Is jealousy a single construct or is it better understood as multiple, though related, constructs with different antecedents and manifestations? Treating jealousy as a single construct may mean neglecting to consider how delineating types of jealousy can increase understanding of this complex phenomenon, provide different predictions for multiple types of jealousy, and extend the empirical analysis of jealousy. However, identifying more than two types of jealousy may unnecessarily differentiate highly interrelated types of jealousy that have the same underlying causes, making parsimonious theoretical analyses and empirical differentiation difficult.

In contrast to the unidimensional and three-dimensional views of jealousy, this research examines two distinct types of jealousy: suspicious jealousy and reactive jealousy. The separation of jealousy into suspicious jealousy and reactive jealousy has been part of numerous conceptual discussions about the nature of jealousy (e.g., Bringle, 1991; Bringle & Buunk, 1991; Parrott, 1991). Reactive jealousy occurs when concrete transgressions (e.g., sexual affairs) have occurred that violate critical aspects of the relationship (e.g., exclusivity, unique characteristics). Suspicious jealousy occurs when high levels of emotional responses result from “consensually minor jealousy-evoking cues in the absence of any major jealousy-evoking events” (Bringle, 1991, p. 108). Bringle’s (1991) transactional analysis of reactive and suspicious jealousy identified these two types as having distinct antecedents. Reactive jealousy should be more closely related to exogenous factors (e.g., dependency, the social situation, relationship trust), whereas suspicious jealousy should be more closely related to endogenous factors (e.g., insecurity, self-esteem).

In addition to the two types of jealousy differing in causes, they are also presumed to differ in their responses (Bringle, 1991; Parrott, 1991). Because reactive jealousy occurs when major jealousy-evoking events (e.g., extradyadic sexual relationship) have taken place that adversely affect relationship outcomes, reactive jealousy is characterized by anger, fear, and sadness (Bringle, 1991; Sharpsteen & Kirkpatrick, 1997).

Suspicious jealousy occurs when events take place that only vaguely threaten current outcomes from the relationship, but are interpreted as serious threats to relationship outcomes (Bringle, 1991). Suspicious jealousy is characterized by high levels of anxiety, doubt, suspiciousness, and insecurity in the self and in the relationship. The intensity of worry and anxiety about what the partner might do or is intending to do is disproportionate to the known events and the partner’s behaviors. In the absence of concrete substantial clues, elaborate cognitive scenarios can be constructed around ambiguous clues that result in the person searching for infidelity and inordinately controlling the partner’s behavior. Suspicious jealousy often results in interpreting the partner’s behavior in a way that is biased toward perceiving ambiguous events as more threatening to the romantic relationship than objective information indicates (e.g., Bringle, 1991; Tarrier, Beckett, Harwood, & Bishay, 1990).

Based on Bringle’s (1991) analysis, reactive jealousy is assumed to be a function of exogenous causes, such as jealousy-evoking events that clearly threaten the current and future outcomes of the relationship. Therefore, certain aspects of the nature and quality of the relationship are assumed to be important determinants of reactive jealousy. In particular, greater investments, positive outcomes, and commitments should result in greater protests against possible loss of these relationship qualities (e.g., Bringle, 1991; Buunk, 1991; White & Mullen, 1989).

According to interdependence theory, relationship dependency is the degree to which a person’s outcomes from a present relationship exceed the comparison level for alternatives (CLalt), which is the level of outcomes people expect to attain if they leave their current relationship (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). Dependency is established in a relationship only when there is an investment in the relationship (e.g., time, money, emotional investments, sexual intimacy) and an expectation for future outcomes that could be lost if the relationship were terminated. Rusbult (1980) found that relationship dependency was associated with increasing levels of relationship satisfaction, investment, and the degree to which outcomes from the present relationship exceed expected outcomes from an alternative relationship. Further, relationship dependency is assumed to be more closely associated with the actual characteristics of the relationship (e.g., Attridge, Berscheid, & Sprecher, 1998; Bringle, 1991).

