IlllHWI

\

x
\

 

£373 IIHHIWIWNHIRHHHWIWWWl

_THs_

4’ ‘
\/
k. .

f2;;7.!"-’?

LIBRARIES
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
EAST LANSING, MICI-I 48824-1048

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
ATTRIBUTIONS AND COMMUNICATION IN RESPONSE TO
JEALOUSY IN SAME-SEX FEMALE FRIENDSHIPS

presented by

ALYSA ANN LUCAS

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

MA. degree in Communication

 

 

K 6% “m W W

Ma' r Professor’s Signature
l 21 i up] 04

Date

 

MSU is an Affinnative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.

TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

I
I

IF‘
we
il> “
4:»
c 3 ’

 

Fri r451

C2»

8 2809

 

120908

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 c:/ClRC/DateDue.p65-p.15

 

EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ATTRIBUTIONS AND
COMMUNICATION IN RESPONSE TO JEALOUSY IN SAME-SEX
FEMALE FRIENDSHIPS
BY

Alysa Ann Lucas

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Communication

2004

ABSTRACT
EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ATTRIBUTIONS AND
COMMUNICATION IN RESPONSE TO JEALOUSY IN SAME-SEX
FEMALE FRIENDSHIPS
By
Alysa Ann Lucas

The relationship between attributions and communication strategies used in
response to jealousy by females in same-sex friendships were investigated in
this study. Previous research on jealousy has focused primarily on romantic
relationships and neglected other types of relationships, such as same-sex
friendships. Additionally, a void exists regarding the attributions that occur during
jealousy experiences. Using Sillars’ (1980) research on conflict strategies as a
guiding theoretical framework, six hypotheses were advanced. One hundred and
twenty female participants completed surveys containing both open-ended and
close-ended questions about a jealousy experience with a same-sex friend.
Results indicated that there was a positive relationship between neuroticism and

the intensity of jealousy and a positive relationship between other responsibility

of jealousy and the use of two passive-indirect and the distributive strategies.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Kelly Morrison: I would like to extend a gracious thank you to my wonderful
advisor to who was always there for me despite type of problem, time of day or

distance between us.

Brent Donnellan and Sandi Smith: I would also like to thank my committee for

their time, guidance, and expertise during the completion of this project.

Jonathan Bowman, Jennifer Chakroff, Katherine Klein, and Tierney Orfgen: Each
of you deserves your own “shout out” for your assistance on this project and your

words of encouragement.

My parents: Thank you to my very own “cheerleading squad.” Your support and
encouragement in my life has never faltered and for that I am not only grateful,

but I am also a better person.

And finally, I would like to thank a friend from the past. If it wasn’t for her, I would

have never been introduced to jealousy nor would I have realized how important

it is to understand its role in friendships.

iii

TABLES OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................. v
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 1
LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................... 3
METHODS .......................................................................................... 17
Participants ................................................................................ 1 7
Procedure .................................................................................. 1 8
Measurements ........................................................................... 1 8
RESULTS .......................................................................................... 21
Scale Reliabilities ...................................................................................... 21
Coding ....................................................................................................... 21
Categories and Frequencies ..................................................................... 21
DISCUSSION ...................................................................................... 28
CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 34
APPENDIX ......................................................................................... 37
REFERENCES .................................................................................... 48

iv

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1 — Frequencies for Types of Events ....................................................... 35

TABLE 2 — Means and Standard Deviations for All Variables ............................. 36

Introduction
Exploring the Relationship Between Attributions and Communication in
Response to Jealousy in Same-Sex Female Friendships

It has been suggested that jealousy is a multi-dimensional experience in
which cognitions, feelings, and behaviors all play a role (Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989).
Previous research has explored the thoughts and feelings people have during
jealous experiences as well as the behaviors people employ in response to
jealousy. Guerrero, Andersen, Jorgensen, Spitzberg, and Eloy (1995) specifically
looked at the communicative responses to jealousy yet they did not investigate
the attributions people make when selecting a response to jealousy. Why do
individuals select a certain way to respond to a jealous experience? A research
study by Sillars (1980) looked into the attributions people made when selecting
different communicative responses when in conflict. Two different attributions
individuals made in this study dealt with the responsibility of the conflict and
stable behavior. The purpose of the current study is to extend Guerrero et al.’s
(1995) work with communicative responses by applying attributions from the
work of Sillars (1980) to jealousy.

In addition to articulating the multidimensional nature of jealousy, much
research has concentrated on the operation of jealousy in romantic relationships.
Both popular media and academic research have illustrated jealousy as an
exclusively romantic issue and often have ignored other relationships that could
evoke jealousy. This narrow focus in the literature is problematic because by

neglecting other close relationships in which jealousy can occur, the definition of

jealousy has become synonymous with romantic jealousy and perpetuates the
idea that jealousy only exists in romantic relationships. Hence, our understanding
of jealousy becomes linked to factors that are relevant to jealousy within romantic
relationships, such as infidelity or sexual exclusivity, even though these factors
may be irrelevant to the jealousy experienced in other types of relationships,
such as same-sex friendships.

It is important to investigate jealousy in friendships because the friendship
literature has suggested that jealousy is one of the top tensions experienced
between friends (Rawlins, 1992). For example, a widespread occurrence in the
adolescent years of females is the changing of alliances between friends. As girls
mature into young women, the issue of dating emerges within their same-sex
friendships. Also, as the newfound dating relationships take up more time, less
time available for friends (Roth & Parker, 2001 ), which can then elicit jealousy. In
fact, research by Hansen (1985) suggested that women were more likely than
men to experience jealousy regarding issues of time, thus an exploration of
jealousy within same-sex female friendships may be particularly useful.

Because jealousy can evoke conflict within a relationship, Sillars’ (1980)
work on conflict strategies will be used as a guiding theoretical framework. In
particular, his work linking attributions to conflict strategies will be applied to
jealousy to examine how attributions influence communicative strategies. This
study first will review current definitions and factors related to jealousy in the
romantic relationship literature. Next, the friendship literature will be discussed,

and finally, Sillars’ work on conflict will be reviewed.

Literature Review

Jealousy

Defining Jealousy. White (1980) defined romantic jealousy “...as a
complex of thoughts, feelings, and actions which follows threats to self-esteem
and/or threats to the existence or quality of a relationship, when those threats are
perceived to be generated by the existence of a real or potential attraction
between one’s partner and a (perhaps imaginary) rival” (p.222). Other romantic-
based definitions of jealousy have suggested that violations of sexual exclusivity
can provoke jealousy (Reiss, 1986), or they have described jealousy as the
feelings and actions that result due to a romantic partner having an affair or'
spending time with some third person (Guerrero, Andersen, & Afifi, 2001). Bringle
and Boebinger (1990) stated that only romantic relationships can evoke jealousy
and that siblings and same-sex friendships cannot. Despite this bias toward
romantic relationships in definitions of jealousy, it seems plausible that friends
may feel jealous if some third person, activity, or object threatens an already
existing friendship. To put forth a general definition that can apply to all close
relationships, this study will use the following definition of jealousy: Cognitions
and emotions that stem from the perceived or real threat of losing an existing
valued relationship partner to some third person, activity, or object.

