Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Jun 24.
Published in final edited form as: J Fam Violence. 2015 Jun 4;30(8):987–997. doi: 10.1007/s10896-015-9736-4

Positive and Negative Jealousy in the Association Between Problem Drinking and IPV Perpetration

Lindsey M Rodriguez 1, Angelo M DiBello 1, Clayton Neighbors 1
PMCID: PMC9231668  NIHMSID: NIHMS1562737  PMID: 35754791

Abstract

In the context of established associations between alcohol problems and intimate partner violence (IPV), the current study investigated whether jealousy has positive and negative dimensions, and whether they differentially moderate the association between problem drinking and IPV perpetration in heavy-drinking college students (N=448). Factor analyses suggested positive and negative dimensions of jealousy. Whereas negative jealousy was conceptualized by the traditional definition of jealousy, positive jealousy reflected relationship commitment and emotional distress upon considering one’s partner becoming romantically involved with another person. Results supported hypotheses such that positive and negative jealousy dimensions moderated the drinking problems-IPV link in opposite directions: Drinking problems were associated with increased perpetration among individuals higher in negative and lower in positive jealousy. Results provide support for the notion that jealousy is not universally negative and highlight the importance of different types of jealousy in understanding the association between alcohol problems and IPV perpetration.

Keywords: Alcohol, Drinking problems, Jealousy, Intimate partner violence, Emotional abuse, Physical abuse

Conflicts between romantic partners sometimes escalate to situations wherein partners become physically or emotionally abusive. The rates at which intimate partner violence (IPV) occurs in college students and young adults is staggering, with approximately one in three dating couples reporting engaging in or experiencing violence in their relationship (Straus 2008; White and Koss 1991). Moreover, many of these individuals experience repeated victimization (Bonomi et al. 2007; Breiding et al. 2008). Consequences resulting from IPV (e.g., psychological trauma, physical injury, emergency room visits) are disturbing and underscore the need for research examining both for whom and under what circumstances IPV is likely to occur. The relatively robust association between drinking problems and IPV has been well established (Foran and O’Leary 2008a). Given that alcohol use is particularly heavy during the college years, and that physical aggression toward a romantic partner is especially prevalent in dating and early marital relationships (peaking between the teens and late twenties; O’Leary 1999), the current research evaluated the role of jealousy in the association between drinking problems and IPV perpetration among college students in relationships. Specifically, we sought to explore whether there are negative and positive facets of jealousy, and whether these facets interact with drinking problems in predicting IPV perpetration.

Alcohol Use and Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)

The alcohol-aggression link has been comprehensively evaluated (Bushman and Cooper 1990; Duke et al. 2011), and this has been extended to violence against a romantic partner. Recent meta-analytic reviews indicate significant associations of alcohol and drug use with IPV (Foran and O’Leary 2008a; Moore et al. 2008), with other research identifying alcohol as an important risk factor for IPV perpetration (Stith et al. 2004). In fact, it has been suggested that problem drinking is among the most important factors predicting partner abuse incidents (Leonard and Senchak 1996; Pan et al. 1994). Eckhardt (2007)) investigated the effects of alcohol intoxication on anger experience and expression among maritally violent and maritally nonviolent men randomly assigned to receive alcohol, placebo, or no alcohol. Results showed that men with a history of IPV expressed more maladaptive and aggressive forms of anger when given alcohol relative to all other groups.

Although the research on moderators of the association between alcohol use and IPV in community samples is relatively sparse (Foran and O’Leary 2008b), some that have been identified include hostility, marital distress, negative life events, trait aggressiveness, impulsivity, negative emotion regulation, and expectations of aggressive behavior following intoxication (Field et al. 2004; Heyman et al. 1995; Leonard and Blane 1992; Leonard and Senchak 1993; Margolin et al. 1998). Other research has focused on how romantic attachment styles play a role in violence and the association between alcohol use and violence. For example, one study found links between attachment insecurities and typologies of IPV perpetrators (Holtzworth-Munroe et al. 2000). Another study found that co-occurring substance abuse and IPV was significantly related to romantic attachment difficulties in perpetrators (Stover et al. 2013). Together, this research suggests that both individual and relational variables are important, and that more research is needed to better understand the dynamics that eventually trigger IPV perpetration.

Alcohol has been hypothesized as a leading contributing factor to IPV (Foran and O’Leary 2008a; Leonard 2005; Stuart et al. 2013). A logical extension of this approach is to examine other, more relationship-specific moderators of the association between drinking problems and IPV. Anger, often accompanied by romantic jealousy, is a common emotional antecedent to IPV.

Jealousy and IPV

Within the jealousy literature, a prevalent definition comes from White and Mullen (1989): “Romantic jealousy is a complex of thoughts, emotions, and actions that follows loss of or threat to self-esteem (or to the self) and/or existence or quality of the romantic relationship. The perceived loss or threat is generated by the perception of a real or potential romantic attraction between one’s partner and a (perhaps imaginary) rival” (p. 9). From this conceptualization, jealousy can be considered an emotion that serves to motivate behaviors (e.g., somatic, cognitive, and behavioral responses) to protect an individual’s relationship from alternatives mates (Harris and Darby 2010; Pfeiffer and Wong 1989; Salovey 1991). Moreover, jealousy is sometimes interpreted as a sign of caring and concern for one’s partner, and research has shown that it can be positively associated with romantic love (Ben-Ze’ev 2010; Swami et al. 2012). Similar to feelings of love, jealousy is an emotion that typically arises when there is a certain level of emotional commitment within a relationship. That is, feelings of jealousy would not be present if a person had an indifferent or apathetic attitude toward his or her partner or if a person was not invested in their relationship (Pines 1998). Thus, jealousy can be conceptualized as an emotional response that has positive elements (e.g., an implicit recognition of the importance and value of a relationship and/or partner), which can motivate behaviors to preserve a relationship. Alternatively, as traditionally conceptualized, jealousy also promotes negative actions (e.g., intrusive behaviors, harassment, domestic violence). Jealousy is frequently implicated as a factor in relationship dissolution, spousal abuse, and violence (Daly and Wilson 1988; Harris 2003).

