Personal Relationships, 2 (1995), 313-325. Printed in the United States of America.

Copyright 0 1995 Cambridge University Press. 1350-4126/95 $7.50 + .OO

Sexual jealousy in the relationships

of homosexual and heterosexual men:
1980 and 1992

ROBERT G. BRINGLE
Purdue University at Indianapolis

Abstract
Relationship characteristics, levels of anticipated sexual jealousy, and correlates of anticipated sexual jealousy
were compared for heterosexual and homosexual men sampled from 1980 and 1992. Homosexual and
heterosexual relationships were similar on relationship involvement, but homosexual (vs. heterosexual)
respondents indicated lower levels of experiencing and expressing sexual jealousy, less exclusive relationships,
higher levels of extradyadic sexual relations by their partners, larger number of relationships, and
relationships of shorter duration. Cohort comparisons indicated that both groups of men in 1992 (vs. 1980)
had higher levels of experiencing and expressing jealousy caused by the partner’s extradyadic sexual behavior,
more exclusive romantic relationships, fewer relationships, and relationships of longer duration. These changes
suggest a transition in men’s relationships that may be related to the increase in sexually transmitted diseases
in general and AIDS in particular.

One seemingly reliable difference between
the relationships of homosexual and het-
erosexual men is that homosexual men re-
port a higher rate of sexual activity, a higher
number of sexual partners, and more fre-
quent extradyadic sexual relationships (e.g.,
Bell & Weinberg, 1978;Billy, Tanfer, Grady,
& Klepinger, 1993; Harry & DeVall, 1978;
Meyer-Bahlburg, Exner, Lorenz, Gruen,
Gorman, & Ehrhardt, 1991). For example,
Blumstein and Schwartz (1983) found in
their data from the early 1980s that homo-
sexual men were roughly seven times more
Preparation of this article was supported in part by
National Science Foundation grant SPI-8026324 to
John F. Kremer and Robert G. Bringle.
I gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Susan
Ludwig in constructing the questionnaire and data col-
lection; Julie Berger with data entry; and Lisa Choate,
Pam Velo, Colin Williams, Susan Sprecher, Scott
Christopher, and anonymous reviewers for comments
on a draft of this article.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Robert G.
Bringle, Psychology Department, Purdue University
at Indianapolis, 402 North Blackford St., Indianapolis,
IN 46202.
313
likely to report a sexual encounter outside
their relationship (79%) than heterosexual
men (11%). The prototypical jealousy-
evoking event occurs when one’s partner
has a romantic/sexual relationship with
someone else. The difference in sexual ac-
tivity between homosexual and heterosex-
ual men raises interesting questions related
to exclusivity and sexual jealousy. The cur-
rent research focused on the following
questions: What is the intensity and nature
of sexual jealousy in relationships of homo-
sexual men that involve higher levels of ex-
tradyadic sexual involvement? How does
the intensity and nature of their sexual jeal-
ousy compare to that of heterosexual men?
The increase in the prevalence of AIDS
during the 1980s,particularly among homo-
sexual men, may have altered sexual activ-
ity, attitudes toward exclusivity, and emo-
tional reactions to extradyadic sexual
relationships by the partner. The current re-
search also compared samples of men gath-
ered prior to and since the emergence of
AIDS as a significant health problem.
314
The Nature of Jealousy
Social-exchange theory describes the de-
velopment of romantic relationships in
terms of increasing interdependency, in-
creasing coordination, the development of
relationship norms, and the transformation
of outcomes beyond the immediate assess-
ment of personal outcomes to longer term
perspectives on joint outcomes. For many
individuals, a violation of the norm of sex-
ual exclusivity (e.g., extradyadic sexual be-
havior) is a reliable elicitor of negative
emotional responses within our culture and
cross-culturally (e.g., Buunk & Hupka,
1987) in premarital heterosexual relation-
ships (e.g., Lieberman, 1988; Roscoe,
Cavanaugh, & Kennedy, 1988) and mar-
riages (e.g., Glenn & Weaver, 1979;Lawson
& Samson, 1988). Extradyadic sexual be-
havior by a partner heightens insecurity
and provokes jealousy when it signifies a
change in the partner’s commitment to the
primary relationship, and it suggests that
the partner’s outcomes are more important
than the joint outcomes of the individuals
in the primary relationship. However, for
some (e.g., swingers, those in open mar-
riages), the same extradyadic behavior may
not represent a violation of exclusivity, is
not interpreted as a change in the partner’s
commitment, is not perceived as a threat,
does not heighten insecurity, and does not
evoke as much jealousy.
Past research has examined how aspects
of jealousy (emotional, cognitive, and be-
havioral reactions) are related to personal-
ity (e.g., self-esteem, anxiety, neuroticism),
qualities of the situational circumstances
(e.g., cultural mores, the nature of the jeal-
ousy-evoking event, social desirability of
the third person, motives of the partner),
and qualities of the relationship (e.g., de-
gree of involvement, norms of exclusivity)
(see Bringle & Buunk, 1985; Salovey, 1991;
White & Mullen, 1989).No one variable has
been found to explain a substantial portion
of the variability in the intensity or fre-
quency of jealous reactions, and jealousy is
best viewed as a function of multiple deter-
minants (Bringle, 1991; Bringle, Renner,
R.G. Bringle
Terry, & Davis, 1983).Within the context of
social-exchange theory, jealousy has been
