00926239708403931

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 27

Carr, J. E., Coriaty, S., Wilder, D. A., Gaunt, B. T., Dozier, C. L., Britton, L. N., Avina, C., & Reed, C. L. (2000). A review of “noncontingent” reinforcement as treatment for the aberrant behavior of individuals with developmental disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 21(5), 377–391. https:///doi.org/10.1016/S0891-4222(00)00050-0

Chapman, G. (1995). The five love languages: How to express heartfelt commitment to your mate. Northfield Publishing.

Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Mastick, J. L., & Ziegler, A. (2013). The fewer the merrier?: Assessing stigma surrounding consensually non-monogamous romantic relationships. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-2415.2012.01286.x

Cook, E. (2005). Commitment in polyamorous relationships [Masters thesis]. Regis University. https://epublications.regis.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1893&context=theses .

De Silva, P. (1997). Jealousy in couple relationships: Nature, assessment and therapy. Behavior Research and Therapy, 35(11), 973–985. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(97)00051-X

Demirtas-Madran, H. A. (2011). Understanding coping with romantic jealousy: Major theoretical approaches. In R. Trnka, K. Balcar, & M. Kuska (Eds.), Re-constructing emotional spaces: From experience to regulation(pp. 153–167). Lambert Academic Publishing.

Deri, J. (2015). Love’s refraction: Jealousy and compersion in queer women’s polyamorous relation- ships. University of Toronto Press.

Deri, J. H. (2011). Polyamory or polyagony: Jealousy in open relationships [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Simon Fraser University.

Dib, N., & Sturmey, P. (2012). Behavioral skills training and skill learning. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning(pp. 437–438). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 1-4419-1428-6_644

Dickinson, A., & Charnock, D. J. (1985). Contingency effects with maintained instrumental reinforcement. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37(4b), 397–416. https:// doi.org/10.1080/14640748508401177

Dittman, M. (2005). Study links jealousy with aggression, low self-esteem. Monitor on Psychology, 36(2), 13. http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb05/jealousy.aspx

Duma, U. (2009). Jealousy and compersion in close relationships: Coping styles by relationship types [Diploma thesis]. GRIN Verlag.

Easton, J. A., Schipper, L. D., & Shackelford, J. K. (2007). Morbid jealousy from an evolutionary psychological perspective. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28(6), 399–402. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.05.005

Elphinston, R., Feeney, J., Noller, P., Connor, J. P., & Fitzgerald, J. (2013). Romantic jealousy and relationship satisfaction: The costs of rumination. Western Journal of Communication, 77(3), 293–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2013.770161

Eve, E. (1985). Glossary of Keristan English [abridged]. KERISTA: Scientific Utopianism and the Humanities, 1(4). http://www.kerista.com/kerdocs/glossary.html

Fern, J. (2020). Polysecure: Attachment, trauma and consensual nonmonogamy. Thorntree Press LLC.

Fisher, W. W., Thompson, R. H., DeLeon, I. G., Piazza, C. C., Kuhn, D. E., Rodriguez-Catter, V., & Adelinis, J. D. (1999). Noncontingent reinforcement: Effects of satiation versus choice responding. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 20(6), 411–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0891-4222(99)00022-0

Frankl, V. E. (1963). Man’s search for meaning: An introduction to logotherapy. Washington Square Press, Inc.

Gewirtz, J. L. (1991). Identification, attachment, and their developmental sequencing in a conditioning frame. In J. L. Gewirtz & W. M. Kurtines (Eds.), Intersections with attachment (pp. 247–255). Erlbaum.

Goldiamond, I. (1964). Social factors and disorders of communication. Response bias in percep- tual communication. Research Publications of the Association for Research in Nervous and Mental Disease, 42, 334–363.

28 G. HUNTER AND A. STOCKWELL

Goldiamond, I. (1974). Toward a constructional approach to social problems: Ethical and con- stitutional issues raised by applied behavior analysis. Behaviorism, 2(1), 1–84. Reprinted, Behavior and Social Issues, 11, 108–197 (2002). https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v11i2.92

Goldiamond, I. (1975). A constructional approach to self control. In A. Schwartz & I. Goldiamond (Eds.), Social casework: A behavioral approach (pp. 67–130). Columbia University Press.