Whereas dependency is based on one’s own perception of the relationship, insecurity is based on the perception of the partner’s level of dependency. Insecurity is the degree to which individuals feel that their partner’s outcomes from the present relationship exceed CLalt, which is the lowest level of outcomes their partner expects to attain if the relationship is terminated (Attridge et al., 1998; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959). The closer the perceived level of the partner’s outcomes from the current relationship are to the perceived level of the partner’s CLalt, the greater the level of relationship insecurity because it is presumed that the partner could leave the current relationship and still be satisfied in another relationship.

According to a transactional analysis (Bringle, 1991), insecurity and dependency can be influenced by both dispositional (personality traits, attachment styles, cultural context and norms distilled into a belief system, temperament, and values) and situational factors (relationship interaction styles, contextual factors of the situation, and specific events). However, compared to dependency, insecurity provides greater opportunity for endogenous variables to influence judgments about romantic relationships (e.g., Bringle). Because levels of insecurity are based on a person’s perceptions of the self in comparison to a real or fictitious rival, several stable traits (e.g., global self-esteem, attachment style) should be related to individuals’ perceptions of insecurity (e.g., Attridge et al., 1998) as well as worry and anxiety about jealousy-evoking events (e.g., Bringle; Parrott, 1991). According to interdependence theory, persons who perceive that their partner could receive comparable amounts of positive outcomes from an alternative relationship should be more likely to perceive ambiguous threats as jealousy evoking (Bringle; Buunk, 1991). Therefore, because suspicious jealousy is more closely related to endogenous causes, it was expected to be positively related to insecurity and unrelated to relationship dependency.

The predictions to this point specify that the way in which persons perceive their relationships and themselves, within the context of those relationships, are important factors in differentiating reactive and suspicious jealousy. In support of this, research has found that internalized mental models of romantic relationships and of persons within romantic relationships (i.e., attachment style; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) are related to perceptions of relationship qualities (e.g., interdependence; see Collins & Read, 1990) and the level of threat appraised in jealousy-evoking scenarios (Radjecki-Bush, Farrell, & Bush, 1993). Because interdependence and threat appraisal are important factors in differentiating reactive and suspicious jealousy (Bringle, 1991), the two types of jealousy should also be differentially associated with attachment styles.

Brennan, Clark, and Shaver (1998) demonstrated that relationship attachment consists of two higher order dimensions: anxious and avoidant attachment. Anxious attachment is characterized by a desire for the relationship partner to be close and a reliance on the relationship partner to provide positive relationship outcomes. Avoidant attachment is typified by the desire (on some level) for the relationship partner to be close, but this desire is tempered by worry about one’s ability to provide the partner with the level of relationship outcomes that he or she finds satisfactory. Thus, suspicious jealousy was expected to be positively associated with both anxious and avoidant attachment.

Participants Two hundred and ninety-two unmarried participants (213 females and 79 males), with a mean age of 21.9 years, completed this study to receive extra credit in a psychology class. Examination of participants’ relationship type showed that 14.7% of the participants were engaged, 58.8% were seriously dating, 26.5% were casually dating, and 14.9% were thinking of a past relationship (5.2% did not indicate a relationship type).