empirically related to numerous relation-
ship variables (e.g., see Bringle & Buunk,
1985; Buunk, 1991; White, 1981; White &
Mullen, 1989).
For the present study, it was hypothe-
sized that, for both homosexual and hetero-
sexual respondents, anticipated sexual jeal-
ousy would be related to self-esteem (less
positive self-esteem associated with more
jealousy), relationship involvement (more
involvement associated with more jeal-
ousy), relative involvement (less involve-
ment by the partner associated with more
jealousy), norms of exclusivity (stronger
norms associated with more jealousy), and
relative desirability of the partner (greater
desirability of the partner associated with
more jealousy).
Romantic Relationships of Homosexual
and Heterosexual Men
Homosexual and heterosexual persons de-
sire similar qualities in their romantic rela-
tionships (e.g., Jones & Bates, 1978; Laner,
1977; Peplau & Cochran, 1990). For exam-
ple, they all prefer honesty, affection, equal-
ity, sexual satisfaction, stability, and low
conflict. Research (e.g., Dailey, 1979; Kur-
dek & Schmitt, 1986) acknowledges not
only similarities in the relationship charac-
teristics (liking, loving), but also similarities
in the correlates of liking, loving, and other
measures of relationship quality (Kurdek &
Schmitt, 1985/86;Peplau & Cochran, 1990).
Results such as these led Peplau and Gor-
don (1983) to argue that the differences be-
tween homosexual and heterosexual rela-
tionships are not great.
However, as previously mentioned, ho-
mosexual and heterosexual men do differ
on the desire for sexual exclusivity and the
degree of behavioral exclusivity, with ho-
mosexual men reporting more permissive
attitudes and behaviors (e.g., Bell & Wein-
berg, 1978; Billy et al., 1993; Blumstein &
Schwartz, 1983; Kurdek & Schmitt, 1986;
McWhirter & Mattison, 1984; Meyer-
Bahlburg et al., 1991).Within the context of
Sexual jealousy
all relationships, partners negotiate rules
concerning extradyadic sexual behavior
(McWhirter & Mattison, 1984). As with in-
dividuals in groups which permit their part-
ners nontraditional latitude in extradyadic
sexual behavior (e.g., open marriage, swing-
ers, communes, third parties in love trian-
gles) (Bringle & Buunk, 1991), it was hy-
pothesized that homosexual men would
report more permissive relationships and
less sexual jealousy resulting from the part-
ner’s extradyadic sexual behavior than het-
erosexual men. This expectation is consis-
tent with sociobiological analyses of gender
differences in sexual preferences and be-
haviors and their implications for males in
heterosexual and homosexual relationships
(e.g., Buss, 1994; Symon, 1979). Although
the mean level of sexual jealousy was an-
ticipated to differ, the research also exam-
ined whether the correlates of sexual
jealousy (e.g., involvement, relative in-
volvement, exclusivity,relative desirability)
are similar for homosexual and heterosex-
ual men. Finally, this study was designed to
explore the feelings and behaviors through
which sexual jealousy is expressed by men
in both groups.
AIDS
Prior to the early 1980s, heterosexual men
reported an average of between 5 and 9
sexual partners during their lifetime,
whereas the reported average for homosex-
ual men was much higher (Bell & Wein-
berg, 1978). Since the early 1980s,the emer-
gence of AIDS as a health concern has led
to two general conclusions about the sexual
practices of homosexual men (e.g., Meyer-
Bahlburg et al., 1991; Stall, Coates, & Hoff,
1988): (1) there have been important reduc-
tions in risk behaviors, and (2) there still are
significant rates of risk behaviors. One pur-
pose of the current research was to evaluate
how the emergence of AIDS might be re-
lated to such issues as exclusivity and sexual
jealousy in the relationships of homosexual
and heterosexual men by comparing data
collected in 1980 and 1992.
315
Method
Subjects
For the majority of the respondents, data
were collected from parallel groups in the
same geographic area. The identical proce-
dures for soliciting participants were used
in 1980 and 1992. Homosexual respondents
were obtained primarily by contacting gay
organizations and requesting time during a
regular meeting to have members complete
questionnaires, if they so desired. Following
the administration of the questionnaires, a
discussion about jealousy and relationships
was held. University respondents were re-
cruited from classes; they typically received
extra credit, and they were administered
the questionnaires outside of class. All po-
tential respondents were told that the ques-
tionnaire dealt with “male relationships.”
The respondents for the 1980 sample
were 35 homosexual and 52 heterosexual
men. Of the homosexual men, 27 were ob-
tained from a church-based gay organiza-
tion at a Midwestern university, and 8 were
obtained from a gay social group in a large
Midwestern city. Additional respondents
were recruited from university classes. The
mean age of all subjects was 24; the mean
was 27 years for the homosexual sample,
and 21 years for the heterosexual sample.
The respondents from the 1992 sample
were 79 homosexual and 70 heterosexual
men. Most homosexual men were recruited
from gay student organizations at three
Midwestern universities and two church-
based gay groups in the same Midwestern
city as the 1980 sample. Additional respon-
dents were recruited from university
classes. Age was inadvertently not collected
in the 1992 sample.
Questionnaire
Respondents were administered a 16-page
questionnaire to measure their sexual ori-
entation and aspects of their personality,
relationships, and anticipated sexual jeal-
ousy.
316 R. G. Bringle

