Sex Differences In Responses To Infidelity: Jealousy Mechanisms And Attachment Styles

Infidelity: Sexual and Emotional

Discuss about the Emotional and Sexual Infidelity.

Infidelity is a major concern for married individuals and it has been researched on in different areas to understand the reasons behind the act. Different individuals react differently to infidelity cases and instances from their partners. The different reactions vary between communities, couples, religion and genders and in most occasions on a personal capacity. It is a key area of research to understand factors affecting these variations and develop theories to explain the decision and actions done by people faced with infidelity issues. Infidelity can be classified into two categories – sexual and emotional. These two can happen distinctly or concurrently. For instance, an individual can be involved in an emotional connection with another person in instances where the sexual connection is not involved.in the same manner, people can be involved in sexual activities without emotional connections. Jealousy mechanisms are unveiled differently between male and females on the instances of infidelity. Jealousy leads to the decision of a partner concluding the other is cheating in marriage and research has shown that the jealousy systems are different between males and females.

Schützwohl (2005) did a study on sex differences in jealousy. This research was triggered by the evolutionary view of the differences in jealousy mechanism – with males getting more distressed with sexual infidelity and females being more distressed on emotional infidelity. Based on this hypothetical jealousy mechanism, the participants of the study were presented with cues on partner’s infidelity.  It was found that females easily identified cues on emotional infidelity on their partners and males were so quick to suspect sexual infidelity of their partners. On a meta-analytic study done by  Levy and Kelly (2010) which included 40 papers (published and unpublished) found differences in sex responses on infidelity was not limited to hypothetical case scenarios and the response formats. Among the 47 independent samples included in the study, 45 supported the sex difference theory on infidelity responses.

Tagler and Jeffers (2013) did a dynamic study to re-evaluate the differences in infidelity issues among men and females. Theorists have suggested that the differences in infidelity responses define the ideal reaction each partner would take in real situations. They found that male was more consistent with the evolutionary theories compared to the females. Therefore, we can state that females would be hurt by sexual infidelity as much as emotional. Further research can be conducted to evaluate these differences in various hypothetical case scenarios. The differing attitudes define distinctly actions of males and females on cases of infidelity. In some occurrences, the sex differences are mediated by instances such as sexual roles, society and religion. Brase, Adair and Monk (2014) did a study focused on evaluating the effects of sex, belief and gender among other factors on the responses of men and women on infidelity. It was found that none of the factors acted as a mediator in explaining the differences in gender based on their reactions and responses on infidelity. However, the study found that most of the variables were much related to males than females. The consistency of these findings can be integrated with the evolutionary theories of the differences in responses of infidelity between males and females.

Sex Differences in Jealousy Mechanisms

Buss et al. (1992) are one of the most cited papers on evolutionary psychological support on the differing opinions of males and females on the infidelity. Within this study, students were asked to select the most hurtful infidelity between sexual and emotional within a hypothetical situation happening their relationships. 60% males compared to 17% males indicated that their partners would hurt them more if they engaged in sexual infidelity as compared to emotional. Therefore, the conclusion of the study was that females are more skewed on distress resulting from emotional infidelity and vice versa for the males. Supportive findings from meta-analytic studies have shown that males are more distressed on sexual infidelity while their female counterparts are more distressed on emotional infidelity(Carpenter, 2012; Harris, 2003). According to Harris (2003), jealousy due to sexual infidelity leads men to kill, which is an extreme reaction explaining the extent of men’s jealousy.

Attachment theory explains to a significant level of the differences in reactions between individuals in situations of emotional pressure. Therefore, it also plays an important role in jealousy and level of distress an individual perceives. The attachment style would be categorised based on the self-reported scale developed by Brennan, Clark and Shaver (1998). The categories of the attachment styles are based on the opinions and findings of Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991), which include secure, pre-occupied, dismissive and fearful. These attachment styles depict different levels of possible reactions with secure people having low chances of showing extreme reactions and fearful people being the most reactive based on infidelity. On research conducted by Schwartz, Waldo and Higgins (2004), men with secure attachment had relationships with fewer conflicts compared to those with pre-occupied. In addition, they had more successful relationships compared to those found to have fearful attachment style(Sable, 2008).  These findings indicate that attachment styles play an important role in analysing jealousy levels as specified in the evolutionary theory.

1. Is there a difference in infidelity type between men and women?
2. Do frequency of attachment styles differ by gender?
3. Does infidelity type differ by attachment styles?
4. Is there a difference in infidelity types between men and women in each attachment style?

