Personality and Individual Differences 52 (2012) 51–55

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Romantic jealousy and implicit and explicit self-esteem

Stefan Stieger ⇑, Anna V. Preyss, Martin Voracek
Department of Basic Psychological Research, School of Psychology, University of Vienna, Austria

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Research on romantic jealousy and self-esteem mostly relies on the measurement of explicit (i.e., con-
Received 22 April 2011 scious, deliberate) aspects, without taking recent developments of the measurement of implicit (i.e.,
Received in revised form 29 August 2011 automatic) aspects into account. In this study (N = 154), we applied several measures of romantic jeal-
Accepted 29 August 2011
ousy and self-esteem (explicit, implicit), finding sex-specific as well as measurement-specific effects.
Available online 28 September 2011
Men (but not women) higher in jealousy had lower explicit self-esteem, whereas women (but not
men) higher in jealousy had higher implicit self-esteem, but only when using the Implicit Association
Keywords:
Test (whereas not the Initial Preference Task) for measuring implicit self-esteem. Individuals with dam-
Jealousy
Self-esteem
aged (i.e., low explicit and high implicit) self-esteem were more jealous than those with fragile (i.e., high
Romantic relationships explicit and low implicit) self-esteem. This differential effect was due to higher implicit self-esteem
Implicit Association Test among women, whereas lower explicit self-esteem among men. These novel findings not only add to
Name letter effect the expanding literature on romantic jealousy research, but also to research on self-esteem discrepancies.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction partner. This threatens one’s self-esteem and in turn jealousy arises
(DeSteno et al., 2006).
Jealousy is a fundamental human emotion (Buss, 2000). It is Apart from this process-oriented model, self-esteem also seems
part of our lives from childhood to old age and intensified in to be directly related to romantic jealousy, such that low self-
romantic relationships (Salovey, 1991). A bulk of research has ana- esteem is associated with higher jealousy (Mullen & Martin,
lyzed different aspects of romantic and sexual jealousy; for exam- 1994; Rydell & Bringle, 2007). All in all, this research line on
ple, jealousy in interpersonal situations or jealous reactions in jealousy and self-esteem has almost exclusively relied on direct
response to sexual vs. emotional infidelity (Buss, Larsen, Westen, (i.e., questionnaire-based) measures, without taking into account
& Semmelroth, 1992; Buunk, 1995). Since the seminal paper of the recent developments of measuring implicit (i.e., automatic)
Buss and colleagues (1992), sex differences in jealousy have been aspects.
repeatedly investigated. Men (compared to women) show more Since Greenwald and Banaji (1995), it is assumed that psycho-
distress by partners’ sexual infidelity, whereas women (compared logical aspects like self-esteem not only have explicit (i.e., con-
to men) more distress by partners’ emotional infidelity. This effect scious, habitual) parts, but also implicit (i.e., automatic) ones.
is due to the sexes’ different adaptive problems in mating contexts, Hence, it is fitting to use indirect measurement procedures (mea-
with which humans have been faced throughout evolutionary his- suring implicit aspects) together with direct measurements (cap-
tory (cuckoldry among men vs. loss of partner investment in off- turing explicit aspects). Indeed, research on jealousy has already
spring among women). applied indirect measurement procedures to measure implicit as-
Jealousy can be best described as a combination of different pects (e.g., implicit self-esteem: DeSteno et al., 2006; or implicit
emotions like hurt, anxiety, and anger (Parrott & Smith, 1993), evaluations of attractive same-sex targets: Maner, Miller, Rouby,
and it seems to be mediated by threatened self-esteem (DeSteno, & Gailliot, 2009), but research along these lines still is scarce.
Valdesolo, & Bartlett, 2006). Self-esteem develops in interactions Implicit self-esteem has been used in experimental designs to
with our social environment by the evaluations and perceptions analyze short-term effects of jealousy-inducing situations on im-
of others (i.e., the ‘‘sociometer’’; Leary, Tambor, Terdal, & Downs, plicit self-esteem (DeSteno et al., 2006). However, to our knowl-
1995). Experiencing partner interest in someone else threatens edge no study to date has analyzed trait aspects of self-esteem
the relationship as well as an important determinant of self-esteem (explicit and implicit) and jealousy in more detail. Furthermore, re-
– the social interaction with significant others, such as the romantic cent research (Jordan, Spencer, Zanna, Hoshino-Browne, & Coreel,
2003) has suggested a dual separation of self-esteem into concor-
dant and discrepant self-esteem styles. Individuals with concordant
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +43 1 4277 47847; fax: +43 1 4277 47849. self-esteem have either high explicit and high implicit self-esteem
E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Stieger). (i.e., secure high self-esteem) or low explicit and low implicit self-