Sexual orientation. Sexual orientation was anyone right now? If your partner had to
measured with Kinsey, Pomeroy, and Mar- move to another city, how likely would you
tin’s (1948) scale. The respondents de- be to move with him/her? To what extent
scribed their sexual orientation by choosing do you identify yourself as a couple?). The
one of seven descriptions, ranging from ex- coefficient alpha was .92 for all respon-
clusively homosexual through exclusively dents, and .91 and .92 for all homosexual
heterosexual. and all heterosexual men, respectively.
The frequencies for the seven categories 2. Relative involvement. A measure of in-
of the Kinsey et al. (1948) scale were as volvement in the current relationship rela-
follows: exclusively heterosexual (47.5%), tive to the partner’s involvement was ob-
mainly heterosexual (3.3%), mainly hetero- tained by averaging responses on a 3-item
sexual with a substantial degree of homo- index (How much effort do you feel that
sexuality (0.4%), as much heterosexual as you put forth in maintaining this relation-
homosexual (0.4%), mainly homosexual ship, relative to your partner’s efforts?
with a substantial degree of heterosexuality How would you describe your level of in-
(3.8%), mainly homosexual (15.4%), and volvement in this relationship, relative to
exclusively homosexual (28.3%). The one your partner’s? How much love or emo-
respondent who checked the middle cate- tional attachment do you believe that you
gory was eliminated, and the remainder have for your partner, relative to hidher
were categorized as either homosexual or love or emotional attachment to you?). A
heterosexual. 5-point response format was used; a score
of 3.0 indicates equal involvement; higher
Self-esteem. Self-esteem was measured by scores indicate that the respondent re-
Rosenberg’s (1965) 10-item Self-esteem ported greater involvement than does the
Scale. The coefficient alpha was .86 for all partner. The coefficient alpha was .83 for
respondents and for both homosexual and all respondents, and .89 and .73 for all ho-
heterosexual men. mosexual and all heterosexual men, respec-
tively.
Relationship characteristics. In completing 3. Exclusivity. A measure of commitment
the assessment of current relationship char- to exclusivity in the current relationship
acteristics, the respondents were asked to was obtained by averaging responses to the
refer to the specific romanWsexua1 rela- following two items: During your current
tionship in which they were currently in- relationship, do you see persons other than
volved. “Romantic/sexual relationship” was your partner on a romantic/sexual basis?
defined as having some level of sexual ac- Does your partner see persons other than
tivity and/or some type of romantic emo- yourself on a romantic/sexual basis? Re-
tional attachment. If not currently involved sponses were made on a 5-point response
in a relationship, the respondents were in- format. The coefficient alpha was .73 for all
structed to base their responses on their respondents, and .64 and .82 for all homo-
most recent romantic relationship. The fol- sexual and all heterosexual men, respec-
lowing characteristics were assessed by av- tively.
eraging multiple items found to be unidi- 4. Relative desirability as a partner. A
mensional in a principal components measure of relative desirability, compared
analysis conducted with varimax rotation. with one’s partner, was constructed by aver-
1. Involvement. A measure of involve- aging responses to two items: How would
ment in the current relationship was ob- you rate your physical attractiveness, rela-
tained by averaging responses on an 11- tive to your partner? How would you rate
item index (e.g., How committed do you your desirability as a romantic/sexual part-
feel to this relationship? How strongly do ner, relative to your partner? Responses
you agree that this relationship is just about were obtained on a 5-point response for-
the best relationship you could have with mat; a score of 3.0 indicates equal desirabil-
Sexual jealousy
ity; higher scores indicate that the respon-
dent reported higher desirability than the
partner. The coefficient alpha was .80 for all
respondents, and .76 and .83 for all homo-
sexual and all heterosexual men, respec-
tively.
5. Satisfuction. A 3-item measure of rela-
tionship satisfaction versus desire to change
the relationship was obtained by averaging
responses to three items: How frequently
do you feel that you would like to make
major changes in this relationship? How
frequently do you feel that you would like
to make minor changes in this relationship?
How satisfied are you with this relation-
ship? Responses were obtained on 5-point
response formats. The coefficient alpha was
.80 for all respondents, and .84and .74 for
all homosexual and all heterosexual men,
respectively.
Finally, some single-item measures of
“relationships in general” were obtained.
These included the number of relationships
in the past 6, 12, and 18 months; usual
length of relationships (1 = one-time en-
counter; 2 = less than 1 week; 3 = 1-2
weeks; 4 = 2 weeks-1 month; 5 = 1-6
months; 6 = more than 6 months); fre-
quency that the respondent had ex-
tradyadic sexual relationships in the past;
frequency that partners in past relation-
ships had extradyadic sexual relationships;
frequency of attending bars in the past 18
months; general satisfaction with past rela-
tionships; and, during the past 18 months,
the average frequency of experiencing sex-
ual activity with another person that re-
sulted in orgasm. Most of the items ob-
tained responses on 4- or 5-point scales
that were appropriately anchored.
Anticipated sexual jealousy. All question-
naire measures of jealousy rely on retro-
spective accounts of past jealousy and/or
judgments of anticipated jealousy. In the
current research, the measure of antici-
pated jealousy presented jealousy-evoking
situations in which the respondent might
have been involved, or it asked for an in-
dication of how the respondent would an-
ticipate feeling if confronted with the
317
situation (Bringle, 1982). Bringle (1991)
summarized data suggesting that prior ex-
perience in the situation had an effect on
responses to only two items used in the
present study. In its entirety, the scale
measures three aspects of jealous reactions:
major romantic jealousy-evoking events
(e.g., your partner has an affair), minor ro-
mantic jealousy-evoking events (e.g., your
partner kisses someone at a party), and
nonromantic jealousy-evoking events
(work, family, and social situations). For
this research, the 6 items for the major and
the 14 items for the minor romantic jeal-
ousy scales were used. These items were
presented twice. The respondents indicated
how they would feel if the event happened
with the current partner. They were also
asked to indicate how they would feel in
general (“Consider all of your past rela-
tionships and indicate how you would feel
if your romantic/sexual partners in these
relationships were to confront you with
each of the following situations”). Intensity
of sexual jealousy was assessed on a 5-point
scale: pleased, mitdly upset, upset, very up-
set, extremely upset. The coefficient alpha
for all respondents and subgroups ranged
from .92 to .94.
In addition to measuring the intensity of
anticipated sexual jealousy, a measure was
obtained of anticipated feelings and behav-
iors when jealous. The behaviors and feel-
ings were chosen from Bryson’s (1976) fac-
tor analysis of different reactions to jealous
experiences. Respondents were asked to in-
dicate how likely they would be to engage
in certain behaviors (become sexually ag-
gressive with other people in order to get
back at the partner, pay more attention to
the partner, seek out others to talk to, con-
front the partner or the other person in a
direct manner, act as if nothing had hap-
pened or withdraw, and get drunk or high)
and how intensely they would experience
certain feelings (helpless or insecure, de-
pressed or sad, self-blame, anger, fear) in
each of the six situations from the major
romantic jealousy subscale. Across the six
scale items for which each reaction was
measured, the coefficient alphas for all re-
318 R.G. Bringle