Research suggests a robust association between jealousy and relationship violence. Research has long supported jealousy as a major contributor to relationship conflict, aggression, and violence (Buss 2000; Hansen 1991; Harris 2003; Stets and Pirog-Good 1987). Sugarman and Hotaling (1989) concluded that jealousy is perceived to be the most pressing cause of dating violence. Specifically, they noted that jealousy is the most frequently mentioned reason for violence in every study wherein respondents have been asked to list reasons. Additionally, Foran and O’Leary (2008b) examined two potential moderators of the association between alcohol problems and IPV within a community sample of males. Specifically, they evaluated the moderating role of aggression control and jealousy as they related to alcohol problems and the perpetration of IPV. Jealousy, rather than anger control, accounted for the majority of the variance in predicting partner aggression. Moreover, Kar and O’Leary (2013) findings demonstrate higher levels of reported psychological aggression, dominance, and jealousy in couples in which both partners are aggressive as compared to couples in which only one partner is the aggressor. Finally, a recent comprehensive review of studies examining motivations for IPV found that nearly half (49 %) of the studies included jealousy as a motive for IPV (Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al. 2012).

Due to its association with unhealthy relational behaviors, jealousy has traditionally been regarded as a negative phenomenon in intimate relationships (Buss 2000; Hansen 1991; Harris 2003). However, we propose that to the extent to which jealousy represents a desire for monogamy and concern for or commitment to one’s partner, jealousy may also have positive effects and may buffer the effects of other risk factors for IPV (i.e., problem drinking). Specifically, we sought to explore the possibility that there may be two different kinds of jealousy (negative and positive), and how these two kinds of jealousy interact with drinking problems in predicting IPV perpetration.

Current Research

To our knowledge, only one published study to date has previously evaluated jealousy and drinking with respect to IPV perpetration (Foran and O’Leary 2008b). However, results were not provided for the two-way interaction between jealousy and drinking predicting IPV; rather, the authors presented a three-way interaction between problem drinking, jealousy, and anger control, such that the alcohol-IPV link was strongest among men who were high in jealousy and high in anger control. The alcohol-IPV relationship was not significant for any other combination of jealousy and anger control, and although there was a main effect of jealousy in predicting severe physical aggression, it is unclear whether there was an interaction with drinking problems.

Other research has provided preliminary support for the two types of jealousy. DiBello et al. (2014) examined feelings of jealousy and alcohol-related problems in the context of drinking to cope. The authors suggested that the six jealousy dimensions in the Interpersonal Relationship Scale (Hupka and Rusch 1979 [unpublished], 1989) may be conceptualized as belonging to either positive or negative categories. Findings suggested that the negative dimensions of jealousy (i.e., distrust, self-deprecation, and competitiveness/vindictiveness) were associated with drinking to cope and drinking problems, whereas the positive dimensions (i.e., threat to exclusivity, dependence, and sexual possessiveness) were not. This research provides an extension of DiBello et al. (2014) by performing factor analyses to empirically demonstrate whether the items may be organized into negative and positive categories.

The current study goes beyond Foran and O’Leary (2008b) and DiBello et al. (2014) by providing insight into how negative and positive jealousy may interact with drinking problems to predict IPV perpetration among college students in relationships. The current research had two primary aims. First, we sought to extend the notion of positive and negative aspects of jealousy within the literature on alcohol use and IPV. Second, given that some aspects of jealousy may be beneficial and others detrimental, we sought to examine how these aspects of jealousy might influence the association between drinking problems and IPV.

We had three hypotheses with respect to the current research. First, we hypothesized that jealousy would factor into positive and negative dimensions (H1). We also expected to replicate the association between drinking problems and IPV perpetration (H2), and we expected this association to hold when controlling for amount of alcohol consumption. Finally, we expected jealousy to moderate this relationship, but we expected negative and positive jealousy types to moderate in opposite directions (H3). Specifically, we hypothesized that drinking problems would be positively associated with perpetration, especially for individuals higher in negative jealousy and lower in positive jealousy.

Method

Participants

The present research is a cross-sectional analysis of 2-year follow-up data that were collected as part of a larger intervention trial on social approaches to reducing alcohol use (Neighbors et al. 2010). This time point was chosen because it was the only time point that included a measure of jealousy. In order to participate in the study at baseline, participants must have reported at least one heavy drinking episode in the previous month (4+/5+ drinks on an occasion for women/men, respectively). Eight hundred and eighteen participants began the final wave of the data collection. Participants were excluded from the present analyses if they indicated that they were single and not dating (n=166). Individuals who were not exclusively dating others (i.e., those who were casually dating) were retained for analyses because it is likely that jealousy and conflict still occur (and may be exacerbated due to uncertainty) in these types of relationships. Some participants (n=182) did not provide their relationship status and were excluded. Thus, the final sample included 448 participants (64.1 % female) for whom complete data were available. Participants were, on average, 20.2 years old (SD=.59 years) and primarily junior-level (82.8 %) and heterosexual (95.3 %). Approximately two-thirds (66.8 %) of participants were Caucasian, 22.5 % Asian, 4.7 % Hispanic, 0.7 % African American, 0.7 % Native American, and 4.6 % Other. With regard to relationship status, 42.8 % of participants reported casually dating, 54.6 % reported exclusively dating, 1.8 % reported being engaged, and .9 % reported being married. The majority of students (69.8 %) lived in off-campus housing, with 21.5 % living in Greek housing, 6.5 % living at home, and 2.2 % living in residence halls. Fifteen percent of the sample reported living with their current romantic partner.