Grunt-Mejer, K., & Campbell, C. (2015). Around consensual nonmonogamies: Assessing attitudes toward nonexclusive relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 53(1), 45–53. https://doi.org/10. 1080/00224499.2015.1010193

Guerin, B., & de Oliveira Ortolan, M. (2017). Analyzing domestic violence behaviors in their contexts: Violence as a continuation of social strategies by other means. Behavior and Social Issues, 26(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v.26i0.6804

Guerrero, L. K., Andersen, P. A., Jorgensen, P. F., Spitzberg, B. H., & Eloy, S. V. (1995). Coping with the green-eyed monster: Conceptualizing and measuring communicative responses to romantic jealousy. Western Journal of Communication, 59(4), 270–304. https://doi.org/10. 1080/10570319509374523

Guerrero, L. K., Trost, M. R., & Yoshimura, S. M. (2005). Romantic jealousy: Emotions and communicative responses. Personal Relationships, 12(2), 233–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1350-4126.2005.00113.x

Hagopian, L. P., Crockett, J. L., Van Stone, M., DeLeon, I. G., & Bowman, L. G. (2000). Effects of noncontingent reinforcement on problem behavior and stimulus engagement: The role of satiation, extinction, and alternative reinforcement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33 (4), 433–449. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2000.33-433

Hardy, J. W., & Easton, D. (2017). The ethical slut. Ten Speed Press. Harmon-Jones, E., Peterson, C. K., & Harris, C. R. (2009). Jealousy: Novel methods and neural

correlates. Emotion, 9(1), 113–117. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014117 Hayes, S. C., White, D., & Bissett, R. T. (1998). Protocol analysis and the “silent dog” method of

analyzing the impact of self-generated rules. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 15(1), 57–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392923

Herrnstein, R. J. (1970). On the law of effect. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 13 (2), 243–266. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1970.13-243

Hettrich, E. L., & O’Leary, K. D. (2007). Females’ reasons for their physical aggression in dating relationships. Interpersonal Violence, 22(9), 1131–1143. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0886260507303729

Holden, B. (2005). Noncontingent reinforcement. An introduction. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 6(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2005.11434241

Hunter, G. S., & Stockwell, A. (2019, May 23–27). When your lover loves another: Understanding jealousy and compersion. In G. S. Hunter (Chair), A Verbal Behavior and Relational Frame Theory examination of sexuality, gender, privilege, and power [Symposium].Association for Behavior Analysis International Annual Convention, Chicago, IL.

Hypatia from Space. (2019). Compersion: Polyamory beyond jealousy. Iwata, B. A., Smith, R. G., & Michael, J. (2000). Current research on the influence of establishing

operations on behavior in applied settings. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33(4), 411–418. https://dx.doi.org/10.1901%2Fjaba.2000.33-411

Kim, K. J., Feeney, B. C., & Jakubiak, B. K. (2017). Touch reduces romantic jealousy in the anxiously attached. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(7), 1019–1041. https://doi. org/10.1177/0265407517702012

Labriola, K. (2013). The jealousy workbook: Exercises and insights for managing open relationships. Greenery Press.

Lalli, J. S., Casey, S. D., & Kates, K. (1997). Noncontingent reinforcement as treatment for severe problem behavior: Some procedural variations. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30(1), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1997.30-127

Laraway, S., Snycersky, S., Michael, J., & Poling, A. (2003). Motivating operations and terms to describe them: Some further refinement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36(3), 407–414. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2003.36-407

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 29

Lattal, K. A. (1974). Combinations of response-reinforcer dependence and independence. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 22(2), 357–362. https://dx.doi.org/10.1901%2Fjeab. 1974.22-357

Lattal, K. A. (1995). Contingency and behavioral analysis. The Behavior Analyst, 18(2), 209–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392709

Layng, T. V. J. (2006). Emotions and emotional behavior: A constructional approach to understanding some social benefits of aggression. Revista Brasileira de Analise do comporta- mento/Brazilian Journal of Behavior Analysis, 2(2), 155–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.18542/ rebac.v2i2.810

Lewon, M., & Hayes, L. J. (2014). Toward an analysis of emotions as products of motivating operations. Psychological Record, 64(4), 813–825. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-014-0046-7

Lloyd, K. E. (1994). Do as I say, not as I do. The Behavior Analyst, 17(1), 131–139. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/B

López, F. J. C. (2002). Jealousy: A case of application of functional analytic psychotherapy. Apuntes de Psicología, 20(3), 347–368.

Marelich, W. D. (2002). Effects of behavior settings, extradyadic behaviors, and interloper char- acteristics on romantic jealousy. Social Behavior and Personality, 30(8), 785–794. https://doi. org/10.2224/sbp.2002.30.8.785

Martínez-León, N. C., Peña, J. J., Salazar, H., García, A., & Sierra, J. C. (2017). A systematic review of romantic jealousy in relationships. Terapia PsicolÓgica, 35(2), 203–212. https://doi.org/10. 4067/s0718-48082017000200203

Matik, W. (2002). Redefining our relationships: Guidelines for responsible open relationships. Defiant Times Press.

Mayo Clinic. (2016). Infidelity: Mending your marriage after an affair. https://www.mayoclinic. org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/in-depth/infidelity/art-20048424

Michael, J. (1993). Concepts and principles of behavior analysis. Western Michigan University, Association for Behavior Analysis International.