spondents and the two subgroups ranged tionship than their partners, the relation-
from .75 to .95, with 28 of the 33 above 30. ship was less exclusive, and they had lower
satisfaction (see Table 1;standardized betas
are reported as a measure of association for
Results
significant effects). The two groups did not
differ on self-esteem, level of involvement,
Effects of sexual orientation and cohort on
and relative desirability. In addition, con-
relationship and personality variables
cerning their relationships in general, ho-
A two-way MANOVA, with two levels of mosexual men, compared with heterosex-
orientation (homosexual and heterosexual) ual men, reported relationships of shorter
and two levels of cohort (1980 and 1992), duration, more frequent extradyadic sexual
was run on variables that described the cur- relationships by their partner, higher fre-
rent relationship, past relationships in gen- quency of going to bars (gay for homosex-
eral, and self-esteem. This analysis showed ual men, single for heterosexual men) dur-
a significant effect for sexual orientation, ing the past 18 months, and a higher
Wilks' lambda = .61, F(16,196) = 7 . 9 2 , ~< number of romantic partners in the past 6,
.01, a significant effect for cohort, Wilks' 12, and 18 months. There were no signifi-
lambda = .72,F(16,196) = 4 . 8 2 , ~< .Ol,and cant differences on the average number of
a significant Cohort X Orientation interac- orgasms with another person during the
tion, Wilks' lambda = 34, F(16,196) = 2.26, past 18 months, the frequency that the re-
p < .01. spondent had extradyadic sexual relation-
The univariate tests for orientation re- ships, and general satisfaction with past re-
vealed that homosexual men, compared lationships.
with heterosexual men, reported that they Univariate cohort main effects indicated
were more involved in their current rela- that the 1992 respondents reported signifi-

Table 1. Univariate ANOVA summary of self-esteem and relationship characteristics:

Homosexual vs. heterosexual (ranges in parentheses)

Homosexual Heterosexual Standardized

F (1,211) mean mean beta
Current Relationship Characteristics
Relative involvement 5.4"" 3.23 2.94 .16
(1-5) (1-5)
Exclusivity of relationship 14.2** 4.04 4.42 .21
(1-5) (1-5)
Satisfaction 6.9"" 2.97 3.31 .19
(1.2-4.6) (1.5-4.6)
Past Relationships in General
Duration 37.6"" 3.89 4.82 .25
(1-6) (1-6)
Frequency of extradyadic sexual 21.4"" 2.37 1.76 .27
relationships by past partners (1-5) (1-5)
Frequenting bars 45.6** 3.28 1.87 .42
(1-6) (1-6)
Number of romantidsexual 30.9"" 3.63 1.45 .27
partners in past 6 months (0-30) (0-7)
Number of romantickexual 12.2"* 6.66 3.08 .18
partners in past 12 months (0-60) (0-99)
Number of romantickexual 9.2" 8.71 4.47 .16
partners in past 18 months (0-70) (0-99)

* p < .05. **p < .01.

Sexual jealousy 319

cantly greater exclusivity in their current
relationship than the respondents in 1980
(see Table 2). Concerning romantic rela-
tionships in general, the 1992 respondents
reported longer relationships, less frequent
extradyadic sexual relationships in the past
for themselves and their partners, and
fewer relationships during the past 6, 12,
and 18 months.
The only qualifications on the univariate
main effects were significant univariate
Orientation X Cohort interactions for in-
volvement and the number of relationships
in the past 6 and 12 months. Analysis of
simple effects indicated that there was a
significant decrease for homosexual re-
spondents between 1980 and 1992 in degree
of involvement in the current relationship,
< .01, standardized beta =
F(1,105) = 7 . 9 , ~
.26 (1980 3.39; 1992: 2.92), and number of
relationships in the past 6 months, F(1,105)
= 13.8, p < .01, standardized beta = .34
(1980: 6.86; 1992: 2.68), and past 12 months,
F(1,105) = 1 1 . 8 , ~< .01, standardized beta
= .32 (1980: 12.37; 1992: 4.88). For hetero-
sexual respondents, these differences were
not significant for involvement (1980: 3.22;
1992: 3.32) and number of relationships in
past 12 months (1980 3.31; 1992: 2.94) and
was less pronounced far number of rela-
tionships in the past 6 months, F(1,120) =
13.8,< ~ .01, standardized beta = .32 (1980:
1.98; 1992: 1.10).
Effects of sexual orientation and cohort on
anticipated jealousy reactions
A two-way MANOVA was conducted on
the two sexual jealousy scores (sexual jeal-
ousy in the current relationship and in gen-
eral). There was a significant multivariate
main effect for orientation, Wilks' lambda
= 230, F(2, 223) = 27.1, p < .01, and for
cohort, Wilks' lambda = .86, F(2, 223) =
1 8 . 0 , ~< .01. The interaction was not sig-
nificant. Univariate tests revealed that
homosexual (vs. heterosexual) men were
less jealous, and that the 1992 (vs. 1980)
respondents were more jealous (see Table
3).
A two-way MANOVA on feelings and
behaviors that would be expected in ro-
mantic jealousy-evoking situations showed
a significant effect for orientation, Wilks'
lambda = .80,F(11,220) = 5 . 0 4 , ~< .01, and
a significant effect for cohort, Wilks'

Table 2. Univariate ANOVA summary of self-esteem and relationship characteristics:

1980 vs. 1992 (ranges in parentheses)
1980 1992 Standardized
F(1,211) mean mean beta
Current Relationship Characteristics
Exclusivity 31.1** 3.87 4.46 .32
(1-5) (15-5)
Past Relationships in General
Duration 6.6" 4.07 4.59 .14
(14 (1-6)
Frequency of extradyadic 4.2* 2.46 2.12 .14
sexual relationships (1-5) (1-5)
Frequency of partner's extradyadic 19.4** 2.39 1.83 .24
sexual relationships (1-5) (1-5)
Number of sexual/romantic partners 18.9** 3.76 1.76 .24
in past 6 months (0-30) (0-18)
Number of sexuallromantic partners 6.1" 6.75 3.65 .15
in past 12 months (0-60) (0-99)
Number of sexual/romantic partners 8.7** 9.82 4.56 .19
in past 18 months (0-99) (0-99)

*p < .05. **p < .01.