Procedure

Incoming freshmen from a large Northwestern U.S. public university were invited to participate in a large social norms intervention study (Neighbors et al. 2010). Inclusion criteria for participation included reporting one or more heavy drinking episodes in the previous month at baseline (4+/5+ drinks on an occasion for women/men, respectively) and a minimum age of 18. If eligible, students completed a baseline assessment and four additional 50-min surveys at 6-month intervals. The jealousy measure, the primary focus of this study, was added to the assessment battery at the final follow-up; thus, these data come from the 2-year follow-up assessment point. The Institutional Review Board at the university where the research was conducted approved all aspects of the study.

Measures

Jealousy

Jealousy was assessed using the Interpersonal Relationship Scale (IRS; Hupka and Rusch 1989). The IRS is comprised of 27 items that are answered on a six-point scale based on the level of agreement with each statement, from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 6 (Strongly agree). The IRS was originally conceptualized as capturing six aspects of romantic jealousy: Threat to exclusivity (example item: “When my partner dances with someone else, I feel very uneasy”), dependence (example item: “My lover is the motivating force in my life”), sexual possessiveness (example item: “It would bother me if my lover frequently had satisfying sexual relations with someone else”), distrust (example item: “I have confidence that my lover is not cheating behind my back” [reverse scored]), envy/self-deprecation (example item: “I feel empty inside when I see a successful relationship”), and vindictiveness (example item: “I always try to even the score”). This research performed factor analyses to empirically demonstrate whether the items may be organized into negative and positive dimensions.

Drinking Problems

A modified version of the Rutgers Alcohol Problems Index (RAPI; White and Labouvie 1989) assessed how often participants experienced 25 alcohol-related problems over the previous 3 months. Example items include, “Tried to cut down or quit drinking?” “Went to work or school high or drunk?” and “Missed out on other things because you spent too much money on alcohol?” The RAPI was modified to include two additional items (e.g., “drove after having two drinks” and “drove after having four drinks”). Participants responded to the statements using a five-point scale (0=Never; 1=1 to 2 times; 2=3 to 5 times; 3=6 to 10 times; 4=more than 10 times). Scores were calculated by summing the 25 items (α=.95). The RAPI has been used extensively in the college student drinking literature and has demonstrated good reliability and convergent validity (e.g., Borsari and Carey 2001; Collins et al. 2002; Larimer et al. 2001; Marlatt et al. 1998; Neighbors et al. 2004).

Alcohol Consumption

The Daily Drinking Questionnaire (DDQ; Collins et al. 1985) was used to measure number of drinks per week consumed. Consumption was included in the current research as a covariate to ensure that effects are not simply a factor of the amount of alcohol consumed (e.g., Martens et al. 2008). Participants were asked to consider their drinking during the past 3 months and to report the average number of standard drinks consumed for each day of the week. Final scores represent the average number of drinks consumed each week.

Intimate Partner Violence

IPV perpetration was measured with the Conflict Tactics Scale—short version (CTS2S; Straus and Douglas 2004). The CTS2S assesses a variety of types of aggression used during disagreements. In the current research, due to the timeline in data collection and the desire to avoid overlap in measures, the timeframe assessed aggression during the past 6 months. Participants rated the frequency of 20 specific aggressive acts on an 8-point scale ranging from 0 (Never in the past 6 months) to 7 (More than 20 times in the past 6 months). Example items include, “I pushed, shoved, or slapped my partner,” “I used force (like hitting, holding down, or using a weapon) to make my partner have sex,” and “I destroyed things belonging to my partner or threatened to hit my partner.” Perpetration was scored by taking a weighted sum of the 10 perpetration items (α=.86). The CTS2 (Straus et al. 1996) has been shown to be reliable and valid measure of perpetration among college students in 17 countries (Straus 2004), and the CTS2S has demonstrated comparable validity to the full CTS2 in college students (Straus and Douglas 2004).

Results

We first examined whether jealousy subscales might factor into positive and negative dimensions. Then, we looked at unique associations between drinking problems and good and bad jealousy predicting perpetration1. Finally, we tested whether the association between drinking problems and perpetration differed as a function of both jealousy subscales.

Jealousy: Exploratory Factor Analyses

To evaluate the notion posited by DiBello and colleagues (2014) and to identify whether underlying factor structure of the jealousy measure factored into relatively adaptive and maladaptive dimensions, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) employing maximum likelihood factor extraction was performed on the 27 jealousy items. Varimax rotation (an orthogonal rotation method) was used. In order to identify how many factors would be extracted, the scree plot of the eigenvalues was examined. Factor analyses provided results that suggested either a two-factor or a three-factor solution. The first two factors had eigenvalues of 7.78 and 3.19, respectively, and combined to account for 80.9 % of the variance. The third factor had an eigenvalue of 1.43 and uniquely accounted for 10.6 % of the variance. All analyses were examined using the two-factor and the three-factor solutions. The third factor included four items that appeared to reflect dependence. We selected the two-factor solution based on parsimony, scree plots, and because the third weaker factor was not uniquely associated with alcohol problems or perpetration. Further, it did not interact with alcohol problems in predicting perpetration.