0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.08.028
52 S. Stieger et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 52 (2012) 51–55

esteem (i.e., secure low self-esteem). In a similar vein, individuals ones lead to faster reactions) between paired concepts (e.g., me +
with discordant self-esteem can also be divided into two subtypes: positive and other + negative vs. me + negative and other +
those with high implicit and low explicit self-esteem (i.e., damaged positive). The IAT can be used for the measurement of diverse
self-esteem) vs. those with low implicit and high explicit self- psychological aspects (e.g., attitudes, stereotypes, self-concepts)
esteem (i.e., defensive or fragile self-esteem). Especially, in clinical and is one of the most widely used indirect measures of implicit
samples, damaged self-esteem has frequently been found among evaluations (for meta-analytic reviews, see Greenwald, Poehlman,
individuals suffering from psychological distress (i.e., frequently Uhlmann, & Banaji, 2009; Hofmann, Gawronski, Gschwendner, Le,
showing low explicit self-esteem), such as in depression with sui- & Schmitt, 2005). The SE-IAT administered here used the concepts I
cidal ideation (Franck, De Raedt, Dereu, & Van den Abbeele, 2007), vs. other and negative vs. positive to measure implicit self-esteem
bulimia nervosa (Cockerham, Stopa, Bell, & Gregg, 2009), or alexi- (rsplit-half = .76). The SE-IAT was administered in addition to the IPT
thymia (Dentale, San Martini, De Coro, & Di Pomponio, 2010). because different indirect measures seem to assess distinct aspects
The theoretical framework accounting for the emergence of of implicit evaluations, as suggested by frequently observed null
such self-esteem discrepancies is still under debate. Explanations correlations among them (Bosson, Swann, & Pennebaker, 2000).
range from normal attitude change (Jordan et al., 2003) to an Hence, the SE-IAT vs. the IPT might gauge different implicit
‘‘automatic threat-defense mechanism’’, according to which indi- aspects.
viduals automatically increase their implicit self-esteem in order
to defend against threats (Rudman, Dohn, & Fairchild, 2007). 2.2.4. Multidimensional Jealousy Scale (MJS; Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989)
The MJS is a 24-item measure of cognitive (sample item: ‘‘I sus-
1.1. Present study pect that X is crazy about members of the opposite sex’’), emo-
tional (sample item: ‘‘X hugs and kisses someone of the opposite
We addressed two research questions. First, we analyzed sex’’), and behavioral jealousy (sample item: ‘‘I question X about
whether implicit vs. explicit self-esteem is linked to different his or her telephone calls’’). All items were answered on 7-point
aspects of jealousy by using two different measures of implicit scales (cognitive and behavioral jealousy: 1: Never; 7: All the time;
self-esteem. This research question was explorative. Second, because emotional jealousy: 1: Pleased; 7: Upset; acognitive = .89, aemotional =
individuals under psychological distress often show damaged self- .92, abehavioral = .85, atotal = .93).
esteem, this might also apply to individuals high in jealousy. If so,
individuals high in jealousy should reveal low explicit self- 2.2.5. Interpersonal Jealousy Scale (IJS; Mathes & Severa, 1981)
esteem, but high implicit self-esteem. The IJS is a 27-item measure of global jealousy, using 9-point
scales (1: absolutely false, 9: absolutely true; a = .92; sample item:
2. Method ‘‘If my partner admired someone of the opposite sex, I would feel
irritated’’).
2.1. Participants
2.2.6. Sexual Jealousy Scale (SJS; Dijkstra et al., 2001)
Participants (N = 154; 58.2% men; Mage = 34.3 years, SD = 11.1, The SJS is a composite of six different forced-choice infidelity
range 19–60 years) were German-speaking volunteers from all scenarios (taken from Buss et al., 1992, 1999; see also Shackelford
walks of life (i.e., various living backgrounds). Regarding current et al., 2004). Sexual infidelity responses were summed across the
relationship status, 43.0% were in a (partnered) relationship, six scenarios (a = .82). One sample scenario (from Buss et al.,
25.3% were married, 22.2% were single, and 9.5% divorced. 1992, p. 252) reads as follows: ‘‘Please think of a serious commit-
ted romantic relationship that you have had in the past, that you
2.2. Measures currently have, or that you would like to have. Imagine that you
discover that the person with whom you’ve been seriously in-
2.2.1. Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; von Collani & Herzberg, volved became interested in someone else. What would distress
2003) or upset you more. (A) Imagining your partner forming a deep
The RSES is a 10-item measure of general explicit self-esteem emotional attachment to that person. (B) Imagining your partner
(0: totally disagree; 3: totally agree; a = .86). enjoying passionate sexual intercourse with that other person.’’

2.2.2. Initial Preference Task (IPT; Kitayama & Karasawa, 1997; 2.3. Procedure
Nuttin, 1985)
The IPT is based on the name-letter effect (NLE; preference for German translations of the above scales were developed using
name letters over non-name letters: Nuttin, 1985) and is fre- the parallel blind method (Behling & Law, 2000), unless transla-
quently used as an indirect measure of implicit self-esteem (for a tions were already available (such as for the RSES). Participants
meta-analytic review, see Stieger, Voracek, & Formann, in press). were recruited through personal contacts. Study parts were com-
Letters A–Z were rated on 7-point scales (1: I don’t like; 7: I like). pleted in the following sequence: demographics, IJS, first IPT
This rating was done twice (Rudolph, Schröder-Abé, Schütz, Gregg, administration, SJS, RSES, MJS, second IPT administration, SE-IAT,
& Sedikides, 2008), in order to calculate reliable name-letter effects and participants’ initial letters.
separately for the first-name initial (IPT-first) and the last-name
initial (IPT-last; Stieger et al., in press; retest reliabilities rIPT first = 2.4. Analysis
.71, rIPT last = .55). Participants were instructed to trust their
‘‘gut impression’’, as recommended (Koole, Dijksterhuis, & van In general, higher scores on the above scales reflected higher
Knippenberg, 2001). jealousy (or self-esteem), except for the SJS (higher scores reflected
higher sexual jealousy vs. lower scores higher emotional jealousy).
2.2.3. Self-Esteem Implicit Association Test (SE-IAT; Greenwald & Implicit self-esteem was calculated as recommended (D algorithm
Farnham, 2000) for the IAT: see Greenwald, Nosek, & Banaji, 2003 for its advanta-
The IAT (Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998) is a speeded ges; I algorithm for the IPT: Baccus, Baldwin, & Packer, 2004; see
keyboard-based sorting task which produces a difference score of LeBel & Gawronski, 2009, for the merits of this one over other
reaction times based on association strengths (whereby stronger IPT scoring methods).
 S. Stieger et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 52 (2012) 51–55 53

3. Results interaction effects when regressed on jealousy (IJS). The same pat-
tern emerged when using the MJS, but not the SJS, where neither
3.1. Sex differences in study variables main effects nor interaction effects were found (see Table 2 for
IJS results; results of MJS and SJS omitted for brevity).
In line with prior related research (e.g., Dijkstra et al., 2001), we To investigate concordant and discrepant self-esteem styles in
found a significant, medium-sized sex difference on the SJS (with more detail, we focused on the SE-IAT and the IJS and performed
men being more sexually jealous than women; see Table 1). For simple slope tests according to Cohen and Cohen (1983). Women
all other measures, effect sizes of sex differences were small and with damaged self-esteem had the highest IJS scores (Fig. 1), which
nonsignificant. were significantly different from concordant low-self-esteem wo-
men (B = 54.12, t = 2.18, p = .03), but did not differ from concordant
3.2. Correlations between study variables high-self-esteem women (B = 1.29, t = 1.21, p = .23). Similar
slope test results were found among men, although these were less
As expected, IJS and MJS were highly positively interrelated, pronounced than among women (Fig. 1). Again, men with damaged
but, of note, not associated with the SJS (except for a weak positive self-esteem had the highest IJS scores and differed somewhat (but
correlation among women; see Table 1). Furthermore, IJS and MJS not significantly) from concordant high-self-esteem men
(but not SJS) were negatively correlated with explicit self-esteem, (B = 1.30, t = 1.47, p = .15), but were not distinct from concor-
which was more pronounced among men than women. All jeal- dant low-self-esteem men (B = 9.23, t = 0.72, p = .47). To sum up,
ousy measures were unrelated to implicit self-esteem, but only individuals with damaged self-esteem were higher in jealousy than
when measured with the IPT. For the SE-IAT, different results those with fragile self-esteem, independent of participant sex
emerged. IJS and MJS (but not SJS) were positively correlated with (Fig. 1). This difference between damaged vs. fragile self-esteem
the SE-IAT, but only among women. This suggests that jealous wo- is because of higher implicit self-esteem of jealous women and
men have higher implicit self-esteem (but only when measured lower explicit self-esteem of jealous men (see Table 2).
with the SE-IAT), but tendentially lower explicit self-esteem.
We additionally calculated structural equation models (details 4. Discussion
omitted for brevity) with four latent variables (jealousy, explicit
self-esteem, implicit self-esteem IAT, implicit self-esteem IPT). This study showed that jealousy is not only related to explicit
These supplemental analyses potentially offer more rigorous tests self-esteem, but also to implicit self-esteem and that these associ-
of a possible sex-specificity of the effect. Using this more elabo- ations are sex-specific. Jealous men had lower explicit self-esteem
rated approach, we fully replicated the straightforward correla- (but not implicit self-esteem), whereas jealous women had higher
tional analysis results by finding even somewhat higher implicit self-esteem (but not explicit self-esteem). For both sexes,
standardized regression weights, as compared to the correlation individuals with damaged self-esteem were highest in jealousy
coefficients reported here. This was due to the controls for error (which was more pronounced among women). This pattern was
variance in these models. Although regression weights failed to only observed when using the SE-IAT as the measure of implicit
reach nominal significance among women (because of the limited self-esteem, whereas not for the IPT.
sample size), these further results provide additional support for These results are interesting in several respects. First, as has fre-
the observed sex-specific effect. quently been shown, different measures of implicit self-esteem
seem to assess different facets of implicit self-esteem (e.g., Back
3.3. Interactions between explicit and implicit self-esteem et al., 2009). Second, being overly jealous might be detrimental
for social relationships in general and romantic relationships in
Moderated regression analyses (i.e., with explicit and implicit particular, so one would expect highly jealous individuals to show
scores centered, and their interaction represented by a cross-prod- low self-esteem. Individuals with negative self-worth (i.e., low self-
uct term; see Aiken & West, 1991) yielded significant main effects esteem) have less trust in their partners and thus might also be
for explicit self-esteem (only among men) and implicit self-esteem more jealous. This pattern has been found for friendship jealousy,
(only among women and only for the SE-IAT), but no significant such that adolescents with low self-esteem report greater

Table 1
Study variables’ correlations and sex differences.

1 2 3 4 5 6 M (SD) t Cohen d
1. IJS 85.11 (26.33)
1.63 0.26
92.31 (27.95)
***
2. MJS .67 61.40 (22.28)
1.49 0.25
.83*** 66.78 (21.72)
3. SJS .17 .04 3.12 (2.19) **
3.18 0.52
.24à .18 2.05 (1.91)
4. RSES .21* .43*** .10 35.17 (4.53)
1.24 0.20
.16à .13 .13 34.23 (4.77)
5. IPT-first .14 .01 .13 .11 1.29 (1.47) à
1.73 0.28
.06 .02 .02 .01 1.69 (1.35)
6. IPT-last .03 .01 .11 .11 .43*** 1.21 (1.26)
1.22 0.20
.27* .12 .01 .06 .24* 0.95 (1.44)
7. SE-IAT .10 .04 .11 .11 .02 .20à 0.81 (0.35)
0.42 0.07
.36** .38** .09 .13 .16 .13 0.83 (0.26)

First-line entries = men (n = 89); second-line entries = women (n = 65).