Questionnaire Jealousy was measured using the Multidimensional Jealousy Scale (Pfieffer & Wong, 1989). This 24-item scale measures cognitive, emotional, and behavioral jealousy. The 8-item subscales have been shown to have high convergent validity with love, liking, and other jealousy scales (Pfieffer & Wong). Participants indicated their responses on 7-point scales ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (all the time) for the cognitive and behavioral subscales, and from 1 (very pleased) to 7 (very upset) for the emotional subscale, with higher scores indicating greater jealousy. In the current research, the subscales had high internal consistency (α: cognitive = .90, behavioral = .85, and emotional = .84). Structural equation modeling showed that neither a one-factor, a two-factor, nor a three- factor model fit the data well, c²s > 600, p < .001. For theoretical (see Bringle, 1991) and empirical reasons, we utilized a two-factor solution, and also because there was a significant correlation between the cognitive and behavioral scales of the Multidimensional Jealousy Scale, r(287) = .44, p < .01, the correlation between the cognitive and emotional subscales was nonsignificant, r(287) = .05, ns, and the correlation between the behavioral and emotional subscales was significant but moderate, r(287) = .30, p < .01. Further, the correlation between the behavioral and cognitive subscale and the correlation between the emotional and behavioral subscales were also significantly different, t(288) = 2.02, p < .03. Thus, because reactive jealousy is posited to correspond to emotional aspects of the reaction to jealousy, the emotional subscale was used as a measure of reactive jealousy. Further, because suspicious jealousy is posited to correspond to cognitive aspects and the behaviors that follow, the cognitive and behavioral subscales were combined as a measure of suspicious jealousy (α = .90).

Relationship dependency and insecurity were measured using companion scales validated by Attridge et al. (1998). Participants indicated their response to 16 items measuring dependency and 15 items measuring insecurity on 6-point scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree), with higher scores indicating greater dependency or insecurity, respectively. In the current research, the internal consistency for these two scales was high (α: dependency = .92 and insecurity = .87).

Adult romantic relationship attachment style was measured with the Experiences in Close Relationships Questionnaire (Brennan et al., 1998), a 36- item questionnaire with 18 items measuring anxious attachment and 18 items measuring avoidant attachment. Participants indicated their level of attachment by responding on scales ranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly), with higher scores indicating greater levels of anxious or avoidant attachment, respectively. These scales are preferable to checklist measures of attachment (see Brennan et al., 1998) and had high internal consistency in the present study (α: anxious subscale = .91 and avoidant subscale = .88).

Because the scales used to measure relationship constructs (e.g., insecurity and anxious attachment) were highly correlated and suspicious and reactive jealousy were correlated, a more rigorous test of the hypotheses was conducted using regression. Hierarchical multiple regression equations were calculated in order to evaluate the hypothesized associations between relationship insecurity, dependency, anxious and avoidant attachment style, reactive jealousy, and suspicious jealousy. Beta weights from these regression equations are shown in Table 2.

The results of Study 1 support Bringle’s (1991) transactional analysis of jealousy by demonstrating that jealousy is not a unitary construct. Instead, the results suggest that jealousy consists of two partially independent dimensions: reactive jealousy and suspicious jealousy. More important, Study 1 provides preliminary correlational support for the predictions that these two types of jealousy have different manifestations (i.e., emotional vs. behavioral and cognitive) as well as different relationship antecedents (i.e., dependency, insecurity, and attachment style).

We reinterpreted Pfieffer and Wong’s (1989) Multidimensional Jealousy Scale as measuring two types of jealousy: reactive jealousy and suspicious jealousy. Hierarchical multiple regressions revealed that there was a positive association between insecurity and suspicious jealousy, but there was no association between dependency and suspicious jealousy. Conversely, there was a positive association between relationship dependency and reactive jealousy, but insecurity and reactive jealousy were unrelated. In addition, dependency mediated the association between reactive jealousy and both anxious and avoidant attachment styles, whereas insecurity mediated the association between suspicious jealousy and both anxious and avoidant attachment styles. Identifying this differential pattern of mediation further confirms the distinction between reactive and suspicious jealousy. If different types of jealousy are merely different measures of the same construct, then their association with attachment styles should be mediated by the same variable or variables. Interestingly, even if reactive and suspicious jealousy have similar patterns of correlations with other constructs, the analyses from the current research demonstrate that these correlations may be mediated by different variables for different types of jealousy (e.g., anxious attachment in this study). These results support the conclusion that the two types of jealousy have unique patterns of correlates and suggest endogenous (e.g., insecurity) and exogenous (e.g., dependency) factors play different roles for each type of jealousy.