Individual Factors related to jealousy. Although the findings were
inconsistent, Sharpsteen (1995) suggested that two underlying factors that
contribute to the experience of jealousy are threats to self-esteem and threats to

relationship. Melamed (1991) also found a positive correlation between

neuroticism and the likelihood of experiencing jealousy. Buunk (1997) conducted
a study to look into the inconsistent relationships between jealousy and
personality and he found that jealousy was negatively related to self-esteem and
positively related to neuroticism, social anxiety, rigidity, and hostility. Further,
self-esteem and jealousy were not significantly correlated for men, but women’s
self-esteem was negatively related to three types of jealousy. The three types of
jealousy were anxious jealousy, which is described as an active cognitive
process in which images of partner with someone else are created;
possessive/preventive jealousy, which is described as when the individual makes
attempts to prevent a third person’s contact with their partner; and reactive '
jealousy, which is described as a provoked response to partner’s imagined or
actual involvement with a third person. In short, the lower the self-esteem score
of women, the higher the jealousy scores on these three different jealousy
measures.

The research on individual factors related to jealousy is paralleled by the
research exploring the prototypical nature of jealousy. Sharpsteen (1995)
conducted a study exploring the prototypical features of romantic jealousy in
which participants were asked to list the features that are characteristic of
romantic jealousy. The most frequent central features listed were anger,
insecurity and feeling hurt, whereas the peripheral feature listed most frequently
was low self-esteem. Other prototypical features listed were envy, depression,
and worry. All of these items also are included in neuroticism portions of

personality measures (John & Srivastava, 1999, Saucier, 1994). In general, then,

the prototypical features research suggests that both self-esteem and
neuroticism should be related to jealousy, but in different ways. Therefore, the
following hypotheses are put forth:

H1: Self-esteem will be negatively related to jealousy.

H2: Neuroticism will be positively related to jealousy.

Multidimensional nature of jealousy. The literature on jealousy has
indicated that jealousy is not one-dimensional. Rather, it includes cognitions,
emotions, and behaviors triggered from a threat of loss, suggesting that jealousy
is multifaceted in nature (Guerrero, Eloy, Jorgensen, & Andersen, 1993; Pfeiffer
& Wong, 1989). This idea is exemplified in the research that focuses on what
people think, feel and do as a result of feeling jealous (Bryson, 1993). White’s
(1980) definition of jealousy introduced the different components that make up a
jealous experience including thoughts, feelings, and actions, but it was Pfeiffer
and Wong (1989) who stated that these three components comprise the
multidimensional nature of jealousy.

The Multidimensional Jealousy Scale (MJS) was generated to assess
each of these three components (Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989). Cognitive jealousy
refers to how often an individual has suspicions concerning their partner and a
rival, including suspecting their partner is attracted to a rival, or that some rival is
after their partner. The behavioral component of the MJS assesses how often an
individual is participating in detective (i.e., questioning partner about
whereabouts and phone calls) or protective actions (i.e., talking badly about a

rival to partner). Both the cognitive and behavioral components assess

pathological jealousy (i.e., imagined threats, paranoid suspicions, and high
degree of emotional upset) whereas the third component, emotional jealousy,
assesses normal jealousy (i.e., appraisal of a real threat and some emotional
upset). Emotional jealousy deals with how upset individuals feel when there is a
jealousy-evoking event (Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989). The MJS provides a tool to
examine each component separately and how each component might relate to
other factors. For example, results from Pfeiffer and Wong’s (1989) study
indicated that love was negatively related to the cognitive component, but was
positively related to the emotional component, suggesting that the more in love
an individual is with their partner, the more upset the individual will feel when a
jealousy-evoking event presents itself.

Types of jealousy. Guerrero et al. (2001) described several different types
of jealousy, including romantic jealousy, sexual jealousy, jealousy over time, and
jealousy over social position. The latter two categories encompass non-romantic
relationships such as friendships. Although these typologies can be useful and
suggest that non-romantic relationships can evoke jealousy, it is not clear how
the latter two categories are distinct from each other. Jealousy over time entails
people who worry about someone or something that may take their relational
partner away from them whereas jealousy over social position is described as
someone replacing another as a best friend (Guerrero et al., 2001). Beyond this
mention, little research has been devoted to studying non-romantic jealousy in-
depth. However, these two types of jealousy provide rationale for why jealousy

may occur within same-sex friendships.

Coping with jealousy. Coping with jealousy has been a highly studied area
with specific attention devoted to romantic relationships. McIntosh and Matthews
(1992) found that individuals with high self-esteem and who attributed jealousy to
situational factors (i.e., external factors such as the environment) rather then
dispositional factors (i.e., internal factors such as personality) used more direct
coping styles to deal with jealousy. An example of a direct coping style is asking
for an explanation of the situation (McIntosh & Matthews, 1992). Additionally,
White (1981) developed a model of romantic jealousy based on the work of
Lazarus which divides the jealousy experience into five components. First, an
individual makes a primary appraisal involving the extent to which a third person
is a real threat to them. Following this appraisal, a secondary appraisal would be
made regarding reducing the threat. Next, the individual has an emotional
reaction and together with the secondary appraisal and emotional reaction, the
coping behaviors are elicited (White, 1981 ). Finally, the outcomes are evaluated
in terms of whether the threat was reduced, the effect on the relationship, and the
effect on the attraction to partner (White, 1981). White (1981) focused the
romantic model on variables that were assumed to have an influence on the
primary appraisal of threats, including, self-esteem, feelings of inadequacy in the
current relationship, sexual exclusivity, and dependence on the relationship.

Despite this attention to the appraisal process, previous research has
failed to examine in detail how cognitions influence jealousy, and specifically how
attributions influences coping with jealousy. For example, if individuals attribute

jealousy to themselves, they may experience and respond to jealousy differently

than if an individual attributes the jealousy to their friend. Although Buunk (1993)
discussed the attributional process people use if their partner is involved in an
extradyadic relationship, he did not examine the relationship between attributions
and communicative responses. Therefore, there is a clear need to examine this
issue more in depth.

Pines and Aronson (1983) explored different aspects of sexual jealousy,
and found that individuals coped with jealousy in a variety of ways; including,
rational discussion, verbal assault, and avoidance of the issue. Guerrero et al.
(1993) extended Pfeiffer and Wong’s (1989) multidimensional model, and
specifically focused on communication. Similar to the behavioral dimension in
which individuals may search through their partner’s things, the communication
dimension focuses on the interaction of the dyad (i.e., questioning partner's
whereabouts). Guerrero et al. (1995) described two categories of communicative
responses labeled interactive responses (which they defined as face-to-face
communication or partner-directed) and general behavioral responses (which
they defined as not necessarily including face-to-face communication or partner).
For example, an interactive response would include an individual asking their
partner where they have been and who they have been with whereas a general
behavioral response would be an individual checking their partner's email without
permission. They defined several different communicative responses for coping
with jealousy such as interaction avoidance (silent treatment, relational
termination), negative affect expression (showing anger or depression),

distributive communication (fighting, verbal attacks), integrative communication

(asking questions, direct confrontation), manipulation attempts (pouting, guilt
induction), and surveillance (spying, keeping tabs on partner). Using the
Communicative Responses to Jealousy (CRJ) Scale, Guerrero et al. (1993)
found that women reported using the three responses of integrative (constructive
responses to jealousy), distributive (negative responses to jealousy such as
arguing), and avoidance (avoid interaction in dyad) to cope with jealousy more so
than did men.

After defining jealousy and reviewing the literature, it is clear that jealousy
is a complex concept that includes cognitions and emotions (White, 1980), and
elicits a wide range of responses. Previous research on romantic jealousy has
presumed that this multifaceted experience is only found in relationships where
sex and romance are present. The following discussion of same-sex friendships
between women will suggest that romantic attraction is not a prerequisite for
jealousy.