320 R. G. Bringle

Table 3. Univariate ANOVA summary of sexual jealousy

F( 1,224) Homosexual Heterosexual Standardized beta
Current 54.0"" 2.35 3.00 .44
(1-3.8) (1-4.9)
General 42.4"" 2.52 3.00 .39
(14.7) (1.4-4.6)

F( 1,224) 1980 1992

Current 17.8"" 2.49 2.82 .25
(14.1) (1-4.9)
General 34.8"" 2.51 2.94 .35
(1-4) (1.6-4.7)

* p < .os. **p < .01.

lambda = .84,F(11,220) = 3 . 9 0 , ~ < .Ol.The
interaction was not significant. The univari-
ate results for orientation (see Table 4) in-
dicated that homosexual men, compared
with heterosexual men, were more likely to
seek out others to talk to, less likely to con-
front either the partner or the other person
in a direct manner, more likely to act as if
nothing happened, and more likely to expe-
rience fear. The univariate effects for co-
hort indicated that respondents in 1992,
compared with those in 1980, were more
likely to seek out others to talk to, were
more likely to confront either the partner
or the other person in a direct manner, were
less likely to act as if nothing had happened,
felt more helpless and insecure, and felt
more anger.

Table 4. ANOVA summary of reactions to jealousy-evoking situations

Reaction F( 1,230) Homosexual Heterosexual Standardized beta
Seek others to talk to 12.8"" 3.16 2.65 .29
(14.) (14.)
Confront partner or other 4.3" 3.02 3.15 .10
person in a direct way (1-4) (1-4)
Act as if nothing happened 10.7** 1.81 1.57 .17
(14) (14.)
Fear 7.0"" 2.34 1.96 .22
(1-4) (1-4)

Reaction F( 1,230) 1980 1992 Standardized beta

Seek others to talk to 11.2"" 2.63 3.04 .23

(1-4) (1-4)
Confront partner or other 11.5"" 2.90 3.22 .19
person in a direct way (1-4) (1-4)
Act as if nothing happened 12.2"" 1.86 1.58 .19
(14) (1-3.3)
Feel helpless or insecure 4.1" 2.14 2.39 .15
(14) (1-4)
Anger 19.3"" 2.49 2.90 .26
(1-4) (1-4)

*p < .os. **p < .o1.

Sexual jealousy 321

Associations between relationship ciated with sexual jealousy in homosexual

variables and jealousy reactions and in heterosexual relationships. For het-
erosexual men, there were three significant
Bivariate correlations between relationship
predictors: (a) exclusivity,F(1,118) = 19.3,
variables in the current relationship, self-es-
beta = .38, R = .38; (b) self-esteem,
teem, and intensity of sexual jealousy are
F change = 5.10, beta = -.19, cumulative
reported in Table 5 for the heterosexual
R = .42; and (c) involvement, F change =
(above the diagonal) and homosexual sam-
4.41, beta = 20, cumulative R = .45. For
ples (below the diagonal).
homosexual men, there were three signifi-
A stepwise multiple regression was run
cant predictors: (a) relative involvement,
on the combined data of homosexual and
F(1, 101) = 31.1, beta = .49, R = .49; (b)
heterosexual respondents from both co-
self-esteem, F change = 6.70, beta = -22,
horts to determine which of the variables
cumulative R = .53; and (c) exclusivity,
best predicted sexual jealousy in the cur-
F change = 6.47, beta = 21, cumulative
rent relationship. The predictor variables
R = .57.
were sexual orientation, self-esteem, and
relationship characteristics of the current
relationship. The first significant predictor Discussion
of sexual jealousy in the current relation-
ship was sexual orientation (consistent with The current findings are important in at
earlier results), F(1,221) = 46.0, p < .01, least three ways. First, they offer descriptive
beta = .42, R = .42. Thus, other significant information about jealousy and the ways in
predictors were independent of sexual ori- which the relationships of homosexual and
entation. These included (a) relative in- heterosexual men are similar and different.
volvement, Fchange = 2 4 . 9 , ~< .01, beta = Second, they provide information on the
.30, cumulative R = .51; (b) exclusivity, ways in which person and relationship char-
F change = 2 0 . 6 , ~< .01, beta = .26, cumu- acteristics are related to anticipated sexual
lative R = .57; (c) self-esteem, F change = jealousy in men's romantic relationships
9.9, p < .01, beta = -.17, cumulative R = both across and within sexual orientation.
.59; and (d) involvement, F change = 5.3, Third, they provide information on changes
p < .05, beta = .14, cumulative R = .60. in jealousy and in the relationships of men
Thus, in general, variables that were found between 1980 and 1992.
to be important correlates of sexual jeal-
ousy in previous research were replicated
Sexual orientation and jealousy
across the entire sample.
Two stepwise regressions were con- Homosexual and heterosexual men in these
ducted to assess which variables were asso- samples did not differ on self-esteem. This

Table 5. Correlations between variables for homosexual and heterosexual samples

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Self-esteem (1) -.21* -.04 -.06 .22* .06 -.21*
Relative involvement (2) -.05 .27** .03 -.13 .04 .14
Involvement (3) .18 -.03 SO** -.17 SO** .34**
Exclusivity (4) .07 -.01 .24* -.19* .21* .37**
Relative desirability (5) .07 -.12 -.19 -.11 -.17 -.06
Satisfaction (6) .12 -.21* .60** .27** -.18 .lo
Jealousy (7) -.25** .48** .15 .19 .05 -.02