All items and their respective standardized factor loadings are presented in Table 1. Items with standardized factor loadings above .4 were retained and items whose factor loading on the second factor was more than half of the original factor loading were considered cross-loaders and dropped. The reliability of both negative and positive jealousy subscales were high (α=.91 and .83, respectively). The two jealousy subscales were not significantly correlated with each other (r=.072, p=.117), lending further support to the orthogonal rotation method.

Table 1.

Standardized factor loadings for the interpersonal relationship scale

Item Respective factor Negative jealousy β Positive jealousy β
I feel empty inside when I see a successful relationship. N .790 −.257
I feel depressed when my partner speaks favorably about someone else. N .778 −.008
When my partner pays attention to other people, I feel lonely and left out. N .757 .029
Losing my lover prevents me from being the person I want to be. N .698 −.059
When my partner is at a party having fun and I’m not there, I feel depressed. N .690 .100
When somebody hugs my lover, I get sick inside. N .666 .003
I don’t imagine I’ll ever have a romantic relationship as good as some I’ve seen. N .633 −.139
Most of my friends have a more exciting love life than I do. N .621 −.169
I don’t know why, but I usually seem to be the underdog. N .621 −.118
I often find myself idealizing persons or objects. N .599 .116
I always try to ‘even the score.’ N .592 −.021
It is somewhat annoying to see others have all the luck in getting the best dating partners. N .573 −.020
Jealousy is a sign of true love. N .562 .026
I like to flirt now and then in front of my date to keep his/her interest. N .526 −.046
When I see an attractive person, I feel inadequate. N .523 .132
I feel bad inside when I see my partner kissing someone else at a New Year’s party. P .018 .765
I want my lover to enjoy sex only with me. P .005 .739
When I see my lover kissing someone else, my stomach knots up. P .003 .656
It would bother me if my lover frequently had satisfying sexual relations with someone else. P −.008 .654
I have confidence that my lover is not cheating behind my back. P −.159 .639
I see my mate as a successful person. P −.178 .614
When I am away from my mate for any length of time, I do not become suspicious of my mate’s whereabouts. P .007 .470
When my partner dances with someone else I feel very uneasy. CL .511 .318
I often feel I couldn’t exist without him/her. CL .480 .304
Life wouldn’t have much meaning without him/her. CL .460 .348
My lover is the motivating force in my life. CL .356 .376
When my lover goes out with another man/woman, I become physically upset. CL .365 .376
Open in a new tab

N negative Jealousy, P positive jealousy, CL cross-loader

Preliminary Analyses

Descriptive statistics and correlations are presented in Table 2. As expected, drinking problems and IPV perpetration were positively associated (r=.305, p<.001). Also as anticipated, negative jealousy was positively associated with perpetration (r=.178, p<.001) and drinking problems (r=.253, p<.001), whereas positive jealousy was negatively associated with perpetration (r=−.415, p<.001) and drinking problems (r=−.139, p=.002).

Table 2.

Means, standard deviations, and correlations among study variables

Drinking problems Negative jealousy Positive jealousy IPV perpetration
Drinking problems -
Negative jealousy .25*** -
Positive jealousy −.14** .07 -
IPV perpetration .31*** .18*** −.42*** -
Mean 5.70 2.32 4.49 10.97
SD 9.38 .95 1.23 7.27
Open in a new tab
*

p<.05

**

p<.01

***

p<.001

Jealousy and Drinking Problems Predicting Perpetration

Hierarchical regression analyses were performed to evaluate whether drinking problems were associated with perpetration, and whether that association differed as a function of negative and positive jealousy. All predictors were grand mean centered to facilitate interpretation of the interactions. Gender and drinks per week were entered as covariates. Results are found in Table 3. In accord with Hypothesis 2, drinking problems and negative jealousy were uniquely and positively associated with perpetration whereas positive jealousy was uniquely and negatively associated with perpetration. Furthermore, as expected, these main effects were qualified by significant interactions between drinking problems and negative jealousy, and between drinking problems and positive jealousy (ps<.001).

Table 3.

Interactions between drinking and negative/positive jealousy predicting IPV perpetration

Predictor b β t P
Gender −.270 −.018 −.41 .681
Drinks per week .007 .010 .23 .819
Drinking problems .162 .204 4.48 <.001
Negative jealousy 1.279 .165 3.86 <.001
Positive jealousy −2.344 −.400 −9.50 <.001
Drinking problems × negative jealousy .102 .193 3.24 .001
Drinking problems × positive jealousy −.114 −.228 −4.00 <.001
Open in a new tab

Predicted values derived from parameter estimates are presented in Figs. 1 and 2. Tests of simple slopes examined the association between drinking problems and perpetration at high (+1 SD) and low (−1 SD) levels of negative and positive jealousy. Results revealed that drinking problems were associated with perpetration at higher levels of negative jealousy, t(441)=2.90, β=.141, p=.004, whereas it was not significant at low levels of negative jealousy, t(441)=−1.08, β=−.101, p=.280 (Fig. 1). As expected, the pattern was reversed when considering positive jealousy. Specifically, drinking problems did not predict perpetration at higher levels of positive jealousy, t(441)=−1.58, β=−.156, p=.114, but the association was significant at lower levels of positive jealousy, t(441)=3.97, β=.197, p<.001 (Fig. 2).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Negative jealousy moderates the association between drinking problems and IPV perpetration. ** p<.01

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Positive jealousy moderates the association between drinking problems and IPV perpetration. *** p<.001

Results did not differ by gender. Neither three-way interaction among drinking problems, jealousy (negative or positive), and gender was significant (ps>.14). Results were also unchanged when relationship status was entered as a covariate and neither three-way interaction among drinking problems, jealousy (negative or positive), and relationship status was significant (ps>.25).