1. Null hypothesis: There is no association between sex and infidelity type.

Alternative hypothesis: There is a significant association between sex and infidelity type.

1. Null hypothesis: There is no association between sex and attachment styles.

Alternative hypothesis: There is a significant association between sex and attachment styles

1. Null hypothesis: There is no association between attachment styles and infidelity style.

Alternative hypothesis: There is a significant association between attachment styles and infidelity style.

1. Null hypothesis: There is no difference in infidelity types between males and females in each of the attachment styles.

Alternative hypothesis: There is a significant difference in infidelity types between males and females in each of the attachment styles.

This study was a 2 by 4 type of experimental design – involving gender and the attachments styles. Gender was recorded as male and females and the attachment styles were in 4 categories; Fearful, Dismissive, Preoccupied and Secure. Both were independent variables focused on measuring association with the responses of the infidelity type which was found to be most distressing based on hypothetical case scenarios. This is a between groups study design because there is only one observation per person, regardless of whether it’s a male or female. Less than 1% of the participants stated that they were homosexuals and as a result of the small frequency, they could not be analysed.

Attachment Theory and Infidelity

85.5% of the participants were heterosexual, 10.7% bisexual, 2.1% others and 1.7% as homosexuals. On average, the age of the participants was 23.53 years with a standard deviation of 6.53. The youngest participant was 18 years and the oldest was 57 years. Therefore, we can conclude that most of them were in their 20’s. 46.6% were in a relationship by the time they were interviewed and 53.4% were not.

According to the ECR scale developed by Brennan, Clark and Shaver (1998), the participant’s attachment styles were measured and categorised in four groups based on their avoidance and anxiety response on infidelity hypothetical case(Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). Their responses to sexual and emotional infidelity were also measured based on two hypothetical case scenarios – one with emotional infidelity without sexual and the other with sexual infidelity without emotional infidelity.

Participation was voluntary and they filled an informed consent before being included in the study.

Table 1: Frequency statistics

Variable                                           Category	n	Percent
Sex	Male	79	27.1%
Female	213	72.9%
Other	0	0.0%
Prefer not to say	0	0.0%
What is your sexual orientation?	Heterosexual	250	85.6%
Homosexual	5	1.7%
Bisexual	31	10.6%
Other	6	2.1%
Prefer not to say	0	0.0%
What is your current relationship status?	Not in a relationship	156	53.4%
Currently in a relationship	136	46.6%
How long have you been in your current relationship?	less than 3 months	2	1.5%
3 to 6 months	12	8.8%
6 months to one year	19	14.0%
one to two years	29	21.3%
more than two years	54	39.7%
more than five years	20	14.7%
How serious would you say your current relationship is? – Not at all serious – Very serious	1	1	0.7%
2	0	0.0%
3	1	0.7%
4	8	5.9%
5	16	11.8%
6	38	27.9%
7	72	52.9%
How would you describe your feelings towards your current partner? – I’m definitely not in love with them – I’m definitely in love with them	1	0	0.0%
2	0	0.0%
3	1	0.7%
4	2	1.5%
5	10	7.4%
6	28	20.6%
7	95	69.9%
Binary (sexual and emotional infidelity)	sexual infidelity	149	51.4%
emotional infidelity	141	48.6%
Attachment category	secure	77	26.4%
dismissive	6 4	21.9%
preoccupied	68	23.3%
fearful	83	28.4%

According to the table above, 72.9% of the participants were females and 27.1% were males. 85.6% declared that they were heterosexuals, 10.6% bisexuals and the rest were homosexuals and others. The sample was fairly balanced between those in a relationship (46.6%) and those who were not (53.4%). 54.4% of those in a relationship declared that they were in a relationship for more than 2 years. 51.4% of the participants stated that sexual infidelity would hurt them more compared to the emotional infidelity. 26.4% of the sample were categorized as secure, 21.9% as dismissive, 23.3% as pre-occupied and 28.4% as fearful.