Note: Correlations for the heterosexual sample are above the diagonal; correlations for the homosexual sam-
ple are below the diagonal.
* p < .05. **p < .01.
322
finding is consistent with past research that
has emphasized the lack of adjustment and
personality differences between the two
groups (e.g., Bell & Weinberg, 1978; Kur-
dek, 1987, 1988). In addition, homosexual
and heterosexual relationships did not dif-
fer on the central characteristic of degree of
involvement in the current romantic rela-
tionship and satisfaction in past relation-
ships. This result corroborates previous
findings on such measures as relationship
adjustment, love, and relationship satisfac-
tion (Kurdek, 1988; Kurdek & Schmitt,
1986; Ramsey, Latham, & Lindquist, 1978).
The homosexual and heterosexual
groups did differ on some relationship char-
acteristics: homosexual men were involved
in less exclusive romantic relationships;
and, in general, they had a significantly
greater number of relationships, relation-
ships of shorter duration, and partners who
saw others on a romantic basis more often
than heterosexuals. However, homosexual
men were not more sexually active; the
number of orgasms with a partner did not
differ. Thus, homosexual men did not have
more sex, but they were involved in more
promiscuous relationships.
To the degree that homosexual men
mutually permit partners to engage in ex-
tradyadic sexual behavior, what is the na-
ture of sexual jealousy in these relation-
ships? Homosexual men reported less
upset in general to jealousy-evoking cir-
cumstances and less upset if their current
partner were to present them with jeal-
ousy-evoking circumstances. Thus, the ac-
ceptance of additional relationships and a
wider range of sexual and romantic behav-
ior by the partner seem to be crucial dif-
ferences between the two groups.
Sexual jealousy has been studied in
other unique and special groups that rede-
fine the boundaries of permissible ex-
tradyadic sexual behavior. These groups
have included swingers (Bartell, 1971; Gil-
martin, 1977), communes that are group
marriages (Pines & Aronson, 1981), open
marriages (Buunk, 1980, 1981, 1982), and
third persons in a love triangle who had a
romantic relationship with someone who
R. G. Bringle
had a pre-existing sexual and romantic rela-
tionship (Bringle & Boebinger, 1990). Past
research indicates several similarities be-
tween the circumstances faced by homosex-
ual men and these other groups. One means
through which jealousy might be managed
and reduced is through self-selection into
relationships. Specifically, individuals may
select situations and tailor circumstances in
ways that are compatible with existing dis-
positions and attitudes or enter situations in
order to change themselves so they will be
more like that to which they aspire (Snyder
& Ickes, 1985). Thus, individuals who can
tolerate extradyadic sexual relationships by
their partners are more likely to pair them-
selves with a person who also has those
desires.
In addition, similar to swingers,there may
be a dissociation between the nonemotional
extradyadic sexual activity and commitment
to the emotional intimacy of the primary re-
lationship (see Symon, 1979, pp. 292-305).
That is, norms and ground rules may exist
among homosexuals that extradyadic sexual
activity is permissible under specified cir-
cumstances (e.g., no emotional involve-
ment). Buunk (1987) demonstrated that a
couple’s adherence to ground rules about
the degree and nature of exclusivity helps
attenuate sexualjealousy.Homosexual men,
like swingers and those in open marriages,
may also concede to the partner’s ex-
tradyadic sexual behavior so as to be able to
assume similar latitude.
Furthermore, norms not only lead to
prescriptions about permissible extra-
dyadic sexual activity for a couple (as in
swinging and open marriages), but also dis-
courage experiencing and/or expressing
sexual jealousy. Interestingly, the two
groups of men differed not only in the in-
tensity of sexual jealousy, but also in the
way in which they would react to jealousy-
evoking events (i.e., how they would feel
and what they would do about the situ-
ation). Homosexual men were less jealous,
but they were more likely to behave in ways
that did not disclose their sexual jealousy to
the partner. This reticence concerning sex-
ual jealousy is in spite of the general ten-
Sexual jealousy
dency of homosexual men to be more ex-
pressive than heterosexual men (Kurdek,
1987).
The bivariate correlations showed that
relationship exclusivity and involvement
were strongly related to emotional upset
associated with jealousy-evoking events for
heterosexual men. However, the variable
that was most clearly related to sexual jeal-
ousy among the homosexual sample was
relative involvement. Relative involvement
reflects unequal dependency. The more de-
pendent person is presumed to have more
at stake in the relationship, to be more com-
mitted to the relationship, to put more ef-
fort in the relationship, to have less power
in the relationship, and to be more protec-
tive (i.e., jealous) than the less dependent
person (Bringle & Boebinger, 1990;White,
1981). Thus, more than exclusivity and in-
volvement (which were important to the
heterosexual sample), perceptions of
power, dependency, and exploitation
(White, 1981) were particularly salient to
the homosexual respondents. Although this
type of variable has been included in re-
search on sexual jealousy (e.g., Bringle &
Boebinger, 1990; White, 1981), on hetero-
sexual relationships (Peplau, 1984), and on
homosexual relationships (both men and
women) (e.g., Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983;
Caldwell & Peplau, 1984), no previous re-
search has demonstrated its greater sali-
ence to sexual jealousy among homosexual
men relative to heterosexual men.
However, between 1980 and 1992, ho-
mosexual men decreased the level of in-
volvement in their romantic relationships
significantly more than heterosexual men.
This finding, along with the importance of
relative involvement as a correlate of sex-
ual jealousy, parallels the findings by Brin-
gle and Boebinger (1990) for third persons
in love triangles. For both groups (homo-
sexual men and third persons), limiting re-