Participants Three hundred and fifty participants (236 females, 113 males, 1 unidentified), with a mean age of 18.72 years, completed this study to fulfill a course requirement. Examination of participants’ relationship type showed that .6% of the participants were married, 1.4% of the participants were engaged, 36.5% were seriously dating, 16.8% were casually dating, and 47.3% were single (.3% did not to indicate a relationship type).

Questionnaire Jealousy was measured in two ways. First, the Multidimensional Jealousy Scale (Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989) measured cognitive (α = .88), behavioral (α = .85), and emotional jealousy (α = .85) and the Chronic Jealousy Scale (α = .87; White, 1984). Structural equation modeling showed that neither a one-factor, a two-factor, nor a three-factor model fit the data from the Multidimensional Jealousy Scale well, X²s > 720, p < .001. As in Study 1, we utilized a two-factor solution because there was a significant correlation between the cognitive and behavioral scales of the Multidimensional Jealousy Scale, r(349) = .48, p < .01, the correlation between the cognitive and emotional subscales was nonsignificant, r(349) = -.03, ns, and the correlation between the behavioral and emotional subscales was not significant, r(349) = .00, ns. Importantly, the correlation between the behavioral and cognitive subscale and the correlation between the emotional and behavioral subscales were also significantly different, t(348) = 6.89, p < .001. Thus, as in Study 1, the emotional jealousy subscale was used as a measure of reactive jealousy and the behavioral and cognitive subscales were used as a measure of suspicious jealousy, α = .90. Secondly, chronic jealousy was measured using the Chronic Jealousy Scale developed by White. Participants indicated their response to 6-items measuring chronic jealousy on 5-point scales with appropriate anchors, with higher scores indicating greater chronic jealousy. Several studies support the internal consistency, convergent validity, and discriminant validity this scale (White).

Relationship dependency and insecurity were again measured as in Study 1 (dependency, α = .93 and insecurity α = .85). Relationship trust was measured using the scale developed by Rempel et al. (1985). Participants indicated their response to 18-items measuring trust on 7-point scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), with higher scores indicating greater trust. In the current research, the internal consistency for this scale was high (α: = .86). Participants also completed a measure of global self-esteem (Rosenberg, 1965). Participants responded to 10 items on scales ranging from 1 (disagree completely) to 4 (agree completely), with greater scores indicating greater self- esteem (α = .90).

Table 3 shows correlations of the variables measured in this study. As predicted, greater levels of reactive jealousy were associated with greater levels of dependency and trust, and lower levels of insecurity and chronic jealousy. Also as predicted, greater levels of suspicious jealousy were positively associated with greater levels of insecurity and chronic jealousy and negatively associated with trust and self-esteem. The pattern of correlations was as expected. Age and gender were not correlated to any of the variables measured and, thus, they were not included in the regressions below.

In the first hierarchical multiple regression, suspicious jealousy was the dependent variable and reactive jealousy was entered as the only independent variable in the first step to control for the correlation between these two variables. Relationship dependency, insecurity, chronic jealousy, trust, and self-esteem were all entered in the second step of the equations. The multiple R = .01 for the first step of the hierarchical regression was not significantly different from zero, F(1,347)=.06, p > .80, R² = .00. Reactive jealousy explained 0% of the variance in suspicious jealousy. The second step of the hierarchical regression added significantly to the variance accounted for in suspicious jealousy, F_change(6,342) = 47.85, p < .01, R²_change = .46. Relationship dependency, insecurity, chronic jealousy, trust, and self-esteem explained an additional 46% of the variance in suspicious jealousy. As predicted, the hierarchical regression equation indicated that participants with greater levels of insecurity showed greater levels of suspicious jealousy. Also, participants with greater levels of chronic jealousy showed greater levels of suspicious jealousy. In addition, self- esteem was negatively related to suspicious jealousy.