Friendships

Defining friendships. Friendships are considered to be the relationship
least valued by our society (Brehm, 1992). Friendship also has been described
as the weakest relationship (W iseman, 1986) because, unlike other relationships
(such as divorced parents who can continue to come together for their children),
friendship has no set roles or tasks around which a relationship can be reformed.
This perspective on friendship derives from the fact that, unlike non-voluntary
ties, such as familial relationships, friendships are voluntary. Additionally, they do

not entail the contractual ties of marriage that often are the end goal in romantic

relationships (Wiseman, 1986). Since friendships are considered the weakest
relationship, often the significance of friendships is overlooked in research (Fehr,
2000) despite the fact that friendships can be a source of love and security for
many people (Brehm, 1992).

Rawlins (1992) described several characteristics of ideal friendships,
including: its voluntary nature, the private negotiation of the personal relationship,
equality between those involved, mutual involvement, and the affective ties of
caring (pp. 11-12). Reohr (1991) suggested that friendship is a rewarding
relationship and that the many benefits of friendship include: joy, trust, respect,
encouragement, acceptance, admiration, and the fact that friends are useful (pp.
101 -105). The voluntary nature of friendships and the self-management between
the involved parties emphasize self-preservation and enjoyment as the main
goals of such close relationships (Wiseman, 1986). Thus, it is clear that
friendships provide positive experiences and are a valuable type of close
relationship, but relatively less valued than familial and romantic relationships.

Similarities between friendships and romantic relationships. Friendships
are similar to romantic relationships in a variety of ways. Friendships are
relationships with a dyadic structure in which the people involved can experience
shared exclusivity through activities, conversations, similarities and secrets that
then lead to cohesion of the two (Reohr, 1991 ). Conversely, Reohr pointed out
the negative emotions that friendship can bring, including pain, hurt, frustration,
fear and anxiety (p.101 ). Much like other close relationships, friendships can elicit

emotions such as feeling affection, anger, and even jealousy.

IO

Female friendships. Friendships among women are characterized by face-
to-face interactions (Wright, 1982), emotional intimacy (Sherrod, 1989), and
talking about personal topics or relationships (Fehr, 2000). These relationships
often exhibit less discussion of relationship strains than men’s friendships if the
women want to maintain their relationships (Wright, 1982). Research has
suggested that females spend more time disclosing intimate information face-to-
face in comparison to males (Fehr, 2000). Due to such connections, females are
more likely to fear separation and social isolation if such sharing is absent
(Brehm, 1992).

According to Simmons (2002), “‘Good girls have friends, and lots of '
them.” In her book, Odd Giri Out, she has stated that good girls are just like the
old saying, “sugar and spice and everything nice” (p. 17). Young girls are
socialized to be nice and, therefore, not aggressive, angry or in conflict
(Simmons, 2002). Females also are socialized by their parents, media, scth
and their peers to be polite. Additionally, females learn to be attentive to the
relationships around them, especially to those in which they are closely involved.
This, then places girls in a double-bind where they are expected to be nice (and,
thus, not address conflicts), but also are expected to maintain their relationships
(which often cannot be maintained without addressing conflict). If they attempt to
resolve conflict and set aside their “niceness,” they may be labeled
“confrontational” or “mean.”

The specific characteristics of female friendships set a foundation for the

ways women may experience jealousy, and approach their jealous feelings and

II

the conflicts triggered by them. Females who are in relationships in which they
spend lots of time talking about their relationships, problems and feelings, and
are considered to be the “best friend” may become jealous if their best friend
spends more time with another friend, acquaintance, or romantic partner. In
these instances, the individual has not only lost the person they spend time with,
but possibly the person who supported them the most. Losing such a relationship
could lead to the termination of the friendship, a much smaller support network,
and conflict. Therefore, it is logical that girls will experience jealousy in their
same-sex friendships. Because spending time with another friend might not be
the only way in which females experience jealousy, the following research ‘
question is put forth.

ROI: What types of events evoke jealousy in female friendships?

Now that the nature of jealousy and female friendships have been
discussed, Sillars’ (1980) conflict styles can be used to derive how females will
communicate in response to jealousy-evoking events.

Dealing with Jealousy: Applying Sillars Conflict Strategies

Sillars (1980) examined the role of attributions in conflict in his research
on roommate conflict. One outcome from this study was the development of a
typology of conflict strategies. The two dimensions used to describe these
strategies were the extent to which individuals exchange information (i.e.,
discuss the conflict) and the extent to which the strategy is directed toward
fulfilling individual or mutual goals. Specifically, the three strategies that surfaced

were: integrative (discussion of conflict directed toward mutual goals), distributive

12

(discussion of conflict directed toward individual goals), and passive-indirect (no
discussion or indirect discussion). Examples of the integrative strategies include
partners disclosing information and problem solving. Strategies distributive in
nature include demanding the partner to change their behavior and aggressive
emotional displays, such as yelling at the partner. Finally, examples of passive-
indirect strategies include letting the issue resolve itself or avoiding the issue or
person.

Findings from Sillars’ (1980) roommate study indicated that attributions
made about the responsibility (or causality) of the conflict played a role in the
type of strategy employed. For example, an individual who attributed
responsibility for the conflict to self was more likely to employ the integrative
conflict strategy in which the individual directly communicated with their
roommate in an attempt to resolve the conflict through negotiation. On the other
hand, an individual who believed their roommate was responsible for the conflict
was more likely to employ distributive or passive-indirect strategies, such as
avoiding the conflict all together. In general, the participants attributed more
responsibility to their roommate than themselves.

The second component that plays a role in choosing a conflict strategy is
the stability of the conflict. This refers to degree to which a person believes that
the cause for conflict can be changed. For example, stable causes for conflict
could include personality traits or permanent environmental elements, both of
which are not easily altered by the individual. Conversely, unstable causes are

more easily altered, and could include factors that stem from having a bad day,

13

temporary stress, or misperceptions (Sillars, 1980). Under the circumstances in
which the cause of conflict is attributed to a stable cause such as a personality
trait (i.e., neuroticism), an individual would participate in a more passive-indirect
strategy, because an integrative approach might not be rewarding. On the other
hand, if conflict is experienced because of a bad day or a temporary stress, the
cause is less stable, and integrative strategies are more likely to be induced.
The roommate study found that individuals who attributed the conflict to their
roommate believed the cause to be more stable, yet unstable for the conflicts
they attributed to themselves. In other words, the participants reported that the
roommates’ behavior was due to internal factors like personality traits or
permanent environmental cues whereas a conflict caused by the participants was
due to extemal factors such as temporary stresses. This study will focus on the
responsibility and the stability of attributions.

Additionally, with three different conflict strategies to employ, Sillars (1980)
found that each could lead to a different resolution. The selection of a conflict
strategy was connected to the frequency of the conflict, importance of the conflict
and satisfaction in the relationship. The study indicated that when integrative
strategies were chosen satisfaction in the relationship was high, the frequency of
the conflict was low, and the importance of conflict was low. On the other hand, if
satisfaction in the relationship with the roommate was low, the frequency of the
conflict was high.

Ultimately, this view indicates that it is attributions that influence the

strategies we employ, and it is biased attributions that may lead to poor

14

communication between the relational partners. Research that has examined
coping with jealousy focuses on the cognitive, emotional, behavioral and
communicative responses within the experience of jealousy; however, there is
little research that looks at the attributions that lead to the above listed
components especially communicative responses. For example, Guerrero et al.
(1995) found fourteen diverse communicative responses to jealousy, but it is not
clear why people select a particular communicative response to handle jealousy.

While Guerrero et al. (1995) found categories similar to Sillars in her work
on communicative responses to jealousy, they did not measure the attributions
made before the selection of a communicative response took place. This stUdy
will attempt to directly apply Sillars’ (1980) attributions and conflict strategies to
jealousy in same-sex female friendships as well as extend the work of Guerrero
et al. (1995). By applying Sillars’ (1980) theoretical framework of conflict, there is
an opportunity to make the connection between attributions and the responses
selected to deal with jealousy. Further, romantic relationships are emphasized in
academic research on jealousy, leaving little understanding about the experience
of jealousy amongst same-sex female friends.

Following the predictions of Sillars’ (1980) roommate conflict study, there
are four hypotheses put forth in this study focusing on attributions of
responsibility and attributions toward the stability of jealousy. With a direct
application of Sillars’ (1980) study the concept of conflict will be replaced with the
concept of jealousy. It is expected that those individuals who attribute the

jealousy to self will want to talk about the jealousy with mutual goals in mind

15

whereas those individuals who attribute the jealousy to the friend will employ
passive-indirect and distributive strategies over the integrative strategy. If an
individual blames themselves for the jealousy they may want to clear up the
issue or to alleviate the problem by talking about it openly. If an individual sees
the friend as responsible for jealousy then they may see the friend as the source
of the problem, and, therefore, the individual does not need to address the issue
in an integrative way.

H3: Self-attributions for jealousy will be positively related to integrative

communication strategies.

H4: Other attributions for jealousy will be positively related to passive-

indirect and distributive communication strategies.

Sillars (1980) also found that stable behaviors led to more passive
strategies rather then integrative strategies. Jealousy is expected to function
similarly, given that jealousy may be attributed to stable personality traits or less
stable causes, such as the misperception of an event. Similar to Sillars’ findings,
it jealousy is thought to derive from stable causes then females should be less
likely to talk about it openly, but if it is attributed to less stable causes than
females should be more likely to discuss the event in order to resolve the
jealousy.

H5: Stable attributions for jealousy will be positively related to passive-

indirect communication strategies.

H6: Unstable attributions for jealousy will be positively related to

integrative communication strategies.

16

Methods

Participants. One hundred and twenty female students enrolled in
undergraduate communication courses at a large midwestem university
participated in the current study. The age of the participants ranged between 18
and 27 with a mean of 21.3 (SD=1.4). In this sample, 68.3% were Caucasian,
10.8% were African American, 10.8% were Asian American, 3.3% were Hispanic,
and 5% reported “other” ethnicity. The majority of the participants, 62.5%, were
seniors in school, juniors made up 25.8% of the sample, and both graduate
students and underclassmen comprised 5% of the sample. Of this sample,
62.5% of the participants were dating whereas 32.5% were single, with the '
exception of two married and one divorced participants. All students voluntarily
participated in this study and signed informed consent forms. The data of two
participants were excluded from analyses because they could not recall an event
in which they felt jealous of their same-sex friend. Jealousy was defined for the
participants on the questionnaire as: the thoughts and feelings that occur when
you think you may lose an important person to some third person, activity, or
object. Out of the one hundred and eighteen who completed the questionnaire,
thirty-six participants recalled an event in which they experienced envy rather
than jealousy. Envy is distinguished from jealousy as: “Envy may be said to occur
when a person lacks what another has and either desires it or wishes that the
other did not have it. It occurs when the superior qualities, achievements, or
possessions of another are perceived as reflecting badly on the self (p. 4)

(Parrot, 1993).” Therefore, the participants’ who recalled an envious event rather

l7

then a jealous event were excluded from analysis. This resulted in a total of
eight-two participants.

Procedure. The opportunity to participate in this research study was
announced in undergraduate communication courses and given that the target
for the current study was females, another research opportunity separate from
this study was offered to the male students. The survey was twelve pages long,
and contained both open-ended descriptive items and close-ended items.
Participation in this study took place either during class or after the scheduled
class time and was dependent on the policies of the class instructor. All of the
participants received extra credit or research credit points for participating in‘ this
study. Participants were instructed to recall an event in which they felt jealous of
a same-sex friend. All participants received the same questionnaire. After
completing the questionnaires, the participants were thanked for their time and
were offered an information sheet providing them the opportunity to learn more
about this study and the topic of jealousy.

Measurements. Participants first completed the brief version of Goldberg’s
Unipolar Big-Five Markers Scale (Saucier, 1994). This scale consists of forty
nine-point Likert-type items, with one representing “extremely accurate” and nine
representing “extremely inaccurate.” In this scale participants are asked to
describe themselves in terms of labels such as “jealous,” “envious,” and
“relaxed.” Then participants were instructed to describe the closeness of their
relationship according to Aron, Aron, and Smollan’s self-other scale (1992). Their

scale consists of seven different pictorial representations between “self” and

18

“other” according to the degree of overlap between two circles, with more overlap
indicating more closeness. The next part of the survey consisted of a series of
open-ended questions. Participants were instructed to describe their relationship
with their same sex friend, how long they had known their friend, the details of
the actual jealousy event, and their thoughts and feelings at the time of the event.
Next, participants were asked who was most responsible for the event, to
describe what they said in response to the jealousy event and how their friend
responded. Participants then were asked to describe their reasons for
addressing or not addressing the jealousy event as well as the relationship
outcome. Next, participants then completed a five item semantic differential
scale created for this study in order to assess the intensity of the jealousy
experienced, with response options ranging from one to five and including;
“weak/strong,” “a little/a lot,” “mild/intense,” “not powerful/powerful,” and “not
overwhelming/overwhelming.” A jealousy responsibility scale also was created,
and consisted of four Likert-type items with response options ranging from one
(“strongly agree”) to five (“strongly disagree”), and including items such as “my
friend caused me to be jealous of her in this situation,” and “my friend was
responsible for me being jealous in this situation.” Next, participants completed a
series of thirty-eight Likert-type items with response options ranging from one
(“strongly disagree”) to five (“strongly agree”) written to assess type of
communication strategies used (passive-indirect, eight items, e.g., “I avoided
her;” distributive, ten items, e.g., “I yelled at her;” and integrative, five items, e.g.,

“I tried to tell her my feelings”), the stability of the behavior (eight items, e.g., “this

19

is how I usually behave”), and relational outcomes (seven items, e.g., “the
jealousy made the friendship awkward”).

Participants then completed Jang, Smith & Levine’s (2001)
Communication Patterns Scale. This scale assesses how people communicate
about an issue, and includes five subscales; talking over the issue, arguing over
the issue, talking around the issue, avoiding the issue, and avoiding the person.
The original scale was developed for a deception study examining romantic
relationships and consisted of 20 items, five for each topic. For the current study
the items were revised to address the topic of jealousy in friendships, resulting in
a nineteen item 5-point Likert-type scale, with response options ranging from one
“not at all” to five “very much.”

Self-esteem was measured by using a ten item 5-point Likert-type scale
designed by Rosenberg (1965) to assess global self-esteem, and finally,
participants were asked to complete six questions assessing demographic

information.

20

Results

Scale Reliabilities. The reliabilities of the close-ended scales were
assessed by SPSS and all were found to be acceptable (cronbach’s alpha = .77,
neuroticism, .95, jealousy intensity, .84, responsibility, .85, distributive, .86,
integrative, .66, stability, .89, relational outcomes, .65, talked around, .78, avoid
issue, .92, avoid person, and, .86, self-esteem) except for the passive-indirect
scale, (cronbach’s alpha = .44) which was deleted from further analysis.

Coding. The open-ended questions were unitized according to thought
units by two coders. For example, in response to the question “please describe
your friendship” some participants recorded “best friend”, which would constitute
one thought unit. In contrast, some participants recorded “she’s my best friend...
and we’ve been rooming together for two years.” This would be unitized into two
separate thought units — best friend, and roommates. Unitizing agreement was
assessed by simple percentage of agreement (91%) and found to be acceptable.
To establish the category scheme for coding the open-ended data, two coders
randomly selected 25 surveys and reviewed them for thematic content. After
several discussions, category schemes were created for each open.ended
question, and the data was coded by the two coders. lntercoder reliability was
assessed by simple percentage of agreement, which was found to be acceptable
(88%).

Categories and Frequencies. In response to the question, which asked
participants to describe their friendships, the data revealed seven categories.

The frequency data indicated that 41.7 % (n = 50) of the responses reported the

21

“best friend” category; 31.7 % (n = 38) reported the “close friends” category, 5%
(n = 6) reported the “co-workers” category; 24.2% (n = 29) reported the
“childhood friends” category; 24.2% (n = 29) reported the “roommates” category;
15.8% (n = 19) reported the “teammates” category; 2.5% (n = 3) reported the
“acquaintances” category; and 54.1% (n = 65) reported the “feelings” category
where they describe their relationship in terms of the feelings shared.

In response to the question which asked how long the participants had
known their friend, six categories emerged. Seven and one half percent (n = 9)
of the participants reported a friendships of six months or less; 27.5% (n = 33)
reported a friendship over six months to two years; 23.3% (n = 28) reported‘over
two years to four years; 11.7% (n = 14) reported over four years to six years;
25% (n = 30) reported more than six years; and 3.3% (n = 4) reported the
“miscellaneous” category.

In response to the question asking participants to describe the jealousy
event (i.e., research question one), the data revealed eight categories. The
frequency data indicated that 20.8% (n = 25) of the responses reported the
“competing female relationship” category, which described their friends spending
time with other girls; 18.4% (n = 22) reported the “competing male relationship”
category, which described their friends spending time with boyfriends or other
male friends; 10% (n = 12) reported the “competing for the same guy” category,
8.3% (n = 10) reported the “wedging opposite sex” category, which described
how their friends tried to come between the participant and her boyfriend or other

male friend; 6.7% (n = 8) reported the “possession” category, which described

22

how their friends tried to steal the participants’ boyfriends or dated an ex-
boyfriend; 5% (n = 6) reported the “guys like her more” category; 5% (n = 6)
reported the “wedging same-sex” category, tried to come between the participant
and another female; and 2.5% (n = 3) reported the “personality change” category,
which described such things as the disagreeing with things the friend participated
in or the people the friend hung out with.

In response to the question that asked participants to describe who was
most responsible for the jealousy event, the data revealed six categories. The
frequency data indicated that 25.8% (n = 31) of the responses reported that “their
friend” was responsible; 40.9% (n = 49) reported “self” responsibility; 8.3% (n =
10) reported that “both” were responsible; 12.5% (n = 15) reported that a “3rd
party” (such as another friend or boyfriend) was responsible; 7.5% (n = 9)
reported that it was “nobody’s fault”; while 7.5% (n = 9) reported the
“miscellaneous” category.

In response to the question that asked participants to describe how they
addressed their jealousy, the data revealed seven categories. The frequency
data indicated that 16.6% (n = 20) of the responses reported the “distributive”
category (e.g., yelling at their friend, calling names); 67.5% (n = 81) reported the
“passive-indirect” category (e.g., not talking about it, avoiding the friend); 25.9%
(n = 31) reported the “integrative” category (e.g., telling friend how they felt);
5.9% (n = 7) reported the “positive assurances” category (e.g., wishing their
friend happiness); 4.2% (n = 5) reported the “3rd party" category (e.g., talking to

another friend or boyfriend about it); 19.2% (n = 23) revealed the “self-coping”

23

category (e.g., attempting to change their own feelings to help get over it); while
1.6% (n = 2) revealed the “miscellaneous” category.

In response to the question that asked participants why they addressed
the jealousy, the data revealed eight categories. The frequency data indicated
that 3.3% (n = 4) of the responses reported the “preserve friendship” category,
which described that they wanted to save or maintain the friendship; 5% (n = 6)
reported the “avoid conflict” category, which described that they didn’t want to
cause a fight, 26.7% (n = 32) reported the “personal need” category, which
described that they needed to make themselves feel better; 1.7% (n = 2) reported
the “personal responsibility” category, which described that this was the
participants’ problem not the friends’; 3.3% (n = 4) reported the “save own face”
category, which described that they were embarrassed or didn’t want to look
jealous; 1.7% (n = 2) reported the “save friend’s face” category, which described
not wanting to embarrass their friend or make their friend feel bad; .8% (n = 1)
reported the “no point” category, which described that it was not worth
addressing the jealousy; while 10% (n = 12) reported the “miscellaneous”
category.

The same categories were used to code the responses to the question
that asked participants why they did not address the jealousy, if they didn’t. The
frequencies indicated that 4.1% (n = 5) of the responses reported the “preserve
friendship” category; 6.7% (n = 8) reported the “avoid conflict” category; 10.9% (n
= 13) reported the “personal responsibility” category; 12.5% (n = 15) reported the

“save own face” category; 1.6% (n = 2) reported the “save friend’s face” category;

24

16.2% (n = 20) reported the “no point” category; and 6.6% (n = 8) reported the
“miscellaneous” category.

Finally, in response to the question that asked participants to describe the
relational outcome of the jealousy event, the data revealed three categories. Ten
percent of the responses (n = 12) reported the “relationship is better" category;
24.2% (n = 29) reported the “relationship is worse” category; and 63.3% reported
the “relationship is the same” category.

Hypothesis One. The first hypothesis predicted a negative relationship
between self-esteem and the intensity of the jealousy experienced. Correlational
analyses revealed no significant relationship (r (78): .00, p < .05, ns), thus the
data were inconsistent with hypothesis one.

Hypothesis Two. The second hypothesis predicted a positive relationship
between neuroticism and the intensity of the jealousy experienced. Correlational
analyses revealed a significant positive relationship (r(77)= .28, p < .05),
indicating that the intensity of jealousy experienced increases as neuroticism
increases, thus the data were consistent with hypothesis two.

Hypothesis Three. The third hypothesis predicted that self attributions for
jealousy would be positively related to integrative strategies. Correlational
analyses revealed no significant relationship (r (78): .15, p < .05, ns) between
the self responsibility scale and the integrative strategies scale, thus the data
were inconsistent with this hypothesis.

Hypothesis Four. The fourth hypothesis predicted a positive relationship

between other attributions and passive-indirect and distributive strategies. To

25

test the first part of this hypothesis, the other attributions scale was correlated
with three subscales from the Communication Patterns Scale; talking around the
issue, avoiding the issue, and avoiding the person. The results indicated a
positive relationship (r (78): .34, p <.01) between other attributions for jealousy
and avoiding the person, a positive relationship (r (79): .24, p < .05) between
other attributions for jealousy and talking around the issue, and no significant
relationship (r (80): .15, p < .05, ns) between other attributions for jealousy and
avoiding the issue. Thus, the data were consistent with the first part of this
hypothesis.

To examine the second part of this hypothesis, the other attributions ’scale
was correlated with the distributive scale. The data revealed a positive
relationship (r (78): .36, p < .00) between other attributions for jealousy and
distributive strategies. Thus, the data also were consistent with the second part
of this hypothesis.

Hypothesis Five. The fifth hypothesis predicted a positive relationship
between stable attributions for jealousy and passive-indirect strategies. To test
this hypothesis, the stable attributions scale was correlated with three subscales
from the Communication Pattems Scale; including, talking around the issue,
avoiding the issue and avoiding the person. The data revealed no significant
relationship (r (76): -.17, p < .05, ns) between stability of jealousy and avoiding
the person, no significant relationship (r (77) = -.13, p < .05, ns) between stability

of jealousy and talking around the issue, and no significant relationship (r (77):

26

.02, p > .05, ns) between stability of jealousy and avoiding the issue. Thus, the
data were not consistent with the hypothesis.

Hypothesis Six. The sixth hypothesis predicted a positive relationship
between unstable attributions for jealousy and integrative strategies. To test this
hypothesis, the integrative scale was correlated with the stable attributions scale.
The data revealed no significant relationship (r (77) = .01, p < .05, ns), thus, the

data were not consistent with the hypothesis.

27

Discussion

This research examined the relationships between attributions and the
communication strategies used in response to jealousy in female same-sex
friendships. Further, the relationships of both neuroticism and self-esteem to
jealousy were explored, as well as the type of events that evoke jealousy. This
study indicated mixed results, and several issues merit further discussion.

First, no relationship was found between self-esteem and jealousy. This
was not only contrary to what was predicted in this study, but also inconsistent
with the results of Buunk (1997) in which women with low self-esteem scores had
higher scores on jealousy. However, the purpose of Buunk’s (1997) research
was to examine past inconsistent results between jealousy and personality
correlates (including self-esteem). One reason for these results could have been
restriction of range. The mean for self-esteem was 4.28 (SD = .59). The
participants overall had high self-esteem and, thus, very little variance on self-
esteem scores. Further investigation of the relationship between jealousy and
self-esteem may resolve the inconsistent findings. More importantly, a
comparison study between self-esteem and jealousy in both romantic
relationships and friendships may provide more insight. The majority of the
research examining the two constructs has been in romantic relationships and
perhaps the relationship between self-esteem and jealousy is dependent on the
type of relationship in which jealousy has been evoked.

Next, as predicted, a positive relationship emerged between neuroticism

and the intensity of the jealousy experienced. This is consistent with other

28

research, such as the work of Buunk (1997) and Melamed (1991) who both found
positive relationships between neuroticism and how likely an individual was to
experience jealousy. Therefore, individuals who have higher levels of neuroticism
were more likely to experience jealousy with more intensity.

One of the most interesting aspects of this project was the data revealed
by the open-ended portion of the survey. In particular, the results for research
question one revealed eight different types of events that evoke jealousy in
same-sex female friendships. The qualitative results from the current study are
consistent with topics addressed by the limited research focusing on jealousy
and friendship. For example, Roth & Parker (2001) focused on jealousy evoked
from neglected friendships due to dating partners similar to the “competing male
relationship” category revealed in the current study. Another category revealed in
this study also parallels Roth & Parker’s work (2001). Namely, the “exit” response
category, which described individuals talking about their friends behind their
back, is similar to the “wedging same-sex” category found in this study. Further,
Simmons’ (2002) work on the changing of alliances between females
investigated topics similar to those of this study, including “competing female
relationships.” The qualitative results from the current study are consistent with
the limited research on jealousy and friendship, suggesting the utility of further
research in this area.

Next, no relationship was found between self responsibility for the jealousy
event and integrative communication strategies. These results are contrary to

what Sillars (1980) found in his roommate study. The roommate study specifically

29

found that those individuals who attributed the responsibility of the conflict to
themselves were more likely to talk about the conflict openly with their roommate
through integrative strategies. However, Simmons (2002) suggested that girls are
socialized to be nice and, therefore, addressing jealousy in any sort of open way
would clash with that socialization. It seems reasonable that one explanation for
the lack of findings between self responsibility for the jealousy event and
integrative communication strategies was that females were trying to maintain
the relationship with their friend as well as maintaining their “niceness.”

A positive relationship was found between other responsibility for the
jealousy event and passive indirect communication strategies, including talking
around the issue and avoiding the person. Consistent with the finding of Sillars’

( 1980) roommate study, the data revealed that females who attributed the
responsibility of the jealousy to their friend were more likely to implement
passive-indirect strategies. Again, the socialization of young girls as described by
Simmons (2002) may explain why females will select to respond to jealousy with
passive-direct strategies. By avoiding the person and talking around the issue,
the individual avoids open conflict and, therefore, can still maintain the
relationship without looking mean.

Further, a positive relationship was found between other responsibility for
the jealousy event and distributive communication strategies. This also is
consistent with the findings from Sillars’ (1980) roommate study in which
individuals saw their friend as the source of the problem so, therefore, do not

need to openly discuss the issue in a constructive manner. Previous friendship

30

research has suggested that friendships are the least valued relationship (Brehm,
1992) and are voluntary in nature (Rawlins, 1992). It may be this thought process
that leads individuals to use distributive strategies that include yelling at the other
person or demanding that they change.

Finally, stability of jealousy was not related to passive-indirect strategies
or integrative strategies. This is contrary to the results found in the Sillars’ (1980)
roommate study. One explanation for these findings can be taken from the open-
ended comments describing the jealousy event. Some participants described the
jealousy event as deriving from their friend, while other participants described the
event as deriving from outside sources. Thus any effects may have cancelled
each other out. Future research should continue to explore the range of
attributions related to jealousy.
Limitations

One of the primary limitations of this study is that self-report recall
questionnaires were used as the method. By using self-report recall, there is a
possibility of memory biases from the participants and any biases could lead to
important details being omitted or information being reported inaccurately.

Another limitation of this study is the use of college-aged participants.
Although friendships are plentiful in the college years, by exploring just this age
group, insight from different age groups could be missing. It is important to
examine how generalizable this data set is to other age groups. For example, it
would be interesting to investigate the jealous experience and the selection of

communication strategies during adolescence years in which friendship alliances

31

often change and dating relationships become more frequent. Further,
friendships begin to decline as individuals get older. It would also be interesting
to see how jealous experiences and communication strategies are related in
older adult friendships.

Finally, a limitation to this study was neglecting to assess the dating status
of the participants. Several participants reported competing male relationships
(such as their friend spending time with a boyfriend) as the jealous event. It
would be of interest to test the dating status of the participants to explore the
similarities or differences between the intensity of jealousy of single female
participants versus those participants in dating relationships.

Future Directions

The purpose of this study was to begin exploration of jealousy within
same-sex friendships and to extend previous work on communication strategies.
It is important to continue this exploration so that the phenomenon of jealousy
outside of romantic relationships can be more fully understood. To begin, the
qualitative data reported in this study can be used to create scenarios, items, or
tasks for future studies such as those revealed by the event categories of
“wedging,” possession,” and “competing relationships.” In addition, this study
focused solely on female participants and a future direction could include
exploring male same-sex friendships to ascertain similarities or differences in the
jealousy experience. Also, it would be interesting to explore jealousy by
conducting a diary study in which participants could report information as it was

experienced. Further, by using this technique both friends could be included in

32

the study and their recalled events could be compared. Finally, results for the
relationship of self-esteem and jealousy were insignificant. It may be that self-
esteem is more relevant for female jealousy within dating relationships as

opposed to same-sex friendships, and a study comparing these types of

relationships could examine this.

33

Conclusion

In sum, eighty-two female participants recalled an event in which they felt
jealous toward a same-sex friend. The data indicated that jealousy does not just
occur in romantic relationships and is central to female friendships, with many
different types of events evoking this emotion. Although the results of the current
study did not offer support for all the hypotheses, this study has highlighted the
utility of applying current knowledge on attributions to the jealousy domain in
order to further understand the communication choices made within same-sex

female friendships.

34

862mg So: 86296 was ...>>cw.. .802

 

 

o\om.m o\om «and o\om.m o\oo F o\ov.mF o\om.om o\o
m o m or NF mm mm 2
xmm >30 maEmcozflmm ma_cmco=m_cm
xmchmm 9.22 cm: mzmoaao 66mm 9: Lou was. c_mEcu

9:983 93 9:0 co_wmcmm0n_ agave; mczmano mczcano mczmanO

 

mEc>w Lo 3%... 22 36:630ch

» $ch

35

 

2 8. 8a £32m
5 mm. mmé Emmfimémm.
5 5; 8m 38. 282 9.2.3
mm 8; mod 550 3.56888.
mm mm; m 3 =8 2:33:8me
ow mm. F 8% 8228562
5 8. New £2.25
8 0: Ba Law 9238.5
cm 82 8a :8 32.3520
mm B; «Z 38. me @5202
8 a: 8; Sean. @5202
8:350
z Emucmuw cams.

 

.wcfimtg =m .8 205300 Emncmfi Ucm memo—2

N 3&3.

36

APPENDIX
Jealousy and Communication Questionnaire

Instructions: In this survey we are interested in the descriptions of jealousy experiences,
the thoughts involved in these experiences, the communication responses to jealousy and
the relationship outcomes.

Please read everything carefully and answer each question as completely and honestly as
possible. If you require more space for a specific answer, please feel free to use the back
of the page. Do not include your name on this survey. Your responses are anonymous, so
your answers cannot be linked to your identity in any way.

Jealousy is defined as “the thoughts and feelings that occur when you think you may lose
an important person to some third person, activity, or object.” Put differently, people may
feel jealousy if they are afraid they will lose, or if they do lose, a close relationship
partner because their partner is spending more time with another person, activity (or
hobby), or object.

In this survey you will be asked to recall and describe a jealousy experience. Please
answer the following packet based on you and your same-sex friend from the relationship
in which the jealousy experience occurred. Write the same-sex friend’s initials here:

 

37

Instructions: Please use this list of common human traits to describe yourself as accurately as
possible. Describe yourself as you see yourself at the present time, not as you wish to be in the
future. Describe yourself as you are generally or typically, as compared with other persons you
know of the same-sex and of roughly your same age. Use the following rating scale to indicate
how accurately each trait describes you:

 

 

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Extremely Very Moderately Slightly Neutral Slightly Moderately Very Extremely
Inaccurate Inaccurate Inaccurate Inaccurate Accurate Accurate Accurate Accurate

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_

Envious - 2 3 4 5 67' 8 alkaveti '12 3 9

h " Intelletual A nathetic —1234567 89

Withdrawn 2 3 ‘4 5 6

 

 

38

Think about one of your same-sex friends. In this portion of the survey, please recall an
event when YOU felt jealous of your same-sex friend. With this friend and event in mind,
please answer the following questions.

1. Please describe your relationship with the same-sex friend.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. How long did you know your friend before the event occurred?

 

 

3. Please describe the details of the event. What happened?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

39

. What were your thoughts at the time?

 

 

 

 

. What were your feelings at the time?

 

 

 

 

. Who do you think was most responsible for the jealousy event? Why?

 

 

 

 

. How did you address the jealousy? Please describe sgifically what you said and
what you did.

 

 

 

 

. How did your friend respond?

 

 

 

 

40

9. If you addressed the jealousy, why did you decide to address it this way?

 

 

 

 

10. If you did not address the jealousy, why did you choose not to deal with it?

 

 

 

 

11. What was the relationship outcome?

 

 

 

 

12. How many times have similar jealous events occurred in this friendship?

 

13. The jealousy I experienced in the situation was...

Weak 1 2 3 4 5 Strong
A little 1 2 3 4 5 A lot
Mild l 2 3 4 5 Intense
Not powerful I 2 3 4 5 Powerful
Not overwhelming I 2 3 4 5 Overwhelming

41

Instructions: Think about your same-sex friend and the jealousy event that you described
when filling out the following scales. Rate the following items with 5 = strongly agree, 4

= agree, 3 = neutral, 2 = disagree, and I = strongly disagree.

Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
1. My friend caused me to be jealous of her in
this situation. 1 2 3 4 5
2. My friend was not responsible for me being
jealous in this situation. 1 2 3 4 5
3. It was my own fault that I became jealous in
this situation. 1 2 3 4 5
4. I brought on the jealousy myself in this
situation. 1 2 3 4 5

42

Instructions: Think about your same-sex friend and the jealousy event that you described

when filling out the following scales. Rate the following items with 5 = strongly agree, 4

= agree, 3 = neutral, 2 = disagree, and l = strongly disagree.

Strongly
Disagree

1. I am satisfied with this same—sex friendship.
. She yelled at me.

. I avoided her.

. She wanted me to figure it out on my own.

. I tried to tell her what I wanted.

. I feel like I consistently behave this way.

. She tried to tell me what to do.

OOQONUIAUJN

. I asked her to change her behavior.

9. I tried to joke about the issue.

10. She avoided talking about the issue with me.
11. This is how I usually behave.

12. I hoped that she would figure it out on her own.

13. The jealousy experience brought us closer together.

14. I tried to engage in constructive problem-solving.
15. She asked me to change my behavior.

16. She called me names.

17. She tried to joke about the issue.

18. I tried to get her to do what I wanted.

19. I yelled at her.

20. The jealousy experience ruined our friendship.
21. I avoided talking about the issue with her.

22. My behavior at this time was not typical for me.
23. She tried to get me to do what she wanted.

43

l
1

NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN

wwwwuwwwwwwwwwwuwwuwwww

bkkhhhhhhbhhbhé-fihk-fihhhh

Strongly
Agree

MMLIIUIMLIIUIMMMUIMLAMMUIUIMMMMUIUI

Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree

24. She behaved in a way that was uncharacteristic of

her usual behavior. 1 2 3 4 5
25. The jealousy experience made the friendship stronger. I 2 3 4 5
26. I tried to tell her my feelings. I 2 3 4 5
27. I tried to learn her feelings. I 2 3 4 5
28. I feel that my friend consistently behaves this way. 1 2 3 4 5
29. The jealousy made the friendship awkward. l 2 3 4 5
30. I am happy with this friendship. I 2 3 4 5
31. Her behavior at this time was not typical for her. 1 2 3 4 5
32. She avoided me. 1 2 3 4 5
33. I tried to tell her what to do. 1 2 3 4 5
34. I tried to find out what she wanted. 1 2 3 4 5
35. I am not comfortable with the status of the friendship. I 2 3 4 5
36. I called her names. 1 2 3 4 5
37. Ibehaved in a way that was uncharacteristic of my

usual behavior. 1 2 3 4 5
38. This is how she usually behaves. l 2 3 4 5

39. Please describe any other behaviors that you or she did, not listed above.

 

 

 

Instructions: Think about your same-sex friend and the jealousy event that you
described when filling out the following scales. Rate the following items with 5 =

very much to l = not at all.

Not at All 1 2 3 4 5 Very Much
I. I talked about the jealousy incident with my friend.
2. I pretended I wasn’t jealous while interacting with my friend.
3. I did not discuss the jealousy when talking with my friend, but I asked
questions around the issue.
4. I argued about the jealousy event with my friend.
5. When my friend mentioned the jealous incident, I told her that I did
not want to talk about it.
6. I did not want to see my friend after the jealousy.
7. It was fairly easy for me to discuss the jealousy incident with my
friend.
8. I started fights about the jealousy with my friend.
9. I was afraid of asking my friend directly about the jealousy incident.
10. I stopped going to places where my friend might be present after the

 

jealousy incident.
__11. I ignored my friend’s phone calls after the jealousy incident.
________12. I was not able to talk about the jealousy incident with my friend.
__l3. I stayed away from talking about the jealousy with my friend.
14. I avoided my friend after the jealousy incident.
__15. I avoided talking about the jealousy incident with my friend.
__l6. I talked around the jealousy incident with my friend.
17. I ignored my friend’s emails after the jealousy incident.

18. I stopped interacting with my friend after the jealousy incident.
19. I talked with my friend about the jealousy incident in an indirect way.

45

Which of the following sets of circles best describes the closeness of you and your

friend? (Circle the correct set of circles).

l 2 3
4 5 self 6 fiiend

S Cif 7 fi'icnd

Instructions: Rate the following items about yourself with 5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3

= neutral, 2 = disagree, and l 2 strongly disagree.

Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
1. I feel that I am a person of worth, at least on
an equal basis with others. 1 2 3 4 5
2. I feel that I have a number of good qualities. 1 2 3 4 5
3. All in all, I am inclined to feel that I am failure. 1 2 3 4 5
4. I am able to do things as well as most other people. 1 2 3 4 5
5. I feel I do not have much to be proud of. l 2 3 4 5
6. I take a positive attitude towards myself. 1 2 3 4 5
7. On the whole, I am satisfied with myself. I 2 3 4 5
8. I wish I could have more respect for myself. 1 2 3 4 5
9. I certainly feel useless at times. 1 2 3 4 5
10. At times I think I am no good at all. 1 2 3 4 5

Instructions: Please fill out the following demographic information about yourself.
1. Are you (circle one): MALE FEMALE
2. Are you (circle one): HETEROSEXUAL HOMOSEXUAL BISEXUAL

3. Are you (circle one): FROSH SOPHOMORE JUNIOR SENIOR
GRADUATE

4. Are you (circle one): CAUCASIAN AFRICAN AMERICAN HISPANIC
ASIAN AMERICAN NATIVE AMERICAN
OTHER

5. Are you (circle one): SINGLE DATING MARRIED DIVORCED
WIDOWED

6. How old are you?

 

Thanks for your participation!

47

References

Brehm, SS. (1992) The Social Network. In S.S. Brehm, Intimate Relationships,
(362-376). New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Bringle, R.G., & Boebinger, K.L.G. (1990). Jealousy and the ‘third’ person in the
love triangle. Joumal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 119- 133.

Bryson, J.B. (1993). Modes of response to jealousy-evoking situations. In P.
Salovey (Ed.), The Psychology of Jealousy and Envy (pp. 178-207).
New York: The Guilford Press.

Buunk, RP. (1993). Jealousy in Close Relationships: an exchange-theoretical
perspective. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The Psychology of Jealousy and Envy
(pp. 148-177). New York: The Guilford Press.

Buunk, RP. (1997). Personality, birth order and attachment styles as related to
various types of jealousy. Personal and Individual Differences, 23, 997-
1006. .

Fehr, B. (2000) The Life Cycle of Friendships. In C. Hendrick & S.S. Hendrick
(Eds.), Close Relationships: A Sourcebook, (71-84). London: Sage
Publications.

Guerrero, L.K., Andersen, P.A., & Afifi, W.A. (Eds.). (2001). Close encounters:
Communicating in Relationships. Toronto: Mayfield.

Guerrero, L.K., Eloy, S.V., Jorgensen, P.F., & P.A., Andersen. (1993). Hers or
His? Sex differences in the experience and communication of jealousy in
close relationships. In P.J. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Interpersonal
Communication: Evolving Interpersonal Relationships (pp. 1 09-131 ). New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Guerrero, L.K., Andersen, P.A., Jorgensen, B.H., Spitzberg, B.H., & Eloy, S.V.
(1995). Coping with the green-eyed monster: conceptualizing and
measuring communicative responses to romantic jealousy. Western
Journal of Communication, 59, 270-304.

Hansen, CL (1985). Dating jealousy among college students. Sex Roles, 12,
712-713.

Jang, S.A., Smith, S.W., & Levine, TR. (2002). To stay or to go? The role of
attachment styles and communication patterns and potential termination of
romantic relationships following discovery of deception. Communication
Monographs, 63, 236-252.

48

John, O.P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: history,
measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In LA. Pervin and DP. John
(eds.). Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research (2"d ed.) (pp. 102-
138). New York: Guilford Press.

McIntosh, E.G., & Matthews, 0.0. (1992). Use of direct coping resources in
jealousy. Psychological Reports, 70, 1037-1038.

Melamed, T. (1991). Individual differences in romantic jealousy: The moderating
effect of relationship characteristics. European Joumal of Social
Psychology, 21, 455-461.

Parrot, WC. (1993). The emotional experiences of envy and jealousy. In P.
Salovey (Ed.), The Psychology of Jealousy and Envy (pp. 3-30). New
York: The Guilford Press.

Pfeiffer, S.M., & Wong, P.T.P. (1989). Multidimensional jealousy. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 181 - 196.

Pines, A. & Aronson, E. (1983). Antecedents, correlates, and consequences of
sexual jealousy. Journal of Personality, 51, 108-136.

Rawlins, W.K. (1992). Friendship Matters: Communication, dialectics, and the life
course. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

Reiss (1986). Journal of Marriage and Family, 48, 233-242.

Reohr, JR. (1991). Friendship: An Exploration of Structure and Process. New
York: Garland Publishing.

Roth, M.A., & Parker, JG. (2001). Affective and behavioral responses to friends
who neglect their friends for dating partners: influences of gender,
jealousy and perspective. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 281-296.

Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: a brief version of Goldberg’s unipolar big-five
markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 506-516.

Sharpsteen, DJ. (1995). The effects of relationship and self-esteem threats on
the likelihood of romantic jealousy. Joumal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 12, 89-101.

Sherrod, D. (1989). The influence of gender on same-sex friendship. In C.
Hendrick (Ed.) Close Relationships, (pp. 164-186). Newbury park, CA:
Sage Publications.

Sillars, A.L. (1980).-Attributions and communications in roommate conflicts.

49

Communication Monographs, 47, 180-200.

Simmons, R. (2002). Odd Girl Out: The hidden culture of aggression in girls. New
York: Harcourt.

White, G.L. (1980). Inducing jealousy: a power perspective. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 222-227.

White, G.L. (1981). A model of romantic jealousy. Motivation and Emotion, 4,
295-310.

Wiseman, JP. (1986). Friendship: bonds and binds in a voluntary relationship.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 3, 191-211.

Wright, PH. (1982). Men’s friendships, women’s friendships and the alleged
lnferiority of the latter. Sex Roles, 8, 1-20.

50

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII LIBRARIES

i111111111111151111111111le

55