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine interactions between drinking problems and jealousy in predicting IPV perpetration. Our results were consistent with previous research suggesting that drinking problems are indeed associated with higher rates of IPV perpetration (e.g., Foran and O’Leary 2008a). Our results extend this knowledge by demonstrating that this association is stronger for individuals who are higher in negative jealousy and, independently, those lower in positive jealousy. Thus, negative and positive dimensions of jealousy appear to exert unique influences with drinking problems in predicting perpetration.

Interestingly, results suggested that there do seem to be two factors of jealousy and these two subscales very differently predict outcomes. They were also relatively independent constructs (correlated r=.07, ns). The negative jealousy factor appeared to represent the more traditional conceptualization of jealousy in that individuals responded highly to items regarding feeling depressed when their partner speaks highly of others and experiencing vindictive emotions. Negative jealousy seemed to be characterized by experiencing depressive thoughts, despondence, helplessness, inadequacy, low self-esteem, as well as spite toward and dependence upon one’s partner. Positive jealousy, on the other hand, seems to be related to commitment to one’s partner, desire for monogamy, and emotional distress in considering one’s partner becoming sexually involved with someone else. For example, the highest loading items for the positive jealousy subscale were, “I feel bad inside when I see my partner kissing someone else at a New Year’s party,” “I want my lover to enjoy sex only with me,” and “When I see my lover kissing someone else, my stomach knots up.” In this way, compromised levels of positive jealousy appear to represent a certain extent of apathy or lack of concern or care for one’s partner. Further, despite each type of jealousy uniquely predicting perpetration, the buffering influence of positive jealousy was a much stronger predictor of perpetration than was the detrimental influence of negative jealousy. This suggests that individuals who do not feel particularly committed to their partners (or alternatively, those who do not experience distress upon imagining them with another person) may be more likely to inflict physical or emotional damage upon them, particularly when also presenting with alcohol concerns.

It is also interesting that gender differences did not emerge. While some have argued that there are gender differences in the reasons for and types of jealousy experienced by men and women (Buss et al. 1992; Sagarin 2005), we found no evidence in this sample. There were also no gender differences in IPV perpetration, which is consistent with recent literature (Straus 2008, 2011). It is possible that gender differences are less evident in a relatively homogenous sample of dating college students relative to a more diverse sample. Future research examining more established associations in older and more diverse populations may shed further light on this question.

Jealousy, whether elicited by a particular relationship event or by general traits (i.e., personality characteristics), has been identified as a common precursor to perpetration against a romantic partner (Buss 2000; Hansen 1991; Harris 2003; Stets and Pirog-Good 1987; Sugarman and Hotaling 1989). The present research offers an important caveat to this conclusion, in that it depends on how jealousy is defined. When defined narrowly as a reactive and perhaps defensive emotion related to control and distrust, jealousy does appear to predict negative relationship outcomes. However, the present results support previous assertions that some degree or dimension of jealousy may communicate investment in the relationship and emotional concern for one’s partner. Conversely, the absence of distress at the thought of one’s partner having satisfying sexual relations with someone else does not bode well for one’s relationship, at least in the context of variables examined in the present research.

Limitations and Future Directions

The correlational nature of the data prohibits any kind of causal inference in the models. For example, we cannot determine from this data whether individuals who have more of a drinking problem are more likely to perpetrate or whether individuals experience alcohol-related consequences as a function of their perpetration. Previous research has shown that the strength of the alcohol-perpetration link varies across different indicators of drinking (e.g., weekly drinking versus heavy drinking or problems), different samples (e.g., general versus clinical populations), and possibly various personal and relational factors (e.g., anger control and hostility). Given that both alcohol use and partner abuse occur at peak rates during emerging adulthood (aged 18–24), the college student sample was suitable to answer this question as a preliminary exploration. However, given that approximately half of the sample reported casually dating and half reported exclusively dating, it is more difficult to infer how these processes develop over time and whether they are maintained or weakened as the relationship progresses (for those whose relationships do not dissolve).

Future research may explore mediators to better understand mechanisms at play here—specifically, what is it about negative jealousy that predicts higher levels of problematic behaviors, and why does positive jealousy buffer an otherwise harmful association? Alternatively, attributions regarding one’s partner and about relationships more generally (e.g., attachment style) may influence tendencies to experience a specific type of jealousy.

The current research sample was primarily comprised of college students who were raised in a Western culture, which does not allow evaluation of how positive and negative jealousy might be conceptualized in other cultures and other types of romantic relationships. Different cultures and types of relationships may vary in their relative attachment to partners and the influence of a partner’s behavior on the self. For example, the idea of being upset when one’s partner kisses another person may have a completely different depiction among individuals who are in open or polyamorous relationships. Whereas the present research presents an important initial examination into different kinds of jealousy among primarily traditional, Western college students, future research would benefit from examination of these constructs in other types of relationships and cultures.

The existing literature on the dynamic between jealousy, drinking, and IPV perpetration is sparse (cf. Foran and O’Leary 2008b). Future research would benefit from further exploration of how relationship functioning indicators such as commitment, satisfaction, and trust play a role in both types of jealousy and their associations with risky health behaviors and IPV, as these variables almost certainly are affected by the new conceptualization of jealousy. For example, previous research has found that jealousy is negatively linked to satisfaction (Andersen et al. 1995; Aylor and Dainton 2001; Bevan 2008). However, this might only occur for the negative dimension of jealousy—it is plausible that positive jealousy may be positively associated with satisfaction. Further, is the deleterious influence of negative jealousy particularly harmful if the person’s partner is less happy in the relationship? Are individuals able to sense their partner’s level of satisfaction and commitment, and is perpetration—which may be thought of as motivated by a desire to control the partner—particularly likely in situations where the individual is high in negative jealousy and the partner is less committed? Given the dynamic nature of these variables, the potential for feedback loops and self-fulfilling prophecies is certainly worth exploring.