Mogilski, J. K., Memering, S. L., Welling, L. L., & Shackelford, T. K. (2017). Monogamy versus consensual non-monogamy: Alternative approaches to pursuing a strategically pluralistic mat- ing strategy. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(407–417), 407–417. https//doi.org/10.1007/s10508- 015-0658-2

Mogilski, J. K., Reeve, S. D., Nicolas, C. A., Donaldson, S. H., Mitchell, V. E., & Welling, L. M. (2019). Jealousy, consent, and compersion within monogamous and consensually non-monogamous romantic relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48(6), 1–18. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1286-4

Moore, J. (2000). Thinking about thinking and feeling about feeling. The Behavior Analyst, 23(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391998

Moors, A. C., Ryan, W., & Chopik, W. J. (2019). Multiple loves: The effects of attachment with multiple concurrent romantic partners on relational functioning. Personality and Individual Differences, 147(1), 102–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.04.023

Morrison, T. G., Beaulieu, D., Brockman, M., & Ó Beaglaoich, C. (2013). A comparison of polyamorous and monoamorous persons: Are there differences in indices of relationship well-being and sociosexuality? Psychology & Sexuality, 4(1), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 19419899.2011.631571

Parrot, W. G. (1991). The emotional experiences of envy and jealousy. In P. Salovery (Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. 3–30). The Guilford Press.

Pines, A. (1992). Romantic jealousy: Five perspectives and an integrative approach. Psychotherapy, 29(4), 675–683. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-3204.29.4.675

Ridley, J. (1996). Couples presenting with jealousy: Alternative interventions. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 10(1), 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1891/0889-8391.10.1.63

Robbins, J. K., Layng, T. J., & Karp, H. J. (1995). Ambiguity and the abstract tact: A signal detection analysis. The Analysis of Verbal Behavior, 12(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392893

30 G. HUNTER AND A. STOCKWELL

Rosenfarb, I. S., Newland, M. C., Brannon, S. E., & Howey, D. S. (1992). Effects of self-generated rules on the development of schedule-controlled behavior. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 58(1), 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1992.58-107

Salovey, P., & Rodin, J. (1986). The differentiation of social comparison jealousy and romantic jealousy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(6), 1100–1112. https://doi.org/10. 1037/0022-3514.50.6.1100

Schlinger, H. D., Jr. (2011). Introduction: Private events in a natural science of behavior. The Behavior Analyst, 34(2), 181–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392248

Schumacher, J. A., & Slep, A. M. S. (2004). Attitudes and dating aggression: A cognitive dissonance approach. Prevention Science, 5(4), 231–243. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PREV.0000045357. 19100.77

Séguin, L. (2017). The good, the bad, and the ugly: Lay attitudes and perceptions of polyamory. Sexualities, 22(4), 669–690. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460717713382

Shackelford, T. K., LeBlanc, G. J., & Drass, E. (2000). Emotional reactions to infidelity. Cognition and Emotion, 14(5), 643–659. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930050117657

Skinner, B. F. (1945). The operational analysis of psychological terms. Psychological Review, 52(5), 270–277. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0062535

Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. Macmillan. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Copley Publishing Group. Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. Knopf. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Construct validation of a triangular love scale. European Journal of Social

Psychology, 27(3), 313–335. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(199705)27:3≤313::AID- EJSP824≥3.0.CO;2-4

Thoreau, H. D. (1980). A week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers (Vol. 5). Princeton University Press.

Toney, D. E., & Hayes, L. J. (2017). A behavioral analysis of apologies, forgiveness, and inter- personal conflict. Behavior and Social Issues, 26(1), 128–155. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v26i0. 7425

Veaux, F., & Rickert, E. (2014). More than two: A practical guide to ethical polyamory. Thorntree Press.

Wallace, M. D., & Weil, T. M. (2005). Noncontingent reinforcement: Behavioral mechanisms involved in response suppression and treatment efficacy. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 6(1), 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2005.11434251

White, G. L. (2008). Romantic jealousy: Therapists’ perceptions of causes, consequences, and treatments. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 7(3), 210–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 15332690802238019

Winston, M. (2016). “Whaddya Lookin’ At?”: An analysis of confrontation seeking [Powerpoint slides]. Professional Crisis Management Association. http://www.pcma.com/pcmapublicdown loads.asp

Wolfe, L. P. (2003). Jealousy and transformation in polyamorous relationships [Doctoral disserta- tion]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality.

Wosick-Correa, K. (2010). Agreements, rules and agentic fidelity in polyamorous relationships. Psychology & Sexuality, 1(1), 44–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419891003634471

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS 31

Copyright of European Journal of Behavior Analysis is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.