Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Age differences in jealousy: an ATSS examination of the role of attributions in the emotional reactions of older and younger adults in relationship-threatening situations
(USC Thesis Other)
Age differences in jealousy: an ATSS examination of the role of attributions in the emotional reactions of older and younger adults in relationship-threatening situations
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
1
Age Differences in Jealousy: An ATSS examination of the role of attributions in the emotional
reactions of older and younger adults in relationship-threatening situations
Kalina N. Babeva, MA
University of Southern California
Clinical Psychology
Doctoral Dissertation
August 2015
Committee Members:
Gerald Davison, PhD (Chair)
Steven Lopez, PhD
Richard John, PhD
Leo Braudy, PhD
2
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my committee members for taking the time to guide me through the
dissertation process despite their many other responsibilities. I am grateful to Dr. Lopez, who has
served on all of my committees, for his astute observations on matters related to attribution theory
and study design as well as his guidance on how to improve as a researcher. Thank you to Dr. John
for consulting with me many more times than I can count on all statistical matters and for always
doing so in a patient, thoughtful way. A special thank you to Dr. Mather for her assistance in the
early stages of designing the study and also for allowing me access to the Healthy Minds Database.
Thank you to my family, my parents and brother, my fiancé, and my friends for believing in
me and for providing me with words of encouragement throughout my graduate career. I am grateful
to my lab mates Kean Hsu, Michelle Feng, and Justin Hummer, whom I am delighted to also call
friends, for providing me with reassurance, feedback on my research, and practical advice on a
variety of matters as well as for inspiring me to be a hard-worker like them. Thank you to my bright,
dedicated research assistants Shannon Currie, Megha Chawla, Artemis Zavaliangos-Petropulu, Pippa
Tucker, and Anupriya Sivakumar without whose hours of hard work in terms of recruitment, running
participants, and coding, this project would not be possible.
Last, but absolutely not least, my most sincere, endless gratitude to Dr. Gerald Davison,
whom I have the privilege of calling my advisor. Dr. Jerry’s intelligence, wisdom, and kindness have
helped me grow as a researcher, clinician, and human being. In addition, his impact on the field of
clinical psychology and on the graduate students he teaches inspires me daily. I would not have been
able to navigate graduate school without his unwavering support.
3
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................... 2
List of Tables and Figures............................................................................................................... 5
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 6
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 7
Attribution Theory............................................................................................................... 7
The Positivity Effect/Socioemotional Selectivity Theory .................................................. 11
Jealousy .............................................................................................................................. 13
The Present Study............................................................................................................... 16
Hypotheses.............................................................................................................. 16
Methods .......................................................................................................................................... 17
Participants.......................................................................................................................... 17
Procedures........................................................................................................................... 18
ATSS Scripts....................................................................................................................... 21
Measures ............................................................................................................................. 22
ATSS....................................................................................................................... 22
LIWC...................................................................................................................... 22
Measure of Attributions of Responsibility ........................................................................ 24
Results............................................................................................................................................. 27
Manipulation Checks ......................................................................................................... 28
LIWC Coded Variables ..................................................................................................... 33
Results by Hypothesis ....................................................................................................... 34
Additional Analyses .......................................................................................................... 39
Discussion ..................................................................................................................................... 40
Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................................... 54
References...................................................................................................................................... 55
Appendices..................................................................................................................................... 67
Appendix A: Flowchart of Study Procedures ................................................................... 67
Appendix B: Current Affective State ................................................................................ 68
Appendix C: The Center for Epidemiological Studies – Depression Scale ...................... 69
Appendix D: Questions about Current Relationship ......................................................... 70
Appendix E: Pre-ATSS Questionnaire .............................................................................. 71
4
Appendix F: Post-ATSS Questionnaire ............................................................................. 73
Appendix G: Wechsler Test of Adult Reading .................................................................. 76
Appendix H: Digit Span .................................................................................................... 77
Appendix I: Manipulation Check and Debriefing Questionnaire ...................................... 79
Appendix J: LIWC Coding Categories .............................................................................. 81
Appendix K: Distributions of LIWC Variables ................................................................. 82
5
List of Tables and Figures
Table 1: Comparing the Benign and Non-Benign Scenarios
Table 2: Comparing Male and Female Participants: Benign Scenario
Table 3: Comparing Male and Female Participants: Non-Benign Scenario
Table 4: Participant Characteristics at Baseline
Table 5: Relationship Characteristics
Table 6: Main Effect of Attribution Condition Results
Table 7: Main Effect of Age Results
Table 8: Main Effect of Age Results Controlling for Potential Confounds
Table 9: Partial Point-Biserial Correlations in the Benign Condition
Table 10: Partial Point-Biserial Correlations in the Non-Benign Condition
Table 11a: Correlations between Attributions of Responsibility and Negative Emotions across
Condition
Table 11b: Correlations between Attributions of Responsibility and Negative Emotions in B
Condition
Table 11c: Correlations between Attributions of Responsibility and Negative Emotions in NB
Condition
Table 12: Chi-Square Results for Emotions Experienced with Jealousy
Table 13: Chi-Square Results for Infidelity Questions
Figure 1: Distributions of LIWC Variables
6
ABSTRACT
Attribution research documents that the causal explanations provided for one’s own and others’
behavior affect the emotions experienced in response to the behavior. Within the domain of romantic
relationships, benign attributions for a partner’s potentially jealousy-provoking behavior are
associated with less negative emotion, whereas non-benign attributions – with more negative
emotion. Research comparing the emotional responses of younger and older individuals consistently
documents a positivity bias. For example, studies demonstrate that older adults tend to focus on and
remember positive emotional stimuli more than negative ones and that they experience less negative
emotion in unpleasant interpersonal situations than younger adults. In order to empirically test
whether younger and older adults experience jealousy-provoking situations differently, the current
study examined the emotional responses of younger and older adults as a function of experimentally
manipulated attributions using the Articulated Thoughts in Simulated Situations (ATSS) paradigm. In
particular, younger (18-25 years old) and older (60 years and older) participants, who were currently
in romantic relationships, imagined themselves in one of two verbally presented scenarios in which
they unexpectedly witness their romantic partner interact in an intimate manner with an extradyadic
individual. The observed behavior of the participant’s partner was identical in both of these
situations; however, the explanation suggested for the behavior differed. Compared to younger adults,
older adults were found to react less negatively in response to both of the scenarios and the amount of
responsibility attributed to the partner for the events in the observed situation were found to be
associated with participants’ emotional responses to the scenarios. Taken together, these findings
suggest that the positivity effect extends to emotional reactions in relationship-threatening situations
regardless of threat level and suggests a possible mechanism for this effect (attributions of
responsibility). Evaluating age differences is valuable as a means of gaining a better understanding of
the emotional experiences of older adults in the romantic relationship realm.
7
INTRODUCTION
Attribution Theory
Weiner’s (1985; 1995) attribution theory posits that inferences regarding the controllability, stability
(over time), and locus (internal vs. external) of the cause of an outcome affect one’s emotional and
behavioral reactions. In other words, the causal explanation we provide for an event or behavior
influences the way we feel and how we choose to act in response. This explains why the same event
can elicit very different cognitive, emotional and behavioral responses from different individuals or
from the same individual at different points in time. For example, seeing one’s partner put his/her
arm around another may elicit a variety of emotions including anger, distress, embarrassment or
perhaps even positive feelings depending on the perceived reason for the observed behavior. Weiner
(1985; 1995) puts forth and provides support for the notion that causes of negative events that are
seen as controllable (e.g., embracing another in order to flirt) elicit anger. Within the domains
examined by Weiner (e.g., academic achievement and sickness), uncontrollable causes (e.g., poor
performance due to low aptitude; obesity due to a thyroid problem) are found to elicit shame and
embarrassment within the actor. Weiner (1985; 1993) further proposes that the association between
the controllability of a cause and the experience of the abovementioned negative emotions is
mediated by the ascription of personal responsibility. In other words, if a negative outcome is due to a
controllable cause, responsibility is assigned to the individual (in the absence of mitigating
circumstances), which leads to anger at the individual and a higher likelihood that he/she will be
reprimanded, condemned or retaliated against (e.g., Schmidt & Weiner, 1988; Weiner, Graham, &
Chandler, 1982; Zucker & Weiner, 1993).
Following the presentation of the original three attribution dimensions, Weiner (e.g., Weiner,
1996; 2001) moved beyond examining just the characteristics of the cause to incorporate the notion
of global judgments of responsibility and the closely related, subordinate concept of intentionality
8
into his theory. It is important to note that these are inferences about the action and the actor, not
about the cause (i.e., an action is intentional and an actor is characterized as being responsible).
Indeed, studies show that perceived intentionality and responsibility are related to emotional (namely,
anger) responses (e.g., Weiner, Graham, & Chandler, 1982; Weiner, Amirkham, Folkes, & Verette,
1987) and should thus be assessed when studying attributions.
It must be noted that there is a correlation between the attributional dimensions, which makes
the distinctions between them less precise empirically. However, this non-orthogonality does not
threaten the utility of the model. Weiner (1985) states the following:
a failure of orthogonality at the empirical level does not invalidate the separation at the conceptual
level. For example, height and weight are positively correlated but nonetheless are distinct
characteristics; certainly tall, light individuals as well as those who are short and heavy can be
identified. (554).
Likely related to this point, when assessing attributions some researchers (e.g., Chavira,
Lopez, Blacher & Shapiro, 2000) have chosen to focus on a global responsibility factor derived from
ratings of attributions rather than examining the attributions separately. For example, in a study of
Latina mothers’ reactions to their children’s problem behaviors, Chavira and colleagues (2000)
derived a total responsibility index based on ratings of the three inter-related concepts of
controllability, intentionality and responsibility. The researchers found that ratings of child problem
behaviors on this responsibility index correlated positively with levels of mothers’ negative
affectivity in response to the behaviors. Given the documented utility of this global measure of
attributions of responsibility, the current study also utilizes it.
Attribution theory has also been applied to and received support in the romantic relationship
realm. For example, Hall and Fincham (2006) document that forgiveness of infidelity is related to
benign attributions. Although not explicitly assessed in terms of Weiner’s dimensions, benign
attributions as described by Hall and Fincham (2006) reflect an external locus, low stability and low
controllability and thus seem to be related to inferences of low responsibility. More specifically,
9
individuals who viewed their partner’s infidelity as caused by external factors, being transient, and
having low controllability were more likely to forgive the infidelity and stay with their partner.
Furthermore, in a sample of married and cohabiting individuals who had recently experienced
infidelity, Buunk (1984) found that jealousy following extramarital sexual involvement was
associated with causal attributions of marital deprivation (i.e., dissatisfaction with the relationship)
and aggression (i.e., angry feelings and desire for revenge). Buunk (1984) also does not explicitly
classify the assessed causes according to Weiner’s attribution dimensions, but it is reasonable to
assume that dissatisfaction with the relationship and desire for retaliation in the absence of mitigating
circumstances are causes that predispose towards ascriptions of responsibility to the perpetrating
partner. The situational factors assessed by this study (namely, circumstantial influences and pressure
by the extramarital partner), which can be classified as external and uncontrollable, were not found to
be related to sexual jealousy in this sample. These factors are likely to be perceived as leading to
unintentional actions and lower partner responsibility, which explains the lack of association with
negative affectivity.
In two other studies, Bauerle, Amirkhan, and Hupka (2002) apply a slightly modified version
of Weiner’s attribution dimensions to the experience of romantic jealousy. In the first study, the
researchers presented participants with jealousy-provoking vignettes varying along the following
attribution dimensions: 1) locus of causality (personal/impersonal); 2) controllability; 3)
responsibility (taking into account the presence of mitigating circumstances); and 4) intent/negligence
(i.e., acts of commission versus omission). After reading each of the scenarios presented to them,
participants rated the intensity of the emotional reaction of the protagonist. In particular, eleven
jealousy-related adjectives (angry, anxious, betrayed, distrustful, hurt, jealous, rejected, sad,
suspicious, threatened, and worried) were rated on a 7-point Likert scale. Participants also rated the
scenarios along the four abovementioned attribution dimensions. Bauerle, Amirkhan, and Hupka
10
(2002) found that higher levels of jealousy and jealousy-related emotions were endorsed in response
to perceptions of: 1) internal (versus external) causality; 2) controllable (versus uncontrollable)
causality; 3) absent (versus present) of mitigating circumstances; and 4) intentional (versus
neglectful) actions. In other words, actions that were viewed as intentional and controllable and thus
indicated high actor responsibility were associated with higher levels of negative affectivity.
In their second study, Bauerle, Amirkhan, and Hupka (2002) recruited participants from the
community and asked them to recall two jealousy-provoking incidents: one in which they felt very
jealous and another in which they would usually have felt jealous but did not feel very jealous on that
specific occasion. Participants provided ratings for four attribution dimensions (locus, stability,
controllability and intentionality) and the abovementioned eleven jealousy-related adjectives. The
results of this study indicate that the very jealousy-provoking situations differed along the dimensions
of locus of causality, controllability and intentionality (but not stability) from the less jealousy-
provoking situations. These findings suggest that a partner’s behavior is more likely to elicit jealousy
if it is perceived as arising from internal and controllable causes, which in turn are associated with
perceptions of intentionality and responsibility. These findings are in line with those from other
domains (achievement, illness, etc.).
The studies summarized above thus support the utility of attribution theory in analyzing
situations that elicit jealousy. To the author’s knowledge, no studies have examined the effects of age
on the attributions made in jealousy-provoking situations and the resulting emotions. More
specifically, it is possible that younger and older adults tend to make different attributions due to a
positivity effect and as a result may experience a different intensity and range of emotions in
response to jealousy-provoking situations. The current study thus explores age differences in
emotions and attributions in relationship threatening situations.
11
Positivity Effect/Socioemotional Selectivity Theory
Despite the age-related losses in certain domains of functioning (such as the physical and cognitive
realms), research generally documents improvement in emotional well-being with age (e.g.,
Carstensen et al., 2000; Charles & Carstensen, 2007; Gross et al., 1997). In particular, aging is
thought to be associated with an increase in positive affect (Mroczek & Kolarz, 1998), a decrease in
negative affect (Charles, Reynolds & Gatz, 2001; Gross et al., 1997; Lawton, Kleban, Rajagopal, &
Dean, 1992) as well as an improvement in emotion regulation skills (Lawton et al., 1992; Blanchard-
Fields, 2007; Carstensen, 2006). A variety of mechanisms are likely to contribute to these changes in
emotion. For example, in both quasi-experimental and non-experimental studies, older adults have
been found to display a positivity bias in attention as well as in short and long-term memory.
Specifically, compared to younger adults, older adults have been found to attend to (Isaacowitz,
Toner, Goren, & Wilson, 2008; Knight et al., 2007; Mather & Carstensen, 2003) and recall
proportionately more positive than negative stimuli/information (Charles, Mather, & Carstensen,
2003; Mather & Knight, 2005; Mikels, Larkin, Reuter-Lorenz, & Carstensen, 2005).
Socioemotional selectivity theory (SST; Carstensen, Isaacowitz & Charles, 1999) provides an
explanatory framework for these findings. The theory posits that perceptions of time influence social
and emotional goals. Specifically, as one’s time horizon (or perception of time left) becomes more
limited (which tends to occur with increasing chronological age), one becomes more motivated to
pursue emotionally meaningful goals such as increased emotional connectedness, intimacy, and
satisfaction. This motivation translates into a preference for interacting with emotionally meaningful
social partners (such as close friends and family members versus acquaintances and unfamiliar
individuals) and a smaller social network size. In other words, compared to younger adults, older
adults have been found to interact with fewer individuals overall and to prefer to interact with those
12
who are more likely to provide them with a more fulfilling emotional experience (Carstensen, Fung,
& Charles, 2003; Carstensen, Gross, & Fung, 1997; Field & Minkler, 1988).
Furthermore, older adults have been found to navigate close interpersonal relationships in a
manner that supports positive experiences and emotional closeness. Specifically, compared to
younger adults, older adults report experiencing fewer interpersonal tensions (Birditt, Fingerman &
Almeida, 2005) and having fewer problematic relationships (Akiyama et al., 2003). When older
adults do encounter conflictual situations, they have also been shown to use more effective coping
strategies (Birditt & Fingerman, 2005). In particular, they are more likely than their younger
counterparts to report using (and recommending that hypothetical others use) passive strategies which
are deemed constructive for relationships, such as remaining calm, suppressing emotion, and waiting
for the interpersonal tension to subside (Birditt & Fingerman, 2005, Birditt, Fingerman & Almeida,
2005; Blanchard-Fields, Stein & Watson, 2004; Diehl et al., 1996; Winkeler, Filipp & Boll, 2000).
Thus, older adults appear to use withdrawal from conflict in a strategic manner to avoid escalation.
Younger adults, on the other hand, have been found to be more likely to use active strategies which
are destructive to interpersonal relationships, such as verbal aggression (e.g., yelling, arguing, name-
calling) (Birditt & Fingerman, 2005; Diehl et al., 1996). Thus, likely related in part to the motivated
avoidance of and withdrawal from conflict, older adults have been found to experience less distress
and negative emotions compared to younger adults in interpersonal situations
1
(Birditt & Fingerman,
2003; Birditt & Fingerman, 2005; Charles & Carstensen, 2008).
SST and the research reviewed thus far suggest that older adults use strategies that promote
non-conflictual functioning in relationships. Romantic partnerships, however, are a special category
of interpersonal relationships, and interactions with one’s romantic partner differ from those with
other social partners. Research on the romantic relationships of older adults has yielded somewhat
1
It should be noted that both younger and older adults have been found to use active strategies which are
beneficial for relationships, such as discussing the problem, asking for a change in behavior or providing a
13
mixed findings. On one hand, amount of conflict may not decrease in older couples. For example,
Akiyama and colleagues (2003) found that negative interactions with one’s spouse decrease
somewhat from young to middle age but then increase into older adulthood. The authors argue that it
may be more difficult for an older adult to withdraw from conflict with his/her spouse due to the
increased rate of overall interaction compared to a younger individual, who is likely to have multiple
commitments and thus less time to interact with his/her spouse.
Other studies portray a more positive picture of romantic relationships in older adults. In a
study of 156 couples, Levenson, Carstensen & Gottman (1993) found that the self-reported level of
disagreement in a variety of domains (such as finances, recreation, religion, and children) was lower
in older couples (60-70 years of age) compared to middle-aged couples (40-50 years of age). In
addition, older couples reported higher levels of enjoyment in areas such as vacations, joint activities
and children/grandchildren than middle-aged couples (Levenson et al., 1993). Using the same
sample, Carstensen and colleagues (1995) documented lower levels of anger, belligerence and disgust
and higher levels of affection during an in-lab discussion of conflictual topics in the older couples
compared to the middle-aged couples. These findings suggest that older adults are likely to use
analogous emotion regulation strategies to minimize negative affectivity in conflictual situations in
romantic and other interpersonal relationship and may thus experience less negative relationship-
specific emotions in unpleasant situations.
Jealousy
Interpersonal attachments (both romantic and non-romantic) provide important benefits to
individuals. Prospective, experimental, and quasi-experimental studies have found that relationships
in general are associated with better physical and psychological health as well as with decreased
mortality (for a review, see House, Landis, & Umberson, 1988). Companionship, intimacy, social
support, positive mood and increases in self-esteem are among the perceived advantages of being
14
romantically involved (Sedikides, Oliver, & Campbell, 1994; McAdams, 1984; Rook &
Pietromonaco, 1987). Thus, maintaining and protecting romantic relationships from dissolution are
likely to be of utmost importance across the lifespan.
Jealousy, a universal human emotion, has direct implications for relationship satisfaction and
dissolution in addition to well-being (Guerrero & Eloy, 1992; Guerrero, Spitzberg & Yoshimura,
2004; Fleischmann, Spitzberg, Andersen, & Roesch, 2005). It is a commonly expressed concern in
couples therapy and has also been implicated in partner violence and even homicide across cultures
(Daly & Wilson, 1988; White & Mullen, 1989). Despite its likely importance for relationship
functioning across the lifespan, to the author’s knowledge, jealousy has mainly been studied in the
relationships of younger adults. Thus, jealousy in older adults is a generally understudied domain.
Studies suggest that jealousy encompasses different emotions, namely anger, fear, sadness,
anxiety and guilt (Guerrero & Andersen, 1998; Parrot & Smith, 1993; Sharpsteen & Kirkpatrick,
1997) that might either be experienced simultaneously (Sharpsteen, 1991) or selectively in response
to particular types of appraisals of the situation (Hupka, 1984). The core feature of jealousy that
differentiates it from its associated emotions is its specific link to an important relationship. That is,
jealousy is thought to result from the perception of a threat (real or imagined) to a valued relationship
(Parrott & Smith, 1993; Mathes, 1991; Salovey & Rothman, 1991; White & Mullen, 1989). It is
important to keep in mind that perceptions of relationship threat can be very idiosyncratic across
individuals, such that the same situation may elicit extreme jealousy in one person and none in
another (White & Mullen, 1989). Furthermore, as discussed earlier, even when a threat is perceived,
the specific causal attributions made for a partner’s behavior affect emotional responses. Based on
Weiner’s attribution dimensions (Weiner, 1985; 1995), jealousy is more likely to be reported when a
partner’s behavior is interpreted as controllable and stemming from internal dispositions, which is
related to ascriptions of intentionality and responsibility (Bauerle, Amirkhan, & Hupka, 2002). Thus,
15
jealousy, like other emotions, is likely to result from the specific meaning assigned to a potentially
threatening event.
Consistent with a general cognitive-affective model of emotion and behavior, the
interpretation of a situation affects not only one’s emotional reaction but also one’s behavioral
responses. Jealousy has been shown to elicit predictable classes of behavioral responses that aim to
address the relationship threat directly or indirectly (i.e., coping). In a study of jealousy induction in
relationships, Fleischmann and colleagues (2005) found that three main categories of behavioral
responses were reflected in participants’ retrospective reports (of actual partner responses to
jealousy): 1) aggression (towards partner and/or rival); 2) withdrawal (from partner and/or
relationship); and 3) relational compensation (behaviors aimed at improving the relationship
including communication about the jealousy). The existence and use of approach and avoidance
behavioral strategies have been documented in other studies as well (e.g., Guerrero et al., 1995).
Other data (Buunk, 1982; Salovey & Rodin, 1988) suggest that individuals also utilize cognitive
strategies to cope with their jealousy, such as engaging in reappraisal of the situation or avoiding
thinking about the situation.
To the author’s knowledge only one published study directly compares the responses to
infidelity in younger and older adults (over age 60) (Shackelford et al., 2004). The main goal of this
study was to examine sex differences in jealousy from the perspective of evolutionary psychology.
To that end, younger (mean age=20.2 years, SD=1.7 years) and older (mean age=67.1, SD=8.7)
males and females were presented with six hypothetical infidelity dilemmas and asked to indicate
which of the two outcomes would make them more upset (e.g., "Imagining your partner enjoying
passionate sexual intercourse with [another person]" or "imagining your partner forming a deep
emotional attachment to that other person"). The results indicate that there was no significant
difference in the responses of younger and older men to the six hypothetical dilemmas, while older
16
women were more likely than younger women to indicate that a partner's sexual infidelity would be
more upsetting than a partner’s emotional infidelity. However, this study did not assess the specific
emotions participants experienced, the intensity of emotion experienced, or the attributions made in
response to the scenarios, which the current study aimed to do.
The Present Study
Given that the vast majority of studies on jealousy have been conducted with younger adults and that
age differences in emotion-regulation, experience of negative emotions (such as anger), and coping
with interpersonal stressors have been documented in a wide variety of studies as reviewed above, the
goal of the current study was to explore possible differences in the manner in which jealousy is
experienced and its association with specific attributions in older versus younger adults. Specifically,
the present study examined whether older and younger adults respond differently to hypothetical,
jealousy-provoking situations in terms of attributions of responsibility and concurrently articulated
emotions. To achieve this aim, older and younger adults were presented with one of two scenarios,
which are manipulated for the specific causal explanations they elicit (benign versus threatening). In
order to provide a more close-up virtually online examination of specific thought processes and
emotions experienced by older adults in unpleasant jealousy-provoking situations, the study utilized
the Articulated Thoughts in Simulated Situations paradigm.
Hypotheses. Based on the research reviewed, the following hypotheses were proposed.
1. Based on attribution theory, a main effect of attribution condition on negative affect was expected
such that the threatening attribution condition would elicit more negative emotions (e.g., jealousy,
anger/frustration, hostility/aggression, distress/anxiety and sadness) than the benign condition.
2. A main effect of age on negative emotions and attributions was also predicted. In particular,
based on Social Selectivity Theory and studies documenting lower negative affectivity in older
adults compared to younger adults, on average (across condition) younger adults were expected to
17
express higher levels of jealousy-related negative emotion and to attribute more responsibility to
their partners than older adults. Based on previous studies, no differences were hypothesized for
levels of sadness.
3. An interaction effect between age and attribution condition on jealousy-related negative emotions
was hypothesized. In other words, it was hypothesized that the association of age and jealousy-
related negative emotions would depend on attribution condition. Specifically, it was expected
that older adults would display the positivity bias more strongly than younger adults in the
threatening attribution condition, which aims to elicit higher levels of perceived partner
responsibility and jealousy-related emotions.
4. An association between attributions of responsibility and articulated negative emotions was
predicted such that higher ratings of partner responsibility would be associated with more
jealousy-related negative emotions.
METHODS
Participants
Ninety-two (92) younger and 74 older adult participants were recruited for the current study. They
had normal or corrected to normal vision and hearing, no self-reported cognitive disorder diagnoses,
and were able to come to USC University Park campus for the experimental session. Due to the
nature of the research and the scripts of the simulated situations, only participants who were currently
in a heterosexual romantic relationship and were proficient
2
in English were eligible to participate.
Younger adults were drawn from the undergraduate psychology subject pool at the University of
Southern California. In return for their participation, students received compensation in the form of
extra course credit. Older adult participants were recruited via the USC Davis School of Gerontology
Healthy Minds volunteers database (http://healthyminds.matherlab.com). Volunteers in this database
2
English proficiency was assessed using the WTAR and was also gauged by the experimenters on the basis of
satisfactory completion of the ATSS practice scenario.
18
are recruited from the community via advertisements in newspapers, websites, and newsletters as
well as from senior centers in the greater Los Angeles area. In return for their participation, older
adults received compensation in the amount of $15 and were reimbursed for parking.
A total of 4 younger adults were excluded from analyses - two due to a technical problem
resulting in unsaved data and two for poor English proficiency. Therefore, 88 younger adult
participants between the ages of 18 and 27 (M = 20.32, SD = 1.87), and 74 older adult participants
between the ages of 60 and 77 (M = 66.34, SD = 4.72) were included in the analyses.
This sample reflects the ethnic and cultural diversity at USC and the Los Angeles area. Of the
88 younger adults, 30 self-identified as Caucasian, 29 as Asian, 19 as Hispanic, 3 as African
American, 3 as Middle Eastern, 1 as Pacific Islander, and 3 as mixed race. Of the 74 older adults, 45
self-identified as Caucasian, 13 as African American, 7 as Asian, 7 as Hispanic, and 2 as mixed race.
On average, older adults in the sample reported more years of education than younger adults. This
finding was expected given that the younger adults were college students, who had not yet completed
their undergraduate degrees at USC.
Interestingly, older adults rated their overall health to be higher than did their younger
counterparts. No significant age differences were found on a cognitive screening measure of general
cognitive functioning (MMSE), on a test of simple attention (Digit Forwards), on a test of working
memory (Digits Backwards), and on verbal intellectual functioning (WTAR). Consistent with prior
studies (e.g., Hasin, Goodwin, Stinson, & Grant, 2005), older adults reported fewer depressive
symptoms (CES-D), as well as more positive mood and less negative mood (PANAS) than younger
adults. These differences were statistically significant.
Procedures
The study consisted of a single session lasting approximately 60 to 70 minutes (depending on the
individual’s speed of completing questionnaires), and participants were scheduled to come in at their
19
preferred time of day. They were told that they were taking part in a study of emotional reactions and
thoughts in response to events that may occur within romantic relationships. After reviewing the
information sheet and agreeing to participate, younger and older adults completed a set of
questionnaires including basic demographic information questions, the modified Positive and
Negative Affective Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), and the Center for
Epidemiological Studies – Depression scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977). Next, the following cognitive
assessment measures were administered by the experimenter: the Mini- Mental State Exam (MMSE;
Folstein et al., 1975), Digit Span from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale Third Edition (WAIS-
III; Wechsler, 1997), Wechsler Test of Adult Reading (WTAR; The Psychological Corporation,
2001). A flowchart for the study procedures is presented in Appendix A: Flowchart of study
procedure and all questionnaires are in Appendices B through I.
Participants were then asked to answer questions about their current relationship and partner
(please see Appendix D: Questions about Current Relationship), whom they were to imagine during
the ATSS portion of the study. They were then presented with a slightly modified version of the
standard ATSS instructions
3
(presented both in audio and written form) (cf. Davison et al., 1997) on a
desktop computer:
You are participating in a study of people’s thoughts and feelings in situations related to romantic
relationships. Often, when people are going about their daily affairs, interacting with others and
so forth, they have a kind of internal monologue going through their heads, a constant stream of
thoughts or feelings, which reflect their reactions to what is happening.
What we’d like you to do is to play a part in a situation that we have taped. You will listen
to audio recordings of a story. Please imagine that this situation is unfolding right now and that
you are a part of it. Although you may have never been in the situation to be described, please do
your best to immerse yourself in it. People do this a lot, like when we get emotionally involved in a
movie, play, or book. Even if the story is about something that is not a part of our own lives, we
3
The ATSS instructions were modified to include the underlined sentences in order to accommodate participants who
might consider the scenario unlikely to occur within their relationship.
20
can relate to it in our imagination. So please try to imagine as clearly as you can that it is really
you in the situation right now.
Every so often the recording will stop, you will hear a tone, and you will be asked to speak into a
microphone for 30 seconds. Simply say out loud whatever is going through your mind. Say as
much as you can until you hear another tone. Of course, there are no right or wrong answers, so
please just say whatever comes to mind without judging whether it is appropriate or not. The
more you can tell us, the better.
Note that your task is not to speak back to any of the individuals in the story, as though you were
having a conversation with one of them. Rather, you should tune in to your own thoughts and say
them out loud. Everything that you say will be completely confidential. Your name will not be
associated with the recording in any way.
After these instructions, participants practiced the ATSS procedure,verbalizing their thoughts
in response to a brief, neutral scenario which has been used in other ATSS studies. The experimenter
provided them with feedback on their performance, (e.g., “please try to pretend that you are actually
in this situation; do not say ‘would’”) and also addressed any pertinent questions or concerns.
Following the practice scenario, all participants expressed understanding of the ATSS procedure and
verbalized thoughts and feelings as indicated by the ATSS instructions.
Each participant was randomly assigned to one of two conditions, matched for gender: the
benign (B) attribution scenario or the threatening/non-benign (NB) attribution scenario. The
experimenter left the room and participants were asked to complete the pre-ATSS relationship
questions and then proceed with the ATSS scenario. The simulated situation, which takes place at a
restaurant, depicts an encounter with one’s romantic partner and an extradyadic individual. The
witnessed behavior of one’s partner is the same (with one exception) in the two scenarios – one’s
partner is seen having dinner with a member of the opposite sex who turns out to be a former love
interest of one’s partner. As the scenario progresses, the interaction between the two observed
individuals becomes increasingly intimate. The scripts for the two scenarios for male participants are
21
presented below.
Threatening Attributions Condition Benign Attributions Condition
Segment 1
It is late on Thursday afternoon. Your partner just
called to let you know that she is going to have dinner
with a male friend of hers from out of town. She
invites you along and tells you she is really looking
forward to catching up with him because he is very
entertaining. Her friend, whom you’ve never met, is
in town for a family reunion and is flying home in a
few hours.
Segment 1
It is late on Thursday afternoon. Your partner just
called to let you know that she is going to have
dinner with a male friend of hers from out of town.
She invites you along and tells you she is not sure if
she really wants to catch up with him because he
seems depressed. Her friend, whom you’ve never
met, is in town for a family emergency and is flying
home in a few hours.
Segment 2
You initially are unable to attend dinner because of a
prior engagement but the engagement gets cancelled
last minute. You call your partner’s cell phone but it
goes directly to voicemail. The restaurant is nearby so
you decide to stop by anyway.
Segment 2
You initially are unable to attend dinner because of a
prior engagement but the engagement gets cancelled
last minute. You call your partner’s cell phone but it
goes directly to voicemail. The restaurant is nearby
so you decide to stop by anyway.
Segment 3
As you enter the crowded restaurant, you catch a
glimpse of your partner across the room. She is sitting
with an attractive guy, whom you recognize from
somewhere. It turns out that her old friend is in fact a
former boyfriend of hers. It looks like the two are
having a lively conversation.
Segment 3
As you enter the crowded restaurant, you catch a
glimpse of your partner across the room. She is
sitting with an attractive guy, whom you recognize
from somewhere. It turns out that her old friend is
in fact a former boyfriend of hers. It looks like the
two are having a somber conversation.
Segment 4
As you try to make your way across the crowded
room, you notice that your partner’s former boyfriend
reaches across the table and touches your partner’s
hand.
Segment 4
As you try to make your way across the crowded
room, you notice that your partner’s former
boyfriend reaches across the table and touches your
partner’s hand.
Segment 5
Your partner leans over and whispers something into
her ex-boyfriend’s ear. He smiles.
Segment 5
Your partner leans over and whispers something into
her ex-boyfriend’s ear. He smiles.
Segment 6
A big group of people leaving the restaurant gets in
your way and obstructs your view for a few moments.
By the time they leave, your partner and her ex-
boyfriend are no longer sitting where you saw them
and there is cash on the table.
Segment 6
A big group of people leaving the restaurant gets in
your way and obstructs your view for a few
moments. By the time they leave, your partner and
her ex-boyfriend are no longer sitting where you
saw them and there is cash on the table.
Segment 7
Your partner calls you in about 45 minutes. She tells
you that she had switched off her cell phone because
she did not want to be interrupted while she was
having dinner with her friend.
Segment 7
Your partner calls you in about 45 minutes. She tells
you that she had switched off her cell phone because
she did not want to be interrupted while she was
having dinner with her friend.
Segment 8
Your partner shares that as expected, she had a really
good time catching up with her friend and is glad she
got to see him alone. She adds that she volunteered to
drive him to the airport and they decided to cut dinner
short so they could get a quick drink beforehand.
Segment 8
Your partner shares that as expected, she had a
difficult time trying to cheer her friend up and
wishes you had come along. She adds that she felt
obliged to drive him to the airport because the
shuttle he ordered was running late and he might
have missed his flight otherwise.
22
When participants finished with the ATSS procedure, they informed the examiner and were
given a second questionnaire packet, which included the modified PANAS (to assess post-scenario
mood), the Attributions of Responsibility scale (to assess how much responsibility they attributed to
their partner for the events in the situation), and an ATSS manipulation check (including how vividly
the participant was able to imagine the scenario, how immersed he/she was in the scenario and how
threatening the scenario was). Please see Appendix F: Post-ATSS Questionnaire. Lastly, participants
were debriefed, paid (if applicable), thanked, and escorted out of the lab.
Measures
Articulated Thoughts in Simulated Situations (ATSS)
The ATSS (Davison, Robins, & Johnson, 1983) was used to collect data about cognitions and
feelings . The paradigm has been shown to have good face validity, construct validity, discriminant
validity, and inter-rater reliability (for a review, see Davison, Vogel, & Coffman, 1997). The
jealousy-provoking ATSS scenarios used in this study were created by blending situations shown in
previous research to provoke jealousy (namely, partner showing interest in another; another showing
interest in partner, partner interacting with prior relational partner) (Sheets, Fredendall, & Claypool,
1997) and modified by the author based on feedback from three waves of piloting. The thoughts and
feelings generated during the ATSS were coded for content that pertains to theoretically supported
reactions to partner infidelity using the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC; LIWC;
Pennebaker, Booth, & Francis, 2007) program. The audio recordings of articulated verbalizations
during the scenarios were transcribed and checked for accuracy by independent undergraduate
research assistants. The transcriptions were then formatted for LIWC analysis.
Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC)
LIWC is a text analysis program developed by Pennebaker and his colleagues. It was initially used to
examine written diary data in studies of associations between writing about challenging emotional
23
experiences and improvements in mental and physical health (e.g., Frattaroli, 2006; Lepore & Smyth,
2002; Pennebaker, 1997). Since its inception, LIWC has been used extensively to code both written
statements and verbal transcripts (for review, see Tausczik and Pennebaker, 2010) and has also
recently been used successfully to analyze ATSS data (Hsu, Babeva, Feng, Hummer, & Davison,
2014). The LIWC computer program classifies verbal material by identifying the percentage of words
fitting into particular coding categories. LIWC has a default dictionary of coding categories (e.g.,
positive emotions, negative emotions, words indicative of cognitive processes, etc.) but also allows
for new categories to be defined. The coding categories used in the current study are as follows: 1)
anger (including frustration towards one’s partner/other individual); 2) verbal aggression and hostile
intent (including derogatory statements about partner/other individual and threats to harm
partner/other individual); 3) distress/anxiety; 4) sadness (including disappointment); 5) jealousy; 6)
suspicion (including statements that one’s partner is being deceitful or has cheated); and 7) trust
(including giving one’s partner the benefit of the doubt and positive statement about one’s partner)
(please see Appendix J: LIWC Coding Categories). Two independent coders reviewed the new
coding categories created for this study in order to determine category consistency and validity.
Discrepancies were addressed based on a discussion between the two coders.
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS)
Current emotional state was assessed on two occasions using a modified version of the Positive and
Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1988). The PANAS consists of 20
mood-related adjectives (both negative and positive) which participants rate on a 5-point scale
(1=very slightly/not at all; 5= extremely) to reflect their current emotional state. For the purposes of
this study, twenty additional items were included at the end of the PANAS – ten items referring to
jealousy-related emotional states (e.g. jealous, betrayed, distrustful) embedded within ten positive
distracter adjectives (e.g., optimistic, calm, happy). The additional jealousy-related items were
24
selected based on previous studies (e.g., Parrott and Smith, 1993). Please see Appendix B: Current
Affective State.
The PANAS was administered before the ATSS scenario in order to capture baseline
emotional state at the beginning of the study and then again after the ATSS. This was done as a
manipulation check to assess whether the ATSS scenario had an effect on emotional state.
Measure of Attributions of Responsibility
Attributions of partner’s behavior in the ATSS scenario were assessed using a modified version of the
Attributions of Responsibility scale developed by Chavira, Lopez, Blacher and Shapiro (2000). This
measure is based on Weiner’s (1995) conceptualization, which posits that attributions of
responsibility are related to the perceived intentionality and controllability of behavior. The modified
scale used in the current study assesses these three interrelated factors using the following six
questions (reworded versions of the five original items by Chavira and colleagues (2000) and an
additional controllability item):
1. To what extent is your partner to blame for the way the situation you just witnessed unfolded?
(responsibility)
2. To what extent did your partner mean for the situation to unfold in this way? (intentionality)
3. To what extent could your partner have created a different situation? (controllability)
4. To what extent is your partner responsible for the way the situation unfolded? (responsibility)
5. To what extent did your partner create this situation on purpose? (intentionality)
6. To what extent could your partner have controlled how the situation unfolded? (controllability)
[new item]
Participants provided their responses on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 6
(extremely). The scale was found to have high reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.91). Similarly to the
25
procedure followed by Chavira and colleagues (2000), a total attributions of responsibility score was
derived by averaging the six items. Total score thus varied between 0 and 6.
Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale
Given documented age differences in reports of depressive symptomatology, which could affect
responding to a threatening situation, the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-
D; Radloff, 1977) was administered. This self-report measure consists of 20 items reflecting the
occurrence of depressive symptoms (including vegetative symptoms such as poor appetite and sleep
disturbance as well as hopelessness and helplessness, low mood, etc.) over the previous 7 days
(Radloff, 1977). Younger and older participants indicated how much they had experienced each
symptom on a 4-point Likert scale (0=rarely/none of the time; 1=some or a little of the time;
2=occasionally or a moderate amount of the time; 3=most or all of the time). Total scores range from
0 to 60, with higher scores reflecting higher severity of depressive symptoms. Radloff (1977) reports
high internal consistency in both patient (α=0.90) and community samples (α=0.85). In the current
study, internal consistency was also high (α=0.88). Test-retest coefficients for the CES-D are
reported to be in the moderate range (0.45 to 0.70) but this is adequate, as depressive symptoms are
known to fluctuate across time. Radloff (1977) also reports that the CES-D correlates significantly
with other measures of depression (Hamilton Clinician’s and Raskin rating scales) as well as with
number of negative life events and treatment gains. Studies suggest that the CES-D is likely to be a
reliable and valid measure of depressive symptomatology for both genders, younger and older adults,
and individuals of different racial and educational backgrounds (Beekman et al., 1997; Hertzog et al.
1990; Knight, Williams, McGee & Olaman, 1997; Naughton & Wiklund, 1993, Radloff, 1977;
Radloff & Teri, 1986). Please see Appendix C: The Center for Epidemiological Studies – Depression
Scale.
26
Pre-ATSS Relationship Questions
Participants were asked to rate their own and their perception of their partner’s satisfaction,
commitment, and investment in their current relationship using face valid Likert scale ratings (please
see Appendix D: Questions about Current Relationship). These relationship factors were assessed in
order to capture potential key differences between younger and older adults in terms of their
satisfaction, commitment, and investment in their current romantic relationships.
Post-ATSS Relationship Questions
Following the ATSS, participants completed a brief interview designed by the author to assess
jealousy experiences in the relationship, changes in jealousy over the lifespan and history of infidelity
(perpetrated and experienced) (please see Appendix F: Post-ATSS Questionnaire). These relationship
factors were assessed, as they may affect responses to a relationship-threatening situation. For
example, an individual who has been the victim of infidelity might be more sensitive to cues of
infidelity and might react more strongly to them.
Cognitive Measures
In order to ensure comparable levels of cognitive functioning (including verbal abilities, attention,
and working memory) in the older and younger adult sample and to rule out cogntive impairment, the
following measures were administered:
1) Mini-Mental Status Exam (MMSE)
The MMSE (Folstein et al., 1975) is widely used as a screening device for cognitive decline,
especially among older adults. It consists of 16 items (yielding a maximum score of 30 points)
that assess an individual’s orientation, memory, language and visual-spatial skills. A score of 23
or less is widely accepted as likely indicating some cognitive impairment (Tombaugh &
McIntyre, 1992; Hoops et al., 2009). None of the individuals in the current study scored below
this cutoff. The MMSE has been found to have acceptable internal reliability (α ranging from
27
0.62 to 0.96 in different samples) (Foreman, 1987; Tombaugh et al., 1996), good test-retest
reliability (e.g. Folstein et al., 1975; Uhlmann, Larson, & Buchner, 1987; Olin & Zelinsky, 1991),
and adequate convergent validity with other cognitive measures (e.g., Folstein et al., 1975;
Gagnon et al., 1990; Jorm et al., 1996; O’Connor et al., 1989).
2) Wechsler Test of Adult Reading (WTAR)
The WTAR (The Psychological Corporation, 2001), a 50-item irregular word reading test, was
used to provide an estimate of verbal intellectual functioning (please see Appendix G: Wechsler
Test of Adult Reading). The reading of irregular words relies on one’s learning experience and is
relatively resistant to cognitive declines in normally aging adults (Strauss, Sherman, & Spreen,
2006). The WTAR has been shown to correlate highly with concurrent measures of verbal IQ and
verbal memory (The Psychological Corporation, 2001; Whitney et al., 2010) and to have internal
consistency and test-retest reliability above .90 (The Psychological Corporation, 2001). In the
current study, the majority of participants obtained scores in the average to superior range. Two
participants scored in the low average range (18
th
and 19
th
%iles) and two in the very superior
range (98
th
%ile).
3) Digit Span (Forward and Backward)
The Digit Span subtest of the Wechsler Adult Intellegence Scale – Third Edition (WAIS-III;
Wechsler, 1997) was used to assess attention (Digits Forward) and working memory (Digits
Backward). In this subtest, participants are asked to repeat strings of digits forwards and
backwards (please see Appendix H: Digit Span). Digit Span has an average reliability of 0.90
based on the WAIS-III standardization sample and correlates highly with working memory
(r=0.83) (Wecshler, 2002).
RESULTS
An alpha level of .05 was used for all analyses unless otherwise indicated.
28
Normality Testing and Outlier Examination
The distributions of all of the study variables were tested for normality. Skewness, kurtosis, and
homoscedasticity were calculated. All the main study variables were found to depart from normality
(please see Appendix K: Distributions of LIWC Variables), thus all the analyses were based on non-
parametric testing unless otherwise noted.
The data were also examined for potential outliers. As only a small number of outliers were
found in the absence of a valid a priori exclusion reason (such as experimenter error), all data points
were retained rather than thrown out or imputed. Furthermore, given that non-parametric analyses
were used, the presence of outliers does not bias the obtained results and is thus not problematic.
Manipulation Checks
Comparisons of the Benign (B) and Non-Benign (NB) Scenario
Prior to the main analyses, an ATSS manipulation check was conducted. Participants’ ratings on a 0
to 7 Likert scale of how vividly they were able to imagine the scenarios and their level of immersion
in the scenarios were compared between the two conditions (see Table 1 below) using non-parametric
analyses (Mann-Whitney U Test).
Table 1: Comparing the Benign and Non-Benign Scenarios
Benign Threatening
(N=73) (N=84)
Variable M SD M SD U (df=155) Z score p (2-tailed)
Vividness 4.37 1.32 4.67 1.21 3460 1.43 0.15
Immersion 4.37 1.32 4.51 1.22 3243 0.64 0.52
Similarity of thoughts
1
8.02 1.80 7.72 1.94 2950 -0.98 0.33
Threat 1.43 1.61 2.32 1.86 3899 3.00 0.003
Responsibility Score 2.87 1.49 3.72 1.33 4058 3.66 <0.001
Leave (S) 1.43 2.03 2.02 1.84 3780 2.61 0.009
Leave (P) 1.10 1.46 1.61 1.55 3717 2.40 0.02
1
Rated on a scale from 0 to 10
No significant differences were found for the distribution of ratings of vividness and
immersion between the two conditions. These ratings fell in the above average range (3 =
average/moderately). Participants were also asked to rate (on a scale from 0 = not at all similar to 10
29
= identical) how similar the thoughts and feelings they articulated were to what they believe they
would have been in a real life situation. Overall, participants rated their articulations as highly similar
(M = 7.83; SD = 1.88) and no significant differences were found in articulation similarity ratings
between scenarios. We concluded from these data that participants were able to similarly adequately
able to imagine and immerse themselves in the two scenarios and to respond in a manner they
perceived as congruent to their experience in real life.
Participants’ ratings of the threat level of the scenarios were statistically significantly different
in the expected manner. In particular, the NB scenario was rated as more threatening than the B
scenario. As intended, participants also attributed more responsibility to their partners following the
NB scenario and indicated that they were significantly more likely to leave the relationship following
the NB scenario. These results demonstrate that the two scenarios, as intended, were perceived
differently in terms of level of threat and attributed responsibility and thus support the efficacy of the
experimental manipulation.
Participants’ mood state was assessed both prior to and immediately after the ATSS scenario
using the PANAS. Non-parametric paired samples analyses (Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test) revealed
that participants endorsed significantly more negative mood after the scenario compared to their
baseline ratings of mood in both the B [W(71) = 961, Z = 2.18, p = 0.029] and NB [W(82) = 1258, Z
= 2.54, p = 0.01] condition. In addition, participants endorsed significantly more jealousy-related
emotions on the PANAS after the scenario compared to their baseline ratings in in both the B [W(71)
= 292, Z = 4.19, p < 0.001] and NB [W(82) = 479, Z = 4.10, p < 0.001] condition. However, based on
the PANAS, the NB did not elicit significantly more of these emotions than the B scenario. These
results indicate that the ATSS scenarios were able to elicit negative affect and jealousy-related
emotions.
No significant differences in baseline negative mood were found between the two conditions
30
for either younger [U (86) = 1159, Z = 1.78, ns] or older adults [U (71) = 717.0, Z= 0.65, ns]. In other
words, younger participants in the B and NB conditions endorsed similar amounts of negative mood,
as did older participants in both conditions.
Younger versus Older Adults
Ratings of vividness, immersion, and perceived similarity were also compared for younger and older
adults. No significant differences were found in ratings of vividness [U (155) = 2910, Z = -0.46, ns]
and immersion [U (155) = 2612, Z = -1.55, ns]. However, older adults rated their articulated thoughts
and feelings as more similar to those in a real life situation than younger adults [U (155) = 1637, Z =
-5.07, p < 0.001].
Within each of the two age subsamples, participants’ ratings of the threat level of the two
scenarios were statistically significantly different in the expected manner. In other words, younger
adults rated the NB scenario as more threatening than the B scenario [U (85) = 1203, Z = 2.16, p =
0.015], as did older adults [U (66) = 726, Z = 1.96, p = 0.025]. Both younger [U (85) = 1220, Z =
2.28, p = 0.012], and older participants [U (66) = 780, Z = 2.75, p = 0.003] also attributed more
responsibility to their partners following the NB scenario. Older adults [U (66) = 741, Z = 2.29, p =
0.01], but not their younger counterparts [U (85) = 1085, Z = 1.15, ns], were significantly more likely
to leave the relationship following the NB scenario.
Both younger and older participants endorsed more negative mood after the scenario
compared to their baseline ratings of mood. However, only the difference for younger adults reached
statistical significance [W (85) = 2470, Z = 3.07, p
=0.001]. In addition, younger [W (85) = 961, Z =
5.15, p < 0.001] and older adults [W (66) = 63, Z = 2.70, p = 0.004] in both conditions endorsed more
jealousy on the PANAS after the scenario compared to prior to the scenario.
31
Female versus Male Participants
Ratings of vividness, immersion, and perceived thought similarity were also compared for male and
female participants in both conditions. No significant differences were found in any of these three
ratings in either of the conditions (see Table 2 and 3 below).
Table 2: Comparing Male and Female Participants: Benign Scenario
Males Females
(N=29) (N=43)
Variable M SD M SD U (df=70) Z score p (2-tailed)
1
Vividness 4.48 1.12 4.26 1.43 665 0.49 0.63
Immersion 4.41 1.05 4.37 1.48 596 -0.33 0.74
Similarity of thoughts 8.34 1.82 7.89 1.70 836 1.49 0.14
Threat 1.10 1.35 1.67 1.74 510 -1.36 0.17
Responsibility Score 2.77 1.38 2.95 1.59 583 -0.47 0.64
Leave (S) 1.03 1.66 1.73 2.23 537 -1.09 0.28
Leave (P) 0.97 1.45 1.21 1.49 573 -0.63 0.53
Table 3: Comparing Male and Female Participants: Non-Benign Scenario
Males Females
(N=52) (N=32)
Variable M SD M SD U (df=82) Z score p (2-tailed)
1
Vividness 4.77 1.11 4.62 1.27 874 0.40 0.69
Immersion 4.34 1.01 4.62 1.33 680 -1.45 0.15
Similarity of thoughts 8.09 1.52 7.49 2.14 939 1.00 0.32
Threat 2.14 1.70 2.42 1.96 776 -0.53 0.60
Responsibility Score 3.36 1.33 3.94 1.29 603 -1.91 0.06
Leave (S) 1.45 1.61 2.37 1.90 599 -2.19 0.03
Leave (P) 1.17 1.36 1.89 1.62 611 -2.11 0.04
Furthermore, no sex differences were found in the ratings of the threat level of the two
scenarios or in the amount attributed responsibility in each scenario. However, compared to male
participants, female participants indicated that they and their partners were significantly more likely
to leave the relationship following the NB scenario.
Comparison of Sample Characteristics for Younger and Older Adults
In order to assess similarity of sample characteristics for younger and older adults, the two groups
were compared on demographic variables (including years of education, ethnicity, and self-rated
health); cognitive abilities (MMSE, WTAR and Digit Span scores); and relationship variables
32
(satisfaction, commitment, investment). Independent samples Mann Whitney U-tests were conducted
to assess whether the two groups differ in important ways (see Table 4 and 5 below).
Table 4: Participant Characteristics at Baseline
Young Adults Older Adults
(N=88; 62F) (N=74; 37F)
Variable M SD M SD U (df=159) Z score p (2-tailed)
1
Years of Education 14.16 1.27 16.67 2.07 5457 7.76 <0.001
Self-rated Health 7.53 1.65 8.22 1.59 4079 3.02 0.003
CES-D 32.10 7.77 25.48 5.46 1335 -5.96 <0.001
MMSE 29.10 1.17 29.32 0.95 3621 1.34 0.18
Digit Forward 9.10 1.73 8.46 2.14 2773 -1.65 0.10
Digit Backward 7.10 2.05 6.72 2.01 3044 -0.72 0.47
WTAR 118.0 7.67 117.39 9.27 3175 0.02 0.98
Table 5: Relationship Characteristics
Young Adults Older Adults
(N=89; 62F) (N=74; 37F)
Relationship Variable M SD M SD U (df=150) Z score p (2-tailed)
Serious 4.38 1.14 5.10 1.32 4538 4.67 <0.001
Length (years) 1.58 1.56 26.72 17.28 6010 9.26 <0.001
Satisfaction (S)
1
4.89 1.08 4.91 1.08 3316 0.21 0.83
Commitment (S)
1
5.24 1.01 5.29 1.26 3620 1.37 0.17
Investment (S)
1
5.19 0.92 5.20 1.34 3635 1.39 0.16
Satisfaction (P)
2
4.96 1.10 4.77 1.33 3106 -0.53 0.59
Commitment (P)
2
5.36 1.01 5.39 1.21 3516 1.01 0.31
Investment (P)
2
5.28 0.83 5.26 1.33 3667 1.53 0.13
1
Rating for self
2
Rating for partner
Significant differences were found in years of education, self-rated health, and CES-D scores
between younger and older adults. In particular, older adults reported more years of education, better
self-reported health as well as lower depression symptoms than younger adults. No differences were
found for the assessed cognitive variables. Examination of the assessed relationship variables reveals
that, as expected, older adults reported longer relationship duration than younger adults (p<0.001)
and also rated their relationships as more serious than younger adults (p<0.001). However,
importantly, no significant age differences were found in ratings of one’s own satisfaction,
33
commitment, and investment, or ratings of one’s partner’s perceived satisfaction, commitment, and
investment. Thus, despite the longer duration of older adults’ relationships, both younger and older
participants in this study described themselves as being similarly highly committed, satisfied, and
invested in their current relationships.
LIWC Coded Variables
The current study examined both age-related differences and the effect of experimentally
manipulated attributions of responsibility on participants’ cognitive and emotional responses in
relationship-threatening situations. The think-aloud data garnered from the ATSS were coded via the
following LIWC variables: 1) anger/frustration; 2) verbal aggression/hostility; 3) distress/anxiety; 4)
sadness; 5) jealousy; 6) suspicion/deceit; and 7) benefit of the doubt/trust. Results are presented
below by hypothesis.
Independence of LIWC Codes
In order to assess the distinctiveness of the seven LIWC categories, non-parametric (Spearman)
correlations were calculated. A value greater than .7 was used to screen for redundancy among the
codes, as an association of this magnitude indicates that the same variable is likely being measured.
The absolute values of the correlations among the seven LIWC codes ranged from ρ = 0.01 to 0.59
(i.e., small to moderate correlations). Given that none of correlations among the dependent variables
was greater than .7, all seven LIWC variables were retained for further analysis.
As the distributions of all 7 LIWC codes were positively skewed (please see Appendix K:
Distributions of LIWC Variables), non-parametric analyses were conducted. Given the multiple
comparisons that were conducted, the Holms-Bonferroni procedure was implemented to correct for
significant findings by chance. Results are thus presented first with their original p-value and then
with the adjusted p-value.
34
Hypothesis 1: Main effect of attribution condition on negative affect
In order to test the hypothesis that the non-benign attribution condition would elicit more negative
emotions than the benign condition, Mann-Whitney U-tests were conducted for the seven LIWC
codes. Results are presented in the table below.
Table 6: Main Effect of Attribution Condition Results
Benign Condition Non-Benign Condition Holms
(N=76) (N=85) Bonferroni
Variable Mean Rank Mean Rank U p (1-tailed) Adjusted p
Anger/Frustration 77.76 83.90 3476.5 0.19 --
Aggression/Hostility 80.88 81.11 3239.0 0.49 --
Distress/Anxiety 74.09 87.18 3755.5 0.036 .036 x 1 .036*
Sadness 81.12 80.89 3220.5 0.49 --
Jealousy 74.94 86.42 3690.5 0.019 .019 x 2 .038*
Suspicion/Deceit 74.87 86.48 3696.0 0.055 --
Benefit of the Doubt 95.47 68.06 2130.0 <0.001 .001 x 3 .003*
These results partially support the main effect of condition hypothesis. As predicted, the NB
condition was found to elicit significantly more LIWC-coded distress/anxiety and jealousy as well as
significantly less benefit of the doubt than the B attribution condition. No differences were found in
terms of anger/frustration, aggression/hostility, sadness, and suspicion/deceit.
The absence of significant predicted differences in anger/frustration, aggression/hostility,
sadness, and suspicion/deceit cannot be explained by a lack of a manipulation effect given that the
NB scenario was rated by both younger and older participants as significantly more threatening than
the B one.
Hypothesis 2: Main effect of age on negative emotion and attributions of responsibility
In order to test the hypothesis that, on average (across condition), younger adults would express
higher levels of jealousy-related negative emotion than older adults, Mann-Whitney U-tests were
conducted for the seven LIWC codes. Results are presented in the table below.
35
Table 7: Main Effect of Age Results
Younger Adults Older Adults Holms
(N=88) (N=73) Bonferroni
Variable Mean Rank Mean Rank U p (1-tailed) Adjusted p
Anger/Frustration 97.65 60.92 1746.5 <0.001* .001 x 5 .005*
Aggression/Hostility 90.67 69.34 2361.0 0.001* .001 x 4 .004*
Distress/Anxiety 90.68 69.34 2360.5 0.002* .002 x 3 .006*
Sadness 86.47 74.40 2730.5 0.038* .038 x 1 .038*
Jealousy 87.52 73.14 2638.5 0.005* .005 x 2 .01*
Suspicion/Deceit 100.19 57.86 1523.0 <0.001* .001 x 6 .006*
Benefit of the Doubt 63.68 101.88 4736.5 <0.001* .001 x 7 .007*
Attributions 91.30 61.93 1865.5 <0.001* .001 x 8 .008*
These results fully support the main effect of age hypothesis. In particular, younger adults articulated
significantly more LIWC-coded negative emotions and suspicion as well as significantly less benefit
of the doubt than older adults. Furthermore, younger adults attributed significantly more
responsibility to their partners than older adults.
In order to assess the association between age group and negative emotion controlling for possible
confounding variables, a non-parametric (rank) partial point-biserial correlation was calculated. In
particular, the following variables were controlled for: CES-D score, PANAS score, relationship
duration, and gender. Partial point-biserial correlations between age group and the 7 LIWC variables
and attributions of responsibility are presented in the table below.
Table 8: Main Effect of Age Results Controlling for Potential Confounds
Holms
Bonferroni
Variable Partial Correlation p (1-tailed) Adjusted p
Anger/Frustration -0.26 0.001* .001 x 4 .004*
Aggression/Hostility -0.15 0.032* .032 x 1 .032*
Distress/Anxiety 0.02 0.40 --
Sadness -0.09 0.13 --
Jealousy 0.03 0.36 --
Suspicion/Deceit -0.27 <0.001* .001 x 5 .005*
Benefit of the Doubt 0.20 0.007* .007 x 2 .014*
Attributions -0.22 0.003* .003 x 3 .009*
36
When controlling for potential confounds, the association between age group and five of the assessed
variables remained significant. In particular, age group remained statistically significantly associated
with anger/frustration, aggression/hostility, suspicion/deceit, benefit of the doubt and attributions of
responsibility in the predicted direction. These results thus also provide support for the main effect of
age hypothesis.
Hypothesis 3: Interaction effect between age and attribution condition on jealousy-related
negative emotions
In order to non-parametrically test the hypothesis that older adults would display the positivity bias
more strongly in the threatening attribution condition, a non-parametric (rank) partial point-biserial
correlation was calculated between age group and the eight variables of interest for the two
conditions separately. The following potentially confounding variables were controlled for: CES-D
score, PANAS score, relationship duration, and gender. Results are presented below.
Table 9: Partial Point-Biserial Correlations in the Benign Condition
Holms
Partial Correlation Bonferroni
Variable (n= 63) p (1-tailed) Adjusted p
Anger/Frustration -0.25 0.022* .022 x 2 .022*
Aggression/Hostility -0.08 0.26 --
Distress/Anxiety -0.19 0.07 --
Sadness -0.25 0.024* .024 x1 .024*
Jealousy -0.14 0.13 --
Suspicion/Deceit -0.28 0.012* .012 x 4 .048*
Benefit of the Doubt 0.27 0.016* .016 x 3 .048*
Attributions -0.30 0.008* .008 x 5 .040*
Table 10: Partial Point-Biserial Correlations in the Non-Benign Condition
Holms
Partial Correlation Bonferroni
Variable (n= 75) p (1-tailed) Adjusted p
Anger/Frustration -0.29 0.005* .005 x 3 .015*
Aggression/Hostility -0.15 0.10 --
Distress/Anxiety 0.15 0.10 --
Sadness -0.06 0.31 --
Jealousy 0.12 0.15 --
Suspicion/Deceit -0.26 0.01* .01 x 2 .02*
Benefit of the Doubt 0.17 0.07 --
Attributions -0.19 0.05* .05 x 1 .05*
37
The results of the two sets of partial correlations done separately for each condition mirror the results
obtained when younger and older participants were compared across condition (see main effect of
age results). In particular, the obtained partial correlations in the two conditions are of similar
magnitude and the correlations in the NB condition are not stronger than the ones in the B condition.
In other words, older adults generally articulated significantly less negative emotions and more
benefit of the doubt than younger adults in each of the two conditions and across condition.
Furthermore, older adults did not display the positivity bias more strongly in the threatening
attribution condition. Although these analyses are not a direct test of the interaction hypothesis, they
do indicate that the interaction hypothesis is not supported qualitatively and that it is unlikely to be
supported quantitatively.
Hypothesis 4: Positive association between attributions of responsibility and articulated
negative emotions
In order to test the hypothesis that higher ratings of partner responsibility would be associated with
more jealousy-related negative emotions among both younger and older adults, non-parametric
(Spearman) correlations were conducted. Correlation coefficients with Holms-Bonferonni adjusted p
values in parentheses are presented in the tables below.
Table 11a: Correlations between Attributions of Responsibility and Negative Emotions across
Condition
Spearman’s rho Holms-Bonferonni
LIWC Code (n=161) p (1-tailed) Adjusted p
Anger/Frustration 0.35 0.001 .001 x 3 = 0.003*
Aggression/Hostility 0.36 0.001 .001 x 4 = 0.004*
Distress/Anxiety 0.27 0.001 .001 x 5 = 0.005*
Sadness 0.23 0.002 .002 x 2 = 0.004*
Jealousy 0.16 0.03 .03 x 1 = 0.03*
Suspicion/Deceit 0.65 0.001 .001 x 6 = 0.006*
Benefit of the Doubt -0.61 0.001 .001 x 7 = 0.007*
38
Table 11b: Correlations between Attributions of Responsibility and Negative Emotions in B
Condition
Spearman’s rho Holms-Bonferonni
LIWC Code (n=161) p (1-tailed) Adjusted p
Anger/Frustration 0.36 0.001 .001 x 2 = 0.002*
Aggression/Hostility 0.41 <0.001 .001 x 3 = 0.003*
Distress/Anxiety 0.33 0.002 .002 x 1 = 0.002*
Sadness 0.08 0.25 --
Jealousy 0.14 0.12 --
Suspicion/Deceit 0.70 <0.001 .001 x 4 = 0.004*
Benefit of the Doubt -0.53 <0.001 .001 x 5 = 0.005*
Table 11c: Correlations between Attributions of Responsibility and Negative Emotions in NB
Condition
Spearman’s rho Holms-Bonferonni
LIWC Code (n=161) p (1-tailed) Adjusted p
Anger/Frustration 0.33 0.001 .001 x 2 = 0.002*
Aggression/Hostility 0.34 0.001 .001 x 3 = 0.003*
Distress/Anxiety 0.21 0.029 .029 x 1 = 0.029*
Sadness 0.38 0.001 .001 x 4 = 0.004*
Jealousy 0.16 0.08 --
Suspicion/Deceit 0.63 <0.001 .001 x 5 = 0.005*
Benefit of the Doubt -0.65 <0.001 .001 x 6 = 0.006*
The obtained results indicate that attributions of responsibility are statistically significantly correlated
with the seven assessed LIWC codes in the predicted direction across – positively with
anger/frustration; verbal aggression/hostility; distress/anxiety; sadness; jealousy; and suspicion/deceit
and negatively with benefit of the doubt. In other words, the more responsibility participants
attributed to their partners for the observed situation, the more negative emotion and suspicion they
articulated. Furthermore, the more responsibility participants attributed to their partners, the less
benefit of the doubt they gave their partner. When examining the association between attributions of
responsibility separately for the two conditions, very similar results emerge. The main difference is
that the association between attributions of responsibility and the LIWC jealousy code did not reach
significance. However, this is likely due to difference in sample size when the conditions are
examined separately versus in conjunction.
39
Additional Analyses
At the end of the study, younger and older adults were asked to indicate (yes or no) which of the
following emotions they experience when they are feeling jealous: angry, sad, anxious, hostile,
ashamed, humiliated, hurt, guilty, betrayed, rejected. These were chosen based on prior research of
emotions that are associated with the experience of jealousy (e.g., Guerrero & Andersen, 1998; Parrot
& Smith, 1993; Sharpsteen & Kirkpatrick, 1997). Chi-square analyses were conducted to determine
whether the percentage of individuals endorsing these emotions differed by age group. Percentages of
younger and older adults endorsing each of these emotions and chi-square results are presented in the
table below.
Table 12: Chi-Square Results for Emotions Experienced with Jealousy
Young Adults Older Adults
Emotion (N=88) (N=69) χ
2
(df=1, N=157) p (2-tailed) Adjusted p
Angry 78% 46% 17.29 <0.001 .001 x 5 = .005*
Sad 68% 42% 10.77 0.001 .001 x 4 = .004*
Anxious 72% 51% 7.18 0.007 .007 x 3 = .0014*
Hostile 39% 23% 4.25 0.039 .039 x 1 = .039*
Hurt 78% 62% 4.90 0.027 .027 x 2 = .054
Ashamed 11% 7% 0.76 0.38 --
Humiliated 24% 24% 0.01 0.91 --
Guilty 8% 9% 0.03 0.87 --
Betrayed 57% 44% 2.75 0.10 --
Rejected 46% 44% 0.06 0.81 --
These results document that older adults perceive themselves as less likely to experience
anger, sadness, anxiety and hostility in jealousy-provoking situations and are in line with the main
findings of this study.
At the end of the study, younger and older adults were also asked to indicate (yes or no)
whether they had ever cheated on a romantic partner and whether, to their knowledge, a romantic
partner had been unfaithful to them (type of infidelity was not specified). Chi-square analyses were
conducted to determine whether the percentage of individuals having engaged in infidelity and
percentage of individuals who believed one of their romantic partners had been unfaithful differed by
40
age group. Percentages of younger and older adults responding affirmatively to these statements and
chi-square results are presented in the table below.
Table 13: Chi-Square Results for Infidelity Questions
Young Adults Older Adults χ
2
(N=88) (N=69) (df=1, N=157) p (2-tailed) Adjusted p
Infidelity (Self) 26.1% 34.8% 1.38 0.24 --
Infidelity (Partner) 23.9% 52.2% 13.40 <0.001 .001 x 1 = .001*
Overall, approximately one third of the sample endorsed having cheated on a romantic partner and
percentages did not differ significantly by age group. However, compared to younger adults, a
significantly higher percentage of older adults reported believing that a romantic partner had been
unfaithful to them. Responses to these cheating questions were not found to be correlated with any of
the assessed LIWC codes or ratings of attributions of responsibility. In other words, whether a
participant had experienced infidelity (either had been unfaithful or had been cheated on) was not
associated with articulated emotions or amount of responsibility attributed to partner.
DISCUSSION
While the positivity bias in older adults has been extensively studied, its impact in terms of feelings
and cognitions experienced in romantic relationships is less well examined. The goal of the present
study was thus to see whether the positivity effect in aging extends to the experience of jealousy and
related negative emotions in relationship-threatening situations. In addition, the study examined the
role of attributions of responsibility in these emotional reactions. Employing the ATSS paradigm,
younger and older participants listened and responded to one of two unfolding scenarios, both of
which had one’s partner unexpectedly seen interacting in an intimate manner with an attractive
extradyadic individual (a former romantic interest of one’s partner). The observed behavior of the
research participant’s partner was identical in both of these situations; however, the explanation
suggested for the behavior differed (a method employed by other studies examining attributions). In
the benign (B) attribution ATSS scenario, the romantic partner is helping the extradyadic individual,
41
who is in town for a family emergency, while in the threatening/non-benign (NB) attribution
scenario, the partner is socializing/catching up with the extradyadic individual, who is in town for a
family reunion. It was hypothesized that (1) participants in the non-benign attribution condition
would express more negative emotion compared to those in the benign attribution condition; (2)
compared to younger adults, older adults would articulate less negative emotion in general in
response to both of these scenarios; (3) the positivity effect in older adults would be stronger in the
non-benign condition compared to the benign condition; and (4) the amount of responsibility
attributed to the partner for the events in the observed situation would be associated with participants’
emotional responses to the scenarios.
Results fully supported hypotheses 2 and 4, while hypothesis 1 was partially supported and
hypothesis 3 was not supported. Taken together, these findings suggest that the positivity effect in
older adults extends to emotional reactions in relationship-threatening situations regardless of threat
level and suggest a possible mechanism for this effect (attributions of responsibility). These results
are also consistent with attribution theory in that the higher the attributed responsibility to one’s
partner for the outcome of the situation, the more negative emotions participants articulated in
response to the situation. Each of these findings will now be discussed in more detail.
Hypothesis 1: The non-benign attribution condition will elicit more negative emotions than the
benign condition.
Based on attribution theory and studies documenting an association between perceived threat and
jealousy-related emotions, it was hypothesized that the threatening attribution condition would elicit
more negative affect than the benign condition. Results partially support the main effect of condition
hypothesis: the threatening condition was found to elicit significantly more LIWC-coded anxiety and
jealousy as well as significantly less benefit of the doubt than the benign attribution condition. This
means that participants in the threatening condition reported feeling more worried and jealous as well
42
as expressed less trust in their partners than participants in the benign condition. These findings are in
line with previous studies (e.g., Radecki-Bush, Farrell, & Bush, 1993; Meyer, Olivier, & Roth, 2005)
demonstrating that jealousy and anxiety are positively associated with perceptions of the amount of
threat a situation poses to a romantic relationship.
Though in the predicted direction, statistically significant differences were not found in anger,
aggression, sadness, and suspicion between the two conditions. The lack of differences in these codes
was not due to the absence of a manipulation effect. In fact, both younger and older participants rated
the threatening attribution condition as more threatening than the benign condition and they also
attributed more responsibility to their partners in the threatening condition. The lack of significant
findings is thus surprising, as studies demonstrate that individuals are likely to experience anger and a
desire to reprimand or retaliate in situations where responsibility is attributed to an actor (e.g., one’s
partner) in response to a negative outcome (e.g., Schmidt & Weiner, 1988; Weiner, Graham, &
Chandler, 1982; Zucker & Weiner, 1993).
Hypothesis 2: Younger adults will express more negative jealousy-related emotion, give their
partners less benefit of the doubt, and attribute more responsibility to their partners than older
adults.
It was hypothesized that older adults would express less anger, verbal aggression/hostility, anxiety,
jealousy, and suspicion as well as more benefit of the doubt compared to younger adults. The results
supported this hypothesis for all of the assessed codes. In particular, younger adults expressed more
negative emotion and suspicion than older adults and gave their partners less benefit of the doubt.
These findings are consistent with the vast research examining the positivity effect in older adults and
suggest that this phenomenon also likely extends to the way older individuals respond to situations
that could be threatening to their romantic relationships. To exemplify this difference, articulations
from a younger and older adult in response to the non-benign scenario are presented below:
43
Younger Adult: I am annoyed because I’m pretty jealous so I do not appreciate when my boyfriend
has female friends. So that they’ve been in contact bothers me but I am glad that he asked me to come
along and I will definitely be there because I do not feel comfortable with him having dinner alone
with a female that I don’t even know and that he seems way too excited to go out with. […] I’m very
upset. I feel jealous. I feel mad. I feel disrespected. I’m upset that his phone is off, that he’s too
consumed in being with his ex-girlfriend rather than worrying about where I am and if I’m coming or
thinking about me. His time is being occupied by someone else and that makes me jealous.
Older Adult: I’m happy that he’s going to be able to go out with his friend and I probably will not go
because I won’t know what they’re talking about. If he wants me to go, I’ll go, but otherwise I’ll
probably just let him go by himself and hope they enjoy themselves. I’ll do something interesting
while he’s gone and then when he comes home, I ask him all about it. […] [His phone being off] does
not bother me because a lot of times you can’t even hear your cell phone even when it’s switched on.
So [this situation] is okay with me and I wouldn’t put too much in store to that.
These responses demonstrate that the younger and older participant appraised the situation
differently. In particular, the younger participant appears to have viewed the scenario as more
threatening to her romantic relationship and thus also reacted more strongly to it in terms of negative
emotionality. Indeed, the older adults in the study rated the scenarios as less threatening than the
younger adults and level of perceived threat (across scenario) was found to be positively associated
with expression of jealousy-related negative emotions. When statistically controlling for level of
perceived threat, younger adults still expressed significantly more anger, hostility, and suspicion and
also gave their partners less benefit of the doubt. It thus appears that the age differences in negative
emotions may be partially, but not fully, explained by differences in perceived threat.
As it is impossible to randomly assign participants to different age groups, younger and older
adults also differed on several other key factors that could potentially explain the observed difference
in articulated emotions. First, the two age groups were found to differ in baseline negative mood,
measured by the PANAS, and in depression symptoms over the preceding two weeks, assessed using
the CES-D. More specifically, older adults rated their mood less negatively than younger adults and
also reported fewer depressive symptoms. This is a finding that is well-documented in the literature
(e.g., Craig & Van Natta, 1979; Hertzog, Alstine, Usala, Hultsch, & Dixon, 1990). For example, in a
norming study with over 1000 adults, Crawford and Henry (2004) found a negative association
44
between PANAS negative affect (NA) scores and age. The researchers also found that NA scores
significantly positively correlated with measures of depression, as was the case in the current sample.
Thus, another possible explanation for the observed difference in levels of negative
emotionality between younger and older adults in the current study is that younger adults were
feeling more depressed and were in a more negative mood at the beginning of the experiment. To rule
out this possibility, correlational analyses were conducted to control for these initial discrepancies in
mood and depression symptoms. After doing so, younger adults were still more negatively affected
by the observed situation than older adults in our sample, reporting significantly more anger,
hostility, and suspicion, less benefit of the doubt, and also attributed higher responsibility to their
partners.
Lastly, there was an uneven gender distribution between the younger and older samples.
Sixty-nine percent (69%) of younger adults were female, whereas older adults had an equal gender
distribution (50% female). After statistically controlling for gender in addition to baseline negative
mood and depression, younger adults still expressed more anger, hostility, and suspicion, less benefit
of the doubt, and attributed higher responsibility to their partners.
Hypothesis 3: The association of age and jealousy-related negative emotions will depend on
attribution condition.
The threatening (non-benign) attribution condition was created to elicit higher level of threat and
partner responsibility. It was thus expected that older adults would display the positivity bias more
strongly than younger adults in the threatening attribution condition. This hypothesis was not
supported. In other words, while the conditions differed in terms of threat in the predicted manner,
the association between age and the assessed emotions was not stronger in the non-benign attribution
condition. Both conditions were threatening enough to elicit negative emotion in participants and in
both conditions older adults generally reacted more favorably than younger adults to the unfolding
45
situation. These results suggest that the positivity effect is likely similarly present at both lower and
higher levels of threat within the context of relationship-threatening situations.
Hypothesis 4: There will be a positive association between attributions of responsibility and
articulated negative emotions.
It was hypothesized that higher ratings of partner responsibility would be associated with more
jealousy-related negative emotions. This hypothesis was supported both across and within condition.
In particular, the more responsibility younger and older adults attributed to their partner, the more
negative jealousy-related emotions and suspicion they expressed and the less benefit of the doubt
they gave their partner. These findings are in line with attribution theory and the extensive research
that supports it, which demonstrates that, in various domains (achievement, illness, parenting, etc),
the more responsibility one attributes to an actor for a negative outcome, the more negative emotion
is experienced in response to the actor (e.g., Schmidt & Weiner, 1988; Weiner, Graham, & Chandler,
1982; Zucker & Weiner, 1993; Chavira, Lopez, Blacher & Shapiro, 2000). These findings also
support the few studies that examine attributions in romantic relationships, which suggest that a
partner’s behavior is more likely to elicit jealousy if it is perceived as arising from internal and
controllable causes, which in turn are associated with perceptions of responsibility (e.g., Bauerle,
Amirkhan, & Hupka, 2002).
Gender Differences in Jealousy
Research suggests that women tend to be more emotionally expressive in general (e.g., Grossman &
Wood, 1993). Although findings in the domain of romantic jealousy have been mixed, gender
differences have been documented, with some studies finding that women are more emotionally
reactive in jealousy-provoking situations (e.g., deWeerth & Kalma, 1993; Pines & Friedman, 1998).
Given the composition of the undergraduate subject pool at USC, gender distribution differed by age
group. In particular, more younger adults were female than male, while older adults had an equal
46
gender distribution. The association between gender and the dependent study variables was
examined. When controlling for age, gender was found to be associated with expression of sadness
and suspicion, but not anger, hostility, anxiety, jealousy or benefit of the doubt. In particular, women
were more likely than men to state they were sad and suspicious in response to the scenarios. When
statistically controlling for gender, association between age and some of the assessed LIWC variables
held. In particular, older adults still expressed less anger, hostility, and suspicion, more benefit of the
doubt, and attributed less responsibility to their romantic partners than their younger counterparts.
Thus, the observed age differences in emotion cannot be attributed to gender.
What is it about age that affects jealousy-related emotions?
What accounts for the association between age and lower levels of jealousy-related emotions?
Different possibilities have been proposed and supported by the literature on emotion-regulation in
older age. The first is that older adults intentionally select situations that are likely to lead to more
positive emotional experiences (e.g., Charles et al., 2009) or that older adults change the situations
they are in to improve their emotional state (Gross, 1998). In the current study, neither of these was
the case, as all participants encountered the same situations and did not have control over how the
events in the scenario evolved.
Another possibility is that older adults appraise or interpret the situation more positively so as
to alter their emotional experience (John & Gross, 2004; Shiota & Levenson, 2009). The current
study provides support for this, as older adults were found to be less suspicious and more willing to
give their partners the benefit of the doubt in addition to attributing lower responsibility to their
partners than younger adults. Giving one’s partner the benefit of the doubt and attributing lower
responsibility were also found to be associated with lower levels of jealousy-related emotions.
A final possibility is that older adults perceive the situation the same way and experience the
same initial emotions in response to it but are then simply better at down-regulating their emotions
47
than younger adults. Indeed, studies document that older adults are more motivated to and are more
effective at controlling their emotions (e.g., Blanchard-Fields, 2007; Carstensen, 2006; Gross et al.,
1997; Knight et al., 2007). Although the design of the current study does not allow for the direct
examination of this mechanism, the overall findings do not contradict it, as when controlling for
attributions of responsibility and suspicion, younger adults still verbalized more anger and jealousy in
response to the scenarios. In other words, it is likely that both cognitive reappraisal and other
emotion-regulation strategies contributed to older adults’ lower negative emotionality.
At the end of the study, participants were also interviewed about changes they have noticed in
their jealousy reactions over time and asked what they attribute these changes to. Almost every one of
the older adults in the study reported that they had observed a decrease in jealousy over their lives
and that they believed they would have reacted more strongly to the scenarios as younger adults.
Older participants attributed these changes both to their relationships and to changes within
themselves. Below are some excerpts that illustrate this:
“I do not judge. And I think that just comes from living a little bit longer and not reacting and not
shooting from the hip the way we used to do when we were younger.”
“As you get older in life, you get more perspective on things. Things that set you off as a young man
are water under the bridge, and you realize that things aren’t as bad as they seem.”
“I was more jealous when I was younger. I wasn’t as self-confident and I didn’t know my husband as
well when we were first dating. I attribute these changes to maturity and the teacher of time.”
“I would have been much more bombastic and hostile [as a younger adult]. And my manhood would
have been threatened. I would have hollered, ran through the crowd to get to her. The biggest
difference is how long we’ve been together and all the stuff we’ve been through. In my 20s I wasn’t
aware of my feelings and I definitely couldn’t talk about it. And now I am much more in touch with it
and have language to talk about it.”
“As a younger person, I was jealous and, yes, my jealousy has changed - it has mellowed and gone to
nothing. Over time I have become more religious. I have become more aware of my religion. I think
I’m comforted by life.”
“I’ve not been jealous in decades due to confidence in my relationship with my wife, wisdom coming
from experience, and just over time developing a more forgiving nature.”
48
“As you get older, as you mature, you realize that in the bigger scheme of things, this is just not that
critical. You know it’s not the hill to die on. And you just have to get over it. There are much more
important to things to focus on. Because you are just more centered, hopefully. It’s then you realize
that everybody is flawed and you have to make space for that.”
The themes that emerge from this qualitative assessment are in line with existing studies and yield
valuable information that can guide future studies in disentangling the association between age and
decreased negative emotions in romantic relationships.
Limitations and Strengths
The current study examined age differences in emotional and cognitive responses using a controlled
laboratory-based think-aloud paradigm. Limitations are discussed in order to qualify findings and
guide future research in this domain.
First, it is important to note that the current sample consisted of healthy older adults in current
romantic relationships. These were individuals who were generally highly educated, who were able to
come to USC’s campus on their own, who were not experiencing any significant cognitive decline,
and who rated their own health as higher than average compared to others their age. Although the
study aimed to recruit a representative sample from the greater Los Angeles area, the sample may not
be representative of the general population of older adults, some of whom are experiencing chronic
illness, are physically challenged, and are experiencing cognitive decline.
Many studies in the field of aging are cross-sectional and all such research is marked by
inherent limitations. Any differences found between younger and older adults may be either age or
cohort related. This means that older and younger adults could have differed in their emotional
responses because of the influence of social norms, experiences, and events that are different for the
two age groups rather than because of developmental changes that occur with age. For example, it is
possible that concepts of monogamy, intimate relationships, and infidelity may differ between
younger and older adults and may manifest in articulated thoughts and feelings. Thus, different
behaviors may be viewed by younger and older adults as constituting infidelity and thus elicit
49
different emotional responses. Older adults could have perhaps also been less threatened and upset by
the scenarios because in previous generations infidelity was a less frequent occurrence and there were
stronger social norms regarding sexual exclusivity in romantic relationships. This possibility was
evaluated in the current study. Approximately one third of the sample endorsed having cheated on a
romantic partner and percentages did not differ significantly by age group. However, compared to
younger adults, more than twice as many older adults reported believing that a romantic partner had
been unfaithful to them (24% vs 52%). Responses to these two cheating questions were not found to
predict any of the assessed emotional responses or ratings of attributions of responsibility. In other
words, whether a participant had experienced infidelity (either had been unfaithful or believed he/she
had been cheated on) was not associated with articulated emotions or amount of responsibility
attributed to partner.
By virtue of their age, older adults were found, on average, to be in romantic relationships of
longer duration than younger adults and it could be argued that this explains the association between
age and emotional responses in the current study. For example, Aune & Comstock (1997) found a
linear relationship between what they labeled as jealousy and level of relationship development
(essentially duration). Participants in that study were undergraduates (age range 18 to 52, mean=24.7)
who retrospectively reported on recently experienced "unpleasant emotional reactions" in response to
a partner’s "relationship with someone [else] or involvement with someone or something that did not
include [the participant]”. Participants rated the intensity of the emotional experience and these
ratings were found to negatively correlate with relationship duration. In the current study relationship
length was also found to be significantly negatively correlated with expressions of anger, hostility,
anxiety, jealousy and suspicion as well as positively correlated with giving one’s partner the benefit
of the doubt. However, when statistically controlling for relationship length, the association between
age and five of the assessed variables (anger, hostility, sadness, suspicion, and benefit of the doubt)
50
remained significant. Furthermore, data on the characteristics of participants’ romantic relationships
were collected. In particular, level of satisfaction, commitment, and investment in the relationship
and the perceived satisfaction, commitment, and investment of partners were assessed, as these
variables are more likely to influence jealousy and other emotional/behavioral responses to infidelity
threat than relationship duration per se. These relationship variables were not found to be
significantly different between the younger and older adult groups and thus are not likely to explain
the observed differences in expressed emotion. Nevertheless, future research could benefit from
recruitment of older adults in newer relationships in order to assess whether the findings of the
current study similarly apply to them.
Ultimately, all cross sectional studies have flaws that are difficult to address. However,
greater relationship experience and longer relationship duration in older adults reflect the natural state
of the world. It is very important to tease apart the effects of age, relationship experience, and cohort.
However, a necessary first step is to compare younger and older adults, as the current study did.
Future research may benefit from inclusion of participants of all ages rather than two distinct age
groups. This would allow for the examination of the effects of age as a continuous variable on
jealousy-related emotional responses and the detection of any non-linear effects over time. In order to
disentangle cohort effects, future research could employ a longitudinal design, in which the same
adults are assessed over time. Given the time frame of the current project, a longitudinal study was
not feasible.
Possible effects of culture on jealousy were not examined in the current study. Hupka (1981)
suggests that cultural factors such as attitudes towards ownership of property, pair-bonding, and
sexual activity affect which situations are perceived as threatening to a relationship. For example,
societies in which premarital sex is shunned and in which a mate is needed in order to survive
economically are more likely to be highly sensitive to jealousy-provoking situations. Using a
51
questionnaire measure, Hupka and colleagues (1985) empirically demonstrated that situations can
elicit different intensity of romantic jealousy across seven nations (US, Mexico, Ireland, Hungary, the
Netherlands, Soviet Union, Yugoslavia). However, the authors found that many of the same concerns
give rise to romantic jealousy across cultures. For example, all seven cultures emphasized
relationship exclusivity and a desire to be the primary person from whom their partner receives
attention and satisfaction. Cross-cultural research (Hupka et al., 1985; Hupka et al., 1993) also
demonstrates that individuals from different nations describe jealousy similarly in terms of associated
emotional states such as anger, loneliness, sadness, and uneasiness, as well as in terms of associated
physiological symptoms such as heart beating faster and stomach discomfort. It should be noted that
all of the participants in the current study were fluent in English and currently residing in the United
States, which suggests a certain level of cultural similarity between the participants (likely more so
than in cross-cultural research comparing individuals residing in different nations). Thus, it is
unlikely for cultural differences to fully explain the obtained results. Nevertheless, future studies
could examine this question empirically.
Research on jealousy also has certain ethical constraints and generally relies on responses to
hypothetical situations or retrospective self or other report. These approaches are subject to biases.
For example, studies (e.g., Thomas & Diener, 1990) document that individuals tend to misestimate
the intensity and frequency of emotions in their retrospective recall of events. Affective forecasting
(or prediction of future emotion) has also been found to be susceptible to similar imprecision, with
the intensity and duration of emotion being frequently overestimated (e.g., Wilson & Gilbert, 2005;
Ayton, Pott, & Elwakili, 2007). By asking the participant to imagine that a situation described in
detail is occurring right now and assessing thoughts and emotions as they occur, the ATSS has an
advantage.
As discussed, the current study employed hypothetical scenarios, which participants were
52
asked to imagine themselves in. Thus, intensity of expressed emotions may have been affected by
participants’ ability or motivation to engage in the scenario. This is again also the case with other
self-report methods and, in the current study, participants generally reported that they were able to
imagine the scenarios vividly and rated their articulations as highly similar to those in real life
situations. Furthermore, despite its limitations, the use of hypothetical scenarios to assess thoughts
and feelings in relationship-threatening situations is frequently found in studies of jealousy (e.g.,
Shackelford et al., 2004).
A more idiosyncratic limitation of the current study relates to the decision not to use human
coder content-analysis of participants’ data (the approach more commonly followed in the ATSS
literature). Computerized coding using transcriptions of participants’ verbalizations was used to
remove any possible coder bias in the interpretation of the articulations of younger and older adults,
resulting from knowledge of the age category a participant falls into (based on their voice and/or
other statements they may make in response to the ATSS scenarios). Research demonstrates that the
voices and speech characteristics of younger and older adults differ systematically (e.g., An Xue &
Deliyski, 2001; Benjamin, 1981), allowing for listeners to identify the age of speakers fairly
accurately (Ptacek & Sander, 1966). Older adults have also been found to generally speak at a slower
rate than younger adults (Smith, Wasowicz, & Preston, 1987) and speech rate is associated with
emotional tone (Siegman & Boyle, 1993). Thus, the main benefit of the LIWC approach employed in
this study is that ratings of emotion were not influenced by natural differences found in the speech of
younger and older adults as well as knowledge of which experimental condition the participant was
in. However, computerized text analysis such as the one used by this study has the disadvantage of
overlooking paralinguistic features such volume and tone, which could have affected coder ratings of
emotion in a valid manner. Nevertheless, significant age differences were found in the hypothesized
direction. As a result, the use of computerized coding appears to have been suitable for the purposes
53
of the current study. Future research may benefit from the use and comparison of both human and
computerized coding in order to empirically assess any potential differences.
In addition, emotional reactions were assessed based on participants’ free format
verbalizations in response to the scenarios (a characteristic of the ATSS). While this provides a
significant advantage in that responses are not limited to preset categories, a potential disadvantage is
that participants can choose which specific thoughts and emotions to share and must also be attuned
to the emotions they are experiencing in order to verbalize them. This is, of course, an issue that
affects all measures of emotion that are based on self-report including questionnaires, interviews, etc.
Despite the abovementioned limitations, the current study provides an important contribution
to the aging and romantic relationship literature. To begin with, to the author’s knowledge, this study
is novel in its combining the research domains of aging, attributions, and jealousy and provides
evidence that the positivity effect applies to thoughts and feelings in romantic relationships. Second,
the present study’s use of the ATSS method allowed for thoughts and emotions to the same,
experimenter-controlled unfolding situations to be captured. Therefore, the use of coping strategies
such as avoiding a potentially unpleasant interaction or leaving a potentially uncomfortable situation,
which older adults have been found to employ in daily living (Charles et al., 2009), was ruled out. By
asking younger and older participants to engage in the same scenarios, which depicted their partner’s
behavior in the same way, the reactions of younger and older adults could be more reliably compared.
Third, the ATSS paradigm allowed for the control of time and timing. Young and older adults were
asked to respond at the same predetermined times during the scenarios and were given the same
amount of time to verbalize their thoughts and feelings. This is a big advantage because assessment
happens in an online, immediate fashion, thus removing any possible recall difficulties or memory
biases characteristic of retrospective reports. Fourth, certain characteristics that have been found to
differ between younger and older adults were assessed and accounted for. This included baseline
54
differences in mood and depression symptoms as well as in rate of speech. Taken together, the
innovativeness, design, and analytic approach of the study are its main strengths.
Summary and Conclusions
The present study examined younger and older adults’ ongoing thoughts and feelings in response to a
relationship-threatening situation using experimenter-controlled hypothetical scenarios (the ATSS
paradigm). We found age-related positivity effects in expressed anger, hostility, suspicion and giving
one’s partner the benefit of the doubt as well as in attributions of responsibility. In other words, older
adults were found to react less negatively to the presented jealousy-provoking situations. On
interview, older participants generally attributed these changes both to characteristics of their
relationships and to changes within themselves such as maturity, wisdom and a more forgiving
nature. We further found that amount of attributed responsibility to one’s partner was positively
associated with expressions of negative emotionality and suspicion and negatively associated with
giving one’s partner the benefit of the doubt. These results are consistent with prior research in the
domains of aging and attributions. These findings are interpreted as supporting older adults’ superior
ability to effectively regulate their emotional reactions in the romantic relationship realm possibly by
providing more benign explanations for their partner’s ambiguous behavior.
55
REFERENCES
Akiyama, H., Antonucci, T., Takahashi, K., & Langfahl, E. (2003). Negative interactions in
close relationships across the life span. Journal of Gerontology Series B: Psychological
Sciences, 58, 70-79.
Aldwin, C. M. (1991). Does age affect the stress and coping process? Implications of age differences
in perceived control. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 46, 174–180.
Aldwin, C.M. (2007). Stress, Coping and Development: An Integrative Approach (2nd ed.). New
York, NY: Guilford.
Aldwin, C. M., Sutton, K. J., Chiara, G., & Spiro, A. (1996). Age differences in stress, coping, and
appraisal: Findings from the normative aging study. Journal of Gerontology Series B:
Psychological Sciences, 51(4), 179-188.
Aune, K. & Comstock, J. (1997). Effect of relationship length on the experience, expression, and
perceived appropriateness of jealousy. Journal of Social Psychology, 137(1), 23-31.
An Xue, S. & Deliyski, D. (2001). Effects of aging on selected acoustic voice parameters:
preliminary normative data and educational implications. Educational Gerontology, 27, 159–
168.
Armitage, S. (1946). Analysis of certain psychological tests used for the evaluation of brain
damage. Psychological Monographs, 60(1), 30-34.
Ayton, P., Pott, A., & Elwakili, N. (2007). Affective forecasting: Why can’t people predict their
emotions? Thinking & Reasoning, 13, 62–80.
Bauerle, S., Amirkhan, J., & Hupka, R. (2002). An attribution theory analysis of romantic jealousy.
Motivation and Emotion, 26(4), 297-319.
Beekman, A., Deeg, D., Limbeek, J. van, Braam, A., Vries, M. de, & Tilburg, W. van (1997).
Criterion validity of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale (CES-D):
56
Results from a community-based sample of older adults in the Netherlands.
Psychological Medicine, 27, 231-235.
Benjamin, B. J. (1981). Frequency variability in the aged voice. Journal of Gerontology, 36, 722–
726.
Birditt, K., & Fingerman, K. (2003). Age and gender differences in adults’ descriptions of
emotional reactions to interpersonal problems. Journals of Gerontology, Series B:
Psychological Sciences, 58, 237–245.
Birditt, K., & Fingerman, K. (2005). Do we get better at picking our battles? Age group differences
in descriptions of behavioral reactions to interpersonal tensions. Journal of Gerontology
Series B: Psychological Sciences, 60(3), 121-128.
Birditt, K., Fingerman, K. & Almeida, D. (2005). Age differences in exposure and reactions to
interpersonal tensions: A daily diary study. Psychology and Aging, 20(2), 330 -340.
Blanchard-Fields, F. (2007). Everyday problem solving and emotion: An adult developmental
perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 26-31.
Blanchard-Fields, F., Stein, R., & Watson, T.L. (2004). Age Differences in Emotion-Regulation
Strategies in Handling Everyday Problems. Journals of Gerontology Series B:
Psychological Sciences, 59(6), 261-269.
Buunk, B. (1982). Strategies of jealousy: Styles of coping with extramarital involvement of spouse.
Family Relations, 31, 13–18.
Buunk, B. (1984). Jealousy as related to attributions for the partner's behavior. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 47(1), 107-112.
Carstensen, L.L. (2006). The influence of a sense of time on human development. Science, 312,
1913-1915.
Carstensen, L.L., Fung, H., & Charles, S. (2003) Socioemotional selectivity theory and the
57
regulation of emotion in the second half of life. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 103-123.
Carstensen, L.L., Gottman, J.M., & Levenson, R.W. (1995). Emotional behavior in long-term
marriage. Psychology and Aging, 10(1), 140–49.
Carstensen, L. L., Gross, J., & Fung, H. (1997). The social context of emotion. Annual Review of
Geriatrics and Gerontology, 17, 325-352.
Carstensen, L.L., Isaacowitz, D.M., & Charles, S.T. (1999). Taking time seriously: A theory of
socioemotional selectivity. American Psychologist, 54, 165-181.
Carstensen, L. L., Pasupathi, M., Mayr, U., & Nesselroade, J. R. (2000). Emotional experience in
everyday life across the adult life span. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79,
644–655.
Charles, S. T., & Carstensen, L. L. (2007). Emotion regulation and aging. In J. J. Gross (Ed.),
Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 307-328). New York: Guilford Press.
Charles, S.T. & Carstensen, L.L. (2008). Unpleasant situations elicit different emotional responses
in younger and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 23, 495-504.
Charles, S. T., Mather, M., & Carstensen, L. L. (2003). Aging and emotional memory: The
forgettable nature of negative images for older adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 132, 310-324.
Charles, S. T., Reynolds, C. A., & Gatz, M. (2001). Age-related differences and change in positive
and negative affect over 23 years. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 136–
151.
Craig, T., & Van Natta, P. (1979). Influence of Demographic Characteristics on Two Measures of
Depressive Symptoms: The relation of prevalence and persistence of symptoms with sex, age,
education, and marital status. Archives of General Psychiatry, 36(2), 149-154.
58
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Evolutionary social psychology and family homicide. Science, 242,
519-524.
Davison, G. C., Robins, C., & Johnson, M. K. (1983). Articulated thoughts during simulated
situations: A paradigm for studying cognition in emotion and behavior. Cognitive Therapy
and Research, 7, 17-39.
Davison, G. C., Vogel, R. S., & Coffman, S. G. (1997). Think-aloud approaches to cognitive
assessment and the articulated thoughts in simulated situations paradigm. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 950-958.
deWeerth, C., & Kalma, A. P. (1993). Female aggression as a response to sexual jealousy: A sex role
reversal? Aggressive Behavior, 19, 265-279.
Diehl, M., Coyle, N., & Labouvie-Vief, G. (1996). Age and sex differences in strategies of
coping and defense across the life span. Psychology and Aging, 11(1), 127-139).
Dutton, D. G., van Ginkel, C., & Landolt, M. A. (1996). Jealousy, intimate abusiveness, and
intrusiveness. Journal of Family Violence, 11, 411-423.
Field, D., & Minkler, M. (1988). Continuity and change in social support between young-old, old-
old, and very old adults. Journal of Gerontology, 43, 100-106.
Fleischmann, A., Spitzberg, B., Andersen, P., & Roesch, S. (2005). Tickling the monster: Jealousy
induction in relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(1), 49–73.
Folstein, M, Folstein, S., & McHugh, P. (1975). Mini-mental state. A practical method for grading
the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12(3), 189-
98.
Foreman, M. (1987). Reliability and validity of mental status questionnaires in elderly hospitalized
patients. Nursing Research, 36, 216–220.
Frattaroli, J. (2006). Experimental disclosure and its moderators: A meta-analysis. Psychological
59
Bulletin, 132(6), 823–865.
Gagnon, M., Letenneur, L., Dartigues, J., Commenges, D., Orgogozo, J., Barberger-Gateau, P.,
Alpérovitch, A., Décamps, A., & Salamon, R. (1990). Validity of the Mini-Mental State
Examination as a screening instrument for cognitive impairment and dementia in French
elderly community residents. Neuroepidemiology, 9, 143–150.
Gross, J. J. (1998). Antecedent- and response-focused emotion regulation: Divergent consequences
for experience, expression, and physiology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74,
224-237.
Gross, J. J., Carstensen, L. L., Pasupathi, M., Tsai, J., Skorpen, C., & Hsu, A. (1997). Emotion and
aging: Experience, expression, and control. Psychology and Aging, 12, 590–599.
Grossman, M., & Wood, W. (1993). Gender differences in intensity of emotional experience: A
social role interpretation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1010-1022.
Guerrero, L. K., Andersen, P. A., Jorgensen, P. F., Spitzberg, B. H., & Eloy, S. V. (1995). Coping
with the green-eyed monster: Conceptualizing and measuring communicative responses to
romantic jealousy. Western Journal of Communication, 59, 270–304.
Guerrero, L. K., & Eloy, S. V. (1992). Relational satisfaction and jealousy across marital types.
Communication Reports, 5, 23–41.
Guerrero, L. K., Spitzberg, B. H., & Yoshimura, S. M. (2004). Sexual and emotional jealousy.
In J. H. Harvey, A. Wenzel, & S. Sprecher (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality in close
relationships (pp. 311–345). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Guerrero, L. K., & Andersen, P. A. (1998b). Jealousy experience and expression in romantic
relationships. In P. A. Andersen & L. K. Guerrero (Eds.), Handbook of communication and
emotion (pp. 155–188). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Hall, J., & Fincham, F. (2006). Relationship dissolution following infidelity: The roles of attributions
60
and forgiveness. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25(5), 508-522.
Hasin, D. S., Goodwin, R. D., Stinson, F. S., Grant, B. F. (2005). Epidemiology of major depressive
disorder: Results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcoholism and Related
Conditions. Archives of General Psychiatry, 62, 1097–1106.
Hertzog, C., Alstine, J. v., Usala, P., Hultsch, D. & Dixon, R. (1990). Measurement properties of the
center for epidemiological studies depression scale (CES-D) in older populations.
Psychological Assessment, 2, 64-72.
Hoops, S., Nazem, S., Siderowf, D., Duda, J., Xie, X., Stern, M., & Weintraub, D. (2009).
Validity of the MoCA and MMSE in the detection of MCI and dementia in Parkinson
disease. Neurology, 73(21), 1738-1745.
House, J., Landis, K., & Umberson, D. (1988). Social Relationships and Health. Science, 241, 540-
544.
Hsu, K.J., Babeva, K., Feng. M.C., Hummer, J.F., & Davison, G.C. (2014). Experimentally induced
distraction impacts cognitive but not emotional processes in cognitive think-aloud assessment.
Frontiers in Psychology, 5: 474.
Hupka, R. B. (1981). Cultural determinants of jealousy. Alternative Lifestyles, 4(3), 310-356.
Hupka, R. B. (1984). Jealousy: Compound emotion or label for a particular situation? Motivation
and Emotion, 8,141-155
Hupka, R. B., Buunk, B., Falus, G., Fulgosi, A., Ortega, E., Swain, R., & Tarabrina, N. V.
(1985). Romantic jealousy and romantic envy: A seven-nation study. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 16(4), 423-446.
Hupka, R. B., Otto, J., Tarabrina, N. V., & Reidl, L. (1993). Cross-cultural comparisons of nouns
associated with jealousy and the related emotions of envy, anger, and fear. Cross-Cultural
Research, 27(3-4), 181-211.
61
Isaacowitz, D. M., Toner, K., Goren, D, & Wilson, H. (2008). Looking while unhappy. Mood-
congruent gaze in young adults, positive gaze in older adults. Psychological Science, 19, 848-
853.
John, O. P., & Gross, J. J. (2004). Healthy and unhealthy emotion regulation: Personality processes,
individual differences, and lifespan development. Journal of Personality, 72, 1301-1334.
Jorm, A., Broe, G., Creasey, H., Sulway, M., Dent, O., Fairley, M., Kos, S., & Tennant, C. (1996).
Further data on the validity of the Informant Questionnaire on Cognitive Decline in the
Elderly (IQCODE). International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 11, 131–139.
Knight, M., Seymour, T. L., Gaunt, J. T., Nesmith, K., & Mather, M. (2007). Aging and goal-directed
emotional attention: Distraction reverses emotional biases. Emotion, 7, 705-714.
Knight, R., Williams, S., McGee, R., & Olaman, S. (1997). Psychometric properties of the Center for
Epidemiological Studies—Depression Scale (CES-D) in a sample of women in middle life.
Journal of Behavior Research and Therapy, 35, 373–380.
Lawton, M. P., Kleban, M. H., Rajagopal, D., & Dean, J. (1992). Dimensions of affective experience
in three age groups. Psychology and Aging, 7, 171–184.
Lepore, S. J., & Smyth, J. M. (2002). The Writing Cure: How Expressive Writing Promotes Health
and Emotional Well-Being. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Levenson, R.W., Carstensen, L.L. & Gottman, J.M. (1993). Long-term marriage: Age, gender and
satisfaction. Psychology and Aging, 8, 301-313.
Mather, M., & Carstensen, L.L. (2003). Aging and attentional biases for emotional faces.
Psychological Science, 14, 409-415.
Mather, M., & Knight, M. (2005). Goal-directed memory: The role of cognitive control in older
adults' emotional memory. Psychology and Aging, 20, 554-570.
Mathes, E. W. (1991). A cognitive theory of jealousy. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The psychology of
62
jealousy and envy (pp. 52-77). NY: Guilford Press.
Mathes, E. W., & Severa, N. (1981). Jealousy, romantic love, and liking: Theoretical considerations
and preliminary scale development. Psychological Reports, 49(1), 23-31.
McAdams, D. P. (1984). Human motives and personal relationships. In V. J. Derlega (Ed.),
Communication, intimacy, and close relationships (pp. 41–70). Orlando, FL: Academic
Press.
Meyer, B., Olivier, L., & Roth, D. (2005). Please don’t leave me! BIS/BAS, attachment styles, and
responses to a relationship threat. Personality and Individual Differences, 38(1), 151–162.
Mikels, J. A., Larkin, G. R., Reuter-Lorenz, P. A., & Carstensen, L. L. (2005). Divergent trajectories
in the aging mind: Changes in working memory for affective versus visual information with
age. Psychology and Aging, 20, 542-553.
Mroczek, D. K., & Kolarz, C. M. (1998). The effect of age on positive and negative affect: A
developmental perspective on happiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
75(5), 1333-1349.
Naughton, M. J., & Wiklund, I. (1993). A critical review of dimension-specific measures of health-
related quality of life in cross-cultural research. Quality of Life Research, 2, 397–432.
O’Connor D., Pollitt, P., Hyde J., Fellows, J., Miller, N., Brooks, C., Reiss, B. (1989). The reliability
and validity of the Mini-Mental State in a British community survey. Journal of Psychiatric
Research, 23, 87–96.
Olin, J. & Zelinsky, E. (1991). The 12-month reliability of the Mini-Mental State Examination.
Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 3(3), 427-432.
Parrott, W. G., & Smith, R. (1993). Distinguishing the experiences of envy and jealousy. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(6), 906-920.
63
Pennebaker, J. W. (1997). Writing about emotional experiences as a therapeutic process.
Psychological Science, 8, 162-166.
Pines, A. & Friedman, A. (1998). Gender differences in romantic jealousy. Journal of Social
Psychology, 138(1), 54-71.
Ptacek, P. H., & Sander, E. K. (1966). Age recognition from voice. Journal of Speech and Hearing
Research, 9, 273–277.
Radecki-Bush, C., Farrell, A., & Bush, J. (1993). Predicting jealous responses: The influence of
adult attachment and depression on threat appraisal. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 10(4), 569-588.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general
population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401.
Radloff, L. S., & Teri, L. (1986). Use of the Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale
with older adults. Clinical Gerontologist, 5, 119–135.
Rook, K. S., & Pietromonaco, P. (1987). Close relationships: Ties that heal or ties that bind?" In W.
H. Jones & D. Pearlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships (Vol.1, pp.1–35).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Salovey, P., & Rodin, J. (1988). Coping with envy and jealousy. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 7, 15–33.
Salovey, P., & Rothman, A.J. (1991). Envy and jealousy: Self and society. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The
psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. 271–286). New York: Guilford Press.
Schmidt, G., & Weiner, B. (1988). An attribution-affect-action theory of motivated behavior:
Replications examining judgments of help-giving. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 14, 610-621.
64
Sedikides, C., Oliver, M.B., & Campbell, W. K. (1994). Perceived benefits and costs of romantic
relationships for women and men: Implications for exchange theory. Personal
Relationships, 1, 5-21.
Shackelford, T.K., Voracek, M., Schmitt, D.P., Buss, D.M, Weekes-Shackelford, V., & Michalski,
R. (2004). Romantic jealousy in early adulthood and in later life. Human Nature, 15(3), 283-
300.
Sharpsteen, D. J. (1991). The organization of jealousy knowledge: Romantic jealousy as a blended
emotion. In P. Salovey (Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. 31–51). New York:
Guilford Press.
Sharpsteen, D. J., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1997). Romantic jealousy and adult romantic attachment.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 627–640.
Sheets, V. L., Fredendall, L. L., & Claypool, H. M. (1997). Jealousy evocation, partner reassurance,
and relationship stability: An exploration of the potential benefits of jealousy. Evolution and
Human Behavior, 18, 387–402.
Shiota, M.N., & Levenson, R.W. (2009). Effects of aging on experimentally instructed detached
reappraisal, positive reappraisal, and emotional behavior suppression. Psychology and Aging,
24, 890–900.
Siegman, A., & Boyle, S. (1993). Voices of fear and anxiety and sadness and depression: The
effects of speech rate and loudness on fear and anxiety and sadness and depression.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102, 430–437.
Smith, B. L., Wasowics, J., & Preston, J. (1987). Temporal characteristics of the speech of normal
elderly adults. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 30, 522–529
Strauss, E., Sherman, E., & Spreen, O. (2006). A compendium of neuropsychological tests:
Administration, norms, and commentary. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
65
Tausczik, Y.R., and Pennebaker, J.W. (2010). The Psychological Meaning of Words: LIWC and
Computerized Text Analysis Methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29, 24–
54.
Thomas, D., & Diener, E. (1990). Memory accuracy in the recall of emotions. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 59(2), 291-297.
Tombaugh, T., McDowell, I., Kristjansson, B. & Hubley, A. (1996). Mini-Mental State Examination
(MMSE) and the Modified MMSE (3MS): A psychometric comparison and normative data.
Psychological Assessment, 8(1), 48-59.
Tombaugh, T. & McIntyre, N. (1992). The mini-mental state examination: a comprehensive review.
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 40(9), 922-935.
Uhlmann, R., Larson, E., & Buchner, E. (1986). Correlations of Mini-Mental State and Modified
Dementia Rating Scale to measures of transitional health status in dementia. Journal of
Gerontology, 42(1), 223–228.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of
positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070.
Wechsler, D. A. (1997). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: The
Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (2002). WAIS-III/WMS-III technical manual, updated. San Antonio, TX: The
Psychological Corporation.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological
Review, 92, 548–573.
Weiner, B. (1993). On sin versus sickness: A theory of perceived responsibility and social
motivation. American Psychologist, 48(9), 957-965.
66
Weiner, B. (1995). Judgments of responsibility: A foundation for a theory of social conduct. New
York: Guilford Press.
Weiner, B., Amirkham, J., Folkes, V. S. and Verette, J. A. (1987) An attributional analysis of
excuse giving: studies of a naive theory of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 52, 316-324.
Weiner, B., Graham, S., & Chandler, C. (1982). Causal antecedents of pity, and anger, and guilt.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 226–232.
White, G. L., & Mullen, P. E. (1989). Jealousy: Theory, research, and clinical applications. New
York: Guilford.
Whitney, K., Shepard, P, Mariner, J., Mossbarger, B., & Herman, S. (2010). Validity of the
Wechsler Test of Adult Reading (WTAR): Effort considered in a clinical sample of U.S.
military veterans. Applied Neuropsychology,17(3),196-204.
Wilson, T., & Gilbert, D. (2005). Affective forecasting: Knowing what to want. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 14(3), 131-134.
Winkeler, M., Filipp, S., & Boll, T. (2000). Positivity in the aged's perceptions of intergenerational
relationships: A "stake" or "leniency" effect? International Journal of Behavioral
Development, 24(2), 173-182.
Zucker, C. S., & Weiner, B. (1993). Conservatism and perceptions of poverty: An attributional
analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 925-943.
67
Appendix A: Flowchart of Study Procedures
Agree to participate:
Information Sheet
Questionnaires/Measures:
Demographic Information
Modified PANAS (1st
administration)
CES-D
MMSE
Digit Span
WTAR
ATSS portion:
Collect current relationship information
Instructions & practice scenario
Low Threat Scenario High Threat Scenario
Post-ATSS Measures:
Modified PANAS (2nd
administration)
Post-scenario questionnaire (incl. measure of attributions)
Manipulation Check / Debriefing questionnaire
68
Appendix B: Current Affective State
This scale consists of a number of words that describe different feelings and emotions. Read each item
and then mark the appropriate answer in the space next to that word. Indicate to what extent you are
feeling this way right now. Use the following scale to record your answers.
1 = Very slightly or not at all
2 = A little
3 = Moderately
4 = Quite a bit
5 = Extremely
_____ Interested
_____ Distressed
_____ Excited
_____ Upset
_____ Strong
_____ Guilty
_____ Scared
_____ Hostile
_____ Enthusiastic
_____ Proud
_____ Irritable
_____ Alert
_____ Ashamed
_____ Inspired
_____ Nervous
_____ Determined
_____ Attentive
_____ Jittery
_____ Active
_____ Afraid
_____ Hurt
_____ Angry
_____ Happy
_____ Jealous
_____ Confident
_____ Satisfied
_____ Betrayed
_____ Distrustful
_____ Relaxed
_____ Rejected
_____ Amused
_____ Reassured
_____ Sad
_____ Suspicious
_____ Surprised
_____ Threatened
_____ Flattered
_____ Calm
_____ Humiliated
_____ Optimistic
69
Appendix C: The Center for Epidemiological Studies – Depression Scale
Below is a list of the ways you may have felt of behaved recently. For each statement, check the box
that best describes how often you have felt this way during the past two weeks.
1= Rarely or none of the time (less than 1 day)
2= Some or a little of the time (1-2 days)
3= Occasionally or a moderate amount of time (3-4 days)
4= Most or all of the time (5-7days)
DURING THE PAST TWO WEEKS:
1. I was bothered by things that don’t usually bother me. 1 2 3 4
2. I did not feel like eating; my appetite was poor. 1 2 3 4
3. I felt that I could not shake the blues even with help from
my family or friends. 1 2 3 4
4. I felt that I was just as good as other people. 1 2 3 4
5. I had trouble keeping my mind on what I was doing. 1 2 3 4
6. I felt depressed. 1 2 3 4
7. I felt that everything I did was an effort. 1 2 3 4
8. I felt hopeful about the future. 1 2 3 4
9. I thought my life had been a failure. 1 2 3 4
10. I felt tearful. 1 2 3 4
11. My sleep was restless. 1 2 3 4
12. I was happy. 1 2 3 4
13. I talked less than usual. 1 2 3 4
14. I felt lonely. 1 2 3 4
15. People were unfriendly. 1 2 3 4
16. I enjoyed life. 1 2 3 4
17. I had crying spells. 1 2 3 4
18. I felt sad. 1 2 3 4
19. I felt that people disliked me. 1 2 3 4
20. I could not get “going.” 1 2 3 4
70
Appendix D: Questions about Current Relationship
For this experiment you will be asked to imagine your current romantic relationship. Please think
about your current partner and provide the information below (please do not include names).
Partner being imagined (e.g., boyfriend/girlfriend, husband/wife, etc.)_____________________
Approximate relationship start date:_____________________________________________
Approximate relationship duration:_____________________________________________
How satisfied are you overall with the relationship?
0--------------1--------------2--------------3--------------4--------------5--------------6
Not at all Moderately Extremely
How satisfied is your partner overall with the relationship?
0--------------1--------------2--------------3--------------4--------------5--------------6
Not at all Moderately Extremely
How committed are you to the relationship?
0--------------1--------------2--------------3--------------4--------------5--------------6
Not at all Moderately Extremely
How committed is your partner to the relationship?
0--------------1--------------2--------------3--------------4--------------5--------------6
Not at all Moderately Extremely
How invested are you to the relationship?
0--------------1--------------2--------------3--------------4--------------5--------------6
Not at all Moderately Extremely
How invested is your partner to the relationship?
0--------------1--------------2--------------3--------------4--------------5--------------6
Not at all Moderately Extremely
71
Appendix E: Pre-ATSS Questionnaire
All information provided will remain confidential and will not be associated with your name.
1. Assigned ID:_______________
2. Gender:
a. Male
b. Female
3. Age:_______
4. Occupation (current or most recent)_______________________________
5. Years of Education Completed
a. High School Graduate
b. College Freshman
c. College Sophomore
d. College Junior
e. College Senior
f. Master’s Degree
g. Other:________________
6. Are you currently a student?
a. Yes
b. No
7. Ethnicity
a. American Indian or Alaska Native
b. Asian
c. Black or African American
d. Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
e. Hispanic/Latino
f. Caucasian (Non-Hispanic Origin)
g. Other:_____________________
8. What is your native language?
a. English
b. Other (please specify):__________________
If other, age at which you became fluent in English: ________
9. How would you describe your sexual orientation?
a. Heterosexual
b. Bisexual
c. Homosexual
d. Other:____________________
10. What is your current relationship status? (circle one)
Single Dating Cohabiting Married Separated Divorced Widowed
72
11. How serious is your current romantic relationship?
0--------------1--------------2--------------3--------------4--------------5--------------6
Not at all Moderately Extremely
12. Approximately how many serious relationships have you had in your life? ________
13. What is the duration of your longest romantic relationship? _______________
14. Have you ever been divorced?
a. Yes
b. No
15. How many children do you have?_____________
16. Compared to other people your age, you believe your overall health to be
(circle a number):
1----------2----------3----------4----------5----------6----------7----------8----------9----------10
Poor Average Excellent
17. Have you ever been diagnosed with any serious health conditions?
a. Yes
b. No
If so, please describe:
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
18. Are you currently taking any medication?
a. Yes
b. No
If so, please provide names (if you can’t remember the name or do not want to share it, please
describe the type of drug – for example, write “blood pressure medication”)
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
73
Appendix F: Post-ATSS Questionnaire
[Attributions of Responsibility Scale]
To what extent is your partner to blame for the way the situation you just witnessed unfolded?
0--------------1--------------2--------------3--------------4--------------5--------------6
Not at all Moderately Extremely
To what extent did your partner mean for the situation to unfold in this way?
0--------------1--------------2--------------3--------------4--------------5--------------6
Not at all Moderately Extremely
To what extent could your partner have created a different situation?
0--------------1--------------2--------------3--------------4--------------5--------------6
Not at all Moderately Extremely
To what extent is your partner responsible for the way the situation unfolded?
0--------------1--------------2--------------3--------------4--------------5--------------6
Not at all Moderately Extremely
To what extent did your partner create this situation on purpose?
0--------------1--------------2--------------3--------------4--------------5--------------6
Not at all Moderately Extremely
To what extent could your partner have controlled how the situation unfolded?
0--------------1--------------2--------------3--------------4--------------5--------------6
Not at all Moderately Extremely
Based on the situation you witnessed, how likely is it that your partner will leave you?
0--------------1--------------2--------------3--------------4--------------5--------------6
Not at all Moderately Extremely
Based on the situation you witnessed, how likely is it that you will leave your partner?
0--------------1--------------2--------------3--------------4--------------5--------------6
Not at all Moderately Extremely
How vividly were you able to image this scenario?
0--------------1--------------2--------------3--------------4--------------5--------------6
Not at all Moderately Extremely
How immersed were you in this scenario?
0--------------1--------------2--------------3--------------4--------------5--------------6
Not at all Moderately Extremely
74
How threatening was this scenario to your relationship?
0--------------1--------------2--------------3--------------4--------------5--------------6
Not at all Moderately Extremely
Following the witnessed situation, how satisfied are you with your relationship?
0--------------1--------------2--------------3--------------4--------------5--------------6
Not at all Moderately Extremely
Have you ever been in a situation similar to the scenario that was presented to you?
a. Yes
b. No
What situations have recently made you jealous within the context of your romantic relationship?
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
How do you feel when you are jealous? (check all that apply)
___Angry
___Sad
___Anxious
___Hostile
___Ashamed
___Humiliated
___Hurt
___Guilty
___Betrayed
___Rejected
___Other (Please state) _________________________________________________
Have you ever cheated on a romantic partner?
a. Yes
b. No
If so, was it more than once?
a. Yes
b. No
75
To your knowledge, has a romantic partner ever cheated on you?
a. Yes
b. No
If so, was it more than once?
a. Yes
b. No
76
Appendix G: Wechsler Test of Adult Reading
Please read each word aloud.
1. Again 26. Conscientious
2. Address 27. Homily
3. Cough 28. Malady
4. Preview 29. Subtle
5. Although 30. Fecund
6. Most 31. Palatable
7. Excitement 32. Menagerie
8. Know 33. Obfuscate
9. Plumb 34. Liaison
10. Decorate 35. Exigency
11. Fierce 36. Xenophobia
12. Knead 37. Ogre
13. Aisle 38. Scurrilous
14. Vengeance 39. Ethereal
15. Prestigious 40. Paradigm
16. Wreathe 41. Perspicuity
17. Gnat 42. Plethora
18. Amphitheater 43. Lugubrious
19. Lieu 44. Treatise
20. Grotesque 45. Dilettante
21. Iridescent 46. Vertiginous
22. Ballet 47. Ubiquitous
23. Equestrian 48. Hyperbole
24. Porpoise 49. Insouciant
25. Aesthetic 50. Hegemony
77
Appendix H: Digit Span
Digit Span Forward
Read aloud the following instruction verbatim:
[SAY]: “I am going to say some numbers. Listen carefully, and when I am through, say them right after
me. Ready?”
Read digits clearly at the rate of one per second, letting voice pitch drop on last digit. If the subject
begins repeating the numbers before you’ve said them all, say “I’ll be saying several numbers. I’d like
you to wait until I’ve finished saying them all before you respond.” Record the subject’s response
verbatim on the worksheet below, then proceed to the next item.
Subsequent items are preceded by “Here is another.” Again, read digits clearly at the rate of one per
second, letting voice pitch drop on last digit. On each item, record the subject’s response verbatim.
Each digit sequence is presented only once. If the subject asks for a repetition, say “Just tell me what
you can remember”. The examiner may not repeat a number sequence for the subject. If the subject
cannot respond, say “Let’s try another one.” Spontaneous changes of the response are permitted. The
procedure is discontinued after two consecutive errors at the same item length.
Item Response Code (0 or 1)
1a. “Ready? 6-2-9.”
1b. “Here is another: 3-7-5.”
2a. “Here is another: 5-4-7-1.”
2b. “Here is another: 8-3-9-6.”
3a. “Here is another: 3-6-9-2-5.”
3b. “Here is another: 6-9-4-7-1.”
4a. “Here is another: 9-1-8-4-2-7.”
4b. “Here is another: 6-3-5-4-8-2.”
5a. “Here is another: 1-2-8-5-3-4-6.”
5b. “Here is another: 2-8-1-4-9-7-5.”
6a. “Here is another: 3-8-2-9-5-1-7-4.”
6b. “Here is another: 5-9-1-8-2-6-4-7.”
Total Correct __________
Digit Span Forward Length ______
78
Digit Span Backward
This task immediately follows Digit Span Forward and begins with practice to orient the subject to the
task. Read aloud the initial instruction:
[SAY]: “I am going to say some more numbers. When I stop, I want you to say them backward.
Ready?”
Present practice item P1 on the worksheet below by saying “Try this one: 2-8-3.” Pause for the subject
to respond, and encourage a guess if need be. Record the response code (0 = error; 1 = correct) for P1 in
the space provided on the worksheet.
Practice Items Response Code (0 or 1) Instruction
P1. “Try this one: 2-8-3.”
_____
[If 3-8-2]: “That’s right. Now I have
some more numbers. Remember, you are
to say them backward.” [Go to test item
1a]
[If any other response]: “No, I said 2-8-3,
so to say these backward, you would
need to say 3-8-2. Now try these
numbers; remember, you are to say them
backward. [Go to practice item P2]
P2. “Ready? 1-5-8.”
_____
[If 8-5-1]: “That’s right.” [Go to item 1a].
[If any other response]: “No, I said 1-5-8,
so to say them backward, you would need
to say 8-5-1.” [Go to item 1a].
[SAY]: “I am going to say some more numbers. When I stop, I want you to say them backward.”
Test Items Response Code (0 or 1)
1a. “Ready? 5-1”
1b. “Here is another: 3-8”
2a. “Here is another: 4-9-3”
2b. “Here is another: 5-2-6”
3a. “Here is another: 3-8-1-4”
3b. “Here is another: 1-7-9-5”
4a. “Here is another: 6-2-9-7-2”
4b. “Here is another: 4-8-5-2-7”
5a. “Here is another: 7-1-5-2-8-6”
5b. “Here is another: 8-3-1-9-6-4”
6a. “Here is another: 4-7-3-9-1-2-8”
6b. “Here is another: 8-1-2-9-3-6-5”
Total Correct __________
Digit Span Forward Length ______
79
Appendix I: Manipulation Check and Debriefing Questionnaire
Experimenter reads the italics verbatim:
“The study is now over. I would like to ask you a few questions about your experience in this study. Is
that okay? You can choose to skip a question if you do not want to answer it.”
1. Overall, what was the experience like for you?
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
2. How similar were the thoughts and feelings you shared to what you believe they would have been in a
real life situation? [+ obtain rating on a scale from 0 (not at all) to 10 (identical)]
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
3. How might your reactions have been different if this scenario had happened to you [in your
twenties/in your sixties]? What do you believe you would you have felt and done differently?
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
4. What differences (increases or decreases) have you noticed in the way you experience jealousy over
your life?
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
5. (If differences noted) What do you attribute these changes to?
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
“In this study, we wanted to examine how people think and feel in response to a jealousy-
provoking situation. In particular, we are studying age differences in emotions such as anger, anxiety,
sadness, and jealousy. You witnessed your partner having dinner with a former partner of his/hers and
80
received one of two explanations for the observed behavior. We would like to see whether reactions to
the unfolding situation vary between people of different ages based on the explanation they receive for
the behavior they are observing.”
“At this point, I would like to remind you that the situation you experienced in this study was
fictitious. It is part of the procedure here to inform you of the free on-campus counseling/low cost
community referrals. If you would like to discuss your feelings about this study, your relationship or any
other issues with a counselor, I can provide you with contact information for the USC student
counseling center and/or other low cost referrals. You are responsible for any costs incurred as a result
of the referrals. Would you like the list of referrals?”
If “Yes,” provide the participant with the referral sheet, otherwise say: “Finally, please refrain
from sharing details about this study with other USC students/individuals who may participate in this
study. Do you have any questions for me?”
If “Yes,” answer the participant’s questions, otherwise: “Thank you for your participation