Better understanding of how relational factors come into play will allow for a more detailed examination of which types of jealousy are beneficial versus detrimental for the individual and the relationship. Similarly, improved understanding of individual factors is a valuable avenue of future research. For example, some research suggests that differences in jealousy may be explained by attachment theory (Guerrero 1998; White and Mullen 1989). It is possible to consider both positive and negative aspects of jealousy as relationship maintenance behaviors that fall along a continuum of jealousy and are potentially rooted in factors such as a sense of inadequacy and/or a preoccupation with the partner. Research has shown that anxiously attached individuals (i.e., those with negative models of themselves and positive models of others) report greater worry that their partner will leave them for another person (Guerrero 1998), experience higher levels of jealousy (Buunk 1997; Hazan and Shaver 1987), and experience increased levels of fear, anger, and sadness in jealousy-inducing situations (Sharpsteen and Kirkpatrick 1997). Future research may wish to (a) investigate whether there are differences in positive and negative jealousy based on models of self and others from attachment theory, and (b) explore new ways to help insecurely attached individuals understand why they experience jealous thoughts and how these thoughts then negatively influence their relationship.

Research Implications

The new conceptualization of jealousy has important implications for how research defines jealousy, particularly whether jealousy represents a negative phenomenon to be avoided or a positive phenomenon to be fostered and developed. Future research may wish to investigate how negative and positive jealousy function over time and how they are associated with changes in relationship outcomes. Additionally, an interesting avenue for future research might examine whether these patterns emerge primarily in casually dating relationships and are particularly strong if there is a degree of uncertainty within the relationship (e.g., if one partner wishes to be exclusive and the other does not). Further, how do major relationship milestones (e.g., engagement, marriage, children) alter the dynamic? Finally, the jealousy measure used in the current research was not intended to represent both positive and negative aspects of jealousy. After providing some initial insight into the differences between the two types of jealousy, the construction of a new measure explicitly designed to more precisely capture the aspects of negative and positive jealousy would be a logical next step.

Researchers have identified two fundamentally different characteristics of jealousy, the experience and the expression. Specifically, the experience of jealousy refers to an individual’s cognitive and emotional reactions in connection with being jealous. Alternatively, jealousy expression refers to the different behavioral reactions or coping methods one uses to manage jealous feelings (Buunk and Dijkstra 2001, 2006; Guerrero et al. 1995; Pfeiffer and Wong 1989). Many of the items in the IRS refer to an individual’s cognitive and emotional reactions in response to potential jealousy-evoking situations or descriptions (i.e., the jealousy experience). In fact, only two items in the IRS are indicative of jealousy expression (“I always try to even the score” and “I like to flirt now and then in front of my date to keep his/her interest”). The present findings suggest that experiencing positive jealousy serves as a buffer against relational perpetration whereas experiencing negative jealousy increases the likelihood of it. Guerrero and colleagues (1995) suggest that, with regard to jealousy expression, there are positive (e.g., explaining one’s feelings in a constructive way to one’s partner) and negative (e.g., searching through partners’ belongings, questioning partners about their whereabouts) aspects. Future research may wish to explore whether the expression of jealousy is consistent with the experience with regard to drinking problems and IPV perpetration.

Clinical and Policy Implications

Although there may be no direct policy implications of the present results, there are clear clinical implications. Clinicians working with clients who have a history of being involved in violent relationships might offer insight and feedback regarding different types of jealousy for both perpetrators and victims. For perpetrators, clinicians could use the present results to help clients understand differences between positive and negative jealousy and to identify and classify cognitions and behaviors as trouble signs versus normal, healthy cognitions. Upon considering research which suggests that approximately half of men who enter treatment for IPV also present with drug or alcohol abuse (Stuart et al. 2003), clinicians who identify clients who exhibit high levels of negative jealousy and/or low levels of positive jealousy would be well served to further assess for problem drinking as an added risk for relationship violence.

For clinicians working with clients who have a history of IPV victimization, the present results might form the basis for providing concrete indicators of risk in assessing prospective relationship partners (e.g., does he or she get upset when you talk about someone else favorably or when you spend time with others?). Furthermore, clinicians might express additional caution regarding prospective partners who exhibit signs of negative jealousy and who also appear to drink problematically. Regardless of whether the clinician is treating the perpetrator or the victim, given the significant associations between drinking problems and violence and their particularly detrimental consequences, it is important to target these issues in an integrated manner.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R01AA014576) to Clayton Neighbors, Principal Investigator. Manuscript preparation was supported by a grant from NIAAA (F31AA020442) to Lindsey Rodriguez, Principal Investigator.

Footnotes

1

Intervention effects on IPV were tested by incorporating the condition variable into the model. The intervention effect was not significant (p=.517). Thus, analyses were run without including condition.