lationship involvement may serve as one
means of reducing vulnerability to sexual
jealousy in the face of acceding to jealousy-
evoking behaviors by the partner. Homo-
sexual men reported that they were more
involved than the partner, and the degree of
323
their involvement was strongly related to
jealous reactions for homosexual men in
this study and third persons in a love trian-
gle (Bringle & Boebinger, 1990). Peplau
and Cochran (1980) noted that equality and
balance of power are particularly important
issues in all close relationships. They found
that 92% of homosexual men stated that
the balance of power in an ideal relation-
ship should be “exactly equal,” although
homosexual men reported the lowest rate
(38%) of having achieved it (compared
with homosexual women and heterosexual
men and women). This discrepancy sug-
gests why relative involvement is so impor-
tant to their sexual jealousy.
Cohort differences and AIDS
Although many authors have speculated
about the impact of AIDS and other sexu-
ally transmitted diseases (STDs) on sexual
behavior (e.g., number of sexual partners)
and relationship characteristics (e.g., com-
mitment), these data provide a unique op-
portunity to examine what influence the in-
creased prevalence of AIDS as a health
concern may have had on relationships and
sexual jealousy among homosexual and het-
erosexual men between 1980 and 1992.The
results, based on the same questionnaire and
similar sampling procedures, suggest that
young men were more emotional about the
extradyadic sexual behavior of their part-
ners in 1992 than young men in 1980. Fur-
thermore, both groups were more likely to
express their upset to their partners in 1992
than in 1980,including confronting the part-
ner and being angry.
This pattern suggests that AIDS and
other STDs have increased concerns about
extradyadic sexual relationships and exclu-
sivity among both homosexual and hetero-
sexual men. Consistent with this finding,
both groups reported longer relationships
and fewer relationships in 1992 than in
1980. Furthermore, the reduction in
number of relationships was significantly
greater for homosexual men than for het-
erosexual men. These variables are only
proxies for other changes in behavior that
324
can decrease exposure to HIV and STD
infections.
For example, homosexual men have re-
duced the number of penetrative partners
more dramatically than they have reduced
the number of sexual partners (Hunt,
Davies, Weatherburn, Coxon, et al., 1991).
In addition, they rely on the use of condoms
to a greater extent than heterosexual men
(McKusick, Hoff, Stall, & Coates, 1991).
Nonetheless, the pattern of results shows
that men in 1992 (vs. 1980) were more inter-
ested in exclusive relationships, expected to
experience upset if there were suggestions
that exclusivity might be violated, and were
prepared to react in demonstrative ways to
communicate their displeasure to their
partner. Homosexual men, who are at
greater risk for AIDS, were also more likely
to experience fear associated with the part-
ner’s extradyadic sexual behavior.
Limitations
There are always questions about the na-
ture of the sample, particularly in research
on sexual orientation. Although it will not
be argued that the samples of homosexual
and heterosexual men were representative
of either cohort, it is important that the two
groups of men differed on expected dimen-
sions (extradyadic behavior) and did not
differ on other dimensions (involvement,
self-esteem). The 1980samples of homosex-
References
Bartell, G. D. (1971). Grozq sex: A scientist’s eyewitness
report on the American way of swinging. New York:
Wyden.
Bell, A. P., & Weinberg, M. S. (1978). Homosexualities:
A study of diversity among men and women. New
York: Simon & Schuster.
Billy, J. 0. G., Tanfer, K., Grady, W. R., & Klepinger,
D. H. (1993). The sexual behavior of men in the
IJnited States. Family Planning Perspectives, 25(2),
5240.
Rlumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1983).American couples.
New York: William Morrow.
Bringle, R. G. (1982). Preliminary report on the revised
Self-Report Jealousy Scale. Unpublished manu-
script.
Bringle, R. G. (1991). Psychosocial aspects of jealousy:
A transactional model. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The
R. G. Bringle
ual and heterosexual men did differ in age.
However, the bivariate correlations be-
tween orientation and jealousy in the cur-
rent relationship (r(11l) = .35,p < .01) and
relationships in general (r(115) = .26,p <
.01) were virtually unchanged when the ef-
fects of age were partialed out (.39 and .28,
respectively). This finding supports the con-
clusion that the lower reported jealousy of
homosexual men was not due to their
higher average age, but was related to their
sexual orientation.
To take a template of variables and
measures that has been used extensively in
research on heterosexual relationships and
apply them to an examination of the rela-
tionships of homosexual men has an advan-
tage: it provides comparisons to the rela-
tionships of heterosexual men in the
current research and to past research find-
ings in general. However, this strategy may
risk missing unique aspects of jealousy in
homosexual relationships. Therefore, in ad-
dition to cross-validating the current find-
ings, subsequent research might wish to ex-
plore whether there are unique factors that
are related to jealousy in the relationships
of homosexual men. Furthermore, research
that explores comparisons and contrasts
between the nature of jealousy for women
in heterosexual and homosexual relation-
ships will add important information to the
findings of the current research.
psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. 103-131).
New York: Guilford Press.
Bringle, R. G., & Boebinger, K. L. G. (1990). Jealousy
and the “third” person in the love triangle. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships, 7,119-133.
Bringle, R. G., & Buunk, B. (1985). Jealousy and social
behavior: A review of person, relationship, and si-
tuational determinants. In P. Shaver (Ed.), Review
of personality and social psychology. Vol. 6: Selj
situations, and social behavior (pp. 241-264). Bev-
erly Hills, CA: Sage.
Bringle, R. G., & Buunk, B. (1991). Extradyadic rela-
tionships and sexual jealousy. In K. McKinney & S.
Sprecher (Eds.), Sexuality in close relationships (pp.
135-153). Hillsdale, N J Erlbaum.
Bringle, R. G., Renner, P., Terry, R., & Davis, S. (1983).
An analysis of situational and person components
Sexual jealousy
of jealousy. Journal of Research in Personality, 17,
354-368,
Bryson, J. B. (1976). The nature of sexual jealousy: An
exploratory study. Paper presented at the meeting
of the American Psychological Association, Wash-
ington, DC.
Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of
human mating. New York: Basic Books.
Buunk, B. (1980).Attributions and jealousy. Paper pre-
sented at the meeting of the 22nd International
Congress of Psychology, Leipzig.
Buunk, B. (1981). Jealousy in sexually open marriages.
Alternative Lifestyles, 4,357-372.
Buunk, B. (1982). Strategies of jealousy: Styles of cop-
ing with extramarital involvement of the spouse.
Family Relations, 31,13-18.
Buunk, B. (1987). Long-term stability and change in
sexually open marriages. In L. Shamgar-Handel-
man & R. Palomba (Eds.), Alternative patterns of
family life in modern societies (Collana Monografie
1, pp. 61-77). Rome: Istituto di Ricerche sulla
Popolazione.
Buunk, B. (1991). Jealousy in close relationships: An
exchange-theoretical perspective. In P. Salovey
(Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and envy (pp.
148-177). New York: Guilford Press.
Buunk, B., & Hupka, R. (1987). Cross-cultural differ-
ences in the elicitation of sexual jealousy. The Jour-
nal of Sex Research, 23,12-22.
Caldwell, M. A., & Peplau, L. A. (1984). The balance of
power in lesbian relationships. Sex Roles, 10,
587400.
Dailey, D. M. (1979). Adjustment of heterosexual and
homosexual couples in pairing relationships: An
exploratory study. Journal of Sex Research, 5,
143-157.
Gilmartin, B. G. (1977). Jealousy among the swingers.
In G. Clanton & L. G. Smith (Eds.), Jealousy (pp.
152-158). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Glenn, N. D., & Weaver, C. N. (1979). Attitudes toward
premarital, extramarital, and homosexual relations
in the U.S. in the 1970s.Journal of Sex Research, 15,
108-1 18.
Harry, J., & DeVall, W. B. (1978). The social organiza-
tion of gay males. New York Praeger.
Hunt, A. J., Davies, P. M., Weatherburn, P., Coxon, A.
P., et al. (1991). Sexual partners, penetrative sexual
partners, and HIV risk. AIDS, 5,723-728.
Jones, R. W., & Bates, J. E. (1978). Satisfaction in male
homosexual couples. Journal of Homosexuality, 3,
217-224.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948).
Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia:
Saunders.
Kurdek, L. A. (1987). Sex role self-schema and psycho-
logical adjustment in coupled homosexual and het-
erosexual men and women. Sex Roles, 17,549-562.
Kurdek, L. A. (1988). Relationship quality of gay and
lesbian cohabiting couples. Journal of Homosexu-
ality, 15,93-118.
Kurdek, L. A., & Schmitt, J. P. (1985/86). Relationship
quality of gay men in closed and open relation-
ships. Journal of Homosexuality, 12,85-99.
Kurdek, L. A., & Schmitt, J. P. (1986). Relationship
quality of partners in heterosexual married, het-
erosexual cohabiting, gay, and lesbian relation-
325
ships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51,711-720.
Laner, M. R. (1977). Permanent partner priorities: Gay
and straight. Journal of Homosexuality, 3,21-39.
Lawson, A., & Samson, C. (1988). Age, gender, and
adultery. British Journal of Sociology, 39,409440.
Lieberman, B. (1988). Extrapremarital intercourse: At-
titudes toward a neglected sexual behavior. .Journal
of Sex Research, 24,291-299.
McKusick, L., Hoff, C. C., Stall, R., & Coates, T. J.
(1991). Tailoring AIDS prevention: Differences in
behavioral strategies among heterosexual and gay
bar patrons in San Francisco. A I D S Education and
Prevention, 3,l-9.
McWhirter, D. P., & Mattison, A. M. (1984). The male
couple: How relationships develop. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Meyer-Bahlburg, H. F. L., Exner, T. M., Lorenz, G.,
Gruen, R. S., Gorman, J. M., & Ehrhardt, A. A.
(1991). Sexual risk behavior, sexual functioning,
and HIV disease progression in gay men. The Jour-
nal of Sex Research, 28(1), 3-27.
Pines, A., & Aronson, E. (1981). Polyfidelity:An alter-
native lifestyle without jealousy? Alternative Life-
styles, 4,373-392.
Peplau, L. A. (1984). Power in dating relationships. In
J. Freeman (Ed.), Women: A feminist perspective
(3rd ed., pp. 106-121). Palo Alto, C A Mayfield.
Peplau, L. A,, & Cochran, S. D. (1990). A relational
perspective on homosexuality. In D. P. McWhirter,
S. A. Sanders, & J. M. Reinisch (Eds.), Homosexu-
ality/heterosexuality: Concepts of sexual orientation
(pp. 321-349). New York: Oxford University Press.
Peplau, L. A., & Gordon, S. L. (1983). The intimate
relationships of lesbians and gay men. In E. R.
Allgeier & N. B. McCormick (Eds.), Changing
boundaries: Gender roles and sexual behavior (pp.
226-244). Palo Alto, C A Mayfield.
Ramsey, J., Latham, J. D., & Lindquist, C. U. (1978,
August). Long-term same-sex relationships: Corre-
lates of adjustment. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Psychological Associa-
tion, Toronto.
Roscoe,B.,Cavanaugh,L. E., & Kennedy, D. R. (1988).
Dating infidelity: Behaviors, reasons and conse-
quences. Adolescence, 13,3543.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-
image. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Salovey, P. (Ed.). (1991). The psychology of jealousy
and envy. New York: Guilford Press.
Snyder, M., & Ickes, W. (1985). Personality and social
behavior. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), The
handbook of social psychology, (Vol. 2, pp.
883448). New York: Random House.
Stall, R. D., Coates,T. J., & Hoff, C. (1988). Behavioral
risk reduction for HIV infection among gay and
bisexual men: A review of results from the United
States. American Psychologist, 43,878485.
Symon, D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
White, G. L. (1981). Relative involvement, inadequacy
and jealousy: A test of a causal model. Alternative
Lifestyles, 4,291-309.
White, G. L., & Mullen, P. E. (1989). Jealousy: Theory,
research, and clinical strategies. New York: Guilford
Press.