One of the more popular themes in "self-help" books on romantic relationships is that there are innate differences between males and females which contribute to misunderstandings between couples. This popularized Mars/Venus view stems from evolutionary psychologists, who propose that male and female characteristics have been differentially shaped by evolutionary pressures.

In research on gender differences in jealousy, sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists have been arguing that men and women should be differentially sensitive to cues of sexual versus emotional infidelity. For the male, a certain level of doubt necessarily exists concerning the genetic link between himself and his offspring, due to the possibility of extra-dyadic mating by the mother. Thus, males would be more bothered by sexual infidelity than emotional infidelity to avoid the chance of dispensing valued resources in raising the offspring of another. In contrast, for the women, maternity is certain. However, women must ensure that their mates continue to invest in their offspring, to assist in the survival of the offspring, rather than form a new relationship with another woman. Hence, women would be more bothered by emotional infidelity that by sexual infidelity (Buss et al., 1992).

A symposium at the APS Annual Convention in Toronto was devoted to reexamining this popular notion from theoretical as well as methodological perspectives. In "Sex Differences in Jealousy: Evolution or Artifact?", moderated by David A. DeSteno of Northeastern University, researchers presented new findings from multiple paradigms that strongly challenged the evolutionary view described above.

DeSteno

David DeSteno presented work demonstrating that sex differences in jealousy only occur when a forced-choice response format is used. On all other response formats both men and women were more jealous of sexual than of emotional infidelity. In addition, DeSteno showed that even with the forced-choice measure the reported gender differences disappeared when the participants were subject to cognitive constraint. Men and women both reported more jealousy over sexual infidelity under the cognitive load condition.

Christine R. Harris of the University of California at San Diego presented several findings emanating from a group of studies. Harris' main thesis was that physiological data showing that men respond to sexual infidelity with greater distress than to emotional infidelity was not a function of gender differences in respond to infidelity. Rather, men respond with greater arousal to any sexual imagery, regardless of its relationship context. In addition, Harris presented data with homosexual and heterosexual populations indicating no gender differences in regard to responses to sexual and emotional infidelity.

Jamie Goldenberg of Boise State University began her presentation by examining Terror Management Theory (TMT) and its relevance to research on gender differences in response to infidelity. Very briefly, TMT proposes that, in order to manage the fear associated with the realization of mortality, individuals adopt meaningful cultural world views, such as cultural sexual attitudes, to strengthen their self-esteem. Goldenberg presented a study in which raising concerns of mortality salience increased the gender differences in jealousy on the forced-choice jealousy measure. This finding suggests that the gender differences in response to sexual versus emotional jealousy are moderated by self-esteem concerns and are not the result of evolved psychological mechanisms.

As discussant, Wendy Wood of Texas A&M stressed that the purpose of the symposium was not to challenge evolution theory, but to challenge the specific integration of the theory to the present debate. Wood presented some findings from her own research on the biological and social sources of gender differences and on the cultural aspects of sexual and emotional jealousy confirming the work of the presenters. Wood elaborated on the work of Goldenberg contending that cultural variables may be moderating the relationship between gender and sensitivity to cues of sexual versus emotional infidelity.

The strength of any discipline or theory is measured by its susceptibility to critical examinations and by its testability or falsifiability (Popper, 1965). The current research serves as an additional building block in the construction of a complete psychological science. Research dedicated to reexamining foundational theories, such as evolutionary psychology, contributes to the overall discipline of behavioral sciences, which in turn contributes to the overall field of scientific discovery. - Avidan Milevsky