References

  1. Andersen PA, Eloy SV, Guerrero LK, & Spitzberg BH (1995). Romantic jealousy and relational satisfaction: a look at the impact of jealousy experience and expression. Communication Reports, 8, 77–85. doi: 10.1080/08934219509367613. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Aylor B, & Dainton M (2001). Antecedents in romantic jealousy experience, expression, and goals. Western Journal of Communication, 65, 37–391. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ben-Ze’ev A (2010). Jealousy and romantic love. In Hart SL, Legerstee M (Eds.), Handbook of jealousy: Theory, research, and multidisciplinary approaches (pp. 40–54). Wiley-Blackwell. doi: 10.1002/9781444323542.ch3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bevan JL (2008). Understanding romantic jealousy experience, expression, and commitment through the lens of the investment model. Southern Communication Journal, 73, 42–67. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bonomi AE, Anderson ML, Rivara FP, & Thompson RS (2007). Health outcomes in women with physical and sexual intimate partner violence exposure. Journal of Women’s Health, 16, 987–997. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Borsari B, & Carey KB (2001). Peer influences on college drinking: a review of the research. Journal of Substance Abuse, 13, 391–424. doi: 10.1016/S0899-3289(01)00098-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Breiding MJ, Black MC, & Ryan GW (2008). Prevalence and risk factors of intimate partner violence in eighteen U.S. states/territories, 2005. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 34, 112–118. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bushman BJ, & Cooper HM (1990). Effects of alcohol on human aggression: an integrative research review. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 341–354. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.107.3.341. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Buss DM (2000). The dangerous passion: Why jealousy is as necessary as love and sex. New York: Free Press. [Google Scholar]
  10. Buss DM, Larsen RJ, Westen D, & Semmelroth J (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3, 251–255. [Google Scholar]
  11. Buunk BP (1997). Personality, birth order, and attachment styles as related to various types of jealousy. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 997–1006. [Google Scholar]
  12. Buunk BP, & Dijkstra P (2001). Evidence for a sex-based rival oriented mechanism: jealousy as a function of a rival’s physical attractiveness and dominance in a homosexual sample. Personal Relationships, 8, 391–406. [Google Scholar]
  13. Buunk BP, & Dijkstra P (2006). Temptations and threat: Extradyadic relations and jealousy. In Vangelisti AL & Perlman D (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (pp. 533–555). New York: University Press. [Google Scholar]
  14. Collins RL, Parks GA, & Marlatt GA (1985). Social determinants of alcohol consumption: the effects of social interaction and model status on the self-administration of alcohol. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 189–200. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.53.2.189. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Collins SE, Carey KB, & Sliwinski MJ (2002). Mailed personalized normative feedback as a brief intervention for at-risk college drinkers. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63, 559–567. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Daly M, & Wilson M (1988). Evolutionary social psychology and family homicide. Science, 242, 519–524. doi: 10.1126/science.3175672. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. DiBello AM, Neighbors C, Rodriguez LM, & Lindgren K (2014). Coping with jealousy: the association between maladaptive aspects of jealousy and drinking problems are mediated by drinking to cope. Addictive Behaviors, 39, 94–100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Duke AA, Giancola PR, Morris DH, Holt JD, & Gunn RL (2011). Alcohol dose and aggression: another reason why drinking more is a bad idea. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 72, 34–43. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Eckhardt CI (2007). Effects of alcohol intoxication on anger experience and expression among partner assaultive men. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75, 61–71. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.75.1.61. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Field CA, Caetano R, & Nelson S (2004). Alcohol and violence related cognitive risk factors associated with the perpetration of intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 19, 249–253. [Google Scholar]
  21. Foran HM, & O’Leary KD (2008a). Alcohol and intimate partner violence: a meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 1222–1234. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2008.05.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Foran HM, & O’Leary KD (2008b). Problem drinking, jealousy, and anger control: variables predicting physical aggression against a partner. Journal of Family Violence, 23, 141–148. doi: 10.1007/s10896-007-9136-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Guerrero LK (1998). Attachment-style differences in the experience and expression of romantic jealousy. Personal Relationships, 5, 273–291. [Google Scholar]
  24. Guerrero LK, Andersen PA, Jorgensen PF, Spitzberg BH, & Eloy SV (1995). Coping with the green-eyed monster: conceptualizing and measuring communicative responses to romantic jealousy. Western Journal of Communication, 59, 270–304. doi: 10.1080/10570319509374523. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Hansen GL (1991). Jealousy: Its conceptualization, measurement, and integration within family stress theory. In Salovey P (Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. 252–272). New York: Guilford. [Google Scholar]
  26. Harris CR (2003). A review of sex differences in sexual jealousy, including self-report data, psychophysiological responses, interpersonal violence, and morbid jealousy. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 102–128. doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0702_102-128. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Harris CR, & Darby RS (2010). Jealousy in adulthood. In Hart SL, Legerstee M (Eds.), Handbook of jealousy: Theory, research, and multidisciplinary approaches (pp. 547–571). Wiley-Blackwell. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hazan C, & Shaver P (1987). Conceptualizing romantic love as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 270–280. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Heyman RE, O’Leary K, & Jouriles EN (1995). Alcohol and aggressive personality styles: potentiators of serious physical aggression against wives? Journal of Family Psychology, 9, 44–57. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.9.1.44. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Holtzworth-Munroe A, Meehan JC, Herron K, Rehman U, & Stuart GL (2000). Testing the Holtzworth-Munroe and Stuart (1994) batterer typology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 1000–1019. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.68.6.1000. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Hupka RB, & Rusch PA (1989). Interpersonal relationship scale. In White GL & Mullen PE (Eds.), Jealousy: Theory, research, and clinical strategies. New York: Guilford. [Google Scholar]