Table 2: Cross tabulation of sex and infidelity type

	Infidelity type	Total
sexual infidelity	emotional infidelity
Sex	Male	Count	57	21	78
% within Sex	73.1%	26.9%	100.0%
% within binary	38.3%	14.9%	26.9%
Female	Count	92	120	212
% within Sex	43.4%	56.6%	100.0%
% within binary	61.7%	85.1%	73.1%
Total	Count	149	141	290
% within Sex	51.4%	48.6%	100.0%
% within binary	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%

Table 3: Chi-square test for sex and infidelity type

	Value	Degree of freedom	Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)	Exact Sig. (2-sided)	Exact Sig. (1-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square	20.108	1	.000
Continuity Correction	18.938	1	.000
Likelihood Ratio	20.750	1	.000
Fisher’s Exact Test				.000	.000
Linear-by-Linear Association	20.039	1	.000

The chi-square test statistic is 20.108 and a p-value <0.001 indicating that there is a significant association between sex of a person and the infidelity type they find most distressing.

Table 4: Cross tabulation of Sex and Attachment category

	Attachment category	Total
secure	dismissive	preoccupied	fearful
Sex	Male	Count	23	21	13	22	79
% within Sex	29.1%	26.6%	16.5%	27.8%	100.0%
% within attachment category	29.9%	32.8%	19.1%	26.5%	27.1%
Female	Count	54	43	55	61	213
% within Sex	25.4%	20.2%	25.8%	28.6%	100.0%
% within attachment category	70.1%	67.2%	80.9%	73.5%	72.9%
Total	Count	77	64	68	83	292
% within Sex	26.4%	21.9%	23.3%	28.4%	100.0%
% within attachment category	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%

Table 5: Chi-square test between Sex and Attachment category

	Value	Degree of freedom	Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square	3.568a	3	.312
Likelihood Ratio	3.681	3	.298
Linear-by-Linear Association	.924	1	.336
N of Valid Cases	292
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 17.32.

There is no linear association between sex and their attachment category (p-value = 0.312) with a chi-square statistic of 3.568. Therefore, sex of the person does not determine their attachment category –which indicates that the distribution of both being in either of the sex does not determine which attachment group one would belong.

Table 6: Cross tabulation of Infidelity type by attachment category

	Attachment category	Total
secure	dismissive	preoccupied	fearful
Infidelity type	sexual infidelity	Count	38	39	38	34	149
% within binary	25.5%	26.2%	25.5%	22.8%	100.0%
% within attachment category	49.4%	60.9%	55.9%	42.0%	51.4%
emotional infidelity	Count	39	25	30	47	141
% within binary	27.7%	17.7%	21.3%	33.3%	100.0%
% within attachment category	50.6%	39.1%	44.1%	58.0%	48.6%
Total	Count	77	64	68	81	290
% within binary	26.6%	22.1%	23.4%	27.9%	100.0%
% within attachment category	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%

Table 7: Chi-square table of Infidelity type by attachment styles

	Value	Degree of freedom	Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square	5.887a	3	.117
Likelihood Ratio	5.919	3	.116
Linear-by-Linear Association	1.157	1	.282
N of Valid Cases	290
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 31.12.

Evolutionary Psychological Support

There is no significant association between infidelity type and attachment categories, indicating that infidelity type an individual feels that its most distressing is not associated with their attachment categories.

Secure attachment style

Table 8: Cross tabulation of Sex and Infidelity type for the secure attachment style

	Infidelity type	Total
sexual infidelity	emotional infidelity
Sex	Male	Count	16	7	23
% within Sex	69.6%	30.4%	100.0%
% within binary	42.1%	17.9%	29.9%
Female	Count	22	32	54
% within Sex	40.7%	59.3%	100.0%
% within binary	57.9%	82.1%	70.1%
Total	Count	38	39	77
% within Sex	49.4%	50.6%	100.0%
% within binary	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%

Table 9: Chi-square test of sex and infidelity type for secure attachment style

	Value	Degree of freedom	Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)	Exact Sig. (2-sided)	Exact Sig. (1-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square	5.362b	1	.021
Continuity Correctionc	4.270	1	.039
Likelihood Ratio	5.467	1	.019
Fisher’s Exact Test				.026	.019
Linear-by-Linear Association	5.292	1	.021
N of Valid Cases	77
a. attachment category = secure
b. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 11.35.
c. Computed only for a 2×2 table

The chi-square statistic for the test between sex and infidelity for participants whose attachment style is secure is 5.362. The p-value (0.021) is less than the significance level indicating that in the secure attachment style, there is a significant association between sex and infidelity type.

Table 10: Cross tabulation of sex and Infidelity type for Pre-occupied attachment style

	Infidelity type	Total
sexual infidelity	emotional infidelity
Sex	Male	Count	9	4	13
% within Sex	69.2%	30.8%	100.0%
% within binary	23.7%	13.3%	19.1%
Female	Count	29	26	55
% within Sex	52.7%	47.3%	100.0%
% within binary	76.3%	86.7%	80.9%
Total	Count	38	30	68
% within Sex	55.9%	44.1%	100.0%
% within binary	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%

Table 11: Chi-square test for sex and infidelity type for pre-occupied attachment style

	Value	Degrees of freedom	Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)	Exact Sig. (2-sided)	Exact Sig. (1-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square	1.162b	1	.281
Continuity Correctionc	.589	1	.443
Likelihood Ratio	1.194	1	.275
Fisher’s Exact Test				.360	.223
Linear-by-Linear Association	1.145	1	.285
N of Valid Cases	68
a. attachment category = preoccupied
b. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.74.
c. Computed only for a 2×2 table

There is no association between sex and infidelity style for the pre-occupied attachment style (p-value = 0.281).

Table 12: Cross tabulation of gender by Infidelity type for the dismissive attachment style

	Infidelity type	Total
sexual infidelity	emotional infidelity
Sex	Male	Count	17	4	21
% within Sex	81.0%	19.0%	100.0%
% within binary	43.6%	16.0%	32.8%
Female	Count	22	21	43
% within Sex	51.2%	48.8%	100.0%
% within binary	56.4%	84.0%	67.2%
Total	Count	39	25	64
% within Sex	60.9%	39.1%	100.0%
% within binary	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%

Table 13: Chi-square test of Sex and Infidelity type for the dismissive attachment style

	Value	Degrees of freedom	Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)	Exact Sig. (2-sided)	Exact Sig. (1-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square	5.260b	1	.022
Continuity Correctionc	4.083	1	.043
Likelihood Ratio	5.598	1	.018
Fisher’s Exact Test				.029	.020
Linear-by-Linear Association	5.178	1	.023
N of Valid Cases	64
a. attachment category = dismissive
b. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 8.20.
c. Computed only for a 2×2 table

There is a significant association between sex and infidelity type for the dismissive attachment (p-value = 0.022). Therefore, people categorized as dismissive, their gender defines the infidelity type they feel is more distressing. 81% of the males in the dismissive attachment category claimed that sexual infidelity is most distressing and 48.8% of the females chose emotional infidelity as most distressing.

Table 14: Cross tabulation of Sex by infidelity type for Fearful attachment style

	Infidelity type	Total
sexual infidelity	emotional infidelity
Sex	Male	Count	15	6	21
% within Sex	71.4%	28.6%	100.0%
% within binary	44.1%	12.8%	25.9%
Female	Count	19	41	60
% within Sex	31.7%	68.3%	100.0%
% within binary	55.9%	87.2%	74.1%
Total	Count	34	47	81
% within Sex	42.0%	58.0%	100.0%
% within binary	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%

Table 15: Chi-square test of Gender by Infidelity type for Fearful attachment style

	Value	Degree of freedom	Asymptotic Significance (2-sided)	Exact Sig. (2-sided)	Exact Sig. (1-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square	10.097b	1	.001
Continuity Correctionc	8.531	1	.003
Likelihood Ratio	10.147	1	.001
Fisher’s Exact Test				.002	.002
Linear-by-Linear Association	9.973	1	.002
N of Valid Cases	81
a. attachment category = fearful
b. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 8.81.
c. Computed only for a 2×2 table

According to this research, 73.1% of the males selected sexual infidelity as the most humiliating and upsetting while 56.6% of the females selected emotional infidelity as the most upsetting. These research findings have been consistent with the previous research – which indicate that more men than women choose sexual infidelity as the most stressing. Also, it has been proved that more women than men chose emotional infidelity was the most distressing compared to sexual. It was also found that there was a significant association between sex and infidelity type, showing that sex can be used to distinctly explain the type of infidelity which most upsetting for a particular gender. However, the distinction between emotional and sexual infidelity choice on the most distressing for the female participants does not seem to be clearly differentiated. This is a clear indication that women are affected by the two forms of infidelity almost equally. More research can be conducted to understand the dynamics of women being more or less affected by emotional and sexual infidelity in the same way. Therefore, we can state that the observed difference is much contributed by the clear indication of the most upsetting form of infidelity for the men, which is sexual infidelity.

Frequency Statistics

Less data and research is available about the association between gender and the attachment styles. According to this research, it was found that there was no significant relationship between sex of a person and their attachment styles – hence no enough evidence to affirm that the proportion of men and women differ in different attachment styles. Based on the proportion statistics, we can observe there is not much variation between men and women in attachment category. Therefore, we cannot determine that mode of answering the questions on anxiety and avoidance would depend on the gender of the respondents. Further research should be done to check whether these findings are as a result of bias or they hold.

No much literature has been documented on the relationship between infidelity type an individual feels to be more distressing and their attachment style. However, since sex and infidelity type are associated and attachment style and sex are not associated, it is most likely that attachment style and infidelity style are not associated. However, due to issues on internal and external validities of studies, more research can be replicated to understand any new dynamics based on differences in communities, age groups among other potential confounders and moderators. According to this research, we found that there were no significant differences in frequencies of different infidelity types chosen with either of the categories of attachment style (Chi-square statistic = 5.887, p-value = 0.117).

Further analysis was conducted to check whether some of the attachment styles had significant differences between sex and their choice of most upsetting infidelity type. According to this analysis, it was found that secure, dismissive and fearful attachment styles shown significant differences between sex and type of infidelity chosen as most upsetting. It is only the pre-occupied group whose sex and infidelity type was not significantly different. Therefore, we can state that individuals categorised as pre-occupied could not be distinctly identified to be in either of the infidelity groups. However, based on the percentages of the men and women in the infidelity types, we can have a reasonable threshold to firmly categorise men into the sexual infidelity as being their most upsetting type and women to the emotional infidelity. For instance, 71.4%, 81% and 69.6% of men in the fearful, dismissive and secure attachment styles stated that they found sexual infidelity is most upsetting. Therefore, we can create a hypothetical probability of 0.7 as the chance of a male being in the three categories to state that sexual infidelity is most distressing.

In conclusion, sex and infidelity type were found to be significantly associated. These results hold for the evolutionary theory, with most of the men in the study stating that sexual infidelity is the most upsetting and most women stating that emotional infidelity is most upsetting – which is directly related to men and women jealousy mechanisms (Bohner & Wänke, 2004). The proportions of males and females were found not to be significantly different in either of the attachment style categories. Also, the findings indicated that infidelity type said to be most upsetting was not significantly associated with the attachment style. However, fearful, dismissive and secure attachment styles reported significant differences between sex and infidelity type. Therefore, we can state that there is an interaction between sex, infidelity type and attachment style.

References

Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226

Bohner, G., & Wänke, M. (2004). Psychological Gender Mediates Sex Differences in Jealousy. Journal of Cultural and Evolutionary Psychology, 2(3–4), 213–229. https://doi.org/10.1556/JCEP.2.2004.3-4.3

Brase, G. L., Adair, L., & Monk, K. (2014). Explaining sex differences in reactions to relationship infidelities: Comparisons of the roles of sex, gender, beliefs, attachment, and sociosexual orientation. Evolutionary Psychology, 12(1), 73–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470491401200106

Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76).

Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex Differences in Jealousy: Evolution, Physiology, and Psychology. Psychological Science, 3(4), 251–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00038.x

Carpenter, C. J. (2012). Meta-analyses of sex differences in responses to sexual versus emotional infidelity: Men and women are more similar than different. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36(1), 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684311414537

Harris, C. R. (2003). A review of sex differences in sexual jealousy, including self-report data, psychophysiological responses, interpersonal violence, and morbid jealousy. Personality and Social Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0702_102-128

Levy, K. N., & Kelly, K. M. (2010). Sex Differences in Jealousy. Psychological Science, 21(2), 168–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797609357708

Sable, P. (2008). What is Adult Attachment? Clinical Social Work Journal, 36(1), 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10615-007-0110-8

Schützwohl, A. (2005). Sex differences in jealousy: The processing of cues to infidelity. Evolution and Human Behavior, 26(3), 288–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2004.09.003

Schwartz, J. P., Waldo, M., & Higgins, A. J. (2004). Attachment styles: Relationship to masculine Gender Role Conflict in college men. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 5(2), 143–146. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.5.2.143

Tagler, M. J., & Jeffers, H. M. (2013). Sex differences in attitudes toward partner infidelity. Evolutionary Psychology, 11(4), 821–832. https://doi.org/10.1177/147470491301100407

e of the most cited papers on evolutionary psych

re is a significant association between sex and infidelity ty

Table 14: Cross tabulation of Sex by infidelit