Meta-Analyses of Sex Differences in Responses to Sexual Versus Emotional Infidelity

Abstract

From 54 articles, 172 effect sizes were meta-analyzed to determine whether men and women are differentially distressed by emotional versus sexual infidelity. Predictions were derived and tested from an evolutionary psychology (EP) perspective, a social–cognitive perspective, and the double-shot perspective. The data were not consistent with the EP predictions because men tended to respond in the predicted manner in only the U.S. student samples, whereas the rest of the data were largely consistent with the social–cognitive theory. Specifically, both sexes tended to be more upset by emotional than sexual infidelity when forced to choose which type of infidelity was more distressing. Both sexes indicated that sexual infidelity was more distressing than emotional when asked to rate their level of distress separately for each using continuous measures. The lesbian and gay samples were mostly consistent with the double-shot hypothesis because they tended to respond based on stereotyping grounded in the sex of their partner, paralleling heterosexuals in this regard. Analysis of the scenarios designed to test the double-shot hypothesis found somewhat smaller effects when the possibility of both types of infidelity was ruled out. These findings suggest that professionals seeking to address problems associated with jealousy in romantic relationships would profit from avoiding sex-linked assumptions about which aspect of infidelity is likely to be more upsetting.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 105 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.