  32. Kar HL, & O’Leary K (2013). Patterns of psychological aggression, dominance, and jealousy within marriage. Journal of Family Violence, 28, 109–119. doi: 10.1007/s10896-012-9492-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Langhinrichsen-Rohling J, McCullars A, & Misra TA (2012). Motivations for men and women’s intimate partner violence perpetration: a comprehensive review. Partner Abuse, 3, 429–468. doi: 10.1891/1946-6560.3.4.429. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Larimer ME, Turner AP, Anderson BK, Fader JS, Kilmer JR, Palmer RS, et al. (2001). Evaluating a brief alcohol intervention with fraternities. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 62, 370–380. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Leonard KE (2005). Alcohol and intimate partner violence: when can we say that heavy drinking is a contributing cause of violence? Addiction, 100, 422–425. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.00994.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Leonard KE, & Blane HT (1992). Alcohol and marital aggression in a national sample of young men. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7, 19–30. doi: 10.1177/088626092007001002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  37. Leonard KE, & Senchak M (1993). Alcohol and premarital aggression among newlywed couples. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 11(Suppl.), 96–108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Leonard KE, & Senchak M (1996). Prospective prediction of husband marital aggression within newlywed couples. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105, 369–380. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.105.3.369. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Margolin G, John RS, & Foo L (1998). Interactive and unique risk factors for husbands’ emotional and physical abuse of their wives. Journal of Family Violence, 13, 315–344. doi: 10.1023/A:1022880518367. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Marlatt GA, Baer JS, Kivlahan DR, Dimeff LA, Larimer ME, Quigley LA, et al. (1998). Screening and brief intervention for high-risk college student drinkers: results from a 2-year follow-up assessment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 604–615. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.66.4.604. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Martens MP, Neighbors C, Lewis MA, Lee CM, Oster-Aaland L, & Larimer ME (2008). The roles of negative affect and coping motives in the relationship between alcohol use and alcohol-related problems among college students. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 69, 412–419. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Moore TM, Stuart GL, Meehan JC, Rhatigan D, Hellmuth JC, & Keen SM (2008). Drug abuse and aggression between intimate partners: a meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 247–274. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Neighbors C, Larimer ME, & Lewis MA (2004). Targeting misperceptions of descriptive drinking norms: efficacy of a computer-delivered personalized normative feedback intervention. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 434–447. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.72.3.434. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Neighbors C, Lewis MA, Atkins DC, Jensen MM, Walter T, Fossos N, & Larimer ME (2010). Efficacy of web-based personalized normative feedback: a two-year randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78, 898–911. doi: 10.1037/a0020766. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. O’Leary K (1999). Developmental and affective issues in assessing and treating partner aggression. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 6, 400–414. doi: 10.1093/clipsy/6.4.400. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Pan HS, Neidig PH, & O’Leary K (1994). Predicting mild and severe husband-to-wife physical aggression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 975–981. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.62.5.975. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Pfeiffer SM, & Wong PT (1989). Multidimensional jealousy. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 181–196. doi: 10.1177/026540758900600203. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Pines AM (1998). A prospective study of personality and gender differences in romantic attraction. Personality and Individual Differences, 25, 147–157. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00054-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Sagarin BJ (2005). Reconsidering evolved sex differences in jealousy: comment on Harris (2003). Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 62–75. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0901_5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Salovey P (1991). The psychology of jealousy and envy. New York:Guilford Press. [Google Scholar]
  51. Sharpsteen DJ, & Kirkpatrick LA (1997). Romantic jealousy and adult romantic attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 627–640. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Stets JE, & Pirog-Good MA (1987). Violence in dating relationships.Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 237–246. [Google Scholar]
  53. Stith SM, Smith DB, Penn CE, Ward DB, & Tritt D (2004). Intimate partner physical abuse perpetration and victimization risk factors: a meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 65–98. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2003.09.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  54. Stover CS, Easton CJ, & McMahon TJ (2013). Parenting of men with co-occurring intimate partner violence and substance abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 2290–2314. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Straus MA (2004). Cross-cultural reliability and validity of the revised conflict tactics scales: a study of university student dating couples in 17 nations. Cross-Cultural Research, 38, 407–432. [Google Scholar]
  56. Straus MA (2008). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 252–275. [Google Scholar]
  57. Straus MA (2011). Gender symmetry and mutuality in perpetration of clinical-level partner violence: empirical evidence and implications for prevention and treatment. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 279–288. [Google Scholar]
  58. Straus MA, & Douglas EM (2004). A short form of the revised conflict tactics scales, and typologies for severity and mutuality. Violence and Victims, 19, 507–520. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Straus MA, Hamby SL, Boney-McCoy S, & Sugarman DB (1996). The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2) development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283–316. [Google Scholar]
  60. Stuart GL, Moore TM, Kahler CW, & Ramsey SE (2003). Substance abuse and relationship violence among men court-referred to batterers’ intervention programs. Substance Abuse, 24, 107–122. doi: 10.1023/a:1023736732766. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Stuart GL, Moore TM, Elkins SR, O’Farrell TJ, Temple JR, Ramsey SE, & Shorey RC (2013). The temporal association between substance use and intimate partner violence among women arrested for domestic violence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 81, 681–690. doi: 10.1037/a0032876. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Sugarman DB, & Hotaling GT (1989). Dating violence: Prevalence, context, and risk markers. In Pirog-Good MA & Stets JE (Eds.), Violence in dating relationships: Emerging social issues (pp. 3–32). New York: Praeger Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  63. Swami V, Inamdar S, Stieger S, Nader IW, Pietschnig J, Tran US, & Voracek M (2012). A dark side of positive illusions? Associations between the love-is-blind bias and the experience of jealousy. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 796–800. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2012.06.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  64. White JW, & Koss MP (1991). Courtship violence: incidence in a national sample of higher education students. Violence and Victims, 6, 247–256. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. White HR, & Labouvie EW (1989). Towards the assessment of adolescent problem drinking. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 50, 30–37. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. White GL, & Mullen PE (1989). Jealousy: Theory, research, and clinical strategies. New York: Guilford. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES