FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1969895764> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1969895764 endingPage "379" @default.
• W1969895764 startingPage "378" @default.
• W1969895764 abstract "Buunk, Angleitner, Oubaid and Buss (this issue) offer even more evidence for our contention that responses to infidelity are based on a rational interpretation of the available evidence. They find that in cultures with less strict sanctions against extramarital sex than in the United States, people are relatively less troubled by sexual infidelity compared with emotional infidelity. The evolutionary argument proposed by Buunk et al. and by Buss, Larsen, Westen, and Semmelroth (1992) provides no ready explanation for this finding, but the rational argument does. People who think that sex can occur without love should be less troubled by sexual infidelity than people who think sex implies love because sexual infidelity does not imply to them that emotional infidelity has occurred as well. We have suggested that this reasoning can explain the difference between men and women (and DeSteno & Salovey, this issue, suggest that this double shot can explain variability within the genders). The new evidence from Germany and the Netherlands suggests that this reasoning might explain the difference between the cultures equally well. If the Dutch indeed do think that a sexual indiscretion is less likely to be accompanied by emotional infidelity than Americans do, they should be less troubled by it. Of course, it would be nice to see the same questions that we used on Americans asked also of Dutch and German subjects, but there is reason to suspect the results would support the two-for-one hypothesis. Another piece of evidence that argues against the evolutionary position is the repeated finding that most men do not, as the theory predicts, find sexual infidelity more troubling than emotional infidelity. According to Buss and his colleagues, men have a specific innate mechanism for sexual jealousy that, in the ancestral past, developed as a means of reducing cuckoldry; emotional infidelity should be less bothersome to men because it had far fewer consequences for their inclusive fitness. However, the data do not support this view. At best, American men are equally divided on which form of infidelity is more distressing. The data from Germany and the Netherlands are even more problematic for the theory: The majority of men found emotional infidelity more distressing. For example, on one question, approximately 75% of Dutch men found emotional infidelity more distressing than sexual infidelity. (Similar results are reported in an earlier study of mainland Chinese; Geary, Rumsey, Bow-Thomas, & Hoard, 1995.) If avoidance of cuckoldry led to males developing a specific mechanism for sexual jealousy, why are the majority of men reporting greater distress over emotional infidelity? In the original article, Buss et al. (1992) suggested that although men have evolved to care about sexual infidelity, they" @default.
• W1969895764 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1969895764 creator A5063159743 @default.
• W1969895764 creator A5088225471 @default.
• W1969895764 date "1996-11-01" @default.
• W1969895764 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W1969895764 title "Jealousy and Rational Responses to Infidelity Across Gender and Culture" @default.
• W1969895764 cites W1976871741 @default.
• W1969895764 cites W1988474582 @default.
• W1969895764 cites W1993690330 @default.
• W1969895764 cites W1996477017 @default.
• W1969895764 cites W2023134346 @default.
• W1969895764 cites W2172238839 @default.
• W1969895764 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00394.x" @default.
• W1969895764 hasPublicationYear "1996" @default.
• W1969895764 type Work @default.
• W1969895764 sameAs 1969895764 @default.
• W1969895764 citedByCount "40" @default.
• W1969895764 countsByYear W19698957642012 @default.
• W1969895764 countsByYear W19698957642013 @default.
• W1969895764 countsByYear W19698957642014 @default.
• W1969895764 countsByYear W19698957642015 @default.
• W1969895764 countsByYear W19698957642016 @default.
• W1969895764 countsByYear W19698957642018 @default.
• W1969895764 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1969895764 hasAuthorship W1969895764A5063159743 @default.
• W1969895764 hasAuthorship W1969895764A5088225471 @default.
• W1969895764 hasConcept C138496976 @default.
• W1969895764 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W1969895764 hasConcept C2776033948 @default.
• W1969895764 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W1969895764 hasConceptScore W1969895764C138496976 @default.
• W1969895764 hasConceptScore W1969895764C15744967 @default.
• W1969895764 hasConceptScore W1969895764C2776033948 @default.
• W1969895764 hasConceptScore W1969895764C77805123 @default.
• W1969895764 hasIssue "6" @default.
• W1969895764 hasLocation W19698957641 @default.
• W1969895764 hasOpenAccess W1969895764 @default.
• W1969895764 hasPrimaryLocation W19698957641 @default.
• W1969895764 hasRelatedWork W2000072556 @default.
• W1969895764 hasRelatedWork W2013836151 @default.
• W1969895764 hasRelatedWork W2037897982 @default.
• W1969895764 hasRelatedWork W2112201384 @default.
• W1969895764 hasRelatedWork W2123296764 @default.
• W1969895764 hasRelatedWork W2156684215 @default.
• W1969895764 hasRelatedWork W2550976886 @default.
• W1969895764 hasRelatedWork W2589566855 @default.
• W1969895764 hasRelatedWork W4253204164 @default.
• W1969895764 hasRelatedWork W4295093979 @default.
• W1969895764 hasVolume "7" @default.
• W1969895764 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1969895764 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1969895764 magId "1969895764" @default.
• W1969895764 workType "article" @default.