In a second hierarchical multiple regression, reactive jealousy was the dependent variable and suspicious jealousy was entered as the only independent variable in the first step of the regression equation. Relationship dependency, insecurity, chronic jealousy, trust, and self-esteem were all entered in the second step of the equation. As was the case in the first equation, the multiple R for the first step of the hierarchical regression was not significantly different from zero. The second step of the hierarchical regression added significantly to the variance accounted for in reactive jealousy, F_change (6, 342) = 3.11, p < .01, R²_change = .05. Relationship dependency, insecurity, chronic jealousy, trust, and self-esteem explained an additional 5% of the variance in reactive jealousy. As predicted, participants with greater levels of dependency and trust showed greater levels of reactive jealousy. Chronic jealousy was negatively related to reactive jealousy. Also, reactive jealousy was unrelated to relationship insecurity and self-esteem.

Conceptualizing all episodes of jealousy as having similar antecedents, emotions, and outcomes may obscure important conceptual distinctions and obfuscate empirical investigations. If jealousy is not a unitary construct, different types of jealousy can be understood as having different antecedents, relationship correlates, and manifestations (e.g., Bringle, 1991; Buunk, 1991). Delineating and examining multiple types of jealousy with each having its own distinct antecedents, manifestations, and outcomes may lead to a better understanding of jealousy and could also allow researchers to account for some of the mixed findings in the jealousy literature. For example, Buunk (1995) found that jealousy is positively associated with dependency, whereas Sprecher (1988) found that jealousy was not associated with dependency. Because Buunk was measuring emotional reactions to hypothetical jealousy-evoking situations and Sprecher’s measure of jealousy was positively related to insecurity, it is likely that Buunk was measuring reactive jealousy and Sprecher was measuring suspicious jealousy.

The difference in suspicious jealousy and reactive jealousy is consistent with a growing trend in the jealousy literature to view jealousy as containing distinct subtypes with different antecedents, manifestations, outcomes, and coping strategies (e.g., Bringle, 1991; Buunk, 1991, 1997; Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989; White & Mullen, 1989). In part, this has been a byproduct of mixed findings in the jealousy literature (see Bringle), but more importantly it allows greater precision in predicting antecedents and outcomes associated with jealousy-evoking events and responses. Differentiating and basing empirical predictions on multiple types of jealousy that provide a basis for different hypotheses acknowledges that jealousy is a complex phenomenon moderated and/or mediated by unique situational, relational, and intraindividual processes. The current research supports the conclusion that this complexity can be meaningfully simplified by considering two types of jealousy: reactive and suspicious (Bringle). Consistent with past definitions of jealousy (Bringle & Buunk, 1985; White & Mullen, 1989), the distinction between suspicious and reactive jealousy focuses on char- acteristics of the situation that elicit aversive emotional responses: suspicious jealousy occurs before major jealousy-evoking events have occurred (i.e., endogenous factors) and reactive jealousy occurs after a major jealousy-evoking event (i.e., exogenous factors). Having established this basis for distinguishing the two types, the processes of relationships, events, and reactions may, at times, blur this distinction. Because individuals will differ in their interpretations of minor forms of sexual contact, rather minor behaviors can sometimes be viewed as catastrophic and reactive jealousy would follow.

However, the differentiation of reactive and suspicious jealousy is not the only way to delineate multidimensional typologies of jealousy. Other typologies, most notably Buunk’s (1991, 1997), focusing on different conceptualizations of jealousy are also available. Although largely congruent with the transactional model, there are some important distinctions between the transactional model and Buunk’s typology of jealousy.

In contrast to the unidimensional and two-dimensional views of jealousy, Buunk (1991, 1997) has delineated and measured three types of jealousy (reactive, preventative, and self-generated) that are focused on differences in antecedents and manifestations of jealousy. Although positively correlated, these three types of expression about jealousy-evoking events are assumed to be qualitatively different (Buunk, 1991). Much like Bringle’s (1991) conceptualization, reactive jealousy is an emotional response to a “behavior that is generally disapproved, and is seen as a serious breach of trust and loyalty” (Buunk, 1991, p. 168). Preventative jealousy involves perceiving a partner’s minor sexual interest in another person (e.g., talking to a member of the opposite sex) as threatening and preventing a partner’s contact with that person. Thus, preventative jealousy is meant to stop future jealousy-evoking events from occurring. Also, controlling and snooping behaviors typify preventative jealousy and are assumed to stem from uncertainty about the faithfulness of a partner (Buunk, 1991). Self-generated jealousy is a largely cognitive process that involves imagining a partner’s involvement with another person. Individuals experiencing self-generated jealousy are viewed as obsessive worriers about what might happen without evidence of extradyadic activity.

The antecedents of preventative and self-generated jealousy are assumed to be quite similar because, in each case, people are thinking that their partner may be unfaithful in the future (Buunk, 1991, 1997). The main difference between preventative and self-generated jealousy is that, in preventative jealousy, action is taken to prevent transgressions. Although understanding under what conditions people will or will not act to prevent relationship transgressions is a fascinating line of research in its own right, both of these types of jealousy presumably start suspicions of infidelity. Therefore, we would contend that because these two types of jealousy have the same underlying causes and are concerned with consternation over future jealousy-evoking events, they are best conceptualized as suspicious jealousy (e.g., Bringle, 1991; Parrott, 1991).

This research is an initial step in the process of understanding how distinguishing reactive jealousy from suspicious jealousy can have important implications for theoretical understanding of jealousy and testing theoretical predictions. Consistent with transactional analyses, relationship dependency and insecurity are perceptions about a relationship and the self within the relationship that are important to the differentiation of jealousy. These studies provide the first correlational support for the prediction that reactive and suspicious jealousy have different antecedents and manifestations. Future research will benefit from utilizing multidimensional measurement and representation of jealousy when making predictions and interpreting empirical findings.

Attridge, M., Berscheid, E., & Sprecher, S. (1998). Dependency and insecurity in romantic relationships: Development and validation of two companion scales. Personal Relationships, 5, 31-58.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1178.

Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 226-244.

Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult romantic attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rhodes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46-76). New York: Guilford.

Bringle, R. G. (1991). Psychosocial aspects of jealousy: A transactional model. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. 103-131). New York: Guilford.

Bringle, R. G., & Buunk, B. P. (1985). Jealousy and social behavior: A review of person, relationship, and situational determinants. In P. Shaver (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 241-264). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Bringle, R. G., & Buunk, B. P. (1991). Extradyadic relationships and sexual jealousy. In K. McKinney & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Sexuality in close relationships (pp. 135-153). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Buunk, B. P. (1991). Jealousy in close relationships: An exchange-theoretical perspective. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. 148-177). New York: Guilford.

Buunk, B. P. (1995). Sex, self-esteem, dependency, and extradyadic sexual experiences as related to jealousy responses. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 147-153.

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

Collins, N., & Read, S. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 644-663.

Hupka, R. (1984). Jealousy: Compound emotion or label for a particular situation? Motivation & Emotion, 8, 141-155.

Parrott, W. G. (1991). The emotional experiences of envy and jealousy. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. 3-30). New York: Guilford.

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

Radjecki-Bush, C., Farrell, A. D., & Bush, J. P. (1993). Predicting jealous responses: The influence of adult attachment and depression on threat appraisal. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 569-588.

Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 95-112.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Rusbult, C. E. (1980). Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 172-186.

Sharpsteen, D. J., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1997). Romantic jealousy and adult romantic attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 627-640.

Sprecher, S. J. (1988). Investment model, equity, and social support determinants of relationship commitment. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51, 318-328.

Tarrier, N., Beckett, R., Harwood, S., & Bishay, N. (1990). Morbid jealousy: A review and cognitive- behavioral formulation. British Journal of Psychiatry, 157, 319-326.

Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). Social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley. White, G. L. (1984). Comparison of four jealousy scales. Journal of Personality, 18, 115-130.

White, G. L., & Mullen, P. E. (1989). Jealousy: Theory, research, and clinical strategies. New York: Guilford.