à
p < .10 (two-tailed).
*
p < .05 (two-tailed).
**
p < .01 (two-tailed).
***
p < .001 (two-tailed).
54 S. Stieger et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 52 (2012) 51–55

Table 2 women are predominantly socialized to trust their feelings, we

Sex-specific regression analyses of jealousy (IJS) on self-esteem (explicit vs. implicit). found stronger associations among women than among men (see
Predictors Men Women Pelham et al., 2005). Notwithstanding this possibility, the reasons
b t b t for the observed sex difference in self-esteem discrepancy observed
here remain largely unresolved and should appropriately be investi-
Explicit SE .23 2.10* .10 0.86
Implicit SE (SE-IAT) .13 1.17 .38 2.96**
gated anew by future research.
Interaction (Explicit  Implicit SE) .01 0.01 .10 0.79 Although jealousy might affect self-esteem (overly jealous indi-
viduals develop low self-esteem because of social rejection), it
SE = self-esteem, SE-IAT = Self-Esteem Implicit Association Test, IJS = Interpersonal
Jealousy Scale.
could equally likely be the other way round. Individuals with low
*
p < .05 (two-tailed). self-esteem are less socially integrated and might therefore be
**
p < .01 (two-tailed). more sensitive to relationship threats and in turn be more jealous.
Because our study utilized a correlational, cross-sectional design,
such questions of causality and direction of effects can only be
vulnerability to jealousy and aggression (Parker, Low, Walker, & answered by future experimental or longitudinal research. Eluci-
Gamm, 2005). Indeed, high romantic jealousy in the current study dating the causal links between jealousy and implicit and explicit
was associated with low explicit self-esteem (almost significant self-esteem might be beneficial for a better understanding of the
among women; significant among men), but at the same time dynamics of jealousy-evoking situations. For example, experienc-
was also associated with high implicit self-esteem (but only among ing a partner’s interest in a rival might immediately reduce implicit
women). Although these opposing correlations might be seen as self-esteem (see DeSteno et al., 2006), but may automatically also
counterintuitive on first sight, this pattern is fully in line with increase implicit self-esteem in the long run, in order to compen-
the concept of concordant vs. discordant self-esteem styles (Jordan sate for this self-esteem threat (see Rudman et al., 2007). Individ-
et al., 2003). Recent research has emphasized that individuals un- uals with damaged self-esteem might therefore be prone to known
der psychological distress, for example suffering from depression jealousy-triggered behaviors, such as spousal abuse.
(Franck et al., 2007), show low explicit, but high implicit self- Our study has a number of limitations. Implicit self-esteem
esteem (i.e., the constellation of damaged self-esteem). Reasons measured with the SE-IAT (but not explicit self-esteem) seems to
for this self-esteem discrepancy are currently under debate (e.g., be prone to threats to self-esteem (DeSteno et al., 2006). This sug-
Gregg & Sedikides, 2010) and range from normal attitude change gests that the SE-IAT might not only be a measure of trait implicit
(Jordan et al., 2003) to automatic threat-defense mechanisms self-esteem, but also of state implicit self-esteem. Future research
(i.e., when threatened explicit self-esteem is compensated by auto- might beneficially not only clarify the apportionment of trait vs.
matically increased implicit self-esteem; Rudman et al., 2007). It state aspects of implicit self-esteem, but also to disentangle
thus appears that self-esteem discrepancies reflect problems with short-term from long-term effects of self-esteem threat (i.e., the
self-integration, are unpleasant, and might produce negative life typical onset and duration of implicit self-esteem suppression
outcomes (e.g., depression, high jealousy). through self-esteem threat). Furthermore, the recruiting procedure
Interestingly, in the present study self-esteem discrepancy was used here (i.e., personal contacts of research assistants) may well
due to lower explicit self-esteem among men, but higher implicit have produced a sample perhaps biased towards participants with
self-esteem among women. However, the difference was small, secure high self-esteem. However, it is important to note that,
because correlations were in the same direction independent of par- based on standardized SE-IAT and RSES scores, all self-esteem
ticipants’ sex (negative correlations between jealousy and explicit styles had comparable prevalence rates (19–32%; v2[1] = 0.56,
self-esteem, positive correlations between jealousy and implicit p = .46); hence, observed results cannot be attributed to a disbal-
self-esteem). One possible reason for this sex-specific effect might ance in the prevalence rates.
be found in the accessibility of implicit self-esteem. Evidence In conclusion, research on romantic jealousy might noticeably
suggests that individuals trusting their intuitions show stronger profit from including indirect measures as well. This approach does
associations between implicit and explicit self-esteem (Jordan, not only apply to the measurement of implicit jealousy, but also to
Whitfield, & Zeigler-Hill, 2007). Furthermore, possibly because implicit self-esteem, as has been suggested by the current study.

Fig. 1. Predicted values for jealousy (IJS) as a function of explicit and implicit self-esteem (measured with the Self-Esteem Implicit Association Test). SE = self-esteem,
SD = standard deviation, IJS = Interpersonal Jealousy Scale.
 S. Stieger et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 52 (2012) 51–55 55

References Hofmann, W., Gawronski, B., Gschwendner, T., Le, H., & Schmitt, M. (2005). A
meta-analysis on the correlation between the Implicit Association Test and
explicit self-report measures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31,
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
1369–1385.
interactions. London, UK: Sage.
Jordan, C. H., Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., Hoshino-Browne, E., & Coreel, J. (2003).
Baccus, J. R., Baldwin, M. W., & Packer, D. J. (2004). Increasing implicit self-esteem
Secure and defensive high self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social
through classical conditioning. Psychological Science, 15, 498–502.
Psychology, 85, 969–978.
Back, M. D., Krause, S., Hirschmüller, S., Stopfer, J. M., Egloff, B., & Schmukle, S. C.
Jordan, C. H., Whitfield, M., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2007). Intuition and the
(2009). Unraveling the three faces of self-esteem: A new information-
correspondence between implicit and explicit self-esteem. Journal of
processing sociometer perspective. Journal of Research in Personality, 43,
Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 1067–1079.
933–937.
Kitayama, S., & Karasawa, M. (1997). Implicit self-esteem in Japan: Name letters
Behling, O., & Law, K. S. (2000). Translating questionnaires and other research
and birthday numbers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23,
instruments: Problems and solutions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
736–742.
Bosson, J. K., Swann, W. B., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2000). Stalking the perfect measure
Koole, S. L., Dijksterhuis, A., & van Knippenberg, A. (2001). What’s in a name:
of implicit self-esteem: The blind men and the elephant revisited? Journal of
Implicit self-esteem and the automatic self? Journal of Personality and Social
Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 631–643.
Psychology, 80, 669–685.
Buss, D. M. (2000). The dangerous passion: Why jealousy is as necessary as love and
Leary, M. R., Tambor, E. S., Terdal, S. K., & Downs, D. L. (1995). Self-esteem as an
sex? New York: Free Press.
interpersonal monitor: The sociometer hypothesis. Journal of Personality and
Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelroth, J. (1992). Sex differences in
Social Psychology, 68, 518–530.
jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3,
LeBel, E. P., & Gawronski, B. (2009). How to find what’s in a name: Scrutinizing the
251–255.
optimality of five scoring algorithms for the name-letter task. European Journal
Buss, D. M., Shackelford, T. K., Kirkpatrick, L. A., Choe, J. C., Lim, H. K., Hasegawa, M.,
of Personality, 23, 85–106.
& Bennett, K. (1999). Jealousy and the nature of beliefs about infidelity: Tests of
Maner, J. K., Miller, S. L., Rouby, D. A., & Gailliot, M. T. (2009). Intrasexual vigilance.
competing hypotheses about sex differences in the United States, Korea, and
The implicit cognition of romantic rivalry. Journal of Personality and Social
Japan. Personal Relationships, 6, 125–150.
Psychology, 97, 74–87.
Buunk, B. P. (1995). Sex, self-esteem, dependency and extradyadic sexual
Mathes, E. W., & Severa, N. (1981). Jealousy, romantic love, and liking: Theoretical
experience as related to jealousy responses. Journal of Social and Personal
considerations and preliminary scale development. Psychological Reports, 49,
Relationships, 12, 147–153.
23–31.
Cockerham, E., Stopa, L., Bell, L., & Gregg, A. (2009). Implicit self-esteem in bulimia
Mullen, P. E., & Martin, J. (1994). Jealousy: A community study. British Journal of
nervosa. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 40, 265–273.
Psychiatry, 164, 35–43.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analyses for the
Nuttin, J. M. (1985). Narcissism beyond Gestalt and awareness: The name letter
behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 353–361.
Dentale, F., San Martini, P., De Coro, A., & Di Pomponio, I. (2010). Alexithymia
Parker, J. G., Low, C. M., Walker, A. R., & Gamm, B. K. (2005). Friendship jealousy in
increases the discordance between implicit and explicit self-esteem. Personality
young adolescents: Individual differences and links to sex, self-esteem,
and Individual Differences, 49, 762–767.
aggression, and social adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 41, 235–250.
DeSteno, D. A., Valdesolo, P., & Bartlett, M. Y. (2006). Jealousy and the threatened
Parrott, W. G., & Smith, R. H. (1993). Distinguishing the experiences of envy and
self: Getting to the heart of the green-eyed monster. Journal of Personality and
jealousy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 906–920.
Social Psychology, 91, 626–641.
Pelham, B. W., Koole, S. L., Hardin, C. D., Hetts, J. J., Seah, E., & DeHart, T. (2005).
Dijkstra, P., Groothof, H. A. K., Poel, G. A., Laverman, T. T. G., Schrier, M., & Buunk, B.
Gender moderates the relation between implicit and explicit self-esteem.
P. (2001). Sex differences in the events that elicit jealousy among homosexuals.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 84–89.
Personal Relationships, 8, 41–54.
Pfeiffer, S. M., & Wong, P. T. P. (1989). Multidimensional jealousy. Journal of Social
Franck, E., De Raedt, R., Dereu, M., & Van den Abbeele, D. (2007). Implicit and
and Personal Relationships, 6, 181–191.
explicit self-esteem in currently depressed individuals with and without
Rudman, L. A., Dohn, M. C., & Fairchild, K. (2007). Implicit self-esteem
suicidal ideation. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 38,
compensation: Automatic threat defense. Journal of Personality and Social
75–85.
Psychology, 93, 798–813.
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-
Rudolph, A., Schröder-Abé, M., Schütz, A., Gregg, A. P., & Sedikides, C. (2008).
esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4–27.
Through a glass, less darkly? Reassessing convergent and discriminant validity
Greenwald, A. G., & Farnham, S. D. (2000). Using the implicit association test to
in measures of implicit self-esteem. European Journal of Psychological
measure self-esteem and self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social
Assessment, 24, 273–281.
Psychology, 79, 1022–1038.
Salovey, P. (Ed.). (1991). The psychology of jealousy and envy. New York: Guilford.
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual
Rydell, R. J., & Bringle, R. G. (2007). Differentiating reactive and suspicious jealousy.
differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of
Social Behavior and Personality, 35, 1099–1114.
Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480.
Shackelford, T. K., Voracek, M., Schmitt, D. P., Buss, D. M., Weekes-Shackelford, V. A.,
Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the
& Michalski, R. L. (2004). Romantic jealousy in early adulthood and in later life.
Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of
Human Nature, 15, 283–300.
Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197–216.
Stieger, S., Voracek, M., & Formann, A. K. (in press). How to administer the Initial
Greenwald, A. G., Poehlman, T. A., Uhlmann, E. L., & Banaji, M. R. (2009).
Preference Task. European Journal of Personality. doi:10.1002/per.823.
Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of
von Collani, G., & Herzberg, P. Y. (2003). A revision of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem
predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 17–41.
Scale in German language. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische
Gregg, A. P., & Sedikides, C. (2010). Narcissistic fragility: Rethinking its links to
Psychologie, 24, 3–7.
explicit and implicit self-esteem. Self and Identity, 9, 142–161.