UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Jealousy : an empirical and phenomenological study West, Mariette Bésanger 1983-05-31

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata


831-UBC_1984_A8 W48.pdf [ 10.32MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0054203.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054203-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054203-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054203-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054203-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054203-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054203-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

JEALOUSY: AN EMPIRICAL AND PHENOMENOLOGICAL STUDY by MARIETTE BESANGER WEST R.N., ST. PAUL'S HOSPITAL, 1972 B.S.N., UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, 1981 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF . THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Counselling Psychology) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA DECEMBER 1983 © MARIETTE BESANGER WEST, 1S8 3 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 i i ABSTRACT This study examines the concept "jealousy" using a combination of empirical and phenomenological approaches. In the empirical phase objective data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. In the phenomenological phase subjective data were analyzed on the basis of major descriptors, elements and themes in the verbatim responses. Interpretations in each phase were supported by data and findings from the other phase and by the conceptual understandings gained from a review of three theories of emotion and a critique of literature on jealousy from several disciplines. Three hundred adults from a student family housing complex were surveyed using an adapted version of a jealousy inventory by Aronson and Pines (1982). Forty-five female and 28 male respondents defined jealousy in their own words; described and interpreted their most extreme experiences with the emotion and responded (on a one-to-seven scale) to objective item subtests of jealousy prevalence; physical and emotional reactions; general reactions and coping mechanisms. Quantitative and qualitative analyses resulted in many preliminary findings. Among them were: apparent therapeutic effects of the instrument; sex differences in each of the objective subtests; and qualitative similarities and differences among individuals and between the sexes in participants' definitions, experiential accounts and interpretations. Several hypotheses were generated and many suggestions for future research were discussed. Implications for counselling practice generally promoted application of a broader conceptualization and more positive outcomes for jealousy experiences. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ii List of Tables vList of Figures viAcknowledgements viii Dedication ix Chapter I INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY 1 General Background and Purpose of the Study . 1 Defining Jealousy ..... .. 4 Assumptions 5 Limitations 6 Theories of Emotion ... 7 II LITERATURE REVIEW . . 25, Jealousy and Envy 25 Perspectives from Anthropology and Sociology 30 Perspectives from Psychiatry 4Perspectives from Psychology 61 Chapter Summary 113 III EMPIRICAL PHASE 6 Design and Method 11Subjects 11InstrumentsPilot Study 7 Data Collection and Procedures 118 Sample Demography 119 Results and Discussion 121 I. Jealousy: Trait-Based? 12II. Response Set and/or Re-experience of the Emotion? 123 III. Jealousy and Sibling Position 128 IV. Jealousy Prevalence 129 V. General Reactions to Jealousy 12VI. Physical Reactions to Jealousy 132 VII. Emotional Reactions to Jealousy .... 134 VIII. Coping with Jealousy 137 Hypotheses and Implications for Future Research 140 Chapter Summary 145 V IV PHENOMENOLOGICAL PHASE 146 Participant Definitions of Jealousy: A Discussion . 1 46 Participants' Jealousy Experiences: Major Themes 153 Implications for Future Research 158 Chapter Summary 164 V IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNSELLING PRACTICE 165 General Considerations 167 Counselling Individuals 170 Counselling Couples 175 Counselling Groups 18Chapter Summary 3 THE SI S. SUMMARY 184 REFERENCES .  ..' 186 Appendix A: Jealousy Inventory 194 Appendix B: Request for Participation in Study ...... 201 Appendix C: Cover Letter for Inventory 203 Appendix D: Responses to Items 28, 29, 30 206 Appendix E: Responses to Item 120 224 Appendix F: Responses to Item 123 230 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Frequencies of the Demographic Variables ... 120 Table 2: Jealousy Prevalence Questions: Means and Standard Deviations 130 Table 3: General Reaction Questions: Means and Standard Deviations 131 Table 4: Ranking of Physical Reactions on Basis of Mean Response 133 Table 5: Ranking of Emotional Reactions on Basis of Mean Response " 135 Table 6; Ranking of "Coping With Jealousy" Items on Basis of Mean Response 13.8 LIST OF FIGURES vii Figure 1: Response to Questions 20 and 122 by Question 19 . 124 viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I thank my advisor, Dr. John Banmen for his guidance and patience in helping me to complete this research project and thesis. I thank my committee members, Dr. Marv Westwood and Dr. Robert Armstrong for their support and consultation. I also thank Dr. Adrienne Roelofs for her friendship, her time and her consultation; Bruce McGillivray and Gary Roelofs for their teaching and assistance with computer programming and word processing; Geri Cymbluck for her help with data processing; the staff of U.B.C. Health Sciences Centre, Department of Psychiatry, for their participation in the pilot study; my subjects, the residents of Acadia Park and Acadia Camp for their time and enthusiastic response; and my family, my friends and my colleagues for 'being there'. Finally and most importantly, I thank my husband, Neville West for his love, his patience, his support and his help with editing; and my daughter Kala West for her love and endless invitations to play as well as her help with stamping and delivering envelopes. ix DEDICATION To Neville and Kala "Every human passion has its useful purpose." Descartes 1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY General Background and Purpose of the Study Jealousy is an ancient topic and a universal human experience. However, the body of scientific knowledge about it is in the very early stages of development. Empirical findings and are largely a product of this decade. Widely varying operational definitions, methodologies and approaches to data analysis have been used yet clarification of jealousy as a theoretical construct is not precise or comprehensive. Completion of this task awaits a conceptual framework for all human emotions, which is flexible enough to allow for integration of the plethora of human phenomena to account for our innate human complexity. Jealousy has been examined, analyzed, discussed, dramatized and visually portrayed by experts and amateurs in our culture and others. This research re-explores the topic. The researcher assumes that we as humans have a consensual awareness of the universally experienced jealousy. This does not mean we experience jealousy identically. Rather, we,have some holistic, universally shared sense of the jealousy experience as a natural 2 phenomenon. This study is subjective and objective, seeking logical linear refinement, ordered information and experiential meanings. It incorporates both scientific and phenomenological approaches. Objective data are scientically presented and interpreted using descriptive statistics. Later, the researcher presents and creatively interprets the experiences contributed by her subjects. She also includes insights gained during the research process itself, as.a member of the community in which the study takes place. Using this combined approach she assumes: the responsibility of understanding behaving systems, with more depth than the layman, in order to help the non-researcher have more insight in understanding himself and thus to develop at his own pace (Nasru, 1980, p.16). The researcher, a counsellor, views man as an open system. Like the counselling process, her approach and outcomes seek further query and validation, while promoting insight and understanding which solicit action and change. She explores both similarities and differences. Concepts change over time as they serve changing purposes, so the need to remain open and add to the complexity of our understandings is not just wise but essential. For purposes of this research refinement of the jealousy concept is therefore secondary to re-exploration. A more convergent conceptual approach and advanced statistical analysis await further refinement of theories 3 and models for human emotions. Rollo May's (1969) distinction between 'reason' for and 'purpose' of our emotions gives further fundamental support to the approach used in this research which blends scientific objectivity with phenomenological subjectivity. May (1969) believes emotions are intentional and have two aspects, one that answers to reason and the other that serves purpose. The first aspect has to do with the past and is" correlated with determinism of one's past experience. He sees it as the regressive side of emotions. The second aspect'starts in the present and points toward the future. It communicates and shares something meaningful from us to the world, and in a real sense is partially formed by the feelings of other persons present. In dealing with the first aspect, May believes that it is entirely sound to ask the "reason why", but the second aspect requires asking the "purpose for". Emotion in the second aspect is attraction, aroused by virtue of goals, ideals and possibilities in the future. He says: The reason is the consideration in the past which explains why you are doing this or that, and purpose, in contrast, is what you want to get out of doing it .... The second (aspect) is correlated with freedom. We participate in forming the future by virtue of our capacity to conceive of and respond to new possibilities, and to bring them out of imagination and try them in actuality (May, 1969, p.91). In summary, this research renews and adds to the exploration of the reasons why and purposes for jealousy. 4 It adds to the Gestalt of what is jealousy. The researcher is open and creative in using her data, in objective descriptive ways and in more speculative, subjective ways. Her goal is to facilitate counsellors and clients in seeking a broader more helpful perspective on jealousy. The remainder of this chapter will present a new definition of jealousy; explore assumptions upon which this research is based, examine the limitations and provide a broader context for jealousy as well as further substantiation of approach by presenting three major conceptually divergent theories of human emotion.. Finally, it provides a brief outline of the chapters to follow. Defining Jealousy Many early and some contemporary authors define jealousy in ways that presuppose a jealous character trait or disposition (Freud, 1922; Langfeldt, 1962; Riviere, 1932). Others presuppose or imply cause-effect relationships (Klein, 1957; Sokoloff, 1947; Ziman, 1949) and/or treat jealousy somewhat categorically as: erotic (Langfeldt, 1962); sexual (Barrell & Richards, 1982; Bohm, 1961; Buunk, 1982; Todd & Dewhurst, 1955); heterosexual (Francis, 1977); morbid (Cobb & Marks, 1977; Mowat, 1966; Turbott, 1981); or pathological (Mooney, 1965; Pao, 1977; Seeman, 1979). These efforts have been enlightening to our logical understandings of jealousy. However, they 5 contribute to a tendency to be primarily diagnostic as we strive to understand our realities. This tendency indicates a need for phenomenological conceptualization and exploration. Nasru (1980) points out that "concepts are mental constructs" (p.7). Phenomenologically then, we need to build them into images that "exist" and illustrate them in our definitions. This researcher's preliminary definition incorporates visually-oriented descriptors in a similar effort,, giving "form" to the human experience. The form she uses, a triangle, is not a new one in discussions of jealousy. Rather, it is an ancient and conceptually reliable one. Jealousy, then, for purposes of this research is defined as a triangular human experience in which both  personal and interpersonal core needs are threatened or  perceived to be threatened. The above definition acts as a conceptual background. However, in an effort to remain open to new possibilities the researcher does not define jealousy for her subjects. Instead, she solicits their definitions for presentation and discussion. Assumpt ions 1. Jealousy is a conceptually broader construct than the constructs used as foundations for the currently 6 available measures of jealousy. 2. Jealousy exists in a social, interactional and situational context. Fundamental human needs are at stake and every person has at least the potential to experience jealousy. 3. Humans have a consensual awareness of the jealousy experience. 4. A combined approach to the study of jealousy which incorporates: critique of previous conventional and research literature; a self-report questionnaire adapted by the researcher; descriptive statistics for objective data; and subjective interpretation of subjects' experiential accounts, is both feasible and valid. 5. Inferences about subjects' experiences are subservient to their own self-report, but remain valid inclusions on the basis of the researcher's expertise as a counsellor and with the topic area. Limitat ions 1. The questionnaire, as a research tool, and the survey approach have the usual well-established problems including socially desirable and other response sets, scale problems, selective returns, individual differences in recall, difficulties in sampling non-respondents, etc. These issues are reviewed extensively by such authors as Krewski, Platek & Rao (1980), Borg & Gall (1979) and many 7 others. 2. A non-random adult population of university students and/or their partners was sampled. An adult is defined as a male or female between the ages of 20 and 60. These characteristics restrict generalizability of findings. 3. Selection of the subject pool was based on financial considerations, convenience and a wish to include subjects from various countries, cultures, races and religious/social backgrounds. Survey response is a limiting factor. 4. Residency in the community sampled is determined by criteria such as: full-time student status of at least one adult; essential parental status; number of children; income; and proximity of permanent residence to the university. Theories of Emotion This section reviews three major theories of emotion, providing a broader context for jealousy. It makes apparent the conceptual divergence of these theories, thus providing further substantiation for the approach used in this research. Plutchik's theory (Plutchik, 1962; Plutchik, 1980a; Plutchik, 1980b) is psychoevolutionary and seeks to identify the ways in which emotions function adaptively in humans and 8 animals. His structural model describes the interrelationships of eight primary emotions including joy, acceptance, fear, surprise, sadness, disgust, anger and anticipation. These emotions were arrived at by factor analysis of many mood terms and are represented conceptually by his "wheel of emotions" which is divided into eight equal geometric wedges, each representing a different primary emotion. Mixtures of adjacent primary emotions result in other compounded emotions. As such, a combination of fear and surprise yields awe, while joy mixed with acceptance yields love. Proximity of emotions around the circumference of the wheel indicates the extent of their similarity. Emotions that are most different are diametrically opposed. The wheel is like the cross-section of a rather elongated globe. Intensity is distinguished by cross-sectional position and is weakest at the poles and greatest at the equator. The intense or equitorial version of the primary emotion sadness is then grief while its polar version is pensiveness. He also uses colors to distinguish intensity. Ten postulates encapsulate the essence of Plutchik's theory: 1. The concept of emotion is applicable to all evolutionary levels and applies to animals as well as humans. 2. Emotions have an evolutionary history and have evolved various forms of expression in different spec ies. 9 3. Emotions serve an adaptive role in helping organisms deal with key survival issues posed by the environment. 4. Despite different forms of expression of emotions in different species, there are certain common elements, or prototype patterns, that can be identified. 5. There is a small number of basic, primary, or prototype emotions. 6. All other emotions are mixed or derivative states: that is, they occur as combinations, mixtures, or as compounds of the primary emotions. 7. Primary emotions are hypothetical constructs or idealized states whose properties and • characteristics can only be inferred from various kinds'of evidence. 8. Primary emotions can be conceptualized in terms of pairs of polar opposites. 9. All emotions vary in their degree of similarity to one another. 10. Each emotion can exist in varying degrees of intensity or levels of arousal (Plutchik, 1980a, p.8) . Plutchik's eighth postulate places emotions on a dichotomous continuum. He emphasizes this view by saying "we know that joy is the opposite of sadness, that hate is the opposite of love" (1980b, p.75). Many authors from various disciplines who are proponents of the concept of synergism (Bartell, 1977; Benedict, 1934; Coulter, 1976; Huber, Robinson & Huber, 1978; Maslow, 1971; Maslow & Honigmann, 1970) believe rather in the essential unity of seeming paradoxes. Plutchik's wheel also does not allow for a potential 10 approximation of otherwise polarized emotions. This researcher is exploring a more comprehensive conceptual model. It incorporates a mathematically more exact spherical representation segmented into movable tetrahedral components to allow for, among other things: approximating any emotion(s) with any other(s); and for such substantive and recurring triadic relationships as, for example, the one posed by Bower (1981) in his•preliminary empirical effort to relate cognitive processes to emotion. Bower (1981) claims three such sets including associative processes, interpretive processes and salience of mood-congruous material. It is noteworthy that the latter two of these three sets have three subsets, again indicating the conceptual facility derived by the triadic vertexes and planes of the tetrahedron. The combination of mathematically true sphere and component tetrahedrons is a very useful conceptual representation. It lends itself to both empirical and phenomenological research. The use of mathematical thinking in conceptualization is explained and supported by Nasru (1980) and Fuller (1975). Nasru incorporates Taoism and a spherical (as verses circular) Yang-Ying movement into her model for a synergistic view of man and the universe. Fuller explains the use of spheres packed with tetrahedrons (or other triangular geodesies) in model construction that strives for understanding the behaviour of whole systems. 11 Plutchik's (1980a) theory also differs from others, such as Izard's (1971) and Satre's (1948), in postulating that emotion presupposes cognition. Izard's (1971) theory, in contrast, incorporates the notion of the relation between emotion and cognition, as one of separate but interacting subsystems. He clearly and repeatedly emphasizes their usual harmonious (as versus consecutive) interactive nature but also claims that emotion can occur as "a process in consciousness, completely independent of cognition" (Izard, 1971, p.1850. By suggesting at least.the possibility of independent emotional phenomena he gives emotion more status than Plutchik who equates emotion with response. The central conceptual divergence of the two theories is thus emphasized by Izard's claim that emotions "interact" (p.155) rather than mix like colors. Izard's critique of Plutchik's postulates is extensive and raises many questions especially regarding issues of conceptualization. His own theory views emotions "not only as the principal motivational system but even more fundamentally as the personality processes which give meaning and significance to human existence" (p.183). He claims that emotions have neurophysiological, neuromuscular and phenomenological aspects. Izard (1971) postulates nine fundamental emotions (interest, enjoyment, surprise, distress, disgust, anger, 1 2 shame, fear and contempt) which are subserved by innate mechanisms. He clarifies that his postulated nine is not a fixed number and assumes "that some emotions may become vestigial and disappear and that new ones may evolve" (p.234). Each emotion has unique phenomenological and motivational properties. One might activate, attenuate or amplify another. He qualifies the idea of positive and negative emotions noting rather that "some emotions tend to lead to psychological entropy while.others tend to facilitate constructive behaviour or the converse of entropy" (Izard, 1971, p.182). Izard (1971) suggests that personality is a complex of five subsystems: homeostatic, drive, emotion, cognition and motor. The last three, including emotion, are the most important and form the basis for uniquely human behaviour. Harmonious interaction of these three subsystems leads to effective behaviours. When subsystem interaction breaks down or becomes faulty ineffective behaviours eventuate. Another of his principal assumptions is that separate and discrete emotions exist. Therefore, compounded emotions such as jealousy are something more than the summation of more fundamental emotions. A comprehensive understanding of Izard's (1971) theory requires a more in-depth exploration of his text than is necessary for purposes of this review. However, the clarity of his conceptualization, his 'open-system' thinking, and 13 relative to others discussed in this section, the greater applicability of his theory to humans is made apparent in the following of his claims: 1. Emotion elements of personality [are referred to] as a system since, on the basis of both innate and learned characteristics, emotions are interrelated in dynamic and relatively stable ways. Largely because of the nature of the underlying innate mechanisms, some of the emotions are organized in a kind of hierarchical relationship .... A novel sound might elicit the interest of an infant or child. If in its first presentation the strange sound were quite loud it might elicit fear. If the sound were extremely loud and sudden it might evoke startle .... 2. The concept of polar opposites should not be considered as defining inflexible relationships between emotions, and the apparent opposition does, not always denote an either/or relationship. Often opposites tend to be associated with or elicited by each other, as evidenced by the often observed "tears of joy". 3. Certain emotions other than the pairs of polar opposites tend to have fairly regular relationships, at least under certain circumstances. Interest may oscillate with fear as the organism explores some unknown object or situation .... 4. Two or more fundamental emotions occurring simultaneously or alternately with some regularity produce a combination of emotions which may take on the quality of a trait or personality pattern. The combination of only some of the components of two or more fundamental emotions produces mixed emotion, which may result in ambiguous, ambivalent, or conflictive feelings.... 5. All emotions have certain characteristics in common. All emotions, as contrasted with drives, are non-cyclical. One does not become interested or disgusted or ashamed two or three times a day in rhythm with ingestion, digestion, and metabolic processes. 6. Emotions have virtually unlimited generality and flexibility as motivational factors. While only food and drink will satisfy the hunger and thirst 14 drives, a person can learn to be joyful or contemptuous or afraid in response to a seemingly infinite variety of things. 7. All emotions influence or regulate the drives and other personality subsystems. ' One of the important and frequent functions of emotion is to regulate, to act as amplifier or attenuator in the motivational system complex. For example, drives which are not reduced to a level within the tolerance limits of the organism tend to instigate and recruit emotions, which in turn amplify the drive. The emotion of interest-excitement may bring the sex drive to high pitch; the emotions of disgust, fear, or distress may modulate, mask, reduce, or completely inhibit the sex drive (Izard, 1971, pp.185-187). Solomon (1976) acknowledges Satre as his most influential mentor. Unlike Satre however, he denies the myth of the passions which claims that deep down we are all the same in terms of emotions. He refutes the traditional emotional metaphors (eg. being "struck by jealousy" or "haunted by guilt"), claiming they separate us from our emotions and suggest our emotions are something we should eliminate or deal with in the least dangerous way. He believes our emotions are something we "do" and says: An emotion is a (set of) judgement(s) which constitute our world, our surreality, and its 'intentional objects'. An emotion is a basic judgement about ourselves and our place in our world, the projection of the values and ideals, structures and mythologies, according to which we live and through which we experience our lives (Solomon, 1976, pp.186-187). Solomon (1976) explains that an incident or perception of it must always involve a personal evaluation of significance in order that it be sufficient for emotion. Otherwise we would not be able to account for the fact that 15 different people have very different emotional reactions to the same incidents. The feeling theory of emotion is a negative one according to Solomon (1976). Feelings, he professes, may be specific to the situation and not the emotion. Hence we can have all the feelings and not the emotion or we can have the emotion and none of the usual accompanying feelings. He describes the problem with this theory as being a poor choice of paradigm. It results in our typical use of emergencies or extremes when giving examples of emotion, and' in our mistaken- beliefs that these feelings and sensations are the emotion. He believes feelings are much the same in every instance of different emotion. The concept of feeling, according to him, has too many different uses to be definitional of specific emotion. He says "feeling is the ornamentation of emotion, not its essence" (Solomon, 1976, p.159). Solomon suggests we make our emotions, are taught how to make them by our culture at a very early age, and hold each other responsible for them. They are not simply judgements of fact in the usual sense but in the sense that we make something true by virtue of the judgement itself. They are active, spontaneous but non-reflective judgements. It may seem like our emotions "happen" to us and we do not necessarily remember making them because they are not always explicit, articulated, or deliberated. However, he says 16 "emotions can become reflective, aware of themselves, their purposes and their objects" (Solomon, 1976, p.192). An emotion then, according to Solomon, includes a whole series of judgements about our self and our self-esteem. We must be self-involved to be emotional. When we "fall in love" we make a decision to make someone particularly important to us. When we become angry we have judged and juried that someone has offended us, that we should take it personally and that they are the guilty party. In anger we cast a set of judgements about the world and we act out the role(s) we have cast. Our posture represents the accusational, court prosecutor role we are playing. We make ourselves out as superior and self-righteous, hence the jaw set, the tense and forward stand. "The ultimate object ... is always our own sense of dignity and self-esteem" (Solomon, 1976, p.190). When emotions are "about" another person he says they constitute "a relationship of one sort or another, perhaps competition or comparison, within which one attempts to elevate his self-esteem" (Solomon, 1976, p. 1 90) . Solomon (1976) also speaks of "bi-polar" (p.189) emotions. Jealousy, anger, hate and love are bi-polar because they are not solely about oneself, not solely about the other person and not a conjunction of the two. They are about the relationship. In Solomon's (1976) view emotions are logical, 17 describable and explainable, not animalistic and uncontrollable. They are "our most trustworthy and rational instruments of self-esteem" (p.252). They are judgements about our present situation, our past, other people-and most importantly, they: include intentions for the future, to act, to change the world and change our selves, to revenge ourselves in anger, ... to caress and care for another in love, to destroy - but at a safe distance - an oppressor in resentment (Solomon, 1976, p.276). Theories of emotion are many and different. . Only a few major contemporary theorists have been presented in order to provide a broader context for jealousy and to make apparent the divergence in conceptualizations. This means we need to remain open and exploratory at the level of examining any particular emotion. The remainder of this section will draw together and critique some specifics about jealousy from the theories discussed above. Neither Plutchik (1962, 1980a, 1980b) nor Izard (1971) discuss jealousy separately, but it is possible to extrapolate from the main principles of their theories. Plutchik (1962, 1980a, 1980b) implies that jealousy is a mixed emotion, a derivative or combined form of (some or possibly all) of his eight primary emotions. The structure of his conceptual model suggests that jealousy has a polar opposite, another mixed, compounded emotion, but his discussion of this polarity characteristic is applied only to his eight primary emotions. His second postulate implies 18 that jealousy, even if not clearly evident in familiar expressive forms, is potentially identifiable by certain common elements or prototype patterns in all humans and animals. Like all other emotions, it has an evolutionary history, serves an adaptive role in helping the organism deal with key survival issues and has evolved various forms of expression in different species. Jealousy is, according to him, a hypothetical construct whose properties can only be inferred. Observing that some cultures do not' label their inner mood states and that western cultures are more likely than others to include, psychological components in their descriptions of emotions, he says "the absence of a word for an emotion does not mean that the emotion does not exist in the society in question" (Plutchik, 1980a, p.5). His theory further implies that jealousy exists in varying degrees of intensity or levels of arousal. Izard (1971), wisely awaiting more substantive evidence, hesitates to extend the psychoevolutionary sources and dynamics of emotions to all species, as does Plutchik. He concludes, that for humans at least, "the fundamental emotions are innate, universal phenomena" (p.410). He is not as convinced as Plutchik that emotions (other than his fundamental nine) exist in all cultures, or at least not in the same sense that we attempt to objectively describe them in western societies. He would agree, it seems, to some 19 common phenomenological aspect of the jealousy experience in all cultures and, on a more objective level, to some more or less differentiated recognition and expression of this subjective experience depending on the physical and social environment. Jealousy, by inference of Izard's (1971) theory, is a discrete and separate emotion, something more than a combination of fundamental emotions. It influences some or other drives, and has some characteristics in common with all other emotions. It is part of an organized "emotion" subsystem of personality that influences and is influenced by four other subsystems and by the system as a whole. It has neurophysiological, neuromuscular and phenomenological aspects. Most importantly, it has some motivational basis giving meaning and significance to the individual's existence. Solomon (1976) deals more specifically with jealousy than either Plutchik or Izard. He observes that jealousy is closely related to anger and hatred. He compares it with envy, saying: Jealousy shares envy's 'green-eyed monster' status .... There are differences however; jealousy, unlike envy, sees itself as the equal of the other. Where envy glowers quietly and ineffectively - even unnoticeably - from a distance, jealousy is willing and even anxious for a confrontation .... Unlike envy, jealousy wants the other to face its fabled green eye. Moreover, jealousy is usually confined to a single possession or incident; envy often includes major aspects or even the entire lifestyle of its distant object (Solomon, 1976, p.333). 20 Jealousy, Solomon (1976) claims, is a bi-polar emotion involving competition and status. Its scope or focus is "a particular incident or series of incidents" (p.333); its object is "another person's competitive gain" (p.334); intersubjectively it is "confrontational and defensive" (p.334); and the mythology involved is one of "you've taken what rightfully belongs to me" (p.334). Jealousy: looks to the other as responsible for one's own deprivation. But like envy, right [my emphasis] is more important than the question of responsibility; in jealousy, one seems himself as having a right to the coveted object - at least as much right as the other (Solomon, 1976, p.334). Jealousy's desire is "to get it back" (p.334). Its strategy is one of "placing one's stamp on the things of the earth" (p.334). Solomon (1976) claims further that people not uncommonly become jealous over possessions, including human possessions, about which they have little or no concern. Solomon applies his theory of emotions negatively to jealousy. He discusses rights without discussing freedom, committment, or privilege. This is convenient, but not practical or applicable, especially when a counsellor is faced by the relatively common case of a woman, suckling babe in arms, who is threatened by her mate's involvement with another woman. It seems quite acceptable to consider, as does Solomon for other emotions, that jealousy will in some cases occur as a spontaneous, non-reflective judgement. However, in 21 discussing jealousy as a particular emotion Solomon forgets his earlier claims that emotions are intentions to act and judgements about the past and future (his context, in this instance, includes primarily the present). He also seems to forget his fundamental claim that emotions are "our most trustworthy and rational instruments of self-esteem" (Solomon, 1976, p.252). Neglecting these perspectives ft results in his negative interpretations. Solomon sees jealousy as occurring after the loss as evidenced by his statement about jealousy's desire. . Mb'st other authors (e.g., Cbnstantine, 1976; Foster, 1972; White, 1976, 1980, 1981a) view jealousy as a fear of loss experienced when the threat is imminent, apparent or imagined and it is thus associated with a "yet to happen". Certainly the jealousy judgement will be a moral one and it will speak to our perceived status or place in the world as is suggested by Solomon's general discussion of emotions. Our jealousy does say something about the way we see the other person and the relationship, but not necessarily that we view either as objects, as he seems to indicate when applying his general theory to jealousy. For many reasons, including that the fear of loss necessarily occurs before the loss, jealousy may just as likely be directed toward what the other person provides and receives (for example, those essential, but abstract and 'non-object' qualities such as love and intimacy, which we all need to give as well 22 as receive, keep or protect). We want to "get them back" only after we lose them and if our loss involves a third party's gain it seems more logical that, after the loss, we would experience envy directed at the new possessor rather than jealousy. The "jealous woman" in the above example might then fear loss, for herself and her infant, of a special and unique environment (both physical and•meta-physical). Her loss has not yet occurred and her fear may transcend Solomon's (1976) perspective of her as "wanting to get it back" or "placing a stamp on the things of the earth" (p.234). It may make sense to her that the relationship can be stolen but her moral judgements (in this society) would likely include that she is being cheated. A committment that resulted in her physiological bondage (because of the suckling infant) is being broken- Rights aside, she does not have the same privileges or freedoms as her "delinquent" mate. Solomon (1976) also claims jealousy's distance is "not intimate, not impersonal" '(p.234). This may be so in. the instance of the jealous person who withdraws or denies but certainly not in the.instance of the person who antagonizes, redefines or resolution-seeks within the jealousy triangle or situation. These four different types of jealousy behaviour, proposed by Constantine (1976, p.388), make clear that jealousy is frequently intimate and always involves 23 fear of loss. The last three are active efforts to protect the pair bond and are sequentially more intimate. The first, jealous withdrawal, is the only one that fits Solomon's claim about jealousy's distance. In summary, this section has presented, discussed and critiqued three major theories of emotion giving jealousy a place within each. It has made apparent their conceptual divergence, pointing to a need to remain descriptive and in search of phenomenological insights. Chapter two is divided into four major sections and a summary. The/first section examins comparisons of jealousy and envy. The next three sections present and critique selected literature from anthropology and sociology, psychiatry, and psychology. Chapter three presents the empirical phase of the study. After presentation of the methodology, descriptive statistics are presented for the objective data that were collected by the survey. Preliminary findings will be discussed and some hypotheses for future research will be presented. Chapter four will discuss the subjective data collected in the jealousy survey. It will use examples from the appendices which present, completely and verbatim, the insights, definitions and experiential descriptions of seventy-three people. The researcher will also present a few personal insights gained during the research process. Again, suggestions for future research will be made. Chapter five will discuss implications of this study for counselling. A few specific interventions will be suggested. 25 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter is divided into four major sections which were outlined on the previous page. The text is extensive because in addition to the usual background for empirical research, it prepares the reader for the later phenomenology by offering an in-depth examination of multi-disciplinary theory and practice. Jealousy and Envy Jealousy and envy are frequently confused in spite of their distinct heritages. The lack of clarity is often semantic assuming, as this study does, a consensual awareness of our subjective experiences. Semantic and conceptual clarity are important to the counsellor who uses verbal communication to clarify ambiguities. Foster's (1972) "Anatomy of Envy" summarizes several distinctions between jealousy and envy. Discussing their origins he says "although semantically related, they refer to distinct aspects of what may be called a social (and emotional) state, art or emotion" (p.167). The Oxford English Dictionary (1933) gives a single root for the adjective 'jealous' and the noun 'jealousy' 26 through the Latin zelos back to the Greek ^7jXos. Greek and Latin meanings for the adjective include 'jealousy', 'emulation' and 'zeal' (p.562). Webster (1976) defines 'jealousy' the noun as "1a jealous disposition or state: a jealous nature, attitude or feeling: hostile rivalry: suspicion, mistrust 2zealous vigilance" (p.1212). The verb "to be jealous" is defined in the same source as: 1 intolerant of rivalry or unfaithfulness; disposed to suspect rivalry or unfaithfulness (as in love): apprehensive of the loss of another's devotion: hostile toward a rival or one believed to enjoy an advantage (as a posession or attainment): envious, resentful; 2zealous in guarding (as a posession): vigilant: solicitous; 3distrustfully watchful; apprehensive of harm or fraud: suspicious (p.1212). Greek' and Latin forms for "envy" and "envious", on the other hand, are distinct. The contemporary English noun "envy" stems from the Latin "invidia" which is related to a verb form "invidere" meaning "to look askance at, to look maliciously upon, to cast a an evil eye upon" (Foster, 1972, p.167). Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1976) defines the same verb "to envy" as "to feel envy toward or on account of: be painfully aware or resentfully aware of the advantage of (another) with a desire to possess the same advantage" (p.760). Foster (1972), looking to Oxford's (1933) obsolete meanings, "to feel a grudge against a person; to regard a 27 person or action with desire or disapproval" (p.562), observed envy's aggressive potential. Most significantly, Foster believes envy involves a desire to attain or acquire and is targeted at the person, not their possession, which is the trigger. Conversely, jealousy is directed at the valued possession and the subject fears its loss. He concludes that jealousy is "the normal counterpart of envy, something that is triggered when the envied perceives, or becomes conscious of the envy and views it as a significant threat" (Foster, 1972, p.168). Neu (1980),. in contrast, sees desire as central to both envy and jealousy. He says: What is special about the fear of loss that constitutes jealousy is connected with what is special about people: while one could lose possession of a thing, one could not lose its affection — it has no affection to give or to be taken away. Things do not respond to our feelings. People do. And when they do, we may fear their loss, not just as things (as objects of desire and love), but as feeling agents (as sources of desire and love). At the centre of jealousy is insecurity, fear of loss, specifically fear of alienation of affections.... the desire [my emphasis] to be desired or the desire for affection, the need to be loved (Neu, 1980, p.433). Neu (1980) distinguishes between malicious envy, when the person wants to lower the other to his own level and admiring envy, when one seeks to raise oneself to be like the other. He claims they have different instinctual sources and developmental paths. Malicious envy, he decides, is unlike either jealousy or admiring envy because it is often without appropriate objects. "Its occurrence 28 may always involve pathology" (Neu 1980, p.434). Neu perceives broad contexts for jealousy and envy in contrast to Foster who loses sight of man's complexity, the situational complexity and the complexity of the interrelationship between cognition and emotion. It is too simplistic to imagine a poignant jealousy experience lacking desire. Klein (1957) is similar to Foster (1972) in some of her distinctions. She too sees an aggressive, angry aspect of envy and a passive aspect of jealousy. She says "jealousy is based on envy" (p.6), but later places them on opposite poles of a continuum. She sees jealousy as noble when it is emulation sharpened by fear, but ignoble when it is greediness stimulated by fear. She does not apply this polarity characteristic to envy, which she claims is "always a base passion, drawing the worst passions in its train" (p.8). According to her, jealousy is potentially satiable but envy is always insatiable. Like Riviere (1932) she believes both emotions have to do with frustration of early object-relations. Competition at its most basic level, as the struggle between life and death instincts, underlies Klein's thesis for envy and jealousy. Scheock (1969) parallels Foster(l972) and Klein (1957) in professing jealousy to be less aggressive, more passive and less problematic than envy. He believes the envious person knows exactly what provokes him; that envy is 29 occassioned by ill-will and mortification and is accompanied by contemplation of superior advantages. Envy "is a directed emotion; without a target, without a victim, it cannot occur" (Schoeck,1969, p.7). In contrast with Foster and Klein, he believes the jealous person is often in doubt as to the nature of his antagonist and is never a spontaneous primary aggressor — hostile behavior occurring only when a rival appears on the scene. The researcher assumes, on the basis of her review and critique,.that jealousy and envy are discrete, but related emotions. They have evolved to meet different and changing human needs. Each has the potential to be adaptive and/or maladaptive and to have negative and/or positive consequences depending on a multitude of factors, especially the social and cultural contexts in which they occur. The remainder of this chapter takes a closer look at the literature on jealousy before examining the objective and experiential accounts of the subjects who participated in this study. The section to follow samples the literature from anthropology and sociology, presenting and critiquing the contributions of four major theorists. The first three (Davis, 1936; Mead, 1931; and Benedict, 1934) are early theorists. It took several decades before their significant contributions about jealousy were noticed by the disciplines of psychiatry and psychology. The fourth theorist (Fisher, 1982) is very contemporary and adds a new dimension to 30 anthropological and other perspectives on jealousy. Perspectives from Anthropology And Sociology The importance of including in this review a sociological analysis is demonstrated by Kingsley Davis' (1936) "Jealousy and Sexual Property". He cites Descartes in defining the emotion as "a kind of fear related to a desire to preserve a possession" (p.176). Davis observes that sexual property is defined and regulated by social institutions and of jealousy he says "not only is it normatively controlled but it gives strength to the social norms as well" (p.192). To promote an understanding of jealousy's social function he underscores its inevitable but highly variable appearance in different societies. In support of this claim about jealousy's universality he discusses its purpose in relation to the preservation of love relationships. As such he proposes that the community has an interest in love "not only because future generations depend on it but also because social cohesion rests upon the peaceful distribution of major values" (p.187). Davis (1936) acknowledges an inherent physiological reaction aroused by jealousy but describes it as a function of the sympathetic nervous system that is generalizable to many other emotions as well. Other than this jealous flash, which may or may not be externally evident, he proposes that 31 this emotion is expressed differently and experienced in response to different situations in different cultures. He says "each culture distributes the sexual property of the society and defines the conflict situations in its own way... therefore the concrete content cannot be regarded as an inherited stimulus to an inherited response" (p.188). For western society, Davis thus views jealousy -as bolstering the value on monogamy. In other societies it likewise supports rather than causes monogamy, polygamy, polyandry or whatever institution prevails. He refutes the polar or causal perspective with his belief that sexual affection is a distributive value and he says: to let it go undistributed would introduce anarchy into the.group and destroy the social system... The stimulus to jealousy, moreover, is not so much a physical situation as a meaningful one. The same physical act will in one place denote ownership, in another place robbery.... Jealousy does not respond inherently to any particular physical situation; it responds to all those situations, no matter how diverse, which signify a violation of the accustomed sexual rights (Davis, 1936, pp.189-190). To understand Davis' conceptualization of jealousy for any given society we must have an an awareness of: their distinction between economic and sexual property; their particular processes of competition, rivalry and trespass; the type of attitude assumed by the individual in relation to property that is owned, possessed or in custody (e.g., whether the value of the property is based on need, vanity, pride, love or some combination); their particular cultual 32 definition of different social situations in terms of the roles and the statuses of the participants; and finally, the means, ends and conditions which influence all of the above. For instance, discussing some of these parameters for western society in terms of jealousy's function in intimate relationships, Davis says: As a fear reaction in the initial stages of rivalry it is simply the obverse side of the desire to win the object. The desire to win being institutionally cultivated, the fear of losing is unavoidably stimulated also, though its expression is publicly frowned upon. But after ownership has been attained, jealousy is a fear and rage reaction fitted to protect, maintain and prolong the initimate association of love (Davis,.1936, p.183). In conclusion, Davis' view of jealousy stresses its maintenance function for individuals, dyads, groups and the institutions of the society in question. His perspective is neutral and he notes that "the hasty readiness to praise or condemn prevents a clear understanding of the relation of jealousy to the social structure"•(p.187). He sees jealousy's intention as protective while noting its tendency to deny the harmony of intimacy because it admits to a perceived or threatened breach. He says "it is destructive of it [intimacy] only in so far as it muddles its own purpose" (p.183). It will become apparent in later sections of this review that Davis' conceptualization of jealousy was very broad for the times. Although arguments can be posed both for and against his various interpretations, he acknowledges 33 a need to also study the emotion from a personality point of view. This is in contrast to his cohorts in the other disciplines who largely neglected the sociological perspectives he had made available. Margaret Mead's (1931) "Jealousy: Primitive and Civilized" portrays how situations that are provocative of jealousy in one culture are innocuous in others. Like so many others who followed her, Mead conceives of jealousy as a threat to the self-esteem. Without entirely discrediting individual differences she notes that what is perceived as threatening will be determined by the particular sociocultural setting. She says: However varied the social(setting, it will be seen to be the threatened ego which reacts jealously. Situations involving this self-esteem will, however, take widely different forms....There is hardly any limit of performance or apparent deprivation to which the individual may not be pushed by his society's standards. Whatever the social set, however, it will inspire him to zeal for his socially defined position. And if he feels his self-esteem is threatened, if his reputation as a gracious wife lender or a successful ruler of a harem is in danger, jealousy will be the result (Mead, 1931, p.119). As will become apparent later in this chapter, research results that attempt to correlate self-esteem with jealousy remain inconsistent and models for the emotion (White, 1976) have consigned it to a less central role. Also, the later discussion of self-esteem will disclose its potentially - spurious nature — it can be as situationally dependent as jealousy. As this applies to Mead's interpretation, 34 possibly the harem ruler's reputation has more of an apparent than an actual effect on his self-esteem especially if his jealous behaviour is expected and conditioned by his society and family. Mead (1931) draws a fine line between zeal and jealousy, a distinction that is largely neglected elsewhere in the literature. She describes zeal as "an attentive interest in the attainment or preservation of social or personal status" (p.119) whereas jealousy is "a frightened angry defense of such status" (p.119). Mead uses polygamous societies to exemplify this difference, noting that the zealous man will buy many wives to enhance his prestige but the impotent man who rigidly polices his 200 wives instead of overlooking their lovers is jealous. She observes that the two attitudes are further confused by the requirement in romantic love situations that a certain amount of jealousy be displayed to allay misinterpretations by the object that there is a lack of zeal. Adhering generally to a negative view of jealousy, Mead (1931) relates it to the egocentric side of love which wants for possession of the loved object. She notes that the subject need not be wanting for exclusive possession because "many people are zealous of a privilege which they share with others but which they maintain against outsiders" (p.116). Jealousy, in her view, need not be sexual but the sexual variety is the most egocentric and selfish. 35 Comparing the Banaro tribe of New Guinea to the French peasants prior to the revolution, Mead (1931) shows that the male's exclusive, proprietary attitude toward his wife is evident in both simple and complex societies. However, she suggests that the Frenchman's jealous feelings and behaviours were elementally an outraged dignity at being required to lend his woman to his lord for deflowering — because the peasant's lack of participation in- the planning emphasized his social impotence. In contrast, Mead (1931) describes the Banaro peoples as living contentedly within a complex exogamous system in which the new bride is deflowered by a ceremonial friend of the bridegroom's father and the bridegroom's initiation to sex was attended to earlier by the ceremonial friend's wife. The several other reported sexual arrangements mean that in each person's lifetime he or she will have three mates in addition to their regular spouse. Mead claims this social set does not give rise to jealousy. Generally, Mead considers that sexual jealousy occurs only in response to illicit arrangements. However, she seemingly assumes that the Banaro people always respect their established boundaries.. Her discussion does indicate that their extra-regular sexual arrangements are planned and ritualistic in terms of specific persons, occasions, duration and place. Hence it would be interesting to know their response to any deviations from these norms. Also, 36 Mead's evidence for the individual's contentment in Banaro society is based on whiteman's poor success rates at recruitment for labor purposes. Alternatively, it is possible that recruitment was poor because any loss of expected sex partners may have provoked intense jealousies. Mead also gives examples of female jealousies occurring in polygamous societies when the husband has been too long in acquiring extra wives to share labor and childbearing. In this instance it is.difficult to ascertain if Mead was distinguishing between jealousy and envy. Generally, it is her view that the widely varying situations preclude a feeling definition of jealousy because it "sometimes inclines more to fear, sorrow and shame, at others to anger, suspicion and humiliation" (p.116). Mead (1931) makes a strong, clear statement to reject the traditional stereo-type of the female as "the jealous sex". Rather, she says: Throughout history, with a few rare exceptions, women have been the insecure sex. Their status, their freedom of action, their very economic existence, their right over their own children, has been dependent upon their preservation of their personal relations men. Into the field of personal relations have been thrust all these other considerations not germaine to it. The wife threatened with the loss of her husband's affection, fidelity, interest or loyalty, whichever point her society has defined as the pivot of wifely tenure, sees the very roots of her social existence being cut from beneath her. She has been in the position in which a man would be if he had read into his wife's averted shoulder the depreciation of all his stocks, a loss of his business reputation, eviction from whatever position he holds, both social and political, as well as the loss of his home and possibly all control over his children. If women's superior 37 morbid anxiety concerning their relations with the all-necessary male purveyors of economic and social goods be read in these terms, it becomes a truism that women probably always have been "the jealous sex" (Mead, 1 931, p.125) . In spite of her relatively broad view of jealousy's many situational and social determinants, Mead (1931) considers the emtion to be an "unfortunate phenomenon with little to be said in its favor" (p.120) and this is so mainly because it, "like other forms of extreme egoism, is repellent" (p.120). She considers both social and personal factors as. causal of jealousy, but concludes, that the latter are rare and "the result of bad luck" (p.125). For instance, she exemplifies obessive jealousy in the case of Othello attributing his misfortune to an "insecurity born of belonging to a racial group judged inferior by the group from whom he won his wife" (p.124). In her view, the person born with fewer or different physical and/or other culturally-prized endowments is unlucky and will be likely to jealously cling to anything that comes his way. Nevertheless, she deprecates his jealousy because it "adds to rather than mitigates" (p.125) his misery. In conclusion, Mead (1931) sees few or no positive effects of jealousy. She is inductive in refuting use of the word "exclusive" in defining jealousy's possessive aspect but she goes on to categorize the emotion in an exclusively destructive way without presenting observations of individual differences. Her lack of confidence in the 38 latter categorization is portrayed by her tentative suggestion that civilized societies should strive to eliminate or drastically reduce the emotion's occurrence. . She tempers- this suggestion with a caution that the result might be serenity at the cost of the passion and intensity which produce great mystics and great artists. Her discuss-ion is thus very useful in giving "reasons" to jealousy but it is less useful and less intricate in examining jealousy's "purpose" than Kingsley Davis' (1936) sociological perspectives. Exactly the kind and quality of passion to which Mead referred is evident in Ruth Benedict's (1934) "Patterns of Culture". Benedict was "never a neutral person" (Harris, 1970, p.51) and yet she did not name the right or wrong, good or bad society, individual, feeling or behaviour. Likewise, her concern was not with 'normal' or 'abnormal' behaviour but with "the extent to which one culture could find a place for extremes of behavior in the mystic, the seer, the artist — which another culture branded as abnormal or worthless" (cf. preface by Mead in Benedict, 1934,). Of jealousy she says "it is evident from the practices of many different cultures, [that it] is one of the emotions that can be most effectively fostered by cultural arrangements, or it can be outlawed" (Benedict, 1934, p. 109). But she did not portray the experience of jealousy, 39 in itself, as abnormal, destructive or problematic and her issue with emotions and behaviours in general was not to distinguish those that are instinctive or organically determined from those that are learned or engrained by social conditioning. She says "the conditioned response is as automatic as the organically determined [response]" (p.17). Instead, Benedict (1970) examined societies for their levels of synergy. In doing this she implied, for their whole systems and for their dyadic and group subsystems, that jealousy, fear, and other emotions traditionally labelled as negative become problematic when their healthy expression is impeded by low levels of synergy. Conversely, social units that are represented by high levels of synergy have built-in customs and practices which encourage constructive expression of these emotions. In "Patterns of Culture" Benedict (1934) compares and contrasts three very distinct cultures — the Pueblos of New Mexico, the natives of Dobu in Melanesia, and the Kwakiutl Indians of' the American Northwest. She describes a frequent, aggressive and violent expression of jealousy in the Dobu, attributing these observations to the fierce exclusivity and competitiveness of their social structures which results in disharmony between individual objectives and societal values and norms. She exemplifies the; most exclusive values of the Dobu in their beliefs about the 40 ownership of yams (their major foodstuff) which are considered to have an hereditary line. Although the marital couple share a common home and provide common food for their children, they jealously guard their separate gardens which have been grown from the seed yams of their respective hereditary lines. Benedict describes many similarly expressed jealousies arising from other marital arrangements of the Dobu. Always, the origin of problematic behavioural expression of the emotion resides in a social structure that precludes harmony between the individual and his or her society. For example, the couple alternate their habitation, on a yearly basis, between their respective matrilineal villages. Benedict (1934) observes that: The spouse who is on alien territory plays a role of humiliation. All the owners of the village may call him [or her] by his name. He may never use the name of one of them....When personal names are used it signifies that important liberties may be taken by the namer....He is a perpetual outsider (p.137). In contrast, the Zuni (a Pueblo people) are described by Benedict (1934) as having a much higher level of synergy. Their society is affirmative of life, has a low level of competition and violence and a high level of cooperation. Jealousies still occur but are managed differently. For instance, she discusses marital jealousy saying: They do not meet adultery with violence. A usual response on the plains to the wife's adultery was to cut off the fleshy part of her nose. This was done even in the Southwest by non-Pueblo tribes like the 41 Apache. But in Zuni the unfaithfulness of the wife is no excuse for violence. The husband does not regard it as a violation of his rights. If she is unfaithful,, it is normally a first step in changing husbands, and their institutions make this sufficiently easy so that it is really a tolerable procedure. They do not contemplate violence (Benedict, 1934, p.107). Benedict (1934) desribes the same attitude of Zuni wives in the instance of their husbands' adultery. "Controversies, whether they are ceremonial or economic or domestic are carried out with an unparalleled lack of vehemence" (p. 106). She interprets that their expressions, of jealousy, grief, anger and other traditionally negative emotions are moderate because cooperation is the essence of their lifestyle. The points made by Benedict are not in exoneration or deprecation of exogamy, monogamy, polygamy or polyandry. Rather, she observes the harmony or lack of it that results from the social structures which vary widely even among societies that have similar marital arrangements. In the final analysis, this renouned anthropologist can be added to the list of those who believe jealousy to be a cross-cultural universal. The insight she adds is that the emotion will be expressed as a means to a cooperative end or result in destruction and violence (or some consequence between these poles) depending on the society's level of synergy which in turn is based in their particular social structure. Helen Fisher (1982), a contemporary anthropologist, 42 looks at the evolution of human emotions and behaviours. She suggests and provides evidence to indicate that, by four million years ago protohomid males and females were bonding, living together, sharing food and learning to cooperate. She believes that along with the evolution of these relatively complex behaviour patterns, emotions such as jealousy evolved "to tie individuals to one another [and to]....Define who's who" (p.132). Cooperative responsibilities thus required the emotions that came along with them. Central to Fisher's (1982) thesis is the evolution of pair-bonding and its requirement for social feelings. She says "clearly social facilitation encouraged our ancestors to laugh and cry together — and togetherness was the key to life" (p.119). Integrating concepts of natural selection and human free will Fisher (1982) proposes that "not all human behavior is learned....[yet] Cooperation was demanded for survival" (p.119). Thus early humans slowly developed natural inclinations for love, friendship, trust and other emotions and "each emotion came to be expressed so that other people understood" (p.119). Sexual jealousy, she suggests, evolved along with pair-bonding and reciprocal altruism. She says: Because a male was now obliged to defend the children of his mate, he would develop a natural tendency to make sure that they were his children too. Though he might not know it consciously, he did not wish to expend his time, his energy, and perhaps his life for the genes of another male. Thus was born sexual 43 jealousy (Fisher, 1982 pp.113-114). She explains that although the "I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine" (p.113) agreement was functional, as an early form of reciprocal altruism, there were always those who wouldn't return the help they received. Therefore, even natural selection allowed for deceit and early man learned feelings to neutralize or counteract it. Those who were exploited by others would experience and express jealousy, moral indignation, outrage and revenge. Meanwhile, the cheater felt guilt, embarassment or self-deception. Pardon, apology and contrition resulted from a showdown. In summary, Fisher's (1982) thesis on jealousy and other emotions integrates evolution with environmentalism. In a nouvelle way she examines the influence of early man's social structures, adding dimension to the perspectives critiqued earlier in this section. To summarize this section, it has presented and critiqued one sociological and three anthropological views on jealousy. Although the perspectives of Davis, Mead, and Benedict were available early in this century they seemingly had little interdisciplinary effect until several decades later. Davis' (1936) view stresses jealousy's role in the maintenance of each society's institutions and norms. The emotion is also controlled by the institutions and norms and he sees it as destructive only to the extent that it defeats 44 its own purpose. Mead's (1931) perspective on jealousy was primarily pejorative and reason-oriented. Like Davis, she examined social structures but in a more parochial and less purpose-oriented way. Benedict (1934) introduced a new concept to anthropology by suggesting that societies be compared for their varying levels of 'synergy'. Accordingly, she presents a comparative analysis of several societies. She implies that when there is harmony between individual objectives and societal values (or high levels of synergy as in Zuni society) jealousy as a means will be likely to result in a cooperative end. In contrast, when levels, of synergy are low (as in Dobu society) jealousy will be likely to have a destructive effect. As will become apparent later in this chapter, the concept of synergy is re-associated with jealousy theory several decades later. Finally, this section examined Fisher's(1982) thesis which integrates evolutionary and environmental perspectives on jealousy and other emotions. The next section chronologically explores and critiques perspectives from psychiatry beginning with Freud and ending with the most recent literature by Turbott (1981). 45 Perspectives from Psychiatry The most classic reference on jealousy from both Psychiatry and Psychology is Freud's (1922). His account ascribes to jealousy four overlapping emotions — pain, grief, enmity and self-doubt. He decided the pain and grief are "caused by the thought of losing the loved object and [the thought] of the narcissistic wound" (p.232); the enmity is "against the successful rival" (p.232); and the self-criticism "tries to hold the person himself accountable for his loss" (p.232). Freud believed jealousy to be universal, rooted in the uncouscious and related to an unresolved Oedipal or brother-and-sister complex, or to a disguised expression of homosexuality. He distinguished three layers or stages of jealousy - normal or competitive, projected and delusional. Normal jealousy, he said "is by no means rational, that is derived from the actual situation, proportionate to the real circumstances and under the complete control of the conscious ego" (Freud, 1922, p.232). Projected jealousy and delusional jealousy in both men and women are derived from repressed impulses towards unfaithfulness, according to Freud. The former may also result from the subject's own actual unfaithfulness. Delusional jealousy, on the other hand, is different in that the object is the same sex as the subject, and it "represents an acidulated homosexuality, and rightly takes its position among the classic forms of 46 paranoia" (Freud, 1922, p.234). Jones (1929) extended Freud's (1922) thesis and reinforced jealousy's status as dispositional and pathological. He suggests (for men in his example) that the predisposition results from narcissistic dependency emanating from Oedipal guilt leading to fear of father and inversion. The inversion leads further to fear of women resulting in projected flight and infidelity. Riviere (1932) translated many of Freud's works and added her own insights on the basis of a single case study. Generalizing her .conclusions of the pathological to the normal, she viewed jealousy as a "means of defence against unconscious conflicts... [and] a symptom of unconscious accusations from the super-ego" (p.423). Deciding her patient's jealousy and coquetry could not be explained sufficiently as a projection of personal infidelity, Riviere instead offered the following symbolic interpretation: while experiencing jealousy others were robbing her (the patient) of everything; and in flirtation she was robbing those around her of everything. Both behaviours are an effort to resolve conflict through a fantasy originating in the oral phase of development. Riviere agreed with Freud (1922) and Jones (1929) about the emotion's association with feelings of self-criticism and in relating even "normal" jealousy to the narcissistic wound. However, she explains the wound as "the condemnation 47 by the super-ego and the expiation by the ego for the unconscious predatory and aggressive impulses in the subject himself" (Riviere, 1932, p.423). Sokoloff's (1947) text on jealousy is addressed to the physician and the patient. He notes the complex nature of the emotion and the extent to which his colleagues, including Freud, neglected or negatively misinterpreted its evolution and role in animals and humans. His study is much broader, stressing the unity of psyche and soma. Sokoloff concludes that jealousy is comprised of two psychological units — a primitive reaction and a more complex sentiment. The reaction, he claims, is instinctual, negative and atavistic. It is still with us in a less primitive form, experienced by everyone but inhibited by most. In contrast, he claims the sentiment cannot be completely inhibited and if repressed it may result in complexes. Its transformation into a complex (an obsessive or delusional jealousy) depends on predisposition. He says this emotion "retains a function in the zoological economy — to conserve the individual as against the group. It is nature's great corrective for purely social emotion" (Sokoloff, 1947, p.22). Sokoloff (1947) discusses many and varying types and manifestations of jealousy, stressing its autonomous character, its demand for satisfaction and revenge and its destructive potential for subject, object and society. He 48 claims it to be the oldest, the commonest and yet the most concealed and disguised of human emotions. He agrees that it is universal but more or less effectively coped with by different individuals and cultures. Sokoloff exemplifies the French, the Somalis and the people of the Sandwich Islands as the most jealous of nationalities and the English and Americans as the least. The ancient Greeks and Romans were "very little jealous" (p.15). The former related • jealousy to excessive love and the latter claimed it had more to do with envy than love. Sokoloff (1947) traces excessive jealousy in adults to the period of child individuation and believes it is "an effort to combat fears of aloneness and isolation in a hostile world" (p.35). His suggestions for treatment are insightful and comprehensive given the state of the art at that time. He suggests open discussion to neutralize the traditional concealment and rationalization surrounding jealousy. However, he cautions that its importance or potential destructive nature should not be underestimated. Collaborative family efforts and extra love and attention are his treatment for childhood jealousy. He stresses early detection and individualized treatment for any problematic jealousy and if it is still rational he recommends free discussion, good-natured teasing and intelligent, friendly refusal to submit to excessive demands. Relative to others in his discipline, Sokoloff is optimistic in his prognosis, 49 claiming the effectiveness of understanding, patience and intelligent efforts in dealing with psychological wounds experienced by the jealous person and others. Ziman (1949) was the first modern psychiatrist to look comprehensively at jealousy in children and to suggest prevention and treatment. His text is a guide for parents and is relatively holistic given its era. He sees jealousy as a symptom of worry and proclaims "a child is jealous when he wants something someone else has" (p.5). He deals with jealousy and envy as one and the.same and views them as normal developmental reactions, stressing wise management and understanding of the source rather than attempts to eliminate or supress the emotion. He emphasizes that the "jealous child does not necessarily grow up to be a jealous adult" (p.5). Ziman also deals with jealousy in different sibling positions and family configurations, suggesting that adult competitiveness, aggression and an unsatiable search for power emanate only from mismanaged childhood jealousy. Basically, his treatment involves a high quality parental nurturance. Schmideberg (1953), another psychoanalyst, focuses on still more oral, anal and genital contributing factors. However, her work is the first in the field to clarify and emphasize fear of loss as fundamental to the emotion. She agrees with Ziman that childhood jealousy is developmental and views pathological adulthood jealousy as a "schizoid 50 inability to love" (p.3). In her view, jealousy includes elements of sadism, a compulsion to control the loved object, hostility, exaggeration, fear, guilt, strong anxiety, ambivalence of -the love relationship, impotence or doubts about potency, possessiveness, dependency, hurt, loneliness and obsession. Schmideberg (1953) agrees with Freud that pathological adult jealousy is a defence against unconscious homosexuality. However, her general thesis is more complex than his. She relates jealousy to many more emotions, introduces to psychoanalysis the possibility of justified or rational jealousy, and incorporates social, cultural and situational factors. For instance, she notes a traditional expectation in patriarchal societies for the man to be possessive and jealous of his wife and to regard unfaithfulness as thievery of his masculinity. Finally, she emphasizes an elemental "feeling hurt" factor and speculates it to be a survivor of childish hurts resulting from having been "bullied, nagged, teased, humiliated and frustrated" (p.13). According to her, this feeling is clung to because it reduces guilt over unconscious sadistic impulses which emanate from Oedipal and castration complexes. Langfeldt (1962) was the first in Psychiatry to de-emphasize the role of unconscious psychodynamic processes but he continued the traditional tendency to label jealousy as dispositional. Studying the case histories of 66 51 psychiatric patients troubled by frequent and intense jealousy, he described an "erotic jealousy syndrome" (p.317), claiming that it can be common among normal people or abnormal and even- congenital. He believes this syndrome is potentially present in all types of mental disorders but has a significant predominance in diagnosed chronic alcoholism. He-observes that in addition to the abuse of alcohol, some biological factors such as the menopause, organic brain syndromes and psychotic phases of several mental disorders (especially schizophrenia and melancholia)' can have a releasing effect on the jealousy syndrome. Finally, he suggests that a low level of intelligence results in poor insight into jealousy ideas, rendering them more or less permanent. Mooney (1965), a British Psychiatrist, gave his discipline a still broader perspective on jealousy, noting the difficulty that arises in attempting to define the pathological as a deviation from the norm. Comparing western societies to the Tobas (a polygamous and polyandrous tribe in southern India), he claims that when there is no censure on adultery jealousy must be suppressed but when the ideal is lifelong faithful monogamy infidelity must be suppressed. He eventually decides that pathological jealousy is irrational and unfounded, emphasizing the potential for frequent errors by the diagnostician who neglects a careful study of circumstances and social 52 context. Even though Mooney (1965) acknowledged the difficulty with defining the pathological as a deviation from the norm, he goes on (in a self-contradictory way) to distinguish delusional jealousy in which a "mistaken belief is held with certainty" (p.1024) from obsessive jealousy when the patient has enough touch with reality to appreciate the evidence and realize the jealousy is symptomatic of emotional problems. After surveying the Psychiatric literature, Mooney (1965) outlines eight categories thought to be associated with pathological jealousy including hereditary and familial factors, premorbid personality; drug intoxication or addiction; organic or degenerative cerebral disorders; epilepsy; mental deficiency; psychiatric syndromes (e.g., paranoid state, manic-depressive psychosis); and other factors (e.g., pregnancy and the poat-partum state; menopause and involutional changes). Mooney's (1965) prognosis for delusional jealousy is worse than for obsessive jealousy. On the basis of his analysis of 65 case histories (8 of his own and 57 from three other authors) he concludes that "phenothiazine drugs had an initial favorable effect on delusional jealousy" (p.1034). His variant levels of significance are not explained, but he documents extensively and well the other problems with his study and the reader is left to wonder at . j the validity of instituting chemotherapy in the first place. 53 No other non-chemical treatment alternatives are suggested and a pessimistic long-term prognosis is predicted. The next study of "delusional jealousy" was Mowat's (1966) analysis of 110 murderers and attempted murderers. He concludes that "12% of male and 3% of female psychotic murderers murdered for morbid jealousy [and] ... no other single delusion is associated with so many deaths from suicide and murder" (p.115). The murders showed a pattern in which the average man was free of jealousy at the outset of his marriage, his delusions about his wife developing, on the average, six years later. His deluded state escalates and he soon misinterprets trivia, growing increasingly more convinced in his mistaken judgements. Angry scenes and violent attacks eventuate in the wife leaving only to return later. The man's delusions then frequently become hallucinations. Suicide or murder occur on the average about four-and-a-half years after the onset of the delusional system. The next psychoanalytic literature on jealousy is Seidenberg's (1967) exploration of socio-cultural considerations relative to fidelity and jealousy. Basically, he views sexual infidelity as western man's overrated excuse to avoid dealing with other infidelities or acts of unfaithfulness. He distinguishes between fidelity as sentiment and fidelity as logic, claiming that in the former "the principle is followed more or less blindly for 54 its own sake" (p.29) and in the latter it is "a principle in the service of exigency" (p.29). Unfaithfulness and infidelity, he decides, "have suffered the pejoration of meaning 'sexual' exclusively" (p.28). In his view, extramarital affairs reflect dependent needs as much as sexual needs. He believes jealousy is "an expected affect of living" (p.30) and frequently "a part of the titillation, the foreplay between partners" (p.31). Seidenberg's (1967) view of jealousy "in marriage is that it arises from the patriachal monogamous system. He claims that in the matriarchal polyandrous system natural jealousy hardly existed and concludes that the emotion is "another by-product of male dominance" (p.38). He does not extend this generalization to obsessive or delusional jealousies. In these instances he agrees with and extends Freud's (1922) beliefs. His final analysis is that fidelity and jealousy are "inextricably tied to man's basic wish for the absolute, for the unalterable and infallible" (Seidenberg, 1967, p.51'). Hoaken (1976) describes jealousy as a symptom of organic or functional psychiatric disorder and classifies it as provoked or unprovoked. Provoked jealousy, he claims may be normal or excessive and neurotic, whereas unprovoked jealousy is irrational and always excessive. Normal, provoked jealousy he says: may be completely understandable as a reaction to a person's frustrated desire to preserve a significant 55 emotional relationship...[It] runs a natural course [and] is experienced in relation to a blow to the self-esteem, raising doubts that may have had their origin in early experiences (Hoaken, 1976, p.47). Excessive or neurotic jealousy differs only in degree according to him and "most cases occur because of repeated or prolonged provocation" (p.48), but are, nevertheless, revealing of underlying problems. Unprovoked jealousy is morbid and may be one of three kinds — a personality trait, an obsessive suspicion or a fixed delusion. To distinguish among the latter he stresses the importance of determining how firmly the subject holds his/her beliefs. If morbid jealousy is a new process for the patient he suggests the possibility of overt or covert depressive illness and for patients with fixed delusions he favors the use of electroconvulsive therapy. The person with a jealous personality trait should be assessed for and helped to control excessive use of alcohol. The therapist in all cases should allow a limited and appropriate discharge of anger, help the person recognize that his/her need for affection is exaggerated, and promote emotional independence. Seeman (1979) presents and analyzes five cases of pathological jealousy in women, noting the special significance of time of onset. All of her patients at the time of onset were "feeling unusually insecure and subordinate....[and] life circumstances had conspired to diminish [their] self-esteems" (Seeman, 1979, p.352). The 56 author notes recent loss of a parent as a possible precipitating factor and generally, that onset occurs at a time when the need to be loved outweighs the need to love. She also notes the frequent presence and yet denial of provocation by the partner of the jealous subject. Although she found little initial evidence in her sample of envy directed by the subject at the object she eventually claims that often they are "engaged in the game of sibling-rivalry" (p.354) with both envy and competitiveness quite apparent in their interactions. She observed that the sexual fantasies of her female patients often took the form of identification with the rival and all five had "decribed homoerotic dreams and fantasies prior'to the development of the [problematic] jealousy" (p.355). Seeman (1979) observes that patients with problematic jealousy frequently experience increased libido. She explains in an evolutionary sense as: a response to the threat of separation of the mates and [it] can be seen as nature's attempt to prevent the separation and ensure maintenance of the species. One partner threatens loss of interest; jealousy and heightened libido result, leading to stronger bonding of the marital pair (Seeman, 1979, p.358). She also observed in her jealous (female) subjects a cycle of ruminations, rage, remorse, and mania and in their male partners a cycle of surreptitiousness, furtiveness and untruthfulness. In her view both partners keep the jealousy alive for its secondary gains and need help to gain insight in order to prevent or resolve "one partner's withdrawal 57 from reality, the other partner's bondage, and reciprocal unresolvable hurts" (Seeman, 1979, p.359). Seeman (1979) is the first representative from psychiatry to examine closely the social and interactional elements of the jealousy triangle in combination with a temporal and life events perspective. Her treatment involves both partners. She intervenes to restore self-esteem, arrest perceptual distortions, reduce secondary gains and re-introduce candor into the relationship. She stresses the reality of the situation and contracts with both to forget the past and concentrate on the present. To prevent elaboration of delusions she encourages each partner to "validate the other's intuitions and hunches" (Seeman, 1979, p.360). She encourages truthfulness and • frankness from both regarding their actions and stresses that "candor does not include confessions of past actions" (p.360). The latter she believes are retaliatory not supportive. She neutralizes secondary gains through open discussion which includes the sexual 'turn-on' role of jealousy. Fantasy is separated from action, sibling-rivalry and parenting games are exposed and their relationships with their children are discussed. Overall, Seeman's treatment is the most comprehensive and humanitarian of any suggested by psychiatry to date. Cobb and Marks (1979) claim that "morbid jealousy can occasionally be indistinguishable from obsessive-compulsive 58 neurosis" (p.301). In a pilot study they treated four jealous persons on an out-patient basis. Their treatment "combines operant conditioning with response prevention and can be termed differential reinforcement" (p.303). Patients are taught to "distinguish clearly between normal and jealous thoughts" (p.303) and to disregard the latter. The partner (object) of jealousy is taught to ignore jealous questions and reward normal questions. The ethics of this approach must be questioned. The last example has the therapist establishing definite power lines between the couple — the object is made judge and jury over his/her partner in deciding the quality of the other's questions. Given the not uncommon parentalization and sibling-rivalry couple dynamics described by Seeman (1979), the therapist in this instance may be promoting rather than neutralizing secondary gains. Cobb and Marks (1979) evaluate their outcomes on the basis of target scores for rituals and ruminations. Their criterion for improvement at follow-up was reduction of 4 or more points on an 8-point scale for much improved, 2 to 3.9 points for improved, and less than 2 points for not improved, but they do not indicate who did the rating. Rituals were much improved for two patients and improved for one, but as indicated by their table, the fourth patient actually got worse. Follow-up by Cobb and Marks varied in duration from two to fifteen months. Finally, one of their 59 patients was on an anti-depressant medication for the duration of treatment and follow-up. They report that "attempts to withdraw the drug led to an immediate increase in anxiety and deterioration in mood, but not to any change in jealous rituals" (p.303). Suffice it to say that the patient's increase in anxiety and deterioration of mood indicate that his underlying problems were still significant — rituals or no rituals. We are left with no substantive evidence for Cobb and Marks' behavioral psychotherapy. The final example from the psychiatric" literature is a case study by Turbott (1981). It makes apparent the significance of the discipline's earlier neglect in terms of focusing only on the jealous subject and not on the partner or the relationship. Turbott reports the instance of a married couple in which the husband presented with delusional jealousy which rapidly subsided with treatment. The wife in the interim "rapidly developed a florid paranoid psychosis" (p.167), refused treatment and made attempts to prevent her husband's further treatment. When his jealousy returned her psychosis remitted. Turbott concludes "clear reciprocity of psychopathology" (p.166) and cautions that "morbid jealousy may result from the unique interaction of two people" (p.166). Using his own and other examples he makes clear the importance of assessing both partners and being alert to the possibility of actively provoked jealous behaviour. 60 This review and critique has outlined the historical development of jealousy theory and treatment as documented by the discipline of psychiatry. It is apparent that the theory largely follows the tradition of Freudian psychoanalysis, focusing almost exclusively on the interpretation of underlying unconscious processes. The first intensive effort (Seeman's) to involve both partners in therapy and look closely at process and relationship dynamics appears only in 1979. No effort is made to report the client's interpretations of jealousy experiences. Although the focus of treatment is gradually more dynamic, the focus of theory remains almost exclusively with the "pathological". Generally, this tendency seems to result in a professional and lay-person tradition to view jealousy primarily as a personality trait or characteristic even though the construct "personality" has itself not been validated. Nevertheless, because any individual therapist's subjective insights and interpretations are valid inclusions to the body of knowledge, the literature contributed by this discipline continues to be useful and applicable. Psychiatry, it seems, would be well advised to continue its very recent trend toward more dynamic, interactionally-based treatment for jealousy; heed Langfeldt's (1962) inclination to de-empathsize the role of unconscious psychodynamic processes; introduce more objective and valid empirical 61 research, especially regarding their use of chemotherapy; and introduce the reporting of more subjective experiential accounts by their clients. The next section presents and critiques perspectives on jealousy from the discipline of psychology. It begins with Adler (1928) and ends with the most recent research by Aronson and Pines (1983). Perspectives from Psychology The previous section presents a chronological development of jealousy theory and its application within the discipline of psychiatry." As a speciality within medicine, psychiatry, for the most part separates itself from the rest of psychology, adhering to the analysis of unconscious processes and the diagnosis and treatment of pathology. This separation can partly be traced to the era of Adler and Jung who initiated a departure from Freudian tradition. In psychology this eventually resulted in the-emergence of several specialities and. a wide variety of theoretical perspectives. Gradually this affects jealousy theory and interventions by increasing the focus on socio-cultural, family and interpersonal dynamics and by decreasing the focus on individual pathology. The research on jealousy contributed by psychology and published prior to the mid-seventies is primarily trait-based and subjects are referred to as "jealous" or "non-62 jealous" persons. This is in spite of alternatives that were at least implied by Adler and Jung in the twenties and thirties. The 1976 appearance of Constantine's interactional model for jealousy allows for a preliminary integration of interpersonal and state-oriented perspect ives. To demonstrate the development of jealousy theory and practice within the discipline of psychology this section reviews and critiques the literature beginning with Adler (1928) and ending with the most recent research. It is a chronology with the exception that jealousy instruments, Constantine's (1976) model, Bartell's (1977) research on synergism in human relationships and the most recent research on jealousy by Aronson and Pines (1983) are extracted from the sequence and discussed together near the end of the section to facilitate integration of this and later chapters. Adler (1928) traces jealousy's origin to the first few months of life when, according to his theory, each individual is developing his life goal to overcome inherent weaknesses and feelings of inferiority. In his view, jealousy is a character trait that results from feelings of being neglected or discriminated against, and its goal is power. A 1982 translated work "Cooperation Between the Sexes" indicates that Adler's insights into the dynamics of jealous 63 behaviour emphasized issues of sexual development, but not in a Freudian deterministic sense. Adler's views were more humanistic, subordinating the sex drive to man's "evaluation of it for his own purposes. In h-is view of power, his concept of the "masculine protest" [which "is possible only in a social order of male dominance" (Adler, -1982, p. 146)] and his frequent references to the actual, socio-cultural obstacles to the female's development he implies that jealousy is more prevalent in women. Woman's real social status thus abdicates her greater need to strive for power since "no person can simply tolerate the feeling of a real or apparent inferiority" (Adler, 1982, p.144). Jung (1961) includes jealousy among his "emotional manifestations of psychosexuality" (p.115), but also notes that it "does not belong entirely to the sexual sphere" (p.154) because it "has its original stirrings in the desire for food" (p.154). He claims that it is reinforced rather than triggered by early eroticisms. Jung (1960) relates the jealousy of paranoid, chronic alcoholics to an "unconscious compensation" (p.209) for their sublimated love for their partners. This compensation is a self-effort to get back on the course of duty. The alcoholic consciously perceives that his love is entirely lost but it "can now reappear [from the unconscious] only in the form of jealousy" (p.209). Jung (1954) also uses the case study of a seven year 64 old boy to exemplify jealous rage as a compensatory power manifestation. The boy, an only child, was originally diagnosed as being mentally retarded but later intelligence tests showed the opposite. A speech impediment (later resolved by a simple surgery), lack of coordination in walking and a squint in one eye eventuated in learning and behavioural problems. When the boy was expected to compete on unfair grounds he would express rage in the form of temper tantrums, bullying and throwing things. These problems exacerabated at age five after the birth of a brother who was soon praised for doing things that were impossible for his sibling. Jung describes, in the child, a cycle of rage and vindictiveness alternating with moods of remorse and affection. This approximates the cycle described by Seeman (1979) for her adult sample discussed earlier in this chapter. Both authors emphasize the unfair expectations and judgements placed on their clients by the social groups in which they participate, thus pointing to a need for therapists to examine the situation and the roles of involved others before diagnosing individual pathology. Feelings of impotence and resulting rage may appear more purposeful and adaptive than pathological when the circumstances indicate that the individual is experiencing powerlessness. In summary, Jung's interpretations focus on situational 65 factors and are concerned with the client's goal or purpose. His brief discussions, relative to Freud's, de-emphasize the role of unconscious sexual impulses and are congruent with his "optimistic and creative view of humans" (Corey, 1977, p.19). Jung's recognition of society's role and expectations acknowledge that jealous behaviour may sometimes be the individual's best effort. Reik (1946) contends that jealousy is "a sign that something is wrong, not necessarily rotten, in the organism of love" (p.173). He believes it is a symptom not a disease and on the basis of clinical observations he notes some sex differences in terms of predominant elemental feelings, aims and behaviours. Jealousy, in Reik's (1949) view, is compounded of envy, depression and aggression. However, the female's experience consists mainly of envy and the male's of rage. The woman's aim is to defeat her rival and get back the loved object. Her fears involve loss of emotional involvement, time, attention, and security as well as threat of abandonment, so she becomes possessive and schemes. The male is more likely to experience and act out anger and rage. According to Reik, this is because the male accurately interprets that his woman's sexual involvement with another implies her emotional involvement. His aim, in Reik's view, is more often one of retaliation but his rage, emanating from a threatened sexual self-concept, renders him incapable of 66 rational thinking or scheming. Reik (1949) proposes that women react by holding on to their partners or by fighting, to win them back. Men, in contrast, will focus on images of their partner's sexual involvement with the third party and react by withdrawing, rejecting their partners or retaliat ing. Central to Reik's thesis is also a perspective of jealousy as being a symptom of low self-esteem. This review already indicates some consensus that jealousy is associated with feelings of inferiority or a low self-esteem, but' research results to be reviewed later (Buunk, 1982; Jaremko & Lindsey, 1979; Teisman & Mosher, 1978; and White, 1976, 1981) are inconsistent in this regard. The methodological problems encountered involve the conceptualization of both jealousy and self-esteem. Accordingly, Corzine (1974) cites Coopersmith (1967) and Wylie (1961) in an overview of problems inherent to the study of self-esteem and self-concept. Firstly, he observes that "the individual may or may not be aware that his expressions are spurious rather than genuine" (Corzine, 1974, p.31). The individual with low self-regard may thus be effectively or ineffectively concealing it from himself and/or others. Secondly, he observes that personal values associated with labelled high and low self-esteem "make it difficult to arrive at commonly accepted norms for scientific evaluation"'(p.32). He notes that some 67 investigators assume arrogance, vanity, egotism, pride and narcissism are associated with very high self-esteem, while inferiority, timidity, lack of personal acceptance, self-hatred and submissiveness are associated with low self-esteem. However, these assumptions have not been validated and in this author's view, it is also very important to consider that self-esteem may be dynamic and changing rather than static. Therefore, empirical measurement and comparison of it with other constructs such as jealousy should involve, minimally, a time series approach. In terms of phenomenological approaches, this author, is in agreement with Corzine who underscores Wylie's criticisms by saying they neglect "drives and unconscious motivations outside the phenomenal field" (Corzine, 1974, p.35), thus seemingly assuming that human behaviours, including jealousy behaviours, will be influenced only by self-perceptions that we are aware of. Wylie (1974) re-emphasizes these views. Thus, a combined approach may result in a more precise understanding of jealousy's affiliation with self-esteem. The first author in the discipline to suggest specific interventions is Ard (1967) who stresses the importance of clear communication to avoid destructive reactions to jealousy. Emphasizing that jealous behaviours are dependent on underlying assumptions he recommends that each partner detail his/her limits of acceptable behaviour with extradyadic, opposite-sex persons. This exchange should be 68 reviewed as the relationship progresses. Trust, clear committment and explicit communication are the essence of a successful relationship in this author's view. Beecher and Beecher (1971), students of Adler's, wrote "The Mark of Cain" addressing the issues of jealousy and jealous competition. Unfortunately, they do not distinguish between jealousy and envy, and although they make frequent general references to Adler's spoken and written philosophies, they do not refer to any of his specifics about jealousy. Instead,, they rely predominantly oh personal interpretations of Biblical passages. The book is prefaced with a New Testament citation, "for where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there will be disorder and every vile practice" (James 3:16, R.S.V.). A review of Elliot's (1967) glossary indicates that this may well be an archaic use of the word jealousy which more literally connotes envy. Jealousy is discussed in an exclusively pejorative way by Beecher and Beecher (1971). In their view it is always symptomatic, pathological or destructive. They say "no one in history has spoken well of jealousy, except perhaps the person who tries to excuse himself in order to hide it from himself" (p.5). However, their discussion neglects the Old Testament claim "I am a jealous God" (Exodus 20:5, R.S.V.). Is the Christian God making negative self-references or is he/she stating an intention to zealously protect his perceived rights and privileges which are the foundations of 69 Christian philosophy and practice? The Beechers, in spite of their restricted views and tendency to confuse jealousy with envy, address its frequently mentioned association with power and competitiveness. Unfortunately, their analogies always associate jealous behaviours with the seeking of a superior power. This neglects the complexity of emotions in general and jealousy in particular. The authors do not consider any useful purpose or potentially positive intention or motivation for either jealousy or power. They neglect interpersonal dynamics, situational factors, and the perspective that an individual, in circumstances which indeed render him/her very vulnerable, may seek and have a fundamental need for 'more' but not necessarily 'superior' power. Jealousy, in these circumstances, may be protective, defensive or adaptive rather than destructive and pathological. Their text makes few therapeutic suggestions beyond interpreting for the individual how his jealous comparisons destroy his creativity and initiative and keep him infantile and dependent. May (1972) discusses jealousy as a problem of power and love claiming that some aspect of it is healthy but more typically it "leaves the realms of normal caring....[and] characterizes the relationship in which one seeks more power than love" (p.117). He also says that "it is an impotence that arises in direct proportion to the impotence of the 70 individual" (p.117). He associates jealousy with low-self esteem, powerlessness and resulting struggles for rights, privileges and freedom. From his perspective, violence occurs when the person experiencing jealousy actually can do nothing, has no power and experiences himself as being left •out in the cold. Like Adler and Jung, he therefore implies that jealousy's relationship with power is more than intrapsychically determined. May (1972) accomplishes a holistic perspective on power by including and transcending a continuum of positives and negatives. However, his proposed relationship between jealousy and power falls short of holism. A clear understanding of May's thesis about power will facilitate a new thesis about jealousy. May (1972) says "power is essential for all living things" (p.19) and discusses polarities in terms of how power emerges in the infant and developing human. One pole is competitive and demanding, while the other is cooperative. He names five ontological levels of power including the power to be, self-affirmation, self-assertion, aggression and violence. Each of these levels exist in all humans as a potentiality and "in the right situation can be whipped into action" (p.42). Aggression and violence occur only when the other levels have been blocked or are ineffective. He says "power is always interpersonal; if it is purely personal we call it strength" (p.35). He 71 emphasizes a modern day tendency, that is "a reaction against the destructive effects of the misuse of. power" (May, 1972, p.20), to view power in a pejorative way rather than as a significant, fundamental aspect of the life process. May (1972) defines power as "the ability to cause or prevent change" (p.99), pointing out that it can be viewed in actual or potential terms. He names five types of power — exploitative, manipulative, competitive, nutrient and integrative. Only the last two need some explanation. Nutrient power, he says is "for the other" (p.109) and he exemplifies it along a range from that power a parent exerts in caring for his/her child to the power potentially expressed through statesmanship at its best. Integrative power, ultimately the most altruistic type, is "with the other person" (p.109). It is "a dialectic process of thesis, antithesis and synthesis... there is one body, then its antibody, and growth proceeds by the repulsion or attraction of these two into a new body" (May, 1972, p.110). He exemplifies integrative power in Ghandi's use of it through nonviolence and in instances when the creator of an idea solicits a polar response in an interpersonal exchange in order to stimulate creativity. May's concept of power is holistic and synergistic because it transcends the continuum by using three conceptual points thus intersecting a new plane. In this way May supports this author's model for 72 emotions as proposed in chapter one. With these ideas in mind May's (1972) thesis about power can be applied to expand the concept of jealousy. There is general agreement in the literature that jealousy elementally involves at least some aspect of power. However, the trend has been toward to associate it with the pejorative, destructive side of power. In congruence with this trend May applies his exploitative, competitive and manipulative types of power to jealousy. Considering both pejorative and positive labels', w'e can see jealousy as highly destructive or highly constructive. It can be viewed as occurring internally and/or expressed externally in association with each of May's five types of power, including the nutrient and the integrative types. Jealousy can then be constituted by an exercise of and/or need for power existing with the same potentialities in relation to each of his five ontological levels, from the power "to be" to the powers in/of self-affirmation, self-assertion, aggression and violence. As May (1972) says of power, possibly any of these levels can also be "whipped into action" (p.42) in various experiences of jealousy. Like power, jealousy (and most other emotions if we consider the theories of Izard and Solomon reviewed earlier) motivates and its purpose is to create change. "What it achieves" (as is the central question asked by May of power) may be something that is truly creative in the positive 73 sense, or something that is very destructive, or something that lies between or at a third point "beyond" these polarities. Ellis (1972) calls jealousy "sex-love tearfulness" (p.118) and distinguishes between rational and irrational jealousy. Rational jealousy "is based on the logico-empirical observations" (p.118). Irrational jealousy, in contrast, "is one of the common forms of emotional disturbance" (p.119). He says it "is an idiosyncratic reaction to someone blocking you" (p.120) and sees along with it an illogical belief system that is "dogmatic, absolutistic ... and exactly like those in which orthodox religionists devoutly believe" (p.121). Ellis' test for the level of rationality the individual, can attribute to his/her jealous feelings is a rather simplistic check for their logical connection with scientifically observable evidence. Some difficulty is to be expected in applying this theory which lacks affiliation with the major theories of emotion. Firstly, "the" logic is his logic; secondly, his theory excludes the possibility of the emotion having any phenomenological aspect; thirdly, he implies that emotion not only has no independent status, but serves little or no purpose beyond serving as a warning signal for things gone wrong in the cognitive bank; finally, it denies the possibility of intuition. Corzine (1974), cited above in reference to his 74 critique of self-esteem methodologies, tests the association of integrative/dis-integrative personality processes and. jealousy. He claims and provides support to indicate that an integrative/dis-integrative schema is structured into the "Butler-Haigh Q-Sort" instrument that he uses. This instrument, designed by Carl Rogers and associates "to measure changes effected by therapeutic attention over a specific periodof time" (Corzine, 1974, p.76), is usually administered in a pre-therapy/post-therapy fashion. Corzine uses an adapted version to measure "the notion of self-concept based on subjects' self-descriptions" (p.76) to characterize "jealous" and "non-jealous" persons. He associates high self-esteem and the self-actualizing individual with integrative personality processes and low self-esteem or the non self-actualizing individual with dis integrative personality processes. Dis-integrative means a "movement away from integrity and in the direction of conflict" (Corzine, 1974, p.176), rather than a dividing or destruction of the psyche. Corzine was theory-testing by way of of Q-methodology and F-test procedures. This methodology uses small samples and tests theories "by way of singular propositions that may be derivative of a particular theory" (p.76). His singular proposition, in essence, views perception of self as a possible personality dimension in a larger theory of jealousy. He acknowledges that this proposition reflects 75 only on the internal experience. In this author's view, it is also important to remember that Corzine's conclusions are derived from a unidimensional assessment of jealousy dynamics that also excludes the role(s) of involved others. An homogenous sample of 38 "jealous" and 38 "non-jealous" persons were identified solely on the basis of their self-report that jealousy either was or was not a significant problem for them in terms of their attitudes and relationships. Corzine's sampling and procedures thus assume that jealousy is dispositional. The current research assumes jealousy to be dynamically rather than statically, and interpersonally as well as intrapersonally experienced. Hence, it is relevant to conceive of alternate explanations for some of Corzine's conclusions and to suggest that had he tested the partners (jealous objects) and involved others (jealous agents) as well as his jealous "subjects" at various points in time, he may have found that all parties were, overall, similarly affected by the jealousy "process" in terms of their self-esteems and self-actualization. Accordingly, Rogers (1972), to whom Corzine attributes the original design of the instrument, questioned jealousy moreso in the context of relationship, socio-cultural and group-influenced dynamics than as a personality characteristic. Even Rogers' suggestion of territoriality as a possible biological aspect of jealousy suggests interpersonal and possibly group 76 involvement. Also, the limitations discussed earlier, in terms of self-esteem as a construct are inherent to Corzine's own design. Corzine's subjects each sorted, into -9 piles, 97 cards containing 36 integrative items (e.g., "I am a responsible person") and 61 dis-integrative items (e.g., "I have a-feeling of hopelessness"). Beforehand, all items had been judged to belong to either category on the basis of a two out of three vote by an independent panel of three psychologists. Each subject used a recording sheet that structured the number of cards from each category that would be allotted to each of the nine piles. On completion of the sorting this results in a normal distribution reflecting a range from "most like me" to "least like me". Subgroupings of his sample were structured into his six hypotheses. Testing of the first null hypothesis showed significant differences between jealous and non-jealous adults. Corzine concludes that "fewer strategems, both conscious and unconscious, are required by them [the non-jealous group] in order to cope" (p.151). Viewed differently, in terms of triangular group dynamics, this conclusion wants for consideration of what it is about the process that requires more coping on the part of the jealous subject. For example, an analysis of power in the triangle suggests that the subject, because he/she is experiencing the threat of loss, is temporarily in a lower position relative to both 77 object and agent. Hence, he/she will indeed require additional coping mechanisms, and more than the others., if change is to occur and if dynamic equilibrium is to be re established. Several other subgroupings by sex and a total of six null hypotheses about integrative/dis-integrative processes were used by Corzine (1974) to characterize the "jealous person" and the "non-jealous person". At issue, given these a priori characterizations, is his conflicting use of socio-culturally based and state-oriented rather than' trait-oriented interpretations. For example, he finds no significant differences between jealous males (JM) and nqn-jealous males (NJM) but significant differences between jealous females (JF) and non-jealous females (NJF). His interpretation includes, in the first instance, that NJM do not measure differently than JM in terms of integrative/dis integrative processes because "viewing the love-object as his property, he externalizes his perception of the jealous circumstance" (Corzine, 1974, p.153). His evidence indicating more integration among JF when compared with NJF is likewise interpreted socio-culturally and grounded in western society's sanctioning of woman's vulnerabilities via traditional role expectations so that: Jealousy is readily perceived by the female as an internal problem... [and] she, in contrast to the male, senses that her personal inadequacies are finally responsible for the circumstances which precipitate her jealous feelings" (Corzine, 1974, p.156). 78 Corzine incorporates socio-cultural and interactionally-based interpretations that would be more adequately supported by comparing "jealous triangles" with "non-jealous triangles" followed by inter-group analysis of individual and reciprocal roles. If the societal process affects individual experiences as much as is indicated by Corzine's interpretations then it likewise requires grounding in the analysis of interpersonal and group processes. Alternatively, individual comparisons which exclude object and agent require incorporation of both objective and subjective-experiential accounts by the subjects as well as a relinquishing of the tendency to label the individual on the basis of a single emotion which probably has only .temporary meaning to their life process. However, it must be remembered that Corzine was researching jealousy before the 1976 introduction of Constantine's interactional model which is discussed toward the end of this section. The expanded perspectives on jealousy provided by his model are evidenced in several of the following studies. For example, a new approach for working with jealousy is suggested by Clanton and Smith (1977) who direct their text at the "subject" of jealousy, without discounting the roles of involved others. Their interventions incorporate an intial stock-taking to determine type of jealousy, contribution of mood and kind of work to be done on the 79 relationship. They view jealousy as a catalyst for self-improvement and for strengthening intimacy. The authors suggest an opening of communication channels by talking first about past experiences, then sharing fantasies and discussing issues of distrust, deception and manipulation and eventually progressing to candid discussion of important issues. They acknowledge a physiological "jealous flash", emphasize the "fear of loss" component of the emotion, and recognize jealousy as a trigger for constructive communication which "leads to clarification of"needs, meanings, beliefs and values" (p.213). Then Francis (1977) examines aspects of jealousy-related-couple-communication. She analyzes them in terms of the experience and expression of the emotion, disclosing several barriers that provide for a (negative) enhancement of the jealousy response. Her inventive methodology incorporates a structured interview before subjects know jealousy is being investigated. Both partners are simultaneously involved in a Likert rating of potentially jealousy-evoking situations. The interviewer questions one partner while the other observes through a one-way glass, second-guessing his/her partner's written, anonymous responses. Four questionnaires are administered after the interview. Francis (1977) shows evidence for wide individual, variations in jealousy experience, especially in terms of 80 eliciting factors and manner of expression but also regarding the attribution of infidelity to self and partner, the source and significance of jealous feelings and the means of coping. Social undesirablity of the jealous response inhibits communication and prevents basic recognition of these discrepancies. Therefore she directs intervention at the communcation system and recommends dealing with jealousy as a neutral phenomenon. Like Ard (1967), she suggests clarifying underlying assumptions and working through hypothetical extradyad'ic situations but cautions that open communication must, be followed by. negotiations toward mutually acceptable rules and boundaries if jealousy problems are to be prevented or withstood by the relationship. Shettel-Neuber, Bryson and Young (1978) examine the effects of subject's sex and physical attractiveness of a third party interloper in terms of the expression of jealousy. They assess "projected" responses to video-taped, simulated, jealousy-evoking situations, using 42 male and 41 female undergraduate students. Attractiveness is manipulated for the different experimental conditions by alterations in fashion, clothing, hairstyle, skin condition and physical movements. Analysis of variance revealed significant differences due to sex, attractiveness, or the interaction of both, for 12 of their 36 dependent measures. Regardless of sex, subjects were more likely to feel angry 81 or embarassed when the interloper was unattractive. The authors explain this as being "due to the social situation and/or the differing nature of the threat that an unattractive interloper seems to present" (Shettel-Neuber et al., 1978, p.614). Males in their study were more likely to initiate angry and/or aggressive behaviours as a response. Examples included that they would get angry with themselves, get drunk or high and verbally threaten the other person. Although this finding supports earlier views (cf . Reik, 1949; Corzine, 1974 ) , Shettel-Neuber et al. do not discuss possible confounds in terms of the specific age range and particular social milieu of their male subjects. Males were also more likely to report feeling "flattered" by the interloper's actions and more "turned on" by their partners while females reported that they would be more likely to cry when alone, make themselves more attractive to their partner and try to make their partner think they didn't care. Again these findings support other views about the effects of sex-role traditionalism and resulting distinctions in terms of power diffusion (cf. Adler 1928, 1982; May, 1972; Corzine, 1974; and White, 1981) . Males were also more likely to report that they would start going out with other people and become more sexually aggressive with others if the interloper was attractive, but 82 females were more likely to respond in these ways when the interloper was unattractive. To explain these differences, the authors say: If we assume that an attractive interloper is seen as more threatening to the relationship, then as the threat increases males become more likely to seek solace or to bolster their ego by pursuing alternative relationships. Females, on the other hand, become less likely to engage in behaviors that might accent the threat to the existing relationship (Shettel-Neuber et al., 1978, p.614). The researchers also examine possible personality correlates (locus of control, self-esteem' and body image) of the various jealousy reactions but findings are not significant. They conclude that "the present results suggest that situational or cultural factors (e.g., sex-role) are more important than personality characteristics in determining the nature and magnitude of jealousy reactions" (Shettel-Neuber et all, 1978, p.615). Their research reveals that "males' and females' projected responses to a jealousy-evoking situation are qualitatively different" (p.615). However, it is again difficult to generalize the findings because of the possibility that actual life circumstances might elicit different reactions than simulated events. Also, it is quite possible that some of his socio-cultural explainations can be accounted for more by age and sub-cultural milieu than by sex in the instance of this university undergraduate sample. 83 The late part of the last decade evidenced prolific research on jealousy aimed at model and. instrument development, attempts at the isolation o.f potential correlates and further development of therapeutic interventions. The research since then has remained predominantly empirical and the problems continue to be conceptual and methodological. The tendency to subgroup individuals as "jealous" and "non-jealous" persons is still apparent (e.g., Jaremko & Lindsey, 1979) and results in inconsistent findings. Model development (White, 1976) encounters the conceptual misplacement of self-esteem. Instrument development encounters many problems, the most poignant being the difficulty with distinguishing jealousy from other emotions, especially envy. On the positive side, there is an increased focus on jealousy roles and role reciprocity in theory development (Buunk, 1982, Teisman & Mosher, 1978) and in therapy development (Daher & Cohen, 1979; Teisman, 1979). The themes of power, sexuality and sex differences continue and remain pertinent. Jealousy is gradually recognized more as a complex interactional process than as an isolated intrapsychic dynamic and in 1982 the first phenomenology by Barrell and Richards appears. The remainder of this section reviews and critiques the studies mentioned in these developments. Then a regression is made in the chronology to discuss Constantine's interactional model. This is followed by a brief 84 introduction to Bartell's (1977) research on synergism in human relationships and an overview and critique of jealousy instruments. Finally, the most recent research by Aronson and Pines (1983) is discussed. This format is used to facilitate integration of this and later chapters. Teisman and Mosher (1978) examine sex differences including some of those suggested by Reik. Using eighty, predominantly Caucasian (98%), Roman Catholic (57%), unmarried, heterosexual couples they made random assignments by sex to (4) jealous and (4) non-jealous role-playing conditions in which one partner assumed a distancing role while the other improvised efforts to overcome the distance and re-establish closeness. The authors found that, overall, subjects in distancing roles and experiencing jealousy used significantly more rejection and coercion than did subjects who enacted distancing for non-jealous reasons. However, no sex differences were noted in that regard. Men tended to select sexual issues of jealousy while women selected jealousy issues involving loss of time and attention. However, it is noteworthy that the authors assess jealousy in terms of initial confrontation and not long-term patterns. They conclude that: While seeming to contradict the idea that jealous conflict has an escalating and resolution-resisting nature in terms of the quantity of verbal acts, there does seem to be some evidence that the quality of verbal behavior (more rejection and coercion) reflects the idea of the resolution-resisting nature of jealous conflict in comparison to other interpersonal conflict (Teisman & Mosher, 1978, p.1215). \ 85 Conceived in terms of threatened loss, their subjects' initial rejection and coercion might also be explained as the denial stage of an anticipatory grief reaction. It may also be that the traditional pejorative labels attached to jealousy discouraged its open acknowledgement by their jealous subjects leading to more indirect efforts to communicate and precluding more effective resolution-seeking. Although Teisman. and" MO she r found support for. Reik's (1949, 1952) proclaimed sex differences regarding issues of the male focusing more on his partner's sexual involvement with others and the female on her fears of time loss, they found no sex differences in terms of resource issues, possibly, as they suggest, because the individuals in their couples were not economically interdependent. A problem-solving therapy directed at the jealous system is suggested by Teisman (1979). "The system includes not only the couple, but also the rival, the therapist and the norms of the subculture" (p.153). He describes the concept of the therapeutic triangle as well as the use of paradox and symptom transfer and stresses the importance of incorporating into the couple system an attitude of serious playfulness. Teisman's therapy has many favourble points, but this author questions its very directive and behavioural approach 86 as well as its demand for a "continual use of strategies by the therapist in order to realize, goals" (p.153). Many counsellors might also find difficult Teisman's suggestions for the therapist to assume control of the therapeutic triangle by, for instance, phoning the rival in front of the couple and requesting him/her to participate in therapy. He claims that the rival usually refuses and at this point the therapist should tell him/her to continue the extramarital contact to facilitate the therapist in knowing how to treat the couple. This is done to "ritualize the therapist's control and exclude the rival through the rival's refusal" (p.153). The rationale underlying this intervention is sound in viewing the jealous system as one that is overpermeable and in need of temporary boundaries. In question is Teisman's "means" which might be acceptable only to the highly directive counsellor. Perhaps more widely acceptable is Teisman's (1979) use of reframing and symptom transfer through language alteration. He notes that "society orchestrates the labelling and consequently the emotional experience of jealousy" (p.153). Hence, words such as passionate, sexually-curious, loyal, zealous, imaginative and sensitive are injected by the therapist to accent the positive polarity of jealous behaviour, to alter perspectives, promote action and provide hope for the system. In symptom transfer, the therapist ascribes to the non-jealous person, 87 emotions and reactions similar to those of the jealous person. The purpose is to re-direct the latter away from his/her self-focusing and more toward their partner's struggles. The principle is that change will be facilitated once the couple recognizes that similar emotions permeate all parts of the system. The dependent member thus has an opportunity to become the helper. Daher and Cohen (1979) suggest group therapy for couples and present the conceptual base and format for a workshop, involving a five-phase process: 1. recognition of jealousy 2. labelling aspects of jealousy (labelling and cognitive effects on jealousy behaviors) 3. communication about jealousy with.others 4. acceptance of jealousy as a legitimate possible aspect of relationships, and 5. focusing on options that may induce resolution (Daher & Cohen, 1979, p.480). They direct participants through these phases, using three learning modalities — "building a cognitive model, sharing structured experiential tasks, and applying behavioral options to actual relationship-dilemmas" (p.481-482). Group' theory is well managed within their format. Returning to theory development, Jaremko and Lindsey (1979) hypothesized that non-jealous persons would cope with the stress of difficult self-disclosure better than jealous persons. The purpose of their study was "to study the jealous person's response tendency in coping with social stress" (p.548). They taught 17 "jealous" and 13 "non-jealous" subjects a cognitive, reversal-of-affect technique 88 as the test condition. Private, tape-recorded, self-disclosure sessions served as the social stressor. Six questionnaire items were ranked from most intimate to least intimate by all subjects and items ranked 1, 3 and -5 were used for the pre-test while items 2, 4 and 6 were used for the post-test. No control group was formed. The authors did not find evidence to support their hypothesis. The reported key problem with their experiment is common — identifying jealous persons from non-jealous persons. They used Bringle's (1979) "Self-Report Jealousy Scale" and found it to be susceptible to social desirability. Even though their sample of 30 for the test condition consisted of only the very highest and the very lowest scorers from an original pool of 80, they eventually imply a total lack of confidence in terms of distinguishing jealous from non-jealous persons by self-report measures. They say "it may well have been that people [who measured] low in jealousy were in fact masked highly jealous persons" (p.554). In the final analysis, the age-old assumption that jealousy is a personality trait underlies the many problems with comparative measurements. They mention several other possible confounds and finally conclude that it may be more useful to view jealousy as resulting from "certain situations that could be elicited in most people" (p.553). It therefore seems evident that this experiment is an example supports the idea that empirical research used alone 89 is less than efficient in terms of producing results that lead to a greater understanding, of the human experience of, jealousy. Using the same sample for three studies, White (1976, 1980, 1981a) discusses a power-and-dependency perspective on "romantic" jealousy. His 1977 study explores model development with threat to self-esteem conceptualized as. the first of three stages of "romantic jealousy". His first stage has two components including "feelings of anger over the alternative relationship and feelings of inadequacy as a partner that develop as a .consequence of the alternative relationship" (p.51). White (1976) measures jealousy•with his 17-scale "Relationships Questionnaire" developed for the study and hypothesizes (among other things) that perceived threat to self-esteem, due to partner's involvement with a rival, would predict later feelings of inadequacy, perceived threat to the relationship, anger and fights. His analysis of .data collected from a survey of 150 couples did not generate results to support these predictions. He concludes that "in the absence of evidence, a new model of jealousy is required where self-esteem is relegated to a more peripheral role" (p.135). In a later paper, White (1980) reports that females are more likely to induce sexual jealousy than are males, especially if they are in a low-power position relative to 90 their partner. He considers that being more involved in the relationship indicates a relatively less powerful position. The subjects* self-reported motives for inducing jealousy were most frequently, to test the relationship, followed by a desire to increase rewards, for revenge, to bolster self-esteem, and least often, as a form of punishment. Level of involvement in the relationship was not relevant to these various motives. Females more frequently reported inducing jealousy in order to gain a specific reward and' so White (1980') explains that "female exercise of power is stereotypically constrained to indirect and personal forms of power ... males, on the other hand, are more free to exercise direct and concrete power" (p.226). He suggests, in the final analysis, that ordinary jealousy is related to the ways in which the couple share power. Unlike many earlier suggestions, White decides this is related more to the shaping of the relationship than to the individual personalities. Possible correlates of romantic jealousy including self-esteem, self-esteem dependence, exclusivity, feelings of inadequacy as a partner, romanticism, sex role traditionalism, dependence on the relationship, perceived dependence of partner, birth order and relationship stage are examined in White's (1981a) study. The last three failed to predict jealousy. Expectations of sexual 91 exclusivity and feelings of inadequacy as a partner were the only variables that were predictive of jealousy for both sexes. Self-esteem dependence was positively correlated with jealousy for males but not for females and the traditional male was more likely than other males to rate himself as jealous. White decides that this has to do a belief, fixed in the traditional role, which holds that woman is more monogamous or faithful than man and so any attraction she has to another man will be over interpreted by her partner. However, sex role traditionalism was not predictive of jealousy in females and he explains that this may,be because traditional females no longer endorse the double standard assumptions that male attractions to others are not serious. High self-eseem males were found to be less jealous than low self-esteem males. To explain why self-esteem predicts male and not female jealousy White (1981a) discusses sexual prestige, suggesting that it may be a component of self-esteem that is captured by feelings of inadequacy (as a partner) and therefore related to perception of threat for men but not for women. Dependence on the relationship was the only variable that White (1981a) found to be independently predictive of female jealousy. He explains this as: being rooted in an economic structure that creates more relationship dependency in women than in men. A female's material and social status as well as her self-esteem may be more related to maintaining a 92 relationship than is true for men. If a real or potential rival attraction exists, the threat would be consequently greater than for the male. The dependent male may have, or find it easier to develop, alternative sources of esteem and status and hence would be less affected by a perceived attraction (White, 1981a, p.144). This explanation recalls Mead's (1931) rejection of the "jealous woman" stereotype presented earlier in this chapter. White's three studies add to and synthesize socio-cultural perspectives on jealousy-related sex differences. His explanations are insightful and supported by earlier-views and research in addition to his own data.' However, it must be kept in mind that his sample was very homogeneous, consisting of predominantly white (84%), university students (91%). As he acknowledges, very few couples (16%) were engaged or married and so level of committment may have seriously affected his findings. Finally, his static measurement of self-esteem may have been confounding. Buunk (1982) examines the relationship between anticipated sexual jealousy and several variables including self-esteem, emotional dependency and reciprocity. He uses three male/female samples differing in age, socio-economic status and extra-marital or extra-relationship sexual involvement. The samples are large (125 men and 125 women in both first and second samples and 242 men and 138 women in the third sample) and heterogeneous including wide age ranges and varying relationship structures. Again, the 93 situations are hypothetical and hence his use of the term "anticipated". The author does not establish significant correlations between anticipated sexual jealousy and self-esteem for either males or females. Again, we are reminded of the inconsistencies in jealousy/self-esteem research and of White's (1977) suggestion that self-esteem be "relegated to a more peripheral role" (p.135) in building models for jealousy. Buunk (1982) finds negative correlations (-.79, -.55 and -.67 at p<.001, respectively for the 3 samples ) between intended extramarital involvement and anticipated jealousy. He concludes that "the higher one's intention to-become involved in extramarital sexual behavior, the lower one's jealousy" (p.314). He provides some substantiation that this relationship is not explained by the influence of a third factor such as emotional dependency, the extramarital activities of the spouse or self-representational bias. Using exchange theory his explanation is that: People will react less jealously when they themselves feel a need to engage in extramarital sexual behavior. In such a case it may be felt unjustified to manifest jealousy, even when this emotion is felt. By the same token, someone who refrains from extramarital sex will react jealously when the partner does engage in extramarital activities because the norm of reciprocity is violated (Buunk, 1982, p.311). As the author suggests, this finding warrants further investigation to determine whether the association holds when real behaviours are incorporated. However, typical 94 problems are evident in his design. For instance, he did not use the word 'jealousy' in his measure of the emotion because he wished to control for the usual artifact created by its negative connotations. This he felt was especially relevant to his correlations of jealousy and self-esteem because use of the term might increase the likelihood that people with poor self-images would describe themselves by using it. However, not using it and instead relying on indirect terminology, leaves the reader totally reliant on the validity of his five situational* elicitors in terms of. evoking jealousy and not some other emotion in his subjects. Barrell and Richards (1982) use a phenomenological approach. They focus their subjects on what it is like to be in the experience of feeling jealous and they identify four necessary and sufficient factors. The first is that "a person focuses on a single desirable aspect of another person's experience of relationship with an object, event, or person" (p.42). Secondly, it must be perceived that the other's experience is desirable to him/her and to ourselves. Thirdly, he/she "must feel it difficult or impossible to have the desirable experience of the other person" (p.43). Finally, there must be an "absence of feeling the person [object] to be deserving" (p.43). Implementing these four experiential components, Barrell and Richards (1982) recommend that a necessary and sufficient way for overcoming jealousy is to learn "a sense 95 of relatedness or connectedness with others" so that we believe that "other persons are deserving of what comes to them simply because they exist as human beings like ourselves" (p.44). They suggest self-exploration that leads to an understanding of how we create our own unique experience of jealousy and they profess that we must learn to include others in our boundaries as being the same in terms of being part of a greater whole. The authors distinguish between relatedness and identification. The former recognizes, that "each of us wants to be our own' person" (p.45) but we are all broadly related to others. The latter is "generally forced and one-sided" (p.45) and observes the other person as an object, resulting in a sense of togetherness that "does not derive from a shared and trusted mutuality" (p.45). The authors recommend further research on jealousy that is aimed at encouraging individuals to explore their own jealousy experiences and share them through disclosure in a controlled setting. Their article contributes something new and different to our understanding. However, their most emphasized intervention recommends a fundamental change in a belief system that may be unconsciously motivated while their data emanates only from consciously perceived "awarenesses", thus not accounting for aspects of human experience that are outside the phenomenal field. This problem with phenomenologies is discussed in the earlier 96 critique of self-esteem methodologies. Again, combined approaches may transcend the deficiencies of using either alone. The model discussed below will facilitate this and other preliminary studies which incorporate a process perspective on jealousy and a combined approach to research. Constantine (1976) suggests a contextual structure of jealousy and a sequential, transformational model which gives jealous behaviour a level within a situational context. His model and theory were developed from interviews, questionnaires and in situ observations of jealousy behaviours in multilateral relationships. He defines jealousy as "a defensive response to a particular kind of situation which is perceived as threatening to a valued relationship" (p.385). Jealousy, in Constantine's (1976) view is a process that involves initial perceptions, then interpretations which generate feelings that may or may not be expressed behaviourally. The context always involves three positions: an actor (person) who has a relationship with object (another person), and an agent (that need not, but may be a person). The actor "perceives an impending loss of something valued which [he/she] has in the relationship with object" (p.385). The actor also "experiences primary and possible secondary emotional responses to the loss or threat and behaves in 'jealous manner' toward both object and agent. 97 Constantine's (1976) model accounts for jealousy that is either automatic and non-sequential or, more commonly, sequential. The former results in behaviour that is a "programmed response triggered by a set of situational cues with little, if any, intervening interpretation of affectual experience" (p.387). This behavioural type is expected but unfelt and emanates from "societal and familial conditioning or expectations of jealousy in specific circumstances independent of any perception of loss" (p.387). Sequential jealousy, on the other hand, involves a process that begins with perception and culminates in behaviour. The actor's personal sense of security or insecurity in the relationship and his ability or tendency to perceive situations synergically, act as perceptual filters. Both determine the readiness or ease with which he/she perceives a situation as potentially threatening and consequently the likelihood that he/she will express jealousy. The individual whose perception is highly synergic has a way of organizing his/her reality that allows for an "essential unity and interdependence of dichotomies" (Constantine, 1976, p.387). The security-insecurity threshold is also affected by a multitude of factors, but especially important are the degree and nature of the actor-object committment, the personal maturity of both partners and the longevity of their relationship. ,-Eventual jealousy behaviours, if they occur, are of 98 four types including isolational, antagonistic, redefinitional and/or resolutional. However, Constantine (1976) stresses that jealous behaviour is "almost a unique personal statement" (p.390). This is in contrast to primary jealousy affect which he claims to be very consistent across people. By his report, initial feelings include "anxiety (or fear) connected with perceived threat of loss, and hurt (or emotional pain) associated with perceived actual loss" (p.389). Anxiety and hurt in jealousy situations are often quickly transformed into secondary emotional responses such as grief, despair and guilt if the person's style is to internalize or anger, rage and hate if the person's style is to externalize. Jealous behaviours in this model are seen as positive in terms of their intention to maintain the pair-boundary system and to the extent that they result in effective resolution and reintegration. Isolational behaviour such as withholding, silence, refusal to fight or negotiate, and silence or separation are thus less functional because the pair-contact is not maintained. Antagonistic and redefinitional behaviours are more effective but the latter involve an intellectualization (e.g., the problem is 'infidelity' or 'seductive men') that "unites the pair against a common enemy ... [but] potentially at the expense of real resolution" (Constantine, 1976, p.393). This model involves several other transformations 99 between initial perception and eventual consequences of jealous behaviours. Each provides for a potential entry point for interventions when jealousy is problematic. Basic to these interventions is helping the couple to recognize the emotion, the purpose it serves and the potential it has to trigger more effective communication that will result in a clarification of values, beliefs, committment and individual/couple boundaries. He stresses the importance of getting to the source of fears and clarifying the type of loss that is perceived, actual or impending. Constantine (1976), therefore, names several different types of loss including: 1. Loss of face, status, ego-hancement, etc. 2. Loss of need gratification, including sexual,-intellectual, emotional and other needs. 3. Loss of control over Object, of control over Actor's own life, of power in relation to Object. 4. Loss of predictability, dependability of behavior of Object in relation to Actor. 5. Loss of privacy, territory, exclusive access, etc. 6. Loss of actual time with Object, contact, etc. (Constantine, 1976, p.395). Constantine's presentation of a triadic structure and a situational context for jealousy eliminates the need for its usual categorization as sexual, heterosexual, time, opportunity, etc. More important is an examination of wants under the wants, source of fears and type of loss. His model allows for a value-free approach to theory development and clinical practice. Jealousy, in his view, can be "a highly useful interpersonal process" (p.391) or it can "work 100 to the disadvantage of all" (p.391). At the most fundamental level of his model is the individual's perception of the situation and Constantine (1976) hypothesizes that the resulting "jealous behavior is correlated with synergic perception" (p.397). Unfortunately, this hypothesis cannot be tested empirically at this time because a suitable instrument is not available. Constantine's Contrast Scale (1974) was designed to meet this need but its inclusion in the pilot study for the current project revealed several problems. Among them, the most pertinent were that its small number of items (14), relative to number of items in Aronson and Pines' (1982) jealousy instrument, did not allow for obtaining the necessary spread to demonstrate any correlations that may exist. Also, his items are forced choice and were drawn from the "synergy" subscale of Shostrum's (1974) "Personal Orientation Inventory" which is scored ipsatively. This item-format and type of scoring depend on the individual's "pattern of relative preference, and the base line is the individual himself" (Thorndike, 1969, p.394). Hence, extracting one subscale to create a separate new instrument does not allow for establishing reliability or validity by comparison with statistics established for Shostrum's instrument. Finally, in Bartell's (1977) view the synergic mind is sane, rational and ethical and operates in a mode that cannot be measured solely by the cognitive ability to 101 transcend dichotomies. Therefore, constantine's Contrast Scale (1971), measures only part of the construct because the items require only simplistic cognitive decisions and the most socially desirable response is quite apparent. Although synergic perception in the individual is not yet empirically measurable, synergism in human relationships has been closely examined by Bartell (1977). She used grounded theory (a qualitative research methodology) to study pair relationships that were reported (by the individuals constituting them and' by others) to be highly synergistic. These relationships were not only couple/lover relationships but also same-sex and opposite-sex, co-worker and professional relationships. She found, among many other things, that synergistic pairs were represented by the individual and pair blending of four sets of paradoxical qualities including the realistic/imaginative, the individualistic/collective, the serious/playful and the masculine/feminine. For instance, when the individuals in a relationship each contribute both traditionally feminine-positive and traditionally masculine-positive qualities the relationship dynamics will be more synergistic. Bartell found this to be true in terms of the interactions between the two persons and in terms of couple-interact ion with others. West's (1983) design of a group workshop for couples experiencing problematic jealousy includes several exercises 1 02 aimed at improving couple communication. One of them incorporates Bartell's (1977) four categories into a shared assessment of relationship synergism. The process of the exercise is as important as the actual decisions arrived at by the couple. For instance, in moving through the structured format of the exercise couples become aware of the need to arrive at some harmony in terms of being- at once serious and playful. It is expected that the exercise will help the couple-system to be more synergistic. This intervention holds potential for future research on jealousy. As mentioned earlier, instrument development emerged late in the last decade and has since been prolific. Hence, several jealousy measures are now available. They include, the "Jealousy Question" later developed into the "Sexual Jealousy Inventory" by Aronson and Pines (1982); the "Self-Report Jealousy" and "Projective Jealousy" scales by Bringle et al. (1979); the "Interpersonal Jealousy Scale" by Mathes and Severa (1981a, 1981b); the "Chronic Jealousy" and. "Relationship Jealousy" scales by White (1981b, 1981c) and an as yet unnamed scale by Tipton et al. (1978). There are still many conceptual and other problems with these scales. Excepting the one by Tipton, all were factor analyzed by Mathes, Roter and Joegor (1982) but the expected convergence was not found. Distinguishing jealousy from other emotions remains a central problem and this is readily 1 03 evidenced in the item formats of several instruments. For instance, the 28-item scale by Mathes and Severa (1981b) simply poses a rather narrow variety of situational elicitors and requests the subject to fill in a blank with the name of his/her boyfriend or girlfriend and then weight each on a scale of one to nine (e.g., "I feel good when . makes a new friend" and "If admired someone of the opposite sex I would feel irritated"). Other formats simply ask the subject, in various ways, how jealous he/she is, or how jealous or upset the person in the story is. Item formats frequently imply an exclusively sexual definition of jealousy and subjects are often required to self-disclose at an intimate level which may result in a social desirability response set. All scales except the one by Aronson and Pines (1982) neglect at least one and often two of the behavioural, cognitive, and affective domains that are crucial to approximating a whole picture. The phenomenological aspect of jealousy, suggested by Izard's (1971) theory of emotions, remains untouched by all instruments except again, the one by Aronson and Pines. Their inventory solicits not only subjects' own definitions of jealousy but also their experiential accounts which are then used as the criteria for rating their emotional, physical and general reactions. This instrument is also unique in that it examines jealousy prevalence and collects data about culture, family of 1 04 origin, and current relationship, as well as other demographic information. One problem is its length which results in some lack of practicality in terms of survey application. For these reasons (and others to be discussed in the next chapter) this inventory was selected, but adapted, for purposes of this study. Aronson and Pines (1983) use their "Sexual Jealousy Inventory" to examine possible antecedents, correlates and consequences of self-reported sexual jealousy. Their subjects were 35 males and 64 females ranging in" age from 21 to 64 (M=34) years. Their sample is more heterogeneous than other -studies reviewed in this section, in that it did not use undergraduate students, but it remains a selective sample of predominantly white (94%) married (41%) couples. Subjects were approached to participate in a study investigating sexual jealousy. The authors stress the significance of focusing more on situational than on dispositional factors in order that the individual will have more distinct options for change. Sexual jealousy was not defined for their subjects so that they would be able to define their own degree of jealousy on the basis of their own experience. However, given the authors' intent to focus on the situational factors and promote subjects' self-evaluation, a weakness becomes evident in the reporting of their findings — they use the yes/no question "Do you consider yourself a jealous 105 person?" as a criterion to establish differences between "jealous" and "non-jealous" persons. The current research re-explores the use of this criterion question assuming participants have osmosed, to some extent, the tendency to focus on jealousy as being dispositional. Hence, the examination of similarities not just differences is very relevant and requires a documented rather than an implied focus. For instance, Aronson and Pines (1983) report: In addition to their own perception of their jealousy, other peoples' reactions validated the criterion variable: people who described themselves as jealous were considered jealous by more people who knew them well and by more people with whom they had an intimate relationship (p.115). However, it must be remembered that only the subjects themselves were questioned by the survey, not the people with whom they were intimate and not others who knew them well. Hence, the above analysis is not validation of the criterion question but rather it is validation of subjects' tendency to assume that others perceive them the same way they perceive themselves. Instead of deleting this criterion question from the adapted questionnaire, this researcher uses it to examine both similarities and differences, reporting seemingly "negative" and seemingly "positive" findings. She also uses it to re-examine the implications of response set. The current research also differs from the study by Aronson and Pines (1983) in that it returns to a basic 106 assumption about jealousy as a discrete emotion, "sexual" or otherwise, depending on what the subjects themselves describe. This literature review has indeed revealed a theme involving sex, sexuality, and sexual self-concept. However, to avoid invalidating other themes and to include what Izard's (1971) theory referred to as the phenomenological aspect of emotions this study adapts the instrument. The focus on sexual issues andelicitors is eliminated, the use of subjects' own definitions and experiences is maintained and added' to by requesting their insights and interpretations. Hence, large portions of the original inventory are deleted and additional subjective questions (e.g., see Appendix A, questions 29, 30 and 123) are incorporated. A few of the many findings from the study by Aronson and Pines (1983) are now presented incorporating discussion that integrates the current study and giving precedence to their findings that will be comparable. Aronson and Pines (1983) say that: [When compared with 'non-jealous' people] subjects who described themselves as 'jealous people' reported experiencing more jealousy not only at the time of the interview (M=4.4 vs. 2.2) but also during childhood (M=4.0 vs. 3.4), adolescence (M=4.9 vs. 4.4), young adulthood (M=5.5 vs. 2.8) and advanced adulthood (M=4.7 vs. 2.3) (p.115). "Jealous people" in their study also reported the emotion to be more easily triggered, to occur more frequently, to last longer and to be associated with more intense physical and 1 07 emotional reactions. It is noteworthy that when the authors report significant differences this is applicable only at a level of hypothesis generation because they were exploring their data and had no hypotheses. Their findings and the findings in the current study require further investigation if empirical significance is to be established. The objective data collected in the current study will be used to suggest hypotheses for future research. Significance, validity and reliability instead become phenomenological issues and" therefore subjects' definitions of jealousy, their experiential accounts as well as their own interpretations are presented completely and verbatim within the appendices. Examples are discussed by the researcher in chapter four in order to present her additional interpretations and insights. Ultimately it is hoped that the reader will be stimulated to do the same. Aronson and Pines (1983) also found that subjects, on the average, reported being "somewhat" jealous. (Their inventory uses a one to seven rating identical to the one in Appendix A for most responses discussed.) Jealousy was generally reported as being most during adolescence, less during young adulthood, even less during childhood, less during advanced adulthood and least at present. Fifty-four percent of their subjects "defined themselves as 'jealous people' (p.116), but it is noteworthy that "when asked what percentage of people are actually jealous, the average 108 response was 75%" (p.119). Their subjects also believed men and women to be equally jealous... The inventory section assessing strategies for coping was changed to-a yes/no format by Aronson and Pines. The original one to seven scale is used by this researcher and therefore does not allow for direct comparison. Their subjects were, overall, most likely to acknowledge using the jealousy occasion to think through their role and to process what they stood/feared to lose (e.g., 80% reponded 'yes' to this question). Severtty-nine percent of their subjects acknowledged rational discussion; and much less frequently they acknowledged verbal assault (60%), sarcasm (56%), acceptance (55%), physical violence (7%) and denial (18%). Given a consideration of social desirability, these responses are likewise significant in a reversed order. For instance, it may be more significant that 7% acknowledged violence as a response (e.g., one thus wonders how many more actually do respond this way) than that 79% acknowledged rational discussion (perhaps reflecting their intent at the time or the socially acceptable thing to do). The only significant finding reported by Aronson and Pines (1983) in terms of family constellation is that number of older brothers was positively correlated with jealousy and number of younger brothers was negatively correlated (e.g., the more older brothers, the more jealous; the more younger brothers, the less jealous). However, this 109 interpretation must be considered very tentatively because of the few cases (for the relatively small sample) that would fall into the necessary but possibly vast number of . possible subgroupings if they had calculated actual sibling positions in various family constellations. For instance, possibly the majority of their sample were from a particular sibling position. Aronson and Pines (1983) report very few findings in terms of sex differences. They say: In terms of the experience,, itself, and its general effects, however, there were no sex differences; and when asked directly who were the most jealous, men or women, the response was 'equally jealous' .... The few sex differences found in the study (e.g., women were more likely than men to feel 'close to a nervous breakdown', 'inferior' and 'humiliated' and to experience 'fear of loss', 'grief' and 'vulnerability') could be explained by White's conceptualization as resulting from the women's lack of power in the relationship or in society at large (p.129). However, it is noteworthy that the authors change their previous trend and now report findings for all women and all men in this study, as versus those who rated themselves as most jealous or those who defined themselves as jealous people. The current research re-examine sex differences in terms of elemental emotions. In summary, this section has reviewed and critiqued the literature on jealousy from the discipline of psychology. A variety of theoretical perspectives emerged as a consequence of the departure from Freudian tradition initiated by Adler and Jung. The resulting diversification of specialties in 110 psychology partly accounts for the many themes about jealousy that have emerged and for the variety of research methodologies that have been used. The perspectives from psychology were presented chronologically to reflect the developments in theory, in research and in the application of both to therapy. As is ongoing in psychiatry, the early literature in psychology concentrated, for the most part, on the jealous disposition. In spite of more optimistic Adlerian and Jungian implications, the emotion was' primarily viewed as inherently negative or destructive and therapy was directed only at the. individual. Much of the early and some of the more recent empirical research thus compares the "jealous person" with the "non-jealous person". Gradually, the influence of family, relationship and socio-cultural dynamics also emerges. This was initially evidenced most directly in the practice setting with Ard's (1967) focus on couple-communication . May's (1972) thesis on power was applied by this researcher to jealousy in order to expand his association of these two concepts and transcend the basic positive-negative continuum, thus building a more holistic perspective. Several studies from the early and mid-seventies were discussed and critiqued. They indicated, among other things, the broadening conceptual understanding of jealousy but also a continuing reticence in research to relinquish 111 the tendency to label the individual's character on the basis of a single emotion. Francis' (1977) research showed evidence for wide individual variations in the experience and the expression of jealousy and demonstrated how social disapproval of the emotion serves to inhibit open communication about it, thus reinforcing its negative status and preventing recognition of individual discrepancies. Many different elemental emotions of jealousy were suggested. Generally, it is described as being compounded of fear (of loss), anger, rage, power or powerlessness, self-doubt, envy, hurt, pain, vulnerability, humiliation, love and/or hate. However, the many proposed combinations fall short of the "whole" thus supporting the idea that jealousy is a discrete emotion (something more than the sum of its parts) that is uniquely experienced. Sex differences in the experience and expression of jealousy were also an ongoing theme and there was consensus that males experience and react to the emotion on the basis of threats to their sexual self-esteem and females more on the basis of threats to their emotional involvement and the security provided by their relationships. These differences were typically explained by beliefs fixed in traditional roles and by issues of cooperation or power-sharing between partners (Corzine, 1974; Shettel-Neuber, Bryson & Young, 1978; White, 1980) . White's (1976, 1980, 1981a) studies added to and 1 1 2 synthesized socio-cultural perspectives on jealousy-related sex differences. However, these proposed sex differences remain grounded in his and other empirical findings that either neglect the phenomenological aspect of jealousy or are inconclusive because of the many methodological problems discussed in this section. White's (1976) study also demonstrates the problems encountered in research that uses static measures of self-esteem and/or places this nebulously defined concept in a central conceptual role. The first'phenomenological study of jealousy appeared in 1982 and in it Barrell and Richards identified four necessary and sufficient factors which constitute the experience. They recommend overcoming jealousy by learning "a sense of relatedness with others" (p.44). Their study adds a new experiential perspective on jealousy but it also exemplifies a central problem with phenomenologies in that it does not acccount for aspects of human experience outside the phenomenal field (e.g., unconscious processes and motivation). For this reason and because of the many problems encountered in empirical studies, a combined approach to the study of jealousy is supported. Accordingly, jealousy instruments were critiqued and the most relevant problems outlined, emphasizing their neglect of the phenomenological aspect of the emotion as well as their inefficiency in distinquishing jealousy from other emotions. 113 Toward the end of the section and in order to facilitate integration of this, and following, chapters,, Constantine's (1976) interactional model was extracted from the chronological sequence, presented, and discussed as a partial foundation for the current research. This foundation also incorporates Bartell's (1977) research on synergism in human relationships and the most recent jealousy research by Aronson and Pines (1983), especially an adapted version of their jealousy inventory. This use of model, instrument and potential intervention facilitate the preliminary combined phenomenological-empirical approach pursued in the current research. Chapter Summary This chapter was divided into four major sections. The first section examined literature that compares and contrasts jealousy and envy. The next three sections presented and critiqued multidisciplina-ry perspectrves:i'on jealousy in order to provide a background for this research. The literature examined in the first section of this chapter (along with the theories of emotion examined in chapter one) supports this researcher's assumptions that jealousy and envy are discrete but related emotions; they have evolved to meet different and changing human needs; and each has the potential to be adaptive or maladaptive depending on the the social and cultural contexts in which 1 1 4 they occur. The second section of this chapter sampled four major perspectives on jealousy from the disciplines of anthropology and sociology. The contributions of Davis (1936), Mead (1931), and Benedict (1934) were found to be very significant to a dynamic, interactional view of the emotion. However, their views had little interdisciplinary effect for several decades. For instance, it was not until the late seventies that Benedict's concept of synergy was again used in association with jealousy. The third section of this chapter is a chronology of perspectives from the discipline of psychiatry. The literature on jealousy contributed by this discipline follows the tradition of Freudian psychoanalysis, focusing almost exclusively on the interpretation of underlying unconscious processes. Jealousy was and continues to be viewed as a personality trait in psychiatric literature and is discussed as either 'pathological' or 'non-pathological'. The literature is not research oriented and discusses only clinical observations. There were no presentations of the subjects' own interpretations of their jealousy experiences. The fourth section presents and critiques perspectives from the discipline of psychology beginning with Adler (1928) and ending with the most recent research by Aronson and Pines (1983). May's thesis on power was used to extend the conceptualization of jealousy. This new 1 15 conceptualization, Bartell's research on synergism in human relationships, Constantine's (1976) model for jealousy and the research by Aronson and Pines (1983), were discussed together to establish an integrative base for the chapters to follow. The next chapter constitutes the empirical phase of the current study. It will present and discuss descriptive statistics for the objective data collected in the jealousy survey. More advanced statistical analyses are eschewed because this phase of the research is aimed" at hypotheses generation and because the objective data are measures by individual subjects using a subjective criterion — their own most extreme experience with jealousy. Finally, the previous chapter has supported a conceptualization of jealousy that does not lend itself well to a singularly objective approach and so this preliminary combination of phenomenological and empirical research requires that each phase relinqish something. Thus the phenomenological phase, described in chapter four, eschews the usual face-to-face involvement of researcher and subject but incorporates their definitions, their experiences, their interpretations and their insights. 1 16 CHAPTER III EMPIRICAL PHASE Design and Method Subjects This study surveyed a non-random population of families who reside in student family housing at the University of British Columbia. Participants were required to be between . the ages of 20 and 60 years. Selection of the subject pool was based on financial considerations, convenience and a wish to include subjects from various countries, cultures, races and religious/social backgrounds. Residency in the community is determined by criteria that are described under "limitations" in chapter one. Instrument The instrument is included in appendix A. It is an adapted version of Aronson and Pines' (1982) 14-page "Sexual Jealousy Inventory". Whole sections and several items were deleted. The rationale for use and adaptation of the instrument was discussed in chapter two. Additions included items 6, 7, 14, 15, 16, 18, 29, 30, 53-58, 94 and 123. 1 17 Items 8 and 9 were re-worded for comprehensiveness. Pilot Study The pilot study used 15 female and 16 male volunteers. They were nursing, medical and support staff at the Health Sciences Centre Hospital at the University of British Columbia. On the basis of Lertap item analysis (Nelson, 1974) and basic correlations, a decision was made not to include the originally intended measure of synergy. Lertap results for the adapted version of the jealousy inventory demonstrated, for total test statistics, a Hoyt's Estimate of Reliability of 0.97 and a Cronbach's Alpha of 0.72. Subtest statistics demonstrated Hoyt's of 0.81, 0.94, 0.95 and 0.78 respectively for each of the following subtests: jealousy prevalence; physical reactions; emotional reactions; and general reactions. A decision to include the subtest entitled "coping with jealousy" was made following the pilot study. On the basis of feedback from the subjects minor changes were made in the original wording of items numbered 8, 9, and 18. The statistics presented for the pilot study are of interest more in terms of future studies which incorporate more advanced statistical analysis than for purposes of the empirical phase of this study which uses only descriptive 118 statistics. Otherwise, the purpose of the pilot study was to assess interest and response and to gain feedback about: the overall structuring of the adapted inventory; wording of items (especially subjective items); and finally, to facilitate refinement of procedures and data handling for the main study. Data Collection and Procedures One week prior to the commencement of data collection the weekly housing newsletter published'the request for participation (see appendix B). During the following week 300 unsealed, self-addressed envelopes were distributed to the homes in the housing complex. In addition to the jealousy inventory, the envelopes contained a cover letter (see appendix C) stating: the purpose of the study; participation requirements; procedural information; a return deadline (set at 21 days after delivery of the envelopes); and the usual ethical considerations. Follow-up notes to remind participants of the return deadline were published in the next two newsletters. Seventy-seven inventories were returned to the two collection points. Four inventories were destroyed because in three cases respondents had not used the provided•scales and in one case more than two-thirds of both objective and subjective items had been omitted. 119 Sample Demography The final sample included 73 respondents. Their demography is described, in part, by Table 1. In addition, they ranged in age from 22 to 43 years (M=31; S.D.=2.7). Sixty-four percent of respondents indicated formal education at the level of a bachelor's degree or beyond. Although 93% of the subjects were Caucasian, many different countries (of birth, rearing and/or permanent residency) and cultures were described in the subjective responses to item 7. Subjects frequently named Canada, the U.S.A., England and Germany but Canadians separately specified the Quebecois culture in two instances, the Haida culture in one instance and the Cree culture in one instance. Otherwise, Japan and New Zealand were each named three times, Iran and Ireland were each named twice and the following were named once: Brazil, Paraguay, Guyana, Columbia, Italy-, Spain, The*-Middle - East, The West Indies-y Nigeria, Kenya, Switzerland, Australia and Yugoslavia. Religions specified as "other" (and hence not separately indicated on Table 1) included: Mennonite, Taoist, Mormon, Tosan, Unitarian, Evangelist, Buddhist, Latter-Day Saint, Agnostic and "unclassified". Seventy-three percent of subjects were from first or second sibling positions in their families of origin. The range for number of children in families of origin was from 1 20 Table 1 Frequencies of the Demographic Variables Var iables Total Ma le s Females Subjects Students2 Race: Caucasian Negroid Or iental Canadian Indian East Indian Other Religion: None Protestant Catholic Jewish Moslem Hindu Sikh Other Twins2 73 (100.0) 45 ( 61.6) 68 ( 93.2) 2 ( 2.7) 1 ( 1 ( 1.4) 1.4) 1 ( 1.4) 23 ( 3T.5) 18 ( 24.7) 12 ( 16.4) 1 ( 1.4) l9-( 26.0) 4 ( 5.5) 28 (100.0) 16 ( 57. 1 ) 24 ( 87.5) 1 ( 3.6) 1 ( 1 ( 3.6) 3.6) 1 ( 3.6) 13 •(•• 46.4) 4 (14.3) 3 ( 10.7) 1 ( 3.6) 7 ( 25.0) 45 (100.0) 1 29 ( 64.4) 44 ( 97.8) 1 ( 2.2) 10 ( 22.2) 14 ( 31.1) 9 ( 20.0) 12 ( 26.7) •4 ( 8.9) Present Marital or Relationship Status: Single 6 ( 8.2) 4 ( 14.3) 2 ( 4.4) Divorced 1 0 ( 13.7) 2 ( 7.1 ) 8 ( 17.8) Separated 8 ( 11.0) 2 ( 7.1 ) 6 ( 13.3) Widowed Partnered 6 ( 8.2) 4 ( 14.3) 2 ( 4.4) Cohabiting 6 ( 8.2) 2 ( 7.1) 4-• ( 8.9) Remarried 4 ( 5.5) 1 ( 3.6) 3 ( 6.7) Married 33 ( 45.2) 1 3 ( 46.4) 20 ( 44.4) Other Current Family: Two-parent 41 ( 56, .2) 1 6 ( 57. .1 ) 25 ( 55, .6) Single-parent 20 ( 27, .4) 3 ( 10. ,7) 1 7 ( 37, .8) Blended 5 ( 6, .8) 2 ( 7. .1) 3 ( 6. .7) Other 7 ( 9, .6) 7 ( 25. .0) Note. 1. Absolute and (relative) frequencies 2. Calculated on basis of positive response to a Yes/No question 121 one to eight with three 'only' children and four 'twins' represented in the sample. The average current household contained more than 3 people (M=3.4). Results and Discussion It is not feasible to present all of the objective results from this survey because even the basic descriptive statistics allow for multiple combinations of data. Therefore, the researcher is selective in presenting only key results vis a vis the earlier critique of theoretical perspectives and the purpose of the study. I. Jealousy: Trait-Based? Item 19 of the inventory (Do you consider yourself a jealous person?) was not deleted when the original inventory was adapted. Its inclusion assumes that to some extent subjects have the same tendencies as researchers critiqued in the literature review to apply 'jealous' and 'non-jealous' labels. The literature also supports an a prediction that women will be more likely than men to acknowledge a 'jealous' label because of their dependent and inferior status. With these considerations in mind, it was no surprise that there were no occasions of non-response to the above question even though this alternative was clearly 122 stated in the enclosed instructions. The pattern of responses to this item (19) does not refute or support trait-based theories of jealousy. However, it demonstrates the inaccuracies that result from applying dispositional labels on the basis of a single emot ion. Forty-eight subjects (66%) responded "no" to the question and 25 (34%) responded "yes". Of the 28 men in the sample only 25% (7) responded "yes" while 40% (18) of the 45 women did the same.- When subjects were assigned" total jealousy scores on the basis of their summed responses to emotional, reactions females overall indicated a stronger emotional response. When all scores were ranked females were also proportionately more likely to score above the median than males. However, sex aside, the (18) "yes" and (19) "no" responses above the median very closely approximate an identical likelihood of occurrence. Logically, we would expect that jealous persons ('yes' respondents) would dominate the above median scores. When seven intervals were created for the above-mentioned total scores (in accordance with the one-to-seven scale from which they were derived) 17.8% of all men were found in the top two intervals while only 15.5% of all women were in the same intervals. Considering the much larger porportionate difference in sample structure [n=73; males=28 (38%); females=45 (62%)] along with the prediction that 1 23 women as a subgroup are more likely to be dispositionally jealous then men, then they should be found with a greater not a lesser frequency than men in especially the top two intervals. Even an identical occurrence of men and women in these intervals would be inconsistent with trait-based theories, especially given the frequent support for the idea that women are more likely to finally ascribe to their basic personalities the consequences of negatively perceived circumstances. Random sampling and an adequate number of cases per interval would be necessary to verify the empirical significance of the above findings. However, even with these experimental precautions, it would be very difficult to control for the socially-influenced or socially-determined and seemingly greater tendency of women to categorize themselves as jealous. Hence, trait-based theories and research on jealousy are fundamentally impractical and the ongoing lack of evidence supports a recommendation that counsellors avoid its application and likewise caution their colleagues and clients. II. Response Set and/or Re-Experience of the Emotion? Figure 1 graphically portrays (for all subjects and separately for males and females) the number of subjects who responded at each level of the response scale for items 20 ; ("How jealous are you at this time in your life?") and 122 ' 124 Figure 1. Responses to questions 20 (solid line) and 122 (broken line) bu, question 19 (Yes/No) 125 ("Using your own definition, how jealous are you?). The graphs are further divided into pairs on the basis of "yes" arid "no" responses to item 19 ("Are you a jealous person?"). There is a visible shift toward the right when the dotted line is compared with the solid line. This indicates that by the end of the inventory all subjects (regardless of sex and regardless of whether or not they had acknowledged being a jealous person) were reporting more jealousy. There are many possible interpretations for this apparent phendnmenon. The usual interpretation would" attribute the shift to a response set which indicates "the difference between the answer given by the respondent and the true answer" (Borg & Gall, 1979, p.311). Using this definition, it would commonly be suggested that the conflicting reports by subjects indicate a fault with the measure to the extent that it is less than efficient in soliciting a true measure or simply that subjects responded in a patterned way which demonstrates the inaccuracy of self-report in general. However, in this case it is also possible that subjects were more aware of, more likely to acknowledge and perhaps more accurate in assessing their jealousy by the end of the inventory than at the beginning because of a therapeutic effect of the instrument. Given that no definition of jealousy was presented and much caution was taken to avoid implying a definition, subjects were essentially responding to the same question in 126 items 20 and 122. If they were assuming a researcher definition when responding to item 20 it would necessarily be a projection and hence still closely comparable to their own definition which was the criterion for response to item 122. Therefore, the usual negative assumptions about response set in terms of its confounding effect on research findings can be reversed in this instance. In other words, if the differences portrayed by the graph demonstrate a response' set it. is one that acts in a constructive way because it demonstrates that responding to the inventory encouraged a self-determined accuracy by subjects. After presenting their most extreme experience with jealousy, reflecting on its ultimate positive and negative effects (see appendix D), examining their feelings relative to the experience and defining the emotion (see appendix E), they were seemingly more prepared to own their jealousy and hence give a more "true" or accurate self-report. This interpretation of objective data is also supported by subjective and phenomenological observations. The large overall response to the survey both in terms of the pilot study and in terms of the main study speaks to the keenness of participants to self-explore. The specific content (and even length) of responses to item 123 (requesting other insights/thoughts/experiences which subjects might wish to contribute) also speaks to this keenness and to their 127 willingness to share and make more constructive use of their feelings, thoughts, and experiences with jealousy (see appendix F, especially codes 22, 39 and 43). Alternatively, it can be suggested that the response set is an objective demonstration of the phenomenological aspect of the emotion. Interpreted in relation to the statements about most extreme experiences with jealousy (which subjects contributed prior to responding to item 122 but after items 19 and 20), the demonstrated differences possibly indicate the. effect Of an actual re-experiencing of the emotion during completion of the inventory. If cognitive recall of these events is insufficient in accounting for these differences, responses to the final item (122) may reflect the "true" or more accurate feeling that is experienced following self-exploration. Again, phenomenological evidence supports the above interpretation. The subjective responses (e.g., appendix F, code 06) speak on behalf of the suggested re-experiencing of the emotion. Also, on several occasions the researcher was approached by fellow community members. Process notes were accumulated and one non-respondent is noted as saying: "It's sitting there looking at me, part of me wants to do it and part of me doesn't. I guess I'm afraid of what it might stir up for me. I'm a single parent and I've gone through alot getting to the point that I'm now at. I just want to let all that go now, yet I know alot of it is still there and I guess I'm afraid the jealousy questionnaire will really stir it all up again". 128 This person's indecision was seemingly based on an awareness of the phenomena being discussed. She sensed that participating would result in re-experiencing past emotions. Further conversation indicated that she wanted encouragement to participate because of a wish to reach a more complete resolution. Instead, she was referred for counselling because of her particular issues and because, in the process of helping, the researcher offered her an alternate and less negative view of her jealous feelings that may have influenced her responses-. In essence, the response set demonstrated by figure one reveals something more than can be portrayed by interpretating only the objective data. When both empirical and phenomenological observations and findings are combined it becomes evident that subjects' insights and experience cannot be separated from from their objective self-evaluations without losing a large part of the "whole" meaning. III. Jealousy and Sibling Position Sibling position was determined for all subjects by separately adding responses to inventory items 10 and 11 and then 12 and 13 (see appendix A). As previously mentioned, 73% of the sample were from first and second positions in their families of origin. Given this sample characteristic along with the wide range of family size (and therefore the 1 29 vast possibilities in terms of family constellations) it is evident that descriptive statistics are not meaningful beyond saying that first and second siblings were seemingly distributed in a random fashion above and below the median for total emotional response. IV. Jealousy Prevalence Table 2 presents the means and standard deviations (for all subjects and again separately for males and females) for responses to 'jealousy prevalence' items. It is noteworthy that scores are highest for both males and females during adolescence and young adulthood. In contrast to the findings by Aronson and Pines (1983) discussed in chapter two, subjects in this sample, on the average, reported being less jealous during childhood than during adulthood. However, when males and females are considered separately males report more childhood jealousy than females (M=3.4 vs. 2.7). V. General Reactions to Jealousy Table 3 presents the means and standard deviations for responses to items in the 'general reactions' subsection of the inventory. Subjects on the average reported that extreme experiences with jealousy are 'rare' and they last for more than 'days' but less than 'weeks' and are coped 130 Table 2 Jealousy Prevalence Questions: Means and Standard Deviations Total Males Females (n=73) (n=28) (n=45) Question x SD x SD x SD 19. Do you consider yourself 1.7 0.5 1.7 0.4 1.6 0.5 a jealous person? 1=Yes, 2=No 20. How jealous are you at 2.5 1.5 2.5 1.4 2.4 1.1 this time in your life? 1=not at all ... 7=extremely 21. During childhood 2.9 1.5 3.4 1.5 2.7 1.5 1=notat all'-'... 7=extremely 22. During adolescence . 3.9 1.6 4.4 1.6 3.7 1.6 1-not at all ... 7=extremely 23. During young adulthood 3.9 1.7 3.7 1.8 4.0 1.6 1=not at all ... 7=extremely 24. During adulthood 3.0 1.4 2.8 1.2 3.0 1.4 1=not at all ... 7=extremely 25. Have any of your intimate 1.6 1.1 1.6 0.9 1.6 1.1 relationships ended because of your jealousy? 1=none ... 7=all of them 26. Do most people who know you 2.1 1.3 2.0 1.0 2.1 1.5 well consider you a jealous person? 1=definitely not ... 7=definitely yes •27. Do people you have been 2.8. 1.8 2.5 1.6 2.9 1.9 intimate with consider you jealous? 1=definitely not ... 7=definitely yes 131 Table 3 General Reaction Questions: Means and Standard Deviations Total Males Females (n=73) (n=28) (n=45) Question x SD x SD x SD 89. Recalling your most extreme 4.4 experience of jealousy, how long did the experience last? 1=seconds ... 4=days ... 7=years 1 .6 4 .3 1 .5 4. 5 1 .6 90. How often do you 3.0 experience extreme jealousy? 1=never ... 7=always 0.9 2 .7 1 .0 3. 2 0 .9 91 . Do you think you coped well 4.2 with the extreme situation you described? 1=very poorly ... 7=very well 1.7 4 <4 1 .8 4. 1 1 .7 92. Do you consider your 2.2 jealousy a problem? 1=not at all ... 7=a very serious 1 .5 one 1 .9 1 .5 2. 5 1 .5 93. Can you make yourself stop 4.3 being jealousy? 1=definitely not ... 7=definitely 1 .8 yes 4 .9 1 .7 4. 0 1 .8 94. How often do you experience 3.8 mild jealousy? 1=never . .. 7=always 0.8 3 .7 0 .8 3. 8 0 .7 95. Do you think that jealousy ,5.7 is a normal response in certain situations? 1=definitely not ... 7=definitely 1 .6 yes 6 .0 1 .2 5. 4 1 .7 96. Do you consider your own 2.1 jealousy in extreme situations to be an appropriate reaction? 1=definitely not ... 7=definitely 1 .3 yes 2 .0 1 .0 2. 1 1 .5 132 with 'averagely well'. Overall, subjects reported that jealousy was not a problem but mild jealousy occurred "occasionally" not "rarely". The emotion was, on the average, reported to be "a normal response in certain situations". In contrast, jealousy in extreme situations was not considered to be an appropriate reaction thus seemingly supporting its ongoing taboo status. The most visible sex differences are apparent in responses to items 92 and 93 with males on the average considering their jealousy to be less of a problem than did females. Males were also more confident in reporting their ability to stop being jealous. These differences support findings by White (1976, 1980 1981) and a similar interpretation is posed in that they possibly reflect the female's greater emotional involvement and dependence on the relationship and hence her less powerful position. Again, statistical significance of these differences await more advanced analysis but the above interpretation also finds support in the differences between subjective responses by males and females to items 28, 29, and 30 (see appendix D, especially codes 01, 02, 08, 09, 25, 36, 41, 46, 48, 55 and 56) . VI. Physical Reactions to Jealousy Table 4 lists and ranks the ten highest means for responses to the 28 'physical reaction' items, again for all 1 33 subjects and separately for males and females. It is Table 4 Ranking of Physical Reactions on Basis of Mean Response Total (n=73) Males (n=28) Females (n=45) Mean Response Mean Response Mean Response Fast heartbeat 3. 6 Shakey 3. 4 Fast heartbeat 3. 9 Shakey 3. 5 Fast heartbeat 3. 1 Energized 3. 9 Energized 3. 5 Stomach empty 3. 0 Insomnia 3. 6 Insomnia 3. 2 Blood rushing 2. 9 Shakey 3. 6 Stomach empty 3. 1 . Appetite loss 2. 8 Appetite loss 3. 2 Appetite loss 3. 1 Hot 2. 7 Stomach empty 3. 2 Blood rushing 3. 0 Energ ized 2. 7 Blood rushing 3. 1 Trembling hands 2. 8 Insomnia 2. 6 Breath short 3. 0 Hot 2. 6 Exhausted 2. 6 Trembling hands 3. 0 Breath short 2. 6 Trembling hands 2. 5 Sweaty 2. 6: Note. In the case of tied means, the reaction with the smaller standard deviation is listed first. All items were answered on a 7 point scale. noteworthy that although the ten reactions for the total sample are all moderately weighted and generally they describe an autonomic nervous system fight-flight response or seemingly, the 'jealous flash' described in the 134 literature. However, females ranked "energized" considerably higher than males possibly indicating a greater tendency to fight rather than flee. Female responses are also generally somewhat higher than male responses again supporting several earlier interpretations that the felt threat may be greater for the female than for the male because of the former's inferior social status and her greater dependence on the relationship. Also, because these physical reactions describe a autonomic nervous system response, support is given to Solomon's" (197/6) thesis that feelings (as visceral sensations) may be generalized to many different emotions. He says "feelings are the ornamentation of emotion, not its essence" (p.159). VII. Emotional Reactions to Jealousy Table 5 lists and ranks the ten highest means for responses to the 30 'emotional reaction' items for all subjects and separately for males and females. When-males and females are considered separately "fear of loss", "envy", "possessiveness" and "low self-image" are ranked among the ten highest means for females but not for males. Again, female responses overall are higher than male responses. "Pain", "self-pity", "vulnerability" and "depression" are among the ten highest means for males but not for females. This finding supports the idea that what is stereo-typically considered to be jealousy is seemingly 1 35 Table 5 Ranking of Emotional Reactions on Basis of Mean Response Total (n=73) Males (n=28) Females (n=45) Mean Response Mean Response Mean Response Anger 4 .8 Humilation 4 .5 Anger 5 .2 Resentment 4 .6 Depression 4 .3 Rage 5 . 1 Rage 4 .6 Resentment 4 .2 Resentment 4 .8 Humiliation 4 .5 Anger •4 .0 Excluded 4 .8 Anxiety 4 .4 Frustration 3 .9 Anxiety 4 .7 Excluded 4 .3 Self-pity 3 .9 Fear of loss 4 .6 Frustrat ion 4 .3 Anxiety 3 .8 Low self-image 4 .6 Depression 4 .3 Rage 3 .8 Frustration 4 .5 Fear of loss 4 .2 Vulnerability 3 .0. Humiliation 4 .5 Low self- 4 .2 Excluded 3 .6 Possess- 4 .4 • image iveness Inferiority 4 . 1 Pain 3 .6 Envy 4 .4 Note. In the case of tied means, the reaction with the smaller standard deviation is listed first. All items were answered on a 7 point scale. based on emotions that typify woman's experience. Perhaps if traditional views of jealousy had been derived from more of a focus on its elements of pain, vulnerability, depression and self-pity then the stereo-type would be "the jealous man" rather than "the jealous women". It is also noteworthy that in the top ten rankings for the total sample "envy" is not on the list and "low self-image" appears only ninth. The absence of envy in this 136 ranking supports a view of jealousy as a discrete emotion — something more and different than envy. The relatively low ranking of "low self-image" for the total sample listing and for the female subsample (as well as its absence in the male subsample ranking) supports White's (1976) decision to relegate self-esteem to a more peripheral role in models of jealousy. Unlike 'physical reaction' items where top rankings for males and females were very similar, this time the very highest rankings for males differ markedly from' those for females and those for the total sample. The top two responses for males are humiliation and depression while for females they are anger and rage. Re-emphasizing that the criterion for rating was the individual's experience, this finding supports a view of jealousy as an interactionally and socially influenced emotion. Reflecting also on Solomon's (1976) view of emotions, the socialization of the sexes seemingly results in somewhat differing emotional judgements of jealousy experiences. Comparing the separate rankings under males and under females, both feel anger, rage, resentment, anxiety, frustration and humiliation but the most poignant elemental emotions for the female are anger and rage and for the male they are humiliation and depression. Using Bartell's (1977) criteria to identify highly synergistic couples (thus verifying a high level of social 137 and possibly economic interdependence) it could be hypothesized that for these relationships., males and females would not differ significantly in their rankings of jealousy's elemental emotions. However, if findings evenuate in acceptance of this hypothesis it will still be necessary to consider the common purpose served by the emotion rather than, or in addition to, similarities and differences between the sexes in terms of internal exper ience. VIII. Coping With Jealousy Table 6 lists and ranks the ten highest means for the list of 24 'coping with jealousy' items. Again the total sample, males and females are each considered separately. The same pattern of overall higher female than male responses is evident. The top three items across the table are the socially acceptable "things to do". However, "negotiation" appears considerably lowec on- the' list-, thus-supporting a suggestion that jealousy is not typically recognized as a trigger for interdependent change to the relationship. Also apparent in this ranking is that the next several items suggest a female tendency to give more weight to antagonistic or aggressive behaviours and a male tendency to give more weight to behaviours that portray a closing off or a withdrawal. Reflecting on Constantine's (1976) typology 138 Table 6 Ranking of "Coping With Jealousy" Items on Basis of Mean Response Total (n=73) Males (n=28) Females (n=45) Mean Response Mean Response Mean Response Thinking through 4 .8 Thinking through 4.5 Thinking through 5. 0 Acceptance 4 .2 Acceptance 4.4 Rational discussion 4. 1 Rational discussion 4 . 1 Rational discussion 3.9 Acceptance 4. 2 Sarcasm 3 .6 Withdrawal 3.5 Sarcasm 3. 8 Withdrawal 3 .4 Stoney silence 3.4 Crying 3. 7 Arguing 3 .4 I solation' ' 3.4 Arguing 3. 6 Isolation 3 .2 Sarcasm 3.3 Negotiation 3. 4 Stoney silence 3 .2 Suffer silently + 3.0 visibly Withdrawal 3. 3 Negot iat ion 3 . 1 Suffer silently + 2.9 covertly Isolat ion 3. 2 Crying 2 .9 Negotiation 2.7 Stoney silence 3. 0 Note. In the case of tied means, the reaction with the smaller standard deviation is listed first. All items were answered on a 7 point scale. of jealous behaviours discussed in chapter two (isolational, antagonistic, redefinitional and resolutional) it seems that females are reporting a greater tendency than males to behave in the ways that Constantine maintains will be more likely to preserve the relationship. This is also congruent with the many views and interpretations discussed in chapter 1 39 two in that the female's greater dependency on the relationship abdicates her greater need to preserve it. Again, these differences in coping mechanisms might not be so apparent if males and females were identified for study on the basis of their membership in socially and economically interdependent relationships. Considering the whole list of 24 items the most apparent differences between means for males and females occurred on the items "crying", "screaming" and "throwing things". For all three items' female means were considerably higher than male means (3.7 vs 1.6; 2.5 vs 1.6; and 2.0 vs 1.2 respectively) and females were also very slightly more likely to acknowledge physical violence than males (1.6 vs 1.5). Although all of these means are relatively low they may be important. Accordingly, nine of the 45 females (or 20%) and 4 out of 28 males (or 14%) acknowledged physical violence as a reaction to jealousy that occurs "rarely" or more often. One male acknowledged it as his "usual" reaction and subjectively beseeched "try to overcome this feeling, it is a killer" (appendix. F, code 70). Also, it must be remembered that the social undesirability of reporting physical violence may be resulting in lower ratings on this item. 1 40 Hypotheses and Implications for Future Research As has been frequently mentioned, the findings of the empirical phase of this study are preliminary. They are based only on descriptive statistics and their "significance" awaits more advanced statistical analysis. When considered along with findings of the phenomenological phase (including data in the appendices) they promote a broader conceptualization of the human experience referred to as "jealousy", thus achieving the overall purpose of the study. It is hoped that this study will encourage future research on jealousy that again combines empirical and phenomenological approaches but using methods that are additive in each phase. Hence, among other things, the empirical phase of this study is used to exemplify the generation-of hypotheses from preliminary findings. Although many hypotheses can be extrapolated from the above discussion of objective data-, only a- few- will be7*-presented*. Several of the subsections under "Results and Discussion" are again briefly discussed in light of new hypotheses and implications for future research. Specific implications for counselling practice derived from both phases of this research are presented in chapter five. Section I above implies that trait-based theories of jealousy result in inconsistent research findings. Thus hypotheses using "jealous" and "non-jealous" categorizations 141 of individuals are not recommended. This implication is based on the chapter two critique of previous re.s.earch as well as on the objective findings of this study. Instead, it is recommended that future research examine the different roles in jealousy triangles. Couple dynamics and issues such as beliefs and assumptions about relationship boundaries, dependence on the relationship, power-sharing and cooperation can be researched in terms of how they effect the jealousy process. Instead of viewing individual behaviour in terms of the presence or absence of pathology it can be examined in terms of its role in the dynamic process of change. Future research should incorporate methods that will allow for the assessment of role reciprocity and consider the possibility of subject, object and agent changing roles as dynamics change. As relationships increasingly allow for more social and economic interdependence, women may be less frequently found in 'subject' roles than they were in the past. Future research that implements the preliminary findings of section II (and also sections VI, VII, and VII) above could be aimed at the improvement of existing programs and/or the development of new group therapies for couples who experience frequent or ongoing problems with jealousy. Accordingly, Borg and Gall (1979) state that the primary goal of research and development (R&D) methodology is to take "research knowledge and incorporate it into a product 1 42 that can be used" (p.623). For instance, section II above implies that the intrument used in this research had a. therapeutic effect on subjects. Hence, it may be useful for purposes of formative and summative evaluation of such programs. Alternatively, it might be used to assess or prepare individuals for the group experience. The "coping with jealousy" section of the instrument could be used in a pre-test/post-test fashion to measure individual changes in types of behaviours selected in response to the same and/or different hypothetical or real jealousy experiences. Given a program that promotes self-exploration and teaches negotiation.skills and a broader conceptualization of jealousy, the instrument might also be used to demonstrate for participants the similarities and differences in terms of their individual and couple experiences with jealousy and with its expression. Or, it might be used to demonstrate how the objective analysis of human experience cannot be separated from the subjective experience without losing alot of valuable understanding. Hence, the difference between the anger and rage described by one individual and the humiliation and vulnerability described by the next (for similar experiences with jealousy) are determined to a large extent by their unique perceptions, beliefs, values and assumptions. In terms of implications for section III above, it may be very relevant that the sample of people who responded to 143 the jealousy inventory was constituted by 73% first and second siblings. Perhaps individuals from these sibling positions have a greater need to explore the topic. Future research that uses very large samples could examine the interaction of perception of jealousy experiences and various sibling positions. Given the chapter two discussions of associations between jealousy and power or status, it seems that sibling position would provide a useful context within which to explore the development of beliefs and assumptions (about self and others) that either enhance or impede selection of effective coping mechanisms. This is especially relevant if we assume that the family is the first and most important unit of society in terms of learning and practicing the cooperative values and interdependence that were suggested (by the 'perspectives from anthropology and sociology' section) as being influential to the outcomes of jealousy experiences. Two hypotheses are stated in null terms to exemplify implications for section IV above: 1. There will be no significant difference between male and female (self-report) objective measures of felt threat when an hypothetical jealousy experience is identically described for all subjects. 2. There will be no significant difference between male and female subjective interpretations of a hypothetical and potentially threatening jealousy experience when the latter is identically described for all subjects. 144 The first of the above hypotheses could be tested by using objective items similar to some of those under the 'general reactions' and 'emotional reactions' sections of the inventory used in this research. The second hypothesis could be tested by using an expert and independent panel of judges (blind to the sex of subjects) who would be provided with a variety of theoretically derived categories for placement of whole and/or segmented responses. The results from each hypothesis would then be compared. To incorporate a phenomenological phase the categories' and/or findings could be verified by the subjects, individually or as a group. Alternatively, subjects (in an open forum) could be used as the judges for categorizing the pooled anonymous data. The hypothesis already suggested and discussed under section VII above can be stated in null terms as: 1. There will be no significant difference between male and female rankings of elemental emotions when an hypothetical and potentially jealousy-evoking experience is identically described- for subjects who-are (individually) members of couples previously assessed to be highly synergistic. The 'emotional reactions' section of the inventory could be used for measurement of the above hypothesis and any differences between the sexes in the rankings would be tested for significance by using a two-tailed Kendall's r (Glass & Stanley, 1970, pp. 316-317). Again, subjective assessment of the purpose that would be served by the 145 emotion for each subject (relative to the hypothetical situation) would enhance the meaning of results and would constitute the phenomenological portion of the analysis. Finally, various hypotheses can be derived from section VIII in terms of examining sex differences and coping mechanisms. Again R&D methodology would be useful in terms of implementation and further analysis of preliminary findings. It is evident that problematic jealousy potentially results in physical violence and hence this methodology is highly recommended because of its aim to bridge the gap between research and practice. Chapter Summary This chapter has presented the empirical phase of this study. The design and methodology were presented, including a description of the subject pool, the instrument, the pilot study, data collection and procedures, and the sample demography. The presentation of••• results" wa-s-selective-rn> dealing only with preliminary, key findings in accordance with the purpose of the study and the earlier critique of theoretical perspectives. Finally, several hypotheses that were generated from the preliminary findings were presented along with many implications for future research. 146 CHAPTER IV PHENOMENOLOGICAL PHASE The last chapter presented the empirical phase of this study. Interpretations of the objective data made frequent references to the subjective data thus integrating this phase. This chapter discusses the subjective data which (contained within appendices D, E and F) constitute the body of the phenomenological phase. Subjects' verbatim responses are organized within the appendices in a way that facilitates reader interpretation and inter-comparisons of data. To offer some of her own interpretations, the researcher extracts a few major elements or themes from each of two main sections of data: participant definitions of jealousy (see appendix E); and participant descriptions of jealousy experiences (see appendix D). Finally, implications for future research and theory development are presented, adding to those- already discussed in chapter three. Participant Definitions of Jealousy: A Discussion Participants' definitions of jealousy are presented in appendix E. Female subjects' responses are separated from male subjects' responses. Considering both together, fear and loss emerge as the major descriptors of the emotion. 147 Otherwise, subjects name: desire; love; care; hurt; pain; betrayal; deception; envy; trust or lack of it; doubt; confusion; indignation; anger; hostility; an insecurity with self, about partner, or about the relationship; inadequacy (again in terms of self, partner or the relationship); rivalry; competition or fear of competition; possessiveness; covetousness; and hope or hopelessness. The elemental emotions named broadly fit a framework of anticipated grief with a focus that is more one of prevention or protection than one of resignation or acceptance. In spite of this apparent quality of preservation, subjects also make frequent negative evaluations of the emotion (codes 09, 10, 20, 59, 60, 64) seemingly confirming its ongoing negative or taboo status. Overall, subject's definitions use more "effect", "response" or "reaction" descriptors than "cause", "source" or "stimulus" descriptors. The traditional view of emotions (as being products of our "being" that we play little part in creating) is evident. Seemingly, this view results in the hopelessness expressed by several subjects who see jealousy as "automatic" (code 02) and "not controllable by logical resources" (code 03). It is a "sickness" (code 60) for which "there is no cure and no way out" (code 06). The theories of emotion by Izard (1971) and Solomon (1976) thus have direct implication for counselling practice in terms of teaching alternate and more complex ways of viewing, our 1 48 emotions and the roles they play in our life process. Male definitions seemingly have more of an internal and cognitive locus than female definitions which name a wider variety of emotional descriptors and are directed more toward the external threat and interpersonally influenced qualities of the emotion. In male definitions the combination of a more internal locus and an even more negative status for the emotion may partially explain their more frequent attribution of pathology typified by descriptors such as "sickness", "disease" and "irrationality" (codes 55, 59, 60, 64) Throughout both male and female definitions there is an apparent perception of deceit, betrayal or abandonment of the subject by the object, an anticipated diminution of the subject's status in the relationship and/or some threat to the boundaries of their liason. This perception confirms that subjects have some insight into the social nature of this emotion but it is inconsistent with maintaining the negative view described above. Thus even though they recognize a fundamental reciprocity in terms of jealousy being evoked by both internal and (social) external factors, they (and especially males) tend to "blame" themselves for experiencing this emotion by making negative attributions to their "personalities". Again, this is evidence that the essence of more recent theories of emotion has not reached the general public. Otherwise, there would be a greater 149 balance in subjective responses in terms of participants recognizing jealousy in a. more, positive way as a motivator for constructive action involving on their primary relationships. Comparisons of these definitions can also be made across male, female, objective and subjective perceptions by imagining a triangle of the objective, the subjective, and the experiential. In the subjective position we attempt a perspective of the experience in relation to the self from 'within' or from an internal focus. Seemingly, this internal focus speaks to the perceived 'reason' or 'source' of our jealousy. In the objective position we attempt a perspective of the experience in relation to. the self from 'without' and hence we (consciously or unconsciously) try to describe how the object of our jealousy (or the agent or others) might be viewing us (the subject). In a projective sense this objective view may then be how we 'want' the object of our jealousy (or the agent or others) to see us in order that the 'purpose' of our emotion will be served. Accordingly, the combined male and female 'subjective' definitions speak to jealousy's 'reason' or 'source' as a fear of loss; an imagined, actual or threatened betrayal of trust or committment; and/or a perception of having been deceived or abandoned. Seemingly in congruence, the highest 'objective' rankings of jealousy's elemental emotions for the total group were anger, resentment, rage and humiliation 150 (see table 5). If jealousy's intent is really to preserve the relationship the 'purpose' (e.g., letting object and agent know this) seems poorly or inadequately served by these emotions and this possibly explains the subjective descriptors such as 'irrational' and 'pathological'. However, if anger, rage, resentment and humiliation are seen as normal and initial grief reactions to the threat of loss or anticipated loss then they make more sense. This view requires a combination of the objective and the subjective -— the 'reason' and the 'purpose'. The objectively described emotions thus serve the purpose of letting the object (and agent and others) know that we deny or refute our anticipated loss — we 'recognize' if not yet accept a/the threat. With anger, resentment, rage and humiliation the subject 'objectively' tests the accuracy or validity of his/her 'source' or 'subjective' emotions (the fear of loss, felt betrayal of trust, etc.) and does this in 'reasonable' ways given his/her stage in a grief reaction to 'anticipated loss' or the 'threat of loss'. With this frame of reference, objective emotions that display an 'acceptance' would make less sense or be premature because with them the subject risks that the object will interpret them an as acceptance of the potential loss rather than as a recognition of the threat. Thus anger, rage, humiliation and resentment may not be the most 151 efficient emotions in terms of the ultimate goal but they serve the purpose during the initial stage of anticipatory grief. Examining table 5 once again, male rankings are highest for humiliation and depression while female rankings are highest for anger and rage. A possible explanation for these differences can be found by again combining the objective and the subjective. Accordingly, the male subjective definitions more frequently include descriptors" such as 'possessiveness' and 'envy' (codes 46, 48, 51 , 54, 55, 56, 59, 61, 70) whereas the female descriptors are more-frequently 'desire', 'insecurity', 'fear of competion' (as versus competition) and again 'envy' (codes 01, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 14, 18, 22, 23, 26, 29, 32, 34, 36,41). The male in our society with his relatively more powerful social and economic position would 'logically' be more likely to assume his rights, privileges and ownership relative to the female. In the instance of his felt jealousy (as a threat to the boundaries of the relationship) he thus objectively displays humiliation and depression because the 'subjective' source of his jealousy is moreso one of potential loss of 'possession'. From his internal point of view his experience is likewise 'irrational' — it makes little sense that someone in a relatively more powerful position should suddenly be in a victim.role and 152 required to fear loss and/or re-state claims and values on his possessions. This should 'reasonably' be necessary only in the process of acquisition. In contrast, the female's protection of claims and her portrayal of the value she places on the relationship are necessarily ongoing because of her relatively dependent and less powerful position. Hence, her subjective 'source' of jealousy includes the type of descriptors named above (the desire, insecurity, fear of competition, etc.). She is objectively more likely to display aggression as 'anger' and 'rage' because from her position others levels of power are perceived to be blocked off (cf. discussion of May's thesis on levels of power in chapter two and also the comparison of male and female coping behaviours in chapter three, section VIII). Females also described (objectively) in their coping behaviours a greater tendency toward aggression and antagonism while males were more likely to withdraw or close off. In this sense, the interpretation offered earlier (e.g., using Constantine's model these data, were seen as indicators that females have a greater tendency to behave in ways that will preserve the relationship) can be seen as one that views the female's purpose as possibly more altruistic but also as one that is more 'required' by her social status. In contrast, when the male's position is threatened he 1 53 will be more likely than the female to resign himself to the loss by withdrawing and displaying humiliation and depression. From his perspective the circumstance of the relatively less powerful female managing to evoke in him this 'irrational' emotion, approaches an a priori confirmation that the threat is actual and the loss impending or imminent rather than simply 'threatened'. Alternatively, an objective display of acceptance of loss rather than recognition of a threat may be more effective in reversing the (dependent, less powerful.)' female's jealousy evoking behaviour if her intention is not 'finally' one of sabataging the boundaries of the relationship or ending it (in which case her position becomes one of more power than his). In this sense, the male's non-action may be as effective as the female's action. In summary, jealousy for both males and females emerges as a display and an experience of anticipatory grief. This is evident in subject's definitions, their objective ratings of elemental emotions and in their experimental descriptions which are further discussed below. Participants' Jealousy Experiences: A Discussion Participants' most extreme experiences with jealousy are depicted in appendix D (item 28). These verbatim responses 'speak for themselves'. The discussion to follow extrapolates some of the major themes that seem evident to 154 the researcher. References are also made to responses for items 29 and 30 in the same appendix. Again loss and fear are central themes for both males and females. Very often a generalized 'fear of loss' is described and many responses name the particular loss that is anticipated. The most distinct is a naming of a 'loss of trust' (codes 08, 11, 30, 34, 40, 44, 60, 66, 71, 73). Sometimes this loss of trust is generalized to all members of the partner's sex (codes 34 and 66) or to the subject's overall, ability to trust (codes 11, 40", item 3'07. As in the definitions, these responses reveal an apparent or perceived threat to relationship boundaries and a suggestion that the object has betrayed an assumed or established committment or has been deceitful or dishonest. Females also describe many other types of anticipated loss including: loss of confidence in self — generally or as a woman (code 01, 13, etc.); loss of love, affection, attention, intimacy, interest, time or loss of the relationship (codes 25, 27, 31, 36, 37, etc.); loss of respect for self or object (codes 21, 24); loss of control (code 34); loss of friendship with agent (code 26); loss of freedom (code 38); and loss of appreciation (code .42). Few female responses explicitly name the partner's sexual involvement with another as the primary threat although many do allude to re-directed sexual attention.. A few explicity mention that their jealousy emanated more from 1 55 the potential loss of emotional intimacy implied by their partner's infidelity than from their knowledge of the act itself. The high level of self-disclosure and the specificity with which women in this sample have named their losses and fears indicates further that indeed they fear more the implications to their relationships than the actual loss of fidelity. This is congruent with the many findings and interpretations that were discussed in chapter two, especially those that discussed the female's greater dependence on and emotiorial involvement in the relationship as well as her distinct process of socialization. Males frequently describe loss of lover or sex partner or loss of sexual fidelity (codes 46, 50, 58); loss of understanding, understood status or hoped for status (codes 48, 55, 57, 67, 69); loss of partner's loyalty (code 48); loss of the relationship or its stability (codes 49, 50, 58, 60, 61, 64, 69); loss of partner's interest, attention or intimacy (codes 63, 65, 70, 71, 72, 73); and loss of friendship with agent (code 70). As in their definitions of jealousy, males frequently name or imply 'envy' or use it interchangeably with jealousy. They do not distinguish between the two emotions as clearly as do females (codes 51, 53, 54, 56, 57, 59, 62, 67, 68). Again, their responses generally name fewer elemental emotions and are less disclosing than female responses. They seem more resigned to or accepting of the 1 56 threat of loss and more inclined to withdraw and/or avoid their feelings and the circumstance (codes 56, 58, 61, 64, 65, 67, 68, 70). A few males mention that they either don't recall or have had 'no', 'few' or 'only one' experience with jealousy. This may be the case or it may be that they are less likely than females to recognize, acknowledge or remember occurrences of this taboo emotion. Our society does not facilitate the acknowledgement of jealousy by either sex and it may be even more difficult for men to claim this emotion because of the 'jealous woman' stereotype. Men may tend to repress the experience and expression of jealousy (even more than women) in order to avoid its negative associations with emotional dependence, femininity, envy and possessiveness. Their claims to relatively rare experiences with this 'irrational' emotion are congruously ascribed to the instinctual or forces beyond their cognitive control (cf. code 72 "jealousy did not manifest itself to the person involved" and many of the male def initions). Males in this sample who name their emotions also contribute more than other males in responding to items 29 and 30 in appendix D and item 123, 'other insights' in appendix F. For instance, responses to each of these items by code 48 demonstrate the subject's insight into the male socialization process that was motivated by his experiences with jealousy. In contrast, code 56 demonstrates (in 157 responses to items 28, 29, 30 and 123) a lack of distinction between jealousy and envy and a strong affiliation with the norms of the traditional male role in western societies. Overall, many subjects report both positive and negative effects in terms of their most extreme experiences with jealousy (cf. responses to item 29, appendix D). Many times these experiences are named as the significant or final trigger for ending a relationship. Sometimes this ending is seen as a constructive step for both parties but most often its effect is viewed in a much more negative way. Jealousy's affiliation with one of the characteristics of loss is poignantly described in code 02 by the subject's description of how each new jealousy experience re-activates the earlier experience. Positively, she notes her new insight and that she "moved on". The idea that jealousy is a positive trigger for communication and a motivator for review or re-evaluation of relationship boundaries is evident in many of the responses to item 29. Sometimes subjects report that their extreme experiences ultimately resulted in stronger, more intimate or more clearly defined relationships (codes 04, 08, 11, 15, 19, 22, 27, 28, 29, 31, 33, 42, 61, 65, 73). Likewise, negative effects are many and the most poignant is (again) the erosion of trust associated with betrayal of assumed or understood committments. A lack of constructive or positive resolution pervades many responses and is typified in code 158 06 by the subject's claim that "I learned to hate myself for feeling jealous". Finally, responses to item 123 (appendix F) effectively demonstrate the broad and various understandings that subjects will share in response to an open-ended question. In these generous responses jealousy is variously characterized as normal, healthy, constructive, positive, abnormal, negative, destructive, pathological and many other categorizations. Different socio-cultural insights are contributed and many and various causes, effects and' elemental emotions are named. Solutions and resolutions abound. All responses are unique and together they contribute to a very broad conceptualization of jealousy. Implications for Further Research It is evident from the generosity of subjects' responses and from their level of self-disclosure that they were not only willing but keen to self-explore about the-ir jealousy experiences. The interpretations offered by the researcher were presented as a motivation for further theoretical discourse. The broad understandings gained by reviewing the subjective data indicate the need to remain open to the as yet unrefined conceptualization of jealousy. They support the continuing use of a definitional "form" and a broad terminology that will allow for flexibility in terms of 159 incorporating jealousy into an overall framework for human emotions. The definition presented in chapter one meets these needs by giving the concept a form that will allow for a synergistic development of subjective and objective ideas. It grounds the emotion in human needs and experience which are dynamic, and socially as well as intrapersonally determined and influenced. The triangular form also allows for further development of a cognitive-behavioural-emotional network. It can be expanded into a tetrahedral structure thus allowing for the analysis of other triangular networks such as subject^object-agent roles and interaction and subjective-objective-experiental positions in terms of the individuals of perception of jealousy. Accordingly, a number of directions for future research are implied by this phase of the research. For instance, a more detailed qualitative analysis of jealousy definitions and experiences is indicated. Having been presented with the triangular conceptual characteristics of jealousy (as discussed above), individuals, couples, and/or groups of subjects could be incorporated in an open forum generation of data and a qualitative analysis leading to a more convergent definition and/or to a more detailed outline of major experiental themes and elemental emotions. The interpretations in this phase as well as the previous phase of this study indicate a central need for a 160 qualitative analysis of jealousy's relationship with different types and levels of power such as those s.ug,ge_sted by May (1972) and discussed at length in chapter two. Price and Barrell (1980) describe a research paradigm (involving an experiental approach with quantitative methods) that might be useful in such research. Using this methodology, investigators would "question and passively attend" (p.75) to a variety of their own experiences with jealousy (e.g., from different role positions — as subject, as object, and as agent) and describe these experiences in the context of placing themselves in situations or reliving past situations. The.experiences are then described in terms of how they experience the phenomenon [in this instance their power] rather than in terms of the target of their attention or the stimulus conditions (p.76). Analysis of these descriptions is then used to generate definitional hypotheses which are "statements about the necessary and sufficient experiental elements for the occurrence of a given phenomenon" (p.76). These would seemingly be quite different in instances of jealousy experiences that variously result in the sharing of different types of power such as the exploitative, manipulative, competitive, nutrient and integrative types suggested by May (1972). Also, the jealousy process that eventuates in satisfactory resolution may move through all or some of these levels of power sharing and hence it may be important to incorporate subject-investigators who report a 161 range of adequate-inadequate resolutions. Price and Barrell (1980) further suggest that the above qualitative analysis of experiential descriptions can also be used to generate functional hypotheses which are "statements about the relationship between experiental elements" (p.76). Both types of hypotheses are then tested in experiments using subjects who are not familiar with them and this constitutes the quantitative phase of the research. The authors suggest using questionnaires to test definitional hypotheses and ratio-scaling techniques to te"st functional hypotheses. Variations of the above-described research methodology could also be used to examine the many other relationships implied by this study such as jealousy and fear of loss or fear of competition as well as jealousy and synergy. For example, a heterogeneous sample of couples could be used to generate hypotheses and to quantitatively demonstrate similarities and differences in terms of coping mechanisms and outcomes for jealousy experiences given different self-assessed levels of synergy or self-assessed types of loss and their meaning. Equally relevant is the need for further study of jealousy and trust. The qualitative analysis of subjective data in this study indicates that extreme jealousy experiences have especially negative or destructive outcomes when they involve a perceived or actual betrayal of trust or 162 committment that is based in a value on monogamy. However, some subjects report that outcomes of jealousy experiences involving sexual infidelity were ultimately positive for themselves and/or for their relationships. This indicates a need for future research to further incorporate the broader conceptualization of jealousy (as a trigger for change or re-evaluation of relationship boundaries) into quantitative and qualitative analysis of socio-cultural and other process factors that result in these outcome polarities. Development of jealousy theory also needs to consider further the reciprocal roles in our culture and the possibility that jealousy is sometimes provoked to test a trust that is ultimately or exclusively based in a rigidly held value on monogamy. In this instance, the value itself may serve a less than useful purpose and it may be growth-inhibiting. Thus, by provoking jealousy (consciously or unconsciously) through actions contrary to this value and contrary to the expectations based on it, the object acts (altruistically or otherwise) as a change agent. Depending on how the dynamics are managed by all concerned, the outcomes can be highly creative or highly destructive or anywhere in between. A creative outcome through effective negotiation might be (for example) that the subject continues to hold the value but does so less rigidly; respect is re-established and new or expanded bases for trust are formed. 163 In contrast, the same situation, given different dynamics, may have equal potential for destructiveness. An example would be denial of jealous feelings and their provocation and perpetuation of destructive cycles, like those described by Seeman (1979) —r- untruthfulness, surreptitiousnous and furtiveness in one partner and ruminations, rage, mania and remorse in the other. Because creative outcomes are seemingly rare and infidelity approaching the norm in our society, phenomenological and empirical study of their combination is recommended. Finally, the combined analysis of both phases of this study indicates that men and women define their jealousy experiences differently and this was interpreted in terms of differing cultural phenomena in the process of their socialization. Seemingly, they have a shared awareness of the phenomenological aspect of the emotion but somewhat differing 'reasons' for or 'sources' for its occurrence, yet a common 'purpose' (preservation of the relationship) that is expressed in differing ways. Further clarification and validation of these differences will be most humanely approached by seeking phenomenological evidence that is grounded in and later applied to human experience via counselling practice. 1 64 Chapter Summary This chapter has presented the phenomenological phase of this study. The subjective data contributed by participants were presented (in appendices D, E and F) and discussed. Researcher interpretations were offered as motivation for further theoretical discource but it was emphasized that the essence of this phase is contained within participants' verbatim resonses and in their own interpretations. Objective data and interpretations from the empirical phase were integrated into the discussion. Finally, implications for future research and theory development were discussed at length, again integrating previous chapters. 1 65 CHAPTER V IMPLICATIONS FOR COUNSELLING PRACTICE The definition of jealousy presented in chapter one and the subsequent study have resulted in a broader conceptualization and many preliminary findings. Implications for future research and theory development were discussed in chapters three and four. They were derived from the findings of this study and from an integration of the body of knowledge reviewed earlier. The broader conceptualization of jealousy sees it as a triangular human experience which involves dynamic interaction among cognitive, behavioural and phenomenological components. It occurs in a context of actual or perceived threat to both personal and interpersonal core needs. This threat is experienced by the subject mainly as a fear of loss and often involves a perceived or actual breach of trust or committment by the object. Jealousy is a discrete emotion, something more than a sum of its elemental emotions. It is a social, interactional process which effects and is effected by three people or two people and some other agent such as an activity or material possession. It is variously 166 interpreted and variously expressed by individuals, couples and the social groups to which they belong — depending on many factors including their particular beliefs, assumptions, norms, values and the rules they make about the boundaries for their primary relationships. This chapter discusses implications for counselling practice. They emanate from a consolidation of insights gained from the review of three main theories of emotion; the critique.of perspectives and research on jealousy from the disciplines of anthropology, sociology, psychiatry and psychology; the data, findings and interpretations of both phases of the study; and from the researcher's clinical experience. First, general considerations are discussed and they are followed by a three-section presentation of principles and specific interventions for counselling individuals, for counselling couples and for counselling groups. The author assumes that, in all instances, application of her suggestions will be preceded by the individual counsellor's professional assessment of their suitability for his/her client(s) given their particular and unique circumstances. She further assumes that the possibility of jealousy as a symptom of organic dysfunction has been ruled out. If there is strong evidence that the client's experience with jealousy is based on delusional material, referral and consultation should be sought promptly. 167 Physical violence, suicide and homicide should also be ruled out if circumstances suggest that the client, may be a danger to him/herself or others. General Considerations The primary relationship meets many and various needs for love, interest, affection, time, attention, sexual and other intimacies, as well as economic, social and other securities. When jealousy occurs the anticipated loss or losses are complex. Among other things, the counsellor's role involves helping the client identify and priorize his/her fears in relation to these anticipated losses. The counsellor also needs to be aware and to help his/her client(s) recognize and'express jealousy's many elemental emotions which seem to be related to various stages of an anticipatory grief reaction. Fear and/or fear of loss and feelings of having been betrayed or abandoned appear to be5 the'most' significant in terms- of the' individual's subjective experience. Objectively, he/she may communicate anger, rage, resentment, humiliation and/or many other emotions. Guidance in connecting his/her emotions with the experience in a meaningful and positive way will foster movement toward recognition of jealousy as a valid and potentially useful emotion. However, in light of jealousy's negative and/or taboo status, alternative perspectives are frequently warranted. 168 Accordingly, the client(s) should be helped to view jealousy as a motivator or trigger for potentially creative action that may have positive outcomes for all involved.. Use of the traditional 'jealous person' label should be discouraged and replaced by the dynamic, interactional perspectives that have been discussed at length in this work. Pejorative labels used by clients to negate their emotional experience (or to "blame" themselves or others for experiencing jealousy) should be balanced with more positive labels such as "loyal", "passionate", "adaptive", or "protective". Jealousy involves issues of competition, power and power-sharing, control, cooperation, freedom, rights and privileges. These issues need to be openly discussed within the context of 'relationship' and in terms of individual assumptions, beliefs and expectations. Demonstration and practice of negotiation skills will facilitate individuals, couples and groups who seek harmony in their intimate relat ionships. Jealousy also fundamentally involves a need for maintenance, re-evaluation and/or change of relationship boundaries. This implies a need for early and open discussion of counsellor and client biases about monogamy or other relationship arrangements. Other bases for trust and committment should also be discussed. Emotional and sexual intimacies should be discussed and compared in terms of their meaning and value for each member and for the dyad. 169 The counsellor will also need to be open to the possibility of the couple separating and should be skilled in facilitating this process in a way that minimizes the potential for destructive, growth-inhibiting outcomes. The subject's jealousy behaviours should generally be normalized within the framework of loss, its characteristics and its process unless there is evidence of physical violence or other dangerous behaviour. The 'reason' or 'source' for the emotion (and its elemental emotions) as well as the 'purpose' served by its various" expressions will be a central goal for mutual understanding of the subject's experience. The same means and goal are recommended for promoting an understanding of the object's experience vis a vis his/her emotions, behaviours and involvement in evoking or maintaining the jealousy process. The counsellor should remember that behaviours will be ^effected by: indiviual perception of the jealousy experience; the ongoing process among subject, object and agent; stages of the anticipatory grief reaction; cultural and subcultural milieu; type and perceived potency of threat; individual, couple and societal levels of synergy and many other factors. A decision to include the agent in the therapeutic process may be considered. In this author's view, any negotiation in this regard should consider the particular circumstance(s); the wishes of subject, object and agent; 1 70 and the counsellor's professional judgement. If a positive decision is made, the means for incorporating the agent will require sensitivity and discretion. The remainder of this chapter is divided into three sections that will present principles and a few specific interventions for individual, couple and group counselling. Often these principles overlap and with some modification most statements in each section are also applicable to subsequent sections. Choice of setting is assumed to be a client-counsellor decision.. Counselling Individuals The suggestions below assume that the client-counsellor relationship has reached an adequate or better level of shared trust and hence, that the client has been guided in the process of self-exploration to a point at which a goal of dynamic self-understanding is suitably pursued (cf. Egan, 1975, p.36). 1. Help the client transcend the tendency to use dispositional labels. Instead, present a perspective of humans as dynamic and changing and a perspective of jealousy as a social-interactional process (e.g., "We don't experience jealousy in isolation but in the context of an important and valued relationship"). 2. Give jealousy a valid context within the individual's unique experience. Help him/her to recognize that 171 jealousy may exist as a sound judgement of a real or perceived threat to his/her physical, emotional or pyschological well-being. Remember that clients with differing socio-cultural backgrounds will experience jealousy in varying situational contexts and their expression of it is a statement about their norms, values, beliefs and the assumptions they make about their intimate relationships. 3. Proceed from areas of least threat (e.g., childhood experiences with jealousy) to areas of; greater and most threat. Accordingly, use past, recent or current . experiences to describe the jealousy process and relate it to anticipatory loss. 4. Promote client self-exploration in an ongoing way to refine recognition of the elemental emotions in his/her jealousy experience. 5. Help the client name specific fears and practice "I-messages" that he/she will be able to use to communicate in open and direct ways within the context of his/her intimate relationships. 6. Eventually introduce a perspective that choice of destructive behaviours over constructive ones does not justify "blaming" ourselves for experiencing jealousy. 7. Guide the client in the process of exploring needs, values, assumptions and beliefs in terms of his past and current intimate relationships, especially with respect 1 72 to boundaries. What are his/her requirements for security, shared mutuality and emotional intimacy? 8. Help the client to clarify his/her limits in terms of what behaviours are considered to be acceptable (for self and for partner) with opposite-sex persons. 9. Encourage explorations of jealousy's goal within the context of the client's experience. Examine the wants and needs that unerlie those that are more superficially expressed. Accordingly, explore the principles and practice the skills of resolution-seeking through effective negotiation. 10. Promote open discussion of needs for attention, expressed interest, love, time, etc. from partner and examine them within the context of realistic expectations as versus demands. 11. Openly discuss the issue of social disapproval of jealousy in our culture and ways for overcoming the resultant barriers to its communication (cf. previous discussions and suggestions throughout the paper). 12. Explore possibilities in terms of partner's possible investment in maintaining client in the role of jealous subject — and ways in which client and partner can assume new roles without 'losing face'. This will require their mutual insight into the reciprocal nature of their current experience and roles and hence this author's preference for couples or group therapy. 1 73 However, there will be instances in which one or the other partner refuses to participate and accordingly, the counsellor should be cognizant of and sensitive to the therapeutic triangle that is, nevertheless, created. 13. Address the issue of the 'jealous flash' and encourage the client to name his/her particular physiological responses during experiences with jealousy. Distinguish and parallel instinctual behaviour and behaviour that is conditioned by our families and our society, noting their tendency to be equally 'automatic'. Talk about the fight/flight response, territoriality and physical feelings as accompanying the emotion rather than 'being it' as per Solomon's (1976) theory. 14. In relation to the above, support the client in talking about emotional experiences in which he/she felt a "loss of control" and suggest ways in which these occurrences may be more satisfactorily managed. Suggest cues to help control breath, heartbeat and other physiological responses (e.g., abdominal breathing techniques and/or drinking a cold glass of water very slowly). These and other cues are especially important for the client who expresses a tendency toward physical violence. 15. As insights develop, guide the client in an exploration of behavioural options for jealousy experiences. Distinguish each of the four main behavioural types included in Constantine's (1976) model (isolational, 174 antagonistic, redefinitional and resolutional). To evaluate progress, compare their various outcomes in terms of the client's own experience. Use role-playing or empty-chair techniques to practice constructive verbal exchanges with partner. Bibliotherapy may be useful as a specific intervention for some clients. Suggestions might include: a) Andre Maurois' (1965) "Atmosphere of Love" which is a novel about love and jealousy. It is written from • - the two viewpoints of a husband and' his second wife'. It effectively demonstrates role reciprocity and shifts in the jealousy triangle as 'subject' becomes 'object' in a new relationship. b) A.M. Dahms' "Emotional Intimacy: An Overlooked Requirement for Survival" which talks about the skills implied in the title and provides a perspective on intimacy as a committment to constructive human relationships at all levels of the social system. This book is practical and not sent imental. c) Robbe-Grillet's (1957) "Jealousy" (or the original French version "La Jalousie") provides a very experiential perspective on the emotion. The story has three characters — the husband, the wife and the presumed lover. It is narrated by the husband and the structure of the novel has the reader in an 175 'absent-I" position. The text is the mental content of the narrator who is the subject of jealousy. The 'experience' is compacted into a few days space of time during which the narrator observes and lives the events of the plot in great detail. The reader is poignantly aware of the ever-present 'missing bit of visual information' because the narrator's description of scenes involving his wife and her presumed lover is extremely detailed but his view is through slatted blind's or 'jalousies' thus never allowing for the complete information that would be necessary to justify his suspicions of her infidelity. Counselling Couples The suggestions- in this section assume that the couple are searching for ways to mend or improve their relationship. I f , on the other hand, separation is imminent, the counsellor will need to incorporate different principles and strategies. For instance, Lynch (1982) outlines a structured interview for couples at the point of separation. Her premise is that most couples separate with a hope of reconnecting in the future. Her interview focuses on helping them get a sense that they are making the right decision; a plan for proceeding; an awareness of the difficulties that will be involved; a feeling that not all 176 is destroyed; and a sense of the potential for growth. Most of the suggestions under the sections above are also applicable in the couples-therapy setting, although some modifications may be necessary. Hence, they are not repeated below. Finally, none of the suggestions below can be universally applied and this section is not intended as a comprehensive treatment plan. 1. Be aware of the triangle that is "set up" by initiation of therapy. To effect change in the couple system the therapist will need the balance of control in terms of the. process and so each therapist needs to make an a priori decision about how he/she will respond to requests for therapy. One way to prevent collusion is to agree to the therapist role only after the request has been issued by each partner and until that point, keep verbal exchanges brief. Do not participate in telephone discussions of problems with one or the other partner unless there are indicators of physical violence, suicide or homicide in which case crisis intervention is necessary. Otherwise, clarify that lasting change requires the initial and ongoing involvement of both partners. 2. Avoid polarizing the couple by working with a 'jealous person' and a 'hon-jealous person'. Instead, view the couple as a system and the jealousy as a process created by and effecting that system and its members. 1 77 3. If one or the other member of the couple assigns pathology to their partner, confront this as an issue, that contributes to the destructive part of the process. •4. Encourage each member to work on 'self' within the context of the relationship and remember to affirm positive efforts in this regard. Especially in the early sessions it will be important to structure the process and to avoid three-way exchanges (e.g., "As part of the process of helping both of you to arrive at a common description of the problem, I am going to speak with each of you for 10 minutes. During that time it is very .-important for the listening person to be involved but silent."). Accordingly, demonstrate attending behaviours and explain active listening to facilitate the listener in gaining a better understanding of his/her partner's perspective. 5. Assess what each member and the couple as a unit brings to therapy in terms of involvement with other helping professionals; history and structure of current family and family of origin; previous marriages or relationships; current social circles; and most importantly, unresolved losses. Jealousy as a 'fear of loss' may be an indicator that a previous loss has not been grieved for by the couple as a unit, hence blocking intimacy in this and other areas. 6. Accordingly, the essence of therapy may be in redefining 178 the problem as a common need for intimacy. Introduce the perspective that the old problems may be failed or ineffective attempts at solution. They didn't work because the problem was not clearly defined in the first place. 7. As soon as possible, guide the couple in the process of naming a common goal for therapy and in naming the behavioural changes that will serve as indicators that this goal has been attained. Often the goal can be encapsulated as a need for more and better intimacy. 8. Give therapy a beginning and an end by naming the number of sessions that will be dedicated to working toward the goal that has been named. When this point is reached further therapy is a negotiable issue. 9. Speak to healthy, positive aspects of their relationship and affirm signs that they are making connections with this aspect. 10. If present, discourage each partner's tendency to use good/bad, right/wrong and other black/white polarities. Provide a perspective that each person's reality is his/her own and is a valid one for him/her. 11. Help them to examine their jealousy process in terms of patterns and cycles such as those suggested by Seeman (1979) and discussed earlier. A flip chart may be useful to demonstrate these patterns visually and to use for future reference when planning or evaluating action-179 oriented changes. 12. Inject humor into the couple system by encouraging them to laugh about some of their issues. 13. Define 'affairs' by their 'source' which is often a 'fear of intimacy'. Point out that affairs can be with another sex partner, a friend, a therapist, a committment to work, career, sports or other activities. The jealousy process may involve both partners in separate affairs which they should each be encouraged to name. 14. Dialogue openly about various aspects of intimacy such as excitement, shared hopes, dreams, good sex, the ability to grieve together, etc. Draw a 'common purpose' parallel between jealousy and the affair to show how each serves a similar goal and how both are indirect attempts to meet mutual needs for intimacy. 15. Introduce some rituals as a grounding for intimacy. Solicit specificity from each member when he/she states wants or needs in a vague way. 16. Distinguish between wants and needs and help each client accept guilt feelings that may come along with making "I-want" statements. 17. As insights develop and the couple are increasingly able to face their issues and acknowledge their mutual roles in maintaining the jealousy process, demonstrate higher levels of self-disclosure (e.g., "I try to control you by...."). Explore effective ways of sharing power in its 180 positive sense of being "with the other person" (May, 1972, p.109). 18. Generally use and teach a research approach by frequently encouraging perception checks; promoting shared curiousity; sharing evaluations of what is working well and what is not working so well; and by sharing appreciations and disappointments with each other and about the process of therapy. The therapist should name what he/she has learned during the process from each person and. from the couple as a unit. •.,. 19. For bibliotherapy,. suggest C. Steiner's "The Other Side of Power". This book discusses the nature of power and cooperative ways of striving for power parity in relationships. The suggestions for bibliotherapy under previous section are also applicable here. Counselling Groups A comprehensive program' design- for group counselling of couples is provided elsewhere by this author (West, 1983) and so this section will present only a few major considerations. The suggestions assume inclusion or consideration of previous sections. 1. Among other things, publicity about groups that work with jealousy should clearly state the objectives; define jealousy; emphasize its universal and interactional nature; exemplify mutuality in the jealousy process; and 181 specify criteria for the involvement of both partners. 2. Pre-screening interviews will be. essential for many reasons including needs assessment; selection of participants; preparation for participation; referral of applicants not suitable for the group; and to provide an early liason between members and the leader as a way of facilitating the. development of trust. 3. A pre-session meeting of selected participants should be held to enhance the early stages of group development. For example, the lead'er(s) can introduce themselves, the topic and.their philosophies about counselling and about adult learners; members can get acquainted; objectives can be reviewed and compared with expectations; some early statements about interest and goals can be made by participants; and introductory concepts can be presented (e.g., a definition and brief description of jealousy and its process and a brief, introductory discussion about needs, wants, rights, freedom, privilege and power). 4. The pre-session interviews and meeting are especially important because the topic itself implies conflict to most people. Hence, fears about what will happen in the group experience need to be discussed. 5. Reading materials and homework should be considered as added preparation. Topics might include those mentioned in #3 above as well as an introduction to the principles and skills of negotiation as for example, Tessina and 182 Smith's (1980) "How to be a Couple and Still be Free". 6. Group numbers will be an important consideration given the triangular nature of jealousy and hence the probable inclusion of exercises involving three people. Twelve members (6 couples) are suggested in order to meet this need for multiples of three and to approximate as closely as possible the recommendations of group theorists such as Corey and Corey (1977). 7. Because of the nature of the topic and the "couples" structuring of the group, co-leadership (e.g., optimally, a man/woman team) will best facilitate process and dynamics. 8. Issues of confidentiality; how much and when to self-disclose; and other guidelines should be taught in early sessions and reinforced in an ongoing way. Again, this is especially important because of the nature of the topic. Group process should also be taught to part ic ipants. 9. Exercises and theory will generally involve concepts discussed in this and previous sections. For more specifics, please see West (1983). 10. For bibliotherapy in a closing session, subgroups could reade portions of Courtin's (1684) treatise on jealousy and analyze it in terms of historical versus contemporary sex roles in western society. Following subgroup analysis, the whole group could be reassembled for a 183 discussion of what jealousy meant then versus what it now means vis a vis male and female roles. Chapter Summary This chapter discussed implications for counselling practice that were derived from the broad base of this study on jealousy and from the researcher's clinical experience. It was divided into four main sections. The first section discussed some general considerations and the next three sections included principles and specific interventions for counselling individuals, couples and groups. 184 THESIS SUMMARY This study was designed to re-explore and broaden the conceptualization of jealousy. It used empirical and phenomenological approaches. In the empirical phase objective data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. In the phenomenological phase subjective data were analyzed on the basis of major descriptors, elements and themes in the verbatim responses of participants. The interpretations in each phase were supported by data and findings from the other phase and by the conceptual understandings gained from a review of three theories of emotion and a critique of the conventional and research literature on jealousy from the disciplines of anthropology, sociology, psychiatry, and • psychology. Three hundred adults from a university student-family housing complex were surveyed using an adapted version of a jealousy instrument by Aronson and Pines (1982). Forty-five-female and 28 male respondents defined jealousy in their own words; described and interpreted their most extreme experiences with jealousy and responded (on a one-to-seven scale) to objective item subtests measuring jealousy prevalence; phyical and emotional reactions; general reactions and coping mechanisms. Quantitative and qualitative analyses resulted in many preliminary findings. Among them were: apparent therapeutic 185 effects of the instrument; sex differences in each of the objective subtests; and qualitative similarities and differences among individuals and between the sexes in participant defintions, in their experiential accounts and in their interpretations. For instance, male subjective descriptions named fewer elemental emotions than female subjective descriptions and women named a much larger .variety of losses in their experiences than did men. Objectively, for men, humiliation and depression appeared as the highest of ranked' mean response's to the 'emotional reactions' subtest, while for women these rankings were anger and rage. Many of the differences were explained on the basis of social and cultural influences. The empirical phase was used to generate several hypotheses for future research and both phases also contributed many general and specific suggestions for future research. Implications for counselling practice were presented in four sections. The first section discussed general considerations and the next three sections presented principles and specific interventions for counselling individuals, for counselling couples and for counselling groups. These implications generally promote a broader conceptualization and more positive and growthful outcomes for jealousy experiences. 186 References Adler, A. Understanding human nature. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1928. Adler, A. [Cooperation between the sexes] (H.L. Ansbacher & R.R. Ansbacher, Eds. and trans.) New York: Norton, 1.982. Ard, B.N., Jr. Avoiding destructive jealousy. Sexology, 1967, 34, 346-348. Aronson, E., & Pines, A. Sexual jealousy inventory. Unpublished scale, University of California, Santa Cruz, 1982. Aronson, E., & Pines, A. Antecedents, correlates, and consequences of sexual jealousy. Journal of  Personality, March, 1 983, 51.(1), 108-136. Barrell, J.J., & Richards, A.C. Overcoming sexual jealousy: An experimental analysis of common factors. The  Personnel and Guidance Journal, September 1982, 40-47. Bartell, S.R. Synergism in human relationships (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, 1977). Dissertation Abstracts International, July 1978, 39 (1-A), 122-123. (University Microfilms No. 78-05379) Beecher, M., & Beecher, W. The mark of Cain: An anatomy of  jealousy. New York: Harper & Row, 1971. Benedict, R. Patterns of culture. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1934. Benedict, R. Synergy: Patterns of the good culture. American Anthropologist, 1 970, 7_2, 320-333. Bohm, E. Jealousy. In A. Ellis & A. Abarbenel (Eds.), The  encyclopedia of sexual behavior (Vol. 1). New York: Hawthorn, 1961. Borg, W.R., & Gall, M.D. Educational research (3rd ed.). New York: Longman, 1979. Bower, G.H. Mood and memory. American Psychologist, 1981, 36(2), 129-148. 187 Bringle, R.G., Roach, S., Craig, A., & Evenbeck, S. Measuring the intensity of jealous reactions. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 1 979, 9(2), 23. (Ms. No. 1832) Buunk, B. Anticipated sexual jealousy: Its relationship to self-esteem, dependency and reciprocity. Personality  and Social Psychology Bulletin, June 1 982, 8(2), 31 0-316. Clanton, G., & Smith, L.G. (Eds.). Jealousy• Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1977. Cobb, J.P., & Marks, I.M. Morbid jealousy featuring as obsessive-compulsive neurosis: Treatment by behavioral psychotherapy. British Journal of . . Psychiatry, 1979, K34, 301-305. Constantine, L.L. Constatine's Contrast Scale Unpublished scale. Boston: Centre for Family Change, 1974 Constantine, L.L. Jealousy: From theory to intervention. In D.H.L. Olson (Ed.), Treating relationships. Lake Mills, Iowa: Graphic Publishers, 1976, 383-398. Coopersmith, S. The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman, 1967. Corey, G. and Corey, M.S. Groups: Process and practice. Monterey, California! Brooks/Cole, 1977. Corzine, L.W. The phenomenon of jealousy: A theoretical and empirical analysis (Doctoral dissertation, United States International University, San Diego, 1974). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1974, 35(2-B), 1016-B. (University Microfilms No. 74-17,97TT Coulter, N.A., Jr. Synergetics: An adventure in human development. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1 976. Courtin, A. [A treatise of jealousie, or means to preserve  peace in marriage] (Los Angeles: W.A. Clark Memorial Library, Special Collections No. 12728/NC 0749587). London: W.H. Freeman, 1684. (Publication of original version in French, Paris: Jossett, 1685.) Daher, D.M. & Cohen, M. Jealousy workshop: A conceptual base and format. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1979, 57, 480-483. 188 Dahms, A.M. Emotional intimacy: Overlooked requirement for  survival. Boulder, Colorado: Pruett Publishing, 1972. Davis, K. Jealousy and sexual property: An illustration. In Human society. New York: The MacMillan Company, 19497 (Originally published, 1936) Egan, G.E. The skilled helper: A model for systematic  helping. Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole, 1975. Elliot, M.E. The language of The King James Bible: A  glossary explaining its words and expressions. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Company, 1967. Ellis, A. The civilized couple's guide to extramarital  adventure. New York: Wyden, 1972. Fisher, H.E. The sex contract: The evolution of human  behavior. New York: Quill, 1982. Foster, G.M. The anatomy of envy: A study in symbolic behavior. Current Anthropology, April 1972, 13(2), 165-202. Francis, J.L. Toward the management of heterosexual jealousy. Journal of Marriage and Family  Counselling, 1977, 3, 61-69. Freud, S. [Certain neurotic mechanisms in jealousy, paranoia and homosexuality, (1922)] Collected Papers (Vol. 2). (Joan Riviere, trans.) London: Hogarth Press, 1956, 232-243. (Originally published, 1924.) Fuller, R.B., & Applewhite, E.J. S y n e rq e t ics : Ex pi o ratd-on s  in the geometry of thinking. New York: Macmillan, 1 982. Glass, G.V., & Stanley, J.C. Statistical methods in education and psychology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1070. Harris, T.G. About Ruth Benedict and her lost manuscript. Psychology Today, 1970, 4, 51-52. Hoaken, P.C.S. Jealousy as a symptom of psychiatric disorder. Australian and New Zealand Journal of  Psychiatry, 1976, U), 47-51. 189 The Holy Bible. (Revised Standard Version containing the Old and New Testaments) New York, Toronto, Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 19'52'. Huber, R.J., Robinson, S., & Huber, P.P. Evolution: Struggle or synergy? Journal of individual  psychology, 1978, 34(2), 210-220. Izard, CE. The face of emotions. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1971. Jaremko, M.E., & Lindsey, R. Stress-coping abilities of individuals high and low in jealousy. Psychological  Reports, 1979, 44, 547-553. Jones, E. Jealousy. In G.E. Levitas (Ed.), The world of  psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Braziller, 1963. (Originally published' in 1929) Jung, G.G. [Collected Works] (Vol. XVII) (R.F.C, Hull, trans.) London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1954. Jung, C.G. [Collected Works] (Vol. I) (R.F.C. Hull, trans.) London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1960. Jung, C.G. [Collected Works] (Vol. IV) (R.F.C. Hull, trans.) London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1961. Klein, M. Envy and gratitude: A study of unconscious  processes. London: Tavistock, 1957. Krewski, D., Platek, R., & Rao, J.N.J. (Eds.). Current topics in survey sampling. New York: Academic Press, 1981. Langfeldt, G. The erotic jealousy syndrome. Journal of  Neuropsychiatry, 1962, 3, 317-321. Lynch, C. A structured interview for working with couples at the point of separation. Family Therapy, 1982, 9(1), 21-34. Maslow, A.H. Synergy in the society and in the individual. In Farther reaches of human nature. New York: The Viking Press, 1971. Maslow, A.H., & Honigmann, J.J. Synergy: Some notes of Ruth . - Benedict. American Anthropologist, 1970, 72, 320-! 333. 190 Mathes, E.W., Roter, P.M., & Joerger, S.M. A convergent validity study of six jealousy scales. Psychological  Reports, 1982, SO, 1143-1147.' Mathes, E;W., & Severa, N. Jealousy, romantic love and liking: Theoretical considerations and primary scale development. Psychological Reports, 1981a, 49, 23-31 . Mathes, E.W., & Severa, N. Interpersonal jealousy scale. Unpublished scale, Western Illinois University, 1981b. Maurois, A. Atmosphere of love. New York: Frederick Ungar, 1965. May, R. Love and will. New York: W.W. Norton, 1969. May, R. Power and innocence: A search for the source of  violence. New York: W.W. Norton, 1972; Mead, M. Jealousy: Primitive and civilized. In G. Clanton & L.G. Smith (Eds.), Jealousy. Englewood Cliffs, •N.J'.: Prentice-Hall, 1977, 115-127. (Originally published, 1931) Mooney, H.B. Pathologic jealousy and psychochemotherapy. British Journal of Psychiatry, 1965, 3, 1023-1042. Mowat, R.R. Morbid jealousy and murder: A psychiatric study  of morbidly jealous murderers at broadmoor. London: Tavistock Publications, 1966. Nasru, F.S. A synergistic view of man and the universe: A psychosocial model' of man- as an open- system (Doctoral dissertation, New York State University, 1980). Dissertation Abstracts International, 1981, 41(8-A), 3617-A. (University Microfilms No. 81-04221T" Nelson, L.R. Guide to LERTAP use and interpretation. Dunedin, New Zealand: University of Otago, 1974. Neu, J. Jealous thoughts. In A. 0. Rorty (Ed.), Explaining  emotions. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1980. The Oxford English Dictionary (Vol. V). Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1933. 191 Pao, P. Pathological jealousy. In C.W. Socarides (Ed.), The world of emotions. New York: International Universities Press, 1977. Plutchik, R. The emotions: Facts, theories, and a new  model. New York: Random House, 1962. Plutchik, R. A general psychoevolutionary theory of emotion. In R. Plutchik & H. Kellerman (Eds.), Emotion: Theory, research, and experience. New York: Academic Press, 1980a. Plutchik, R. A language for the emotions. Psychology  Today, Feb., 1980b, 68-78. Price, D., & Barrell, J.J. An experiential approach with quantitative methods: A research paradigm. Journal, Of HumaniStic Psychology, 1980, 20, 75-95. Reik, T. Psychology of sex relations. New York: Rinehart, 1946. Reik, T. Of love and lust. New York: Farrar, Straus and Company, 1949. Riviere, J. Jealousy as a mechanism of defense. International Journal of Psycholanalysis, 1932, 13, 414-424. Robbe-Grillet, A. [Jealousy] (R. Howard, trans.) New York: Grove Press, 1959. (Originally published as "La Jalousie", Paris: Les Editions de Minuit, 1957.) Rogers, C. On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1961. Satre, J.P. The emotions: Outline of a theory. New York: Philosophical Library, 1948. Schmideberg, M. Some aspects of jealousy and feeling hurt. Psychoanalytic Review, 1953, £0, 1-16. Schoeck, H. [Envy: A theory of social behavior] (M. Glenny and B. Ross, trans.) New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1969. (Originally published in German as "Der Neid", 1966) Seeman, M.V. Pathological jealousy. Psychiatry, 1979, 42, 351-361. 192 Seidenberg, R. Fidelity and jealousy: Socio-cultural considerations. Psychoanalytic Review, 1967, 54, 583-608. Shettel-Neuber, J., Bryson, J.B., & Young, L.E. Physical attractiveness of the 'other person' and jealousy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1978, _4, 612-615. Shostrum, E. Personal orientation inventory (2nd ed.). San Diego, Calif: Educational and Industrial Testing Service, 1974. Sokoloff, B. Jealousy, a psychiatric study. New York: Howell Soskin, 1947. Solomon, R.C. The passions. Garden City, New York: Academic Press/Doubleday, 1976". Steiner, C. The other side of power. New York: Grove Press , 1981. Teismann, M.W. Jealousy: Systematicproblem-solving therapy with couples. Family Press, 1979, 18(2) , 151-160. Teismann, M.W., & Mosher, D.L. Jealous conflict in dating couples. Psychological Reports, 1978, 42, 1211-1216. Tessina, T.B., & Smith, R. How to be a couple and still be  free. North Hollywood, California: Newcastle Publishing, 1980. Thorndike, R.L., & Hagan, E. Measurement and evaluation in  psychology and-education (3rd edv) . New- York: John Wiley & Sons, 1969. Tipton, R.M., Benedictson, C.S., Mahoney, J., & Hartnett, J.J. Development of a scale for the assessment of jealousy. Psychological Reports, 1978, 42, 1217-1218. Todd, J. & Dewhurst, K. The Othello syndrome: A study in the psychopathology of sexual jealousy. Journal of  Nervous & Mental Disorders, 1955, 122, 367-374. Turbott, J. Morbid jealousy: An unusual presentation with the reciprocal appearance of psychopathology in either spouse. Australian and New Zealand Journal of  Psychiatry, 1981, J_5, 164-167. 193 Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English  Language. Springfield, Mass.: G. & C. Merriam, 1976. West, M.B. Working with jealousy: A group workshop for  couples. Unpublished manuscript, University of British Columbia-, Vancouver, Canada, 1983. White, G.L. The social psychology of romantic jealousy (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1976). Dissertation Abstracts  International, 1977, 37(10-B), 5449-5450. (University Microfilms No. 77-7700) White, G.L. Inducing jealousy: A power perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1980, 6, 222-227. White, G.L. SOme correlates of romantic jealousy.. Journal  of Personality, June 1981 a, 49(2), 129-147. White, G.L. Chronic jealousy scale. Unpublished scale, University of Maryland, College Park, 1981b. White, G.L. Relationship jealousy scale. Unpublished scale, University of Maryland, College Park, 1981c. Wylie, R.C. The self-concept. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1961. Wy1ie, R.C. The self-concept: A review of methodological considerations and measuring instruments (2nd revised ed.). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1974. Ziman, E.A. Jealousy in children: A guide for parents. New York: A. A. Wyn , 1949'. APPENDIX A Jealousy Inventory 195 Jealousy Inventory* Circle the number adjacent to the response that applies to you. A. Background Information 1. Sex: 1 male 2 female 2. Age: years 3. Education: Last grade completed in school 4. Other training (please specify) 5. Occupation: 6. Are you currently a student: 1 Yes 2 No 7. Country of birth: . " Country or countries in which you were raised Other countries or cultures in which you lived or participated to an extent which has significantly effected your growth and/or value systems 8. Race: 9. Religion: 1. Caucasian 2. Negroid 3. Oriental 4. Canadian Indian 5. East Indian 6. Other (please* specify) 1. None (atheist) 2. Protestant 3. Catholic 4. Jewish 6. Moslem 7. Hindu 8. Sikh 9. Other (please specify) Siblings: 10. Number of older brothers * Adapted from the Sexual Jealousy Inventory by Ayala Pines and Elliot Aronson. 196 11. Number of older sisters 12. Number of younger brothers 13. Number of younger sisters 14. I am a twin: 1 Yes 2 No 15. Number of people living in household including yourself 16. Please specify their ages and sex (i.e., 10 year male, 15 year female, etc.) Do not include yourself. 17. Present marital/relationship status; 1. Single 2. Divorced 3. Separated 4. Widowed 5. Partnered 6. Cohabi t ing 7. Remarried 8. Married 9. Other (please 18. My current family (i.e., not your family of origin) is best described as: 1. Two-parent family 2. Single parent family 3. Blended family (children in family from two or more marriages) 4. Other (please specify) B. Jealousy Prevalence 19. Do you consider yourself' a.- jealous -person-?" 1 Ye;s3i-2 No 20. How jealous are you at this time in your life? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all extremely jealous jealous How jealous were you in previous periods in your life? (Please use the above scale for all four periods.) 21. During childhood: 22. During adolescence: 23. During young adulthood: 1 97 24. During adulthood: ; 25. Have any of your intimate relationships ended because of your jealousy? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 none several all of them 26. Do most people who know you well consider you a jealous person? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 definitely moderately definitely not jealous yes 27. Do people you have been•intimate with consider you jealous? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 definitely moderately definitely not' jealous yes 28. Please describe the situation that produced your most extreme experience of jealousy. 29. What positive and/or negative effects did this experience have on you and on the primary relationship involved? 30. Describe--a situation that would (for you and-at this time in your life) result in a similar or more extreme experience of jealousy. C. Reactions to Jealousy Recalling your most extreme experience of jealousy, to what extent did you experience each one of the following physical and emotional reactions. Please use the following scale to describe all items. 1 2 not at all 3 4 5 6 7 to a "moderate" very degree intensel1 98 Physical Reactions 31 . hot 44. sexually aroused 32. headachy 45. dizzy 33. shakey 46. appetite loss 34. stomach empty 47. trembling hands 35. breath short 48. fast heartbeat 36. insomnia 49. insomnia 37. energized 50. blood rushinq 38. cold 51 . sweaty 39. faintness 52. exhausted 40. nausea 53. tunnel (or telescoped) 41 . stomach cramps vi sion 42. niqhtmares 54. blurred vision 43. about to have a 55. double vision nervous 56. sounds seem intensified breakdown 57. sounds seem duller 58. sounds are distorted Emotional Reactions 59. rage 74. qr ief 60. humiliation 75. helplessness 61 . self-pity 76. vulnerabi1i ty 62. confusion 77. blame 63. pain 78. resentment 64. possessiveness 79. self-riqhteous 65. inferiority 80. excluded 66. frustrat ion 81 . passion 67. fear of loss 82. hopelessness 68. envy 83. annoyance 69. anger 84. emotional exhaustion 70. aqqression 85. excitement 71 . anxiety 86. entrapment 72. depression 87. low self-imaqe 73. gui It 88. self-knowledge General Reactions 89. Recalling your most extreme experience of jealousy, how long did the experience last? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 seconds minutes hours days weeks months years 199 90. How often do you experience extreme jealousy? 12 3 4 5 6 7 never once rarely occas. often usually always 91. Do you think you coped well with the extreme situation you described? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 very poorly average very well 92. Do you consider your jealousy a problem? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all moderately a very not so serious one 93. Can you make yourself stop being jealous? 1 2 345 6 7 definitely to a certain definitely not degree yes 94. How often do you experience mild jealousy? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 never once rarely occas. often usually always 95. Do you think that jealousy is a normal response in certain situations? 12 3 4 5 6 7 definitely somewhat definitely not yes 96. Do you consider your own jealousy in extreme situations to be an appropriate reaction? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 definitely somewhat definitely not yes 200 Coping with Jealousy How do you cope with jealousy? Please use the following scale for all items: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 never once rarely occas. often usually always 97. rational discussion 98. acceptance 99. stony silence 100. sarcasm 101. avoiding the issue 102. suffer silently but visibly 103. crying 104. finding the funny side 105. clinging __. 106. beseeching " 107. isolation _____ 108. screaming . 109. throwing things 1 TO. denial 112. retaliating - making partner jealous 113. leaving partner 114. suffer silently and covertly 115. physical violence 116. ' making a joke of it 117. negotiation 118. arguing 119. withdrawal 120. using the occasion for thinking through my role in the situation and what it is I stand/fear to lose Other (please specify) 121. How would you define jealousy? 122. Using your own definition, how jealous are you? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not at all moderately extremely 123. Other insights/thoughts/experiences I have had with/about jealousy and with to share at this time. Different cultural, religious, linguistic or any other contributions will be greatly appreciated. If, for example, you are aware of a few or several different words for jealousy in other languages please present them and explain their distinction. APPENDIX B Request for Participation in Study 202 Participation needed in jealousy study by Masters student in Counselling Psychology We all have experiences with jealousy during our lives. These experiences can have both positive and negative effects for ourselves and our relationships. Although none of us are exempt from these experiences, seemingly few people discuss them openly. The purpose of this study is to enlarge upon the theory about jealousy and to provide counsellors with ways in which they will be able to assist individuals, couples and families to use their jealousy experiences in meaningful, constructive ways. To participate you must be between the ages of 20-60 years. During the coming week a large brown unsealed envelope containing the jealousy questionnaire and instruction sheet will be distributed via your mail slot. If you choose to complete the questionnaire it will be assumed that your consent to participate is given. The questionnaire will require a maximum of 30 minutes of your time and most people will be able to answer it much more . quickly. You are requested to answer the questionnaire in privacy and without discussion or consultation. You are, of course, free to withdraw at any time or refuse to answer any questions without prejudice. Should you choose to participate please place the completed questionnaire back in the envelope, seal it and return it to the MELFA COURT address on the outside of the envelope, or if you live in the HIGHRISE, please place the sealed envelope through the inside mail slot on the main floor. People who wish to answer the questionnaire but not deliver it may call the number below and it will be picked up. Return of unanswered questionnaires by the same procedure (except they should remain unsealed) would be greatly appreciated?. The researcher will collect large numbers of the envelopes and shuffle them prior to opening. Your identity will remain absolutely anonymous. Please do not place your name or address anywhere on the envelope or questionnaire. All information collected must remain confidential. Return deadline is July 5, 1983. At the completion of the study a free workshop will be given, with date, time and location to be announced in the newsletter. The study findings will be shared and questions will be answered. For further information, please call Mariette West at 224-7015. 203 APPENDIX C Cover Letter for Inventory 204 Dear Occupant, Enclosed please find a questionnaire that is part of a study about jealousy experiences. The study is for my MA thesis in Counselling Psychology. The purpose of the study is to enlarge upon the theory about jealousy and to provide counsellors with ways in which they will be able to assist people to use their jealousy experiences in more constructive ways. We all have experiences with jealousy during our lives. These experiences can have both positive and negative effects for ourselves and our relationships. Although none of us are exempt from these experiences seemingly few people claim.or discuss them openly. To participate in this study: 1. You must be between the ages' of" 20 and 60 years. 2. If you choose to participate, your consent will be assumed by completion and return of the questionnaire. 3. You are requested to answer the questionnaire in privacy and without consultation or discussion. • Approximately 30 minutes of your time will be required, although some will be able to complete it much more quickly. 4. Your identity will remain absolutely anonymous and all information will remain confidential. Questionnaires will be number coded for purposes of data handling and analysis. Please do not put your' name- or address anywhere on' the envelope or questionnaire. 5. The completed questionnaire should be placed back in the envelope, sealed and returned to the Melfa Court address on the outside, or to the inside mail slot of the family housing office on the main floor of the highrise. Households who wish to return unanswered questionnaires, or who would like extra questionnaires for other members or who would, prefer pick-up rather than delivery of answered questionnaires may call the number below. 6. You are, of course, free to withdraw at any time or to refuse to answer any questions without prejudice. 206 APPENDIX D Responses to Items 28, 29, 30 207 The following are subjects' responses to questionnaire items 28, 29, and 30: 28. Please describe the situation that produced your most extreme experience of jealousy. 29. What positive and/or negative effects did this experience have on you and on the primary relationship involved? 30. Describe a situation that would (for you and at this time in your life) result in a similar or more extreme experience of jealousy. Subjects' responses are verbatim statements and hence may contain grammar, spelling, and punctuation irregularities. Subject Female Subject's Responses 01 28. Finding out that my husband loved another woman. 29. I lost confidence in myself as a woman for a time. I realized that the depth of the relationship on his part had never been what I had hoped it to be therefore brought past happenings into focus. Relationship ended. 30. If I had unrealistic hopes for a particular relationship to develop, then realized I had lost, i.e. that it would never be, because of another woman. 02 28. My husband loved another woman (the couple were close friends of ours) and I felt terrible. I was married 2 years with a small baby and definitely felt the victim. 29. I moved on (positive). I am also able to see how each jealous situation is a reactivation of this earlier experience. I broke up my marriage (negative). 30. My fiancee wanting to be with another woman besides myself. 03 28. During marriage breakdown, before separation, at a party, I became very jealous of a woman flirting with my ex-husband. 29. Positive: I expressed my feelings and felt a little better but I realized it was insecurity 208 about the marriage, (and the man) not the woman, that caused the jealousy. It disgusted my ex-husband, but did, not affect the relationship's already disintegrating path. 30. I think I am envious now of solid man/woman relationships, but I can't imagine really feeling jealousy like I used to, as I am more secure about myself. 04 28. During childhood, sister 2 years younger than me received "more" things (clothes, pets, etc.) the way I saw it. I also saw her as cuter and more easygoing with more friends. I am told that I was "resentful" of her from the moment she was born (I threw numerous tantrums). Up until adolescence I was extremely jealous to the point of fights and tears because I thought my.parents lavished "more" on her. In fact, I. tended to refuse "things" whereas* she accepted everything handed to' her - as if I wanted to be jealous of her. (self-inflicted jealousy) 29. During childhood the relationship between this sister and I was extremely tense. It seems we hated each other the whole time. But now I think the relationship is even stronger than it would have been otherwise. 30. I feel incapable of this kind of jealousy now. 05 28. The time was when a man I was living with confessed he was in love (and seeing) someone else. I split up with him and didn't eat for 8 days. 29. We split up. I cannot accept infidelity, (yet, I am capable of "straying" myself). 30. My boyfriend flirts with his neighbor a lot. If he- flirted with her at'^'party*,,-- in- front- o-fi-me - then "left" with her - I would be very jealous. 06 28. Grade 12, highschool, my boyfriend started dating another girl. It was extremely painful. I would go to any length to try to win back his affections. 29. Pos: it was a growing experience as I eventually got over it. I learned to dislike myself for feeling jealous. Neg: I lost all sense of pride. I was preoccupied with jealousy and it affected my mood. I became quite nasty and hateful. 30. Hopefully nothing will ever be as bad as that was. But, if I deeply loved someone and felt his affections slipping away for another woman 209 that may result in a similar experience. 07 28. I had a relationship with a man that was strongly attached to another woman. She moved out a few months after we met but he could not let her go because he was still so emotionally attached to her. 29. I loved this man very much and would have liked to marry him but realized he was either not in love with me or still too attached to this woman to even consider another relationship. The positive aspect is you grow from experience. The negative aspect is you suffer alot of pain. 30. If I saw him again with this lady I would experience jealousy I'm sure. As well as hurt and resentment. 08 28. A lover who had an intimate affair with someone else while travelling. (It was also sexual, but it was the emotional intimacy that was most threatening to me.) 29. I felt horribly insecure and my trust level was eroded, but having to deal with the issue and our feelings around it was I think ultimately growth producing for both of us. 30. I can't think of one - a similar one would come closest, but I think I've resolved some of the issues. I have a stronger sense of self now and am more willing to experience and acknowledge my vulnerability instead of focusing on the other person, which I think is what jealousy is. 09 28. I saw the man, with whom I had been living with for 2 years but who had called the relationship off for no reason I could understand, walking into a restaurant with a woman I knew and, suspect but don't know, he had had an affair with. I was walking down the street - yelled a bit, threw my sweater at him and cried continually for about a year. 29. For the man I was jealous of, the incident was "water off a duck's back". For the man I was with it probably added some understanding as to my fluctuating behaviour towards him. For myself, it further entrenched me in the non existent relationship, I became even more dependent on it and soon ended the relationship with my new friend. This happened about 5 years ago, I am still caught in this non existent relationship. I even bore one of his 210 children and am pregnant with a second. 30. If I were to meet a man whom I loved, respected and committed myself to and had fun with and a great deal of intimacy and he left out of the blue or simply cut me off - I don't know but I certainly fear I would go through the same jealous routine. 10 28. My most extreme experience of jealousy that I can recall probably had to do with the fact that I grew up with a twin sister. She was more "popular" than I and had many more friends and invitations to parties. 29. Negative effect was probably that of feeling inferior to her. Positive effect was that it probably helped me to pursue my own identity and individuality. I strived to excel in different areas than her. 30. Similar perhaps' would be: being' excluded from, a "social circle". 11 28. Boyfriend-girlfriend situation where boyfriend appeared interested in other girl. This was late teens. Discovered he had several other girlfriends. Subsequent relationships suffered because of a lack in trust as a result of other relationship. 29. (+)opened up more with respect to these feelings. Communication between us increased. (-) an increase in arguments, decrease in my trust in him. Frustration on both sides, studies suffered. 30. Husband interested in another girl but in a more definite way i.e. not coming home. In other words, now I feel more secure in our relationship. 12 28. Adolescence - I was 16 with a boyfriend and moved to Japan. While I was living there he began dating another girl, dropped me quickly upon my return. 29. Made me somewhat cold in order to eradicate the pain caused by jealousy, I'm much quicker to step out of a relationship if I feel I'm unwanted, don't commit myself as easily on an emotional level. 30. My second husband remarrying and getting custody of one or more of the children. (Pain too!) 13 28. In theatre school, I had a great deal of respect for my acting teacher. There was a 21 1 woman in the class with whom I made friends on the first day. This teacher was highly critical of me and seemed to favour my friend. This agitated me until I was furious with both of them most of the time. After graduation -this particular teacher hired me, in shows she was directing, in preference to my "friend". Now we are "friends" again (or at least on pleasant terms). 29. Positive: I was convinced I was a better actress than the woman being favoured but worked very hard to get the approval of this teacher. Harder than I would have with someone who already thought I was great. Negative: I was very angry and tense alot of the time and found it hard (if not impossible) to deal with either of them in a rational way. I let the experience chip away at my already shakey self-image. 30. This is a difficult question.. I think I've mellowed a bit and I'm more confident about my work. I'm more jealous how when my man raves on about another woman. But that doesn't really make me hate her - just watch closely. I'm in a situation now where I'm doing a show and one of the actresses is doing a brilliant job - but I'm just enjoying her. It's smug very self-confident people that threaten me. 14 28. As an adolescent I was very jealous of one girl my boyfriend was concurrently seeing. 29. It consumed a lot of energy and the relationship deteriorated. 30. None. 15 28. A long term general', low-level fear of losing my husband to another woman, which intensified when he had an affair. 29. I learned to like myself. In terms of the relationship over a period of years, my husband and I made a conscious choice to be monogomous. 30. If my husband had an affair now, part of my reaction would be jealousy but I would deal with it more sanely and it would be for a shorter time. 16 28. In childhood - the thought that my twin would get something or be able to do something I couldn't. We had always done everything together, wore the same clothes (we're both female) etc. until we were 16. Various grandparents (never our parents) would single 212 one out for preferment and this would turn one of us into something very nasty. 29. It has caused a certain amount of competition -not as far as we ourselves are concerned but our spouses i.e. x has got a Ph.D., but y owns 2 houses and 2 cars. This is very subliminal -we never actually express it in words. 30. Neither of us can see what the other saw in their husband (mine of 11 years, hers of 2). If something happened to one of our spouses, death, divorce etc. and another man came on the scene who we both agreed fulfilled those qualities we admired most in a man -compassion, etc. - the other twin would feel very jealous. It has happened that we found a man like this - fortunately for our relationship - he was already married to a cousin. 17 28. When I found out my husband was married to another woman also. 29. Ended it that minute. 30. Near repeat of it I guess. 18 28. I had a lover and our relationship had to be kept dead secret. An older woman fondled my lover in my presence (against his wishes) and I • couldn't declare that we had something going. (We were both single so it wasn't an "illicit" affair). 29. No positive effects. Heightened frustration at not being able to be open about our affair. 30. I would only be as jealous as that now if my husband flirted with another woman. Actually, I'd be astounded rather than jealous because he' s- the- least f 1 i rtatious- man' P k-nowv W-ith" • any other man, I would probably answer differently to the above questions. At this time in my life I feel very secure and have no reason to be jealous. 19 28. Watching the man I was sexually involved with talking intimately for several hours with another woman. 29. It made me more interested in the man and willing to make more of a committment to the relationship. 30. If a similar situation reoccured I think my jealousy would be greater now. 20 28. Seeing my serious boyfriend talking to an ex-girlfriend that I did not like. 213 29. Exasperation on my boyfriend's part. 30. An old girlfriend of my husband's re-appearing on the scene and my husband being friendly with her, even if he was only being friendly. 21 28. When I was 19 I became involved with a boy, who unknown to me, had a girlfriend that lived in another city. He married her a year or so later. 29. I learned to be cautious of people who avoid telling the truth - not those who lie, but those who say nothing in an attempt to protect themselves from explaining. 30. Now that I am married I would become jealous if my husband began to see another woman or even if it was just a one-night experience that resulted from peer pressure/drinking/partying with the boys. 22 2.8. After being separated only 2 months my husband " started dating a good friend of mine. She had a good job, nice figure, and gorgeous clothes. I had all this before I married. 29. The positive effects were greatest. I had to deal with him dating other women. It helped me to realize "I am who I am". The only negative effect was that I no longer see her in the same light as when we were friends. 30. Probably if my children were always ranting and raving about how great daddy's new girlfriend is. I think I might feel somewhat threatened. 23 28. Sibling rivalry - younger sister was attractive - clever etc. 29. Still a little jealous - but distance decreases this--. 30. Seeing other families enjoying family activity without the stress attached to those in our own. 24 28. Combination jealousy/anger - after 4 years of mates' infidelity we separated and continued relationship living in separate dwellings. Mate stood me up to go to a gathering at a friend's house so I went alone. He arrived later with woman he had been seeing while we lived together and had previously said he wasn't seeing her any more. 29. It ended the relationship. "Last straw" concept. Negative effects - first time I really felt hatred and I reacted badly - threw glass at him as he left house. Felt horrible 214 for not being able to control myself. 30. To have current companion do a similar act. Have someone abandon me at a social event to flirt with others. 25 28. Went to boyfriend's house to pick him up for prearranged date. Encountered him leaving with a woman with whom he'd had a relationship in the past. Claimed he forgot the date, left with other woman. 29. Negative effects - am now continually suspicious, insecure, have very anxious feelings whenever I go over to his house unexpectedly, always expect the worst. 30. Encountering him with someone else at his house, in an obviously sexual relationship. 26 28. First husband left me with my oldest, longest friend (14 years). After several episodes of infidelity with others and eventually this friend. 29. 6 years later (to present). I cannot speak in a civil, calm fashion to either of them. 30. For my new partner to commit the same thing. 27 28. While pregnant, a former one night stand was writing letters and making phone calls trying to contact him. I phoned him while he was in .... told him about this. Then went to where she was and told her to stay clear. 29. Positive - have not had any problems with her since. I felt more secure. When I told him about what I did, he supported me by not getting mad about it. Our relationship was rocky at this point. This seemed to cement my security that* he was'- with me' and only me;. • 30. I think I would have to find him in bed with someone other than me. 28 28. My husband was travelling - in association with his work and staying at a hotel - when I called to wish him a happy anniversary I discovered he was registered in the same room with his work associate - a woman! 29. Positive: I took a holiday and spent four days with a beautiful young man. Our marriage readjusted to a friendship and although we are now divorced we are still friends who can talk to each other as we could not do before that incident. 30. I do not believe there could be any incident now that could provoke the same reaction. 215 29 28. - a desire to want better living situation or material things. - a desire to want more attention. 29. - it brought us closer together, talking about it. 30. If my husband gave attention to someone with a better living situation. 30 28. I was on vacation. Boyfriend (I thought) took up with another woman. 29. Positive - I have learned not to be quite so dependent on someone. Negative - distrust of people. Still find it very difficult to speak to woman involved, or even be in the same room with her. 30. For a friend to win a million-dollar lottery. 31 28. Meet ing past girlfriend of my husband's who I. knew he had once been serious about. 29. Had a. positive effect in that it taught me that the past had no significance on the primary relationship. 30. If I felt my husband was interested and attracted to another woman. 32 28. When my husband dances with another girl younger than me and better dancer. 29. Very negative - negative discussion - negative view of myself sadness of my husband who enjoys dancing. 30. Same experience. 33 28. When I was about 20, there was a feeling of extreme jealousy towards a co-worker. She was considerably older than !, but- my - husband admired her, and I felt I just couldn't compete. The difficult thing was that I also admired her and liked her. It was hard to understand the feelings I had when my husband praised her. 29. From this I realized that it was "O.K." for my husband to admire somebody else for their good qualities, as long as there was no ill reflection on me. I have learned that although some people "outshine" me, I am still an O.K. person. 30. If my husband were to admire a close friend -and it seemed to be more than admiration! If I felt that ;he was placing me in a position where it was necessary to compete for his affection. 216 34 28. The man I lived with stayed out all night with another woman. 29. Negative - didn't trust the man (men?). Positive - made me look closely at myself to find out why this happened. Effect - led to eventual split^up. 30. If I found my husband sleeping with another woman. 35 28. My husband's interest in another woman who was younger, attractive and intelligent. 29. Mainly negative reaction toward myself. Non-comprehension by my husband: i.e. what's all the fuss about? 30. My children's preference for their father's attention. 36 28. A friend of mine whom I have been spending a lot of time with started talking about another woman he was making friends with - single parent, artist, etc. I felt very insecure and felt he was comparing me to her even though we are not having an intimate relationship I didn't want him to have one with her either. 29. It really "gripped" me for a while - I became distant with my friend when he talked of her and made subtle snide remarks. I really tried, to work it out without him - I met her finally and felt much better - I didn't care for her much and felt less threatened. 30. I would feel badly if my friend got involved in a relationship and constantly talked about how wonderful she was and if I at the same time was not involved in a relationship. 37 28. I cannot' remember a specific exper-ience-'-which stands out in a memorable way. 29. In earlier years it made me clingy and possessive. Now it leads me to detach myself from my feelings and thereby gives me greater freedom to love both people. 30. The greatest jealousy comes when my children prefer a friend's company at a time which had been a special intimate time for us in the past. 38 28. My lover planning a trip out of the country. 29. Contributed to break-up. 30. A similar situation - where partner is "free" to travel and I am not. 39 28. Sexual jealousy in an insecure relationship. 217 29. Helped to end an unstable and harmful relationship. 30. If my husband was attracted to someone else. 40 28. Contact (don't know to what degree of intimacy) between my husband and a former girlfriend (to whom he was to be married). 29. Taught me that trust of someone close to you, came from within yourself. 30. I don't think it would happen. I believe I have pretty well eliminated jealousy - as an unproductive emotion! 41 28. A younger physically more voluptuous woman with definite intent to make impression on my husband in my very presence. 29. I felt helpless and became more keenly aware of my physical shortcomings. I pouted a bit but . since husband did not display lasting interest in other woman the episode was soon forgotten. 30. I would be much more jealous if my husband responded more vigorously to a come-on or initiated one himself. For me to become extremely jealous the woman involved would have to be definitely much better looking than myself. If my husband showed interest in a woman who was more plain than myself I would pity him and would tend not to take him seriously. 42 28. Thinking that I was not appreciated or loved by the one I love. 29. Negative - resulted in angry words between 2 of us. Positive - got us talking and straightened out the problem. 30. Finding out that my husband was fooling around: 43 28. After becoming pregnant by my boyfriend (now my husband) we separated for a year. During that year a close girlfriend became very friendly with him. 29. Between my husband and myself the experience is no longer a negative one. I still cannot . associate or even see this former girlfriend. 30. If my husband were to become friendly with this particular girl again. Even a friendship would cause jealousy. 44 28. Husband preferred to spend his time more and more with a group of friends, specifically with a certain girl. Told me one day that he had fallen in love with her. 218 29. It destroyed my complete trust I had in him and made our marriage a farce. The positive: I have started to focus on myself again, I live by myself and for myself. 30. None, because I have not been able to trust anyone enough since, to warrant jealousy. 45 28. An admired person x overtly ignored me; didn't attend my performances although I had rehearsed with him etc... But turned up at another student's performance. 29. Positive effects: I tried to improve those skills which the person valued very highly. Negative effects: an undercurrent feeling that affected our relationship that indeed he was not fair and a feeling that I was not worth as much as I thought I was. 30. Any situation in which I would feel that I am losing the attention of someone I regarded very highly. Male Subjects' Responses 46 28. My girlfriend left me, and returned to her ex-lover. 29. Negative - loneliness, self-pity, sapped my motivation to work, so I quit. Positive -after 3 weeks, found I could easily create new relationships, bolstered my confidence toward defeating jealousy. 30. Same - girlfriend leaves me for another. 47 28. When a girl I had taken to a party left with someone- else without saying anythingi 29. A primary relationship was not involved, it was casual. 30. If my wife left a social gathering with someone else without first filling me in on the position I was left in. 48 28. In adulthood, an occasion where my lover told me that she had been intimate with another man she met at a conference. It was a profound feeling of humiliation, disloyalty (attributed to her), rivalry. 29. It was the "last straw" in a faltering relationship. We were never intimate after that, although we have met on cordial, friendly terms since. For myself it was a "watershed" 219 period in which I eventually matured out of the boy-gets-girl syndrome. I decided to abstain from sexual relations until I was capable of greater emotional intimacy and self-knowledge, with one exception (that echoed the situation above) I was celibate for just over a year, entered group therapy, became more social and less possessive. 30. I doubt that any situation could evoke a similar or more extreme jealous reaction. Infidelity on the part of my wife, for example, would surely evoke jealousy, but I believe that extreme jealousy (in intimate relationships or elsewhere) stems from personal insecurity, and I now feel more aware of my insecurities. 49 28. My wife had an extended (8 months) affair. 29. Broke us up for a year and unsettled us for four more. 30. The same situation. 50 28. Wife and best friend sleeping together. 29. Ended marriage and began a courtship. 30. Another man being (becoming) the father role of my children. 51 28. Don't recall any extreme experience of jealousy. Only feeling of jealousy is in a very general sense with regard to people who live a more desirable life style, better sex life, well behaved kids, etc. 29. Not applicable. 30. (no repsonse) 52 28. (No response) 29. (No response) 30. (No response) 53 28. 1) Appearances 2) Work relationships 29. 1) Lack of self confidence and few friends 2) Created a tremendous need for accomplishment -over achiever. 30. Someone who I feel is less capable than I, yet is more successful. 54 28. When my stepmother would offer special food behind my back to my stepsisters etc. 29. Hate that lasts to this day, or should perhaps I call it very bad moments to remember. 30. Well I consider myself self-made, financially and family-wise. Perhaps, if I wouldn't have a financially secure feeling I would feel jealous 220 towards some of my friends or fellow workers. 55 28. Only 1 experience - at age 17 - the girl I took to a high school graduation dance deserted me for another guy. 29. We were friends before and are still friends now - I was upset at the time, but got over it. I had nearly forgotten the incident until this survey. 30. (No response) 56 28. As it happens so infrequently, I have no memory of 'the most extreme experience' of jealousy. One thing I remember: being in a back seat while a friend 'made out' with a girl I desired. 29. It made me angry and depressed, sullen and distant. I wanted to be alone and didn't feel much like participating in group activities with the friend(s) I was then with - for a day or so. 30. Losing a job to a friend whom I knew to be less qualified for the position - being rejected by a publishing house that accepted a work of a friend I thought to be of lesser significance than mine. Actually, this would probably make me angry, resentful - maybe more envious than jealous. 57 28. When I saw a friend of mine go after a girlfriend that I had my eye on. 29. I became friends with the girl and the boy and I became distant. 30. If my wife brought up our children with her side up of the family influence. This would make^me- angry -thrnM ng that- my family • isn-'t good enough. 58 28. Sexual deception - infidelity. 29. Ended it. 30. Difficult to say - jealousy tendency now supplanted to dissappointed recognition and acceptance of reality. 59 28. As a young teen (12-13), a neighbour boy was endowed with every materialist luxury money could buy - I was not so endowed and he made sure I remembered that. 29. Even if the person in question's life had not become as directionless as it did, I would have still learned the pointlessness of simply acquiring "possessions." 221 30. If a person were to exhibit a great deal of skill at a musical instrument without practice, but simply by pure innate talent (which I do not have much of')' I often become envious and self-critical. 60 28. My girlfriend had a relationship with another male. 29. Positive - totally curtailed any other relationships I may have had or thinking of having. Negative - the feeling of trust was somewhat ruptured. 30. If I was having a continued intimate relationship and my partner was carrying on an affair with someone else. 61 28. When someone took my girlfriend and at the same time got a part I had been promised in a play. 29. I saw, eventually, that he was better for both (the part and the girl) so ultimately they had my blessing and I am now quite friendly with both (him and her).. 30. If someone was chosen for something that I felt more qualified to do. 62 28. A woman I know bought a new jack-knife for her son which was nicer than the one I owned. I told him I was jealous of him having such a nice knife. 29. It made him appreciate the gift even more. 30. I cannot imagine jealousy being an active factor in my life. 63 28. My first girlfriend liked someone else. 29. (No response) 30. My- spouse- to fa-fee^a-"l/o-veu'-o.s*'leaver 64 28. My first lover, was an extremely jealous person and was always checking up on me, she was very suspicious. Ironically she made it with a trumpet player from a very good rock group, I was sick with betrayal, anger and jealousy. 29. Positively it ended the relationship as we knew it and shattered all the inane illusions I had been saddled with from my learning up until that point (ie. love) in its narrowest senses. 30. Perhaps if someone were to show extreme interest in my partner and there was some reciprocation my idle thoughts could be aroused. 65 28. My girlfriend (now my wife) wrote a letter (I 222 was going to school in ..., she was going to school in ...) and told me she had gone on a "casual" date with another fellow. 29. Neg - I became somewhat ill and listless for several days. Pos - we discussed the matter. My jealousy indicated to her that I was serious about her. 30. If I found out that my wife cared more about another male than myself. 66 28. Girlfriend discovered dating another guy. 29. Positive - made me aware that I was not as indispensible as I thought. Negative - made me not trust women anymore. 30. Finding my present girlfriend intimate with someone else. 67 28. Separated wife going out with an old boyfriend (very.minor jealous response, but I was aware of it) . 29. May have introduced a very minor bit of strain into an otherwise extremely amicable separation. . I emphasize the "minor": it is hardly worthy of comment. 30. Cannot visualize any situation at the moment, since I have no close current relationship with anyone. 68 28. I try not to dwell on any particular event or interaction that makes me feel jealous, however, in general, situations where another individual is in my eyes more successful; be it in their relationships with other people or in what they do well could cause jealousy. No event, other than the immediate one causing jealousy, has been' more1' extreme' 'than the last'. 29. All such experiences make me strive harder to achieve something that others can attain but I feel I can't. 30. (No response) 69 28. An extremely intense, prolonged, yet tenuous relationship; in which partner casually expresses attraction for another male perceived by me to be a more accomplished, dynamic and capable individual than myself. 29. Pos: sharing feelings with partner. Neg: after relationship had ended the event contributed to the feelings that the partner had been insincere and (dis)honest in the relationship (with herself and me). 30. Present partner changing and subsequently 223 finding.the relationship didn't meet her needs whereas someone else could. 70 28. Finding my girlfriend intimately dancing with another person. 29. Negative effect: break relationships with friends. Positive effect: try to be less possessive. 30. At this time in life I do not have any feeling of jealousy. 71 28. After seeing my first and most important person in life, in an intimate relationship to provoke my senses. 29. As a side effect helped me to get myself more together. Negative part was the trust which I could not share 100% with her anymore. 30. Unknown at the moment. 72 28.. Perception that my highschool sweetheart was interested in another fellow. 29. Little effect as jealousy did not manifest itself to person involved. Jealousy proved unfounded. 30. Similar situation as described in 28 above. 73 28. My wife spending an evening just talking with a mutual man friend who was fond of her. 29. Realized that my jealousy was a result of not trusting my spouse - learned to be more trusting and respectful of her contact with other men. 30. My wife becoming involved in a long-term emotional relationship with another man. 224 APPENDIX E Responses to Item 120 225 The following are subjects' verbatim responses to questionnaire item 120: 120. How would you define jealousy? Subject Female Subjects' Responses 01 (jealousy is) fear of not having the required proportion of a loved-one's affections - insecurity. 02 an automatic response followed by a particular st imulus. 03 an emotional response to a situation which one cannot control by logical resources. 04 desperately wanting to be like someone else (which includes having "things" he/she has or having personality traits, etc.) which is inherently a futile desire. 05 an" emotion based on paranoia and insecurity. 06 the most horrible pre-occupying emotion to experience. There is no cure or way out. 07 a physical or emotional reaction in response to a fear of losing your lover (etc.) to someone else. You can also be envious or (i.e.) jealous of material things someone else has. 08 feeling insecure or threatened by the loss of someone or something, hence possessive and wanting to hang on, have all to-- one's- self. 09 an irrational, painful, crippling emotion which creates in me deep feelings of despair and powerlessness. It only exists in relationship to a man I have decided to love, surrendered to, and then been betrayed or abandoned. 10 a negative emotional reaction to someone or some situation in which you feel deprived. 11 an emotion that brings on frustration, anger, and retaliation. The emotion is caused by basic distrust in my case actuated by a more successful r ival. 12 the feeling aroused when one thinks one is losing 226 something dear to one's self and is helpless to do anything to regain it. 13 is wanting affection that is being given to someone else. 14 the desire to be something you are not. 15 the reaction to loss of affection. 16 -a severe amount of indignation arising through rivalry with someone close to myself. (I have never felt jealous of people I don't know.) 17 emotions that are brought to surface by innermost thoughts and ideals of what is right and/or acceptable to one's self. 18 .in answering, I have concentrated~on the sexual aspect of jealousy, not on non-sexual rivalry or coveting. Therefore, my definition of specific jealousy is fear of competition for someone's affection, sexual attention. 19 an emotional response usually intense and painful to an imagined or real situation involving your mate/sexual partner and another person. 20 a horrid awful feeling. 21 doubt/concern/confusion about one's own position held in respect to that of another whether it be concerning material/maternal matters. 22 a feeling you get when someone else is what you always" wanted' to- be or were. 23 envious of another's person. 24 a feeling of being left out of a pleasant situation with someone you love. 25 a reaction of hurt and betrayal to an action of insensitivity on the part of a person I care a great deal about. 26 insecurity. 27 fear of losing someone you love to someone else. 28 natural reaction to being excluded from an intimate part of a person's life whom you had tried to share 227 all with - a fear of not being "giving" enough to provide that person with enough. 29 a desire for better things/ situations etc. 30 envy of another person's situations, relations, or possessions; but whereas envy is not usually negative, jealousy definitely is negative, and often can become a problem for all concerned. 31 an envy of another person's position or attributes. 32 a feeling of inadequacy. 33 a feeling of resentment towards another person. You feel they pose a threat to you in some way. 34 conditioned emotion based on insecurity and low self-esteem. 35 inability to truly accept certain situations/relationships. 36 a deep insecurity about another person and their activities that don't include you. 37 the feeling I have.when I see someone else receiving the attention of a loved one which I thought was the kind of attention only given to me. 38 anger at injustice of not being loved enough. 39 (no response) 40 being too protective of the contacts someone you ca-re for- has' w.ith^ others*. 41 fear of losing my husband to a more beautiful woman; envy of another girl's good looks. 42 a feeling that results when you are coveting some situation or being unable to make someone the way you want them to be. 43 a very intense emotional hurt which can usually be helped by discussing it with a close person. 44 the fear of (and reaction to) losing someone or something highly valued. 45 a feeling of having lost the attention of someone held in high regard or esteem. 228 Male Subjects' Responses 46 possessiveness, and a perception that.one's possessory interest is challenged; or a desire to aquire something or someone in the possession of another. 47 fearing complete loss of a contact I was feeling very positive about. 48 rivalry, sense of (possible) loss, envy, fear of being alone or inferior. 49 fear of loss (to another person or pursuit) of loved one (wife). 50 separation anxiety based on mother's affections in my case. 51 feeling envious of other persons being in a situation I would like to be in. . 52 (no response) 53 a hostile emotion toward one who I, at the time, feel to have an advantage over me. I. have never experienced jealousy in an intra-personal experience. 54 built-in possessive instinct. 55 an irrational feeling of possessiveness of another person. 56 resentful and envious feelings and/or behavior; a fearfulness of losing affection; covetousness or guarded attitude toward someone's attainments/ some person, with possible corollary of perceived rivalry. 57 feeling that you're not good enough. 58 emotional response to an unfair deception or interference - being forced to play with half a deck. 59 somewhat irrational - for me a real gut feeling of envy. 60 sickness. 229 61 the feeling you get when someone else is in the position(s) you prize. 62 envy with regard to another's affection. 63 natural result when one who is trusted with one's innermost feelings betrays the relationship. 64 emotional disease common in people with narrow emotional experience and feelings of insecurity. 65 an emotional reaction (often manifested physically (e.g.) stress response) to the real or perceived fear of loss of affection. 66 a manifestation of one's own self esteem. 67 the feeling" of insecurity and" pain induced by the thought that someone else has a greater attraction to one's partner than oneself, even when rationally, that attraction cannot be justified. 68 an emotional state initiated by a feeling of inadequacy or hopelessness coupled with someone else's ability to cope effectively with the situation. 69 feeling of insecurity arising from situations where an impending loss of an intimate partner is perceived (be it real or imaginary) and the aggressive reactions which stem from the feelings of insecurity. 70 feeling of possessiveness. 71 the extreme of love or care for somebody or something is the starting point of jealousy. 72 fear of diminution or loss of someone or something's relationship relative to me. 73 a lack of trust in your partner. 230 APPENDIX "F Responses to Item 123 231 The following are subjects' verbatim responses to questionnaire item 123: Other insights/thoughts/experiences I have had with/about jealousy and wish to share at this time. Different cultural, religious, linguistic or any other contributions will be greatly appreciated. If, for example, you are aware of a few or several different words for jealousy in other languages please present them and explain their distinction. Subject Female Subjects' Responses 02 I did the "EST training" and found it to be the most incredible insight into my jealousy ever. I am now fine with my jealousy. 03 I have known more overtly jealous/possessive males, than females. It seems- similar to me to anger or grief or sentimentality -- an emotion not easily . disciplined. 04 I feel I have "overcome" jealousy because I have come to strongly believe that every individual is unique and has his own place in the scheme of things and I couldn't possibly strive/want to be like anyone else. 05 Jealousy is based on an insecure clinging attitude. It places a quantitative quality on love i.e. "if  you love him then you must therefore love me less". This is faulty thinking, but common! When I look to my mate for approval, I interpret his "aproval" of another woman (especially one that I am attracted to) as a rejection of me. Result? -- rage, indignation, feelings of inferiority and humiliation. I can accept his flirtations if I feel strong, attractive and "noticed". If I feel ugly, weak and insecure, I cannot tolerate even mild flirtations on his part. 06 To love someone deeply is the most wonderful human experience. Fear of losing that love to someone else brings upon jealousy. Naturally the physical and emotional reactions are going to be intense, and the frustrating thing about it is that you have no control of your emotions or your situation. Great questionnaire! I enjoyed participating. P.S. Even to fill out a questionnaire about the most intense experience which occurred some 13 years ago, I still can feel the pain at the thought of what I went 232 through at the time. 08 When I was a child, my mother, whose English was not very good, talked of jealousy when she meant envy. It was years before I clarified the confusion --interesting example of how language can shape concepts and hence feelings. 09 I realize now that I don't feel jealous because I avoid, at great costs, those situations which would bring jealousy (by my definition) about. I have yet • to deal effectively with the feeling. This is, actually, a thought provoking questionnaire. 12 My first husband had affairs constantly during the 6 years we were living together. I came to expect this as commonplace in our relationship, and jealousy became a very secondary issue .to me next to honesty (which I felt was totally lacking). I find it difficult to get jealous when; I feel there is love being manifested between two people — my jealousy is usually aroused when I percieve (wrongly or rightly) a lot of secondary motives — e.g. revenge, wanting to inflict pain, flight, avoidance, etc. and I feel caught up in the centre of it. 13 I usually try to avoid situations where jealousy could occur. I think I usually try to turn it around so I don't feel jealous. It's just too frustrating. 16 British upper middle class -- jealousy is definitely a no-no. One must not give way to all those feelings — and so I tended to make up a more acceptable emotion to account for my behaviour --like tiredness-. 19 Jealousy often seems to be "projection". I have also noticed that the husbands who are promiscuous often tend to be very jealous and possessive of their wives. 21 My experiences of being jealous have generally been very mild. Most occasions that I have been jealous have been those in which I misunderstood my boyfriend's relationship with a particular girl --he failed to explain the situation thoroughly. 22 I feel jealousy is a perfectly natural reaction and if dealt with properly, it can help you understand yourself a whole lot better. 233 24 My present companion communicates his feelings within a day or two of their arrival. It helps me to understand his insecurities and gives me confidence that he will also understand my feelings of jealousy when they surface. 26 In my opinion, jealuosy is just a symptom of insecurity. At this time in my life, I do not feel jealousy because I am in a very secure relationship and feel very confident re my own life (education, self-esteem, etc.). 27 I feel in my younger days that I was extremely jealous when with someone, but I feel this was due to my insecurity. I no longer feel this as I feel secure with the relationship I have. 31 It could be that I'm not very jealous as I've never been confronted with very many situations where jealousy would arise. 33 Jealousy seems to be a result of a feeling of inadequacy in one's self. I think people who are satisfied with their own self, tend to be less jealous. This includes knowing what you are, and either accepting what you are, or making an effort to improve yourself. There is no need to be jealous of others, if the qualities they posses are not what you desire anyway. 34 Jealousy can be removed by allowing one's true love to emerge — love based in truth as opposed to anticipated rewards -- I have experienced periods of no jealousy. 35 As I get-older, jealousy af fects me' far less-, and the causes are completely different. 36 I think the more defined and secure a relationship or friendship is, the less need I feel to be jealous. That holds even truer for how secure and confident one is with oneself. That is what I analyse when I feel jealous. 37 I find jealousy to be the opposite of love. When I feel one I cannot feel the other at the same time. Hate and love can live together though. Therefore, if I am feeling jealous, I am not loving the other person and that is m_ problem and I can act on that. It may be that when I find my love feelings again I find that I might also need to do something other than what I wanted -- like get busy doing something 234 on my own instead of sharing an experience with that other person. Often I fear losing the shared experience and indeed the fear is real and well founded and what I must accept is losing an imagined or anticipated experience. 39 When people are jealous they usually have good rea.son to be; such feelings point to dissatisfaction with one's self, one's relationships, etc., that are healthy to realize. 40 In Mombasa (Kenya) both men and women accept the fact that during their lives, they will be attracted (sexually) to people other than their permanent partner. If this attraction results in sexual intimacy with people, other than the permanent partner (a cause of jealousy in Canadians), it is usually viewed as part of.life. Because of my contact with people from Mombasa, and from living there, I now feel that sexual contact is only one aspect of a relationship. I think that in Canada, there is too much emphasis placed on the sexual part of a relationship -- what about friendship, co operation, mutual goals, to name only a few other important things? By becoming jealous when your partner has sexual contact with another, but not being jealous when there is a warm friendship means that your friendship with your partner is not as important as your sexual relationship. 41 I am convinced that I value physical beauty as much a I do because my mother was considered to be very good-looking in her culture (Yugoslavs like sturdy dark women with a large bosom). She had a nice figure, a pretty face, beautiful straight white teeth, lovely legs-. Although she got fat after I was born, her image as being beautiful (self-image and view of people around her) persisted. I was a sickly child and nothing was done to dispell my self-image of being a runt who unfortunately grew up to be flat-chested as well, with crooked teeth and an unflattering nose. Although I have since come to the conclusion that I'm probably not much worse-looking than my mom (still slim after two children, with legs like hers, nice hair, impressive eyes) what has been planted in my childhood still pains me when I feel threatened by a truly beautiful "well-developed" woman. Unless a mother can pass on to her daughter that the physical appearance of her child is definitely attractive but not really that important that child may have problems in the jealousy area. Unfortunately I find that I am 235 already repeating some of my mother's mistakes. My own daughter is an attractive child but I wouldn't call her gorgeous. I catch myself saying "little fatty" and referring to the width of her nose. This questionnaire has made me more aware of the fact that I have to watch what I'm saying to and about her. I do tell her she has beautiful hair and beautiful eyes. Eifersucht (German for jealousy) defined in the German Brockhaus dictionary as "a passionate striving for sole possession with a fear of every competitor". Ljubosumnost Slovenian (Yugoslavian) -- literally "suspicion of love" (i.e., a suspecting of your lover's love for someone else). 44 It is not good to deny one's own feelings and be the martyr of the family. They will not appreciate it but.will walk all over you. 45 Jealousy is very contextual and the questions do not address the varying contexts -- (e.g., in a mentoring context). Male Subjects' Responses 48 Re #28 -- while the event described was a profound instance of jealousy in adulthood, there is another anecdote that comes to mind. When I was in grade 8 (aged 13) I took a girl to the school prom. When another fellow "cut in" during a dance, I walked outside with a few friends and after complaining about this "rival", I placed a kick against the school wall, a sort of ritual/mock display of aggression and possession against my rival dancing 'inside. Kicking, you see, was a large part of the---"hard rock" orientation ... where I was raised. And so was the importance of advertising your rights over "your girl" against competitors. Generally, I do believe that jealousy is elemental and therefore not unnatural. I hope your study taps into the cultural expectations of jealousy as well as ways in which extraordinary jealousy can be altered. Finally, although I've responded in terms of sexual jealousy (real or imagined) it is important to realize that jealousy emerges in a host of other situations (intelligence, drive, nurturing abilities, wit, ad infinitum). 50 To the extent one gives power away in one's life --one then becomes obsessed with how that power is being used. 236 54 German translation: eifersuchtig for envy or jealousy? 55 I think: jealousy is "bad" but "normal". Undesirable but usual. 56 Jealousy is something I definitely know I experience less than most people. I've oten caught particular hell for not feeling jealous about other males' advances toward the women in my life, for example. I'm too self-absorbed and fiercely independent. Competition is usually with myself. I've thrown away opportunities that would be more materially lucrative than my obsession with writing and, consequently, the closest I usually get to jealousy is envy of material gain which I then pooh pooh with some thought of fame or other ego-blast. That's my game. I just don't give a goddamn about most of the things most people get jealous about for the simple reason that I'm already prepared to lose most of them chasing my will-o-the-wisp. Self-imposed martyrdom I suppose you'd have to call it. I always joke about that. . I'm a survivor. I get angry and self-righteous frequently; rarely jealous. I'm too pompous for that. 58 I believe a varied life with a moderate number of different relationships has allowed me to out-grow a youthful tendency to jealousy. 63 Urayamashii -- envy, jealousy — Japanese. 64 Jealousy seems to be a composite of many different (emotions) (responses) anger, pain, all the physical and emotional reactions listed. Thru experience one learns their way out of such an unheroic emotion. We are given conditions, definitions and principles whereby we are expected to live our life and achieve happiness. Thru experience we learn that the information we have been given is too narrow, is erroneous, does not apply to us, is silly and we can begin to form a truer more personal and more intuitive picture of the universe. I think that jealousy is just a symptom of a greater problem. Insecurity. Which is just a symptom of humanity's greatest enemy -- fear. We must come to terms with fear and assume that happiness and health is ours. 68 I don't become jealous in intimate relationships for romantic reasons, if the woman I am seeing chooses to be with someone else then I accept that and end 237 the relationship, I do not accept compromise. 70 Try to overcome this feeling, it is a killer. 71 Jealousy at a very high level is almost a must of a man's mind character in the middle east countries, and is known and practiced in the traditional culture. 


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items