Given the differential costs sexual and emotional infidelity posed for each sex, we hypothesized that humans have sex-differentiated damage assessment strategies to investigate the nature of a partner’s infidelity. Study 1 tested this hypothesis using a forced-choice dilemma in which participants (N = 172) indicated whether they would be more likely to inquire about the sexual or emotional nature of a partner’s extra-pair relationship. Results confirmed our predictions that (a) men more so than women inquire about the sexual nature of the extra-pair relationship and (b) women more so than men inquire about the emotional nature of the extra-pair relationship. We further hypothesized that humans have sex-differentiated damage control strategies to mitigate the costs of being caught committing infidelity. Study 2 tested this hypothesis using a forced-choice dilemma in which participants (N = 117) indicated whether they would be more likely to deny the sexual or emotional nature of their involvement with an extra-pair partner. Results confirmed our predictions that if their partner discovered that they were involved with someone else, (a) men more so than women deny any emotional involvement with the extra-pair partner, whereas (b) women more so than men deny any sexual involvement with the extra-pair partner.
Jealousy is an emotion designed to alert individuals of threats to valued relationships. Although men and women are equally likely to experience jealousy, they differ in the weighting given to sexual and emotional input cues that trigger the emotion (Daly et al., 1982 and Symons, 1979). Buss, Larsen, Westen, and Semmelroth (1992) predicted and found evidence that (a) men more than women become upset at cues to a partner’s sexual infidelity, which can result in cuckoldry, and (b) women more than men become upset at cues to a partner’s emotional infidelity, which threatens the loss of resources to a rival. These sex differences have been found in a variety of cultures (Buss et al., 1999 and Buunk et al., 1996), with peoples of varied ages (Shackelford, Michalski et al., 2004 and Shackelford et al., 2004), and via the use of various methods (Schützwohl, 2004, Schützwohl, 2005, Schützwohl, 2008 and Takahashi et al., 2006; see also Table 11.1 in Buss, 2008). Although Harris (2002) questioned whether these sex differences are an artifact of participants being forced to consider hypothetical infidelity scenarios, others have argued and found that these sex differences still emerge when participants retrospectively report their jealous reactions to actual infidelity experiences (Edlund et al., 2006, Sagarin, 2005 and Strout et al., 2005). Evidence for sex differences in the weighting given to input that activates jealousy is robust (Buss, 2000 and Buss and Haselton, 2005).
Here, we explore the nature of jealousy from two different but complementary angles, both of which explore the output side of jealousy mechanisms. We ask two questions: (1) do men and women differ in the way they interrogate unfaithful partners? and (2) do men and women differ in the way they attempt to mitigate their partners’ jealousy-fueled interrogations? To answer these questions we conducted two studies that investigated if infidelity sparks sex-differentiated damage assessment strategies in the betrayed and damage control strategies in the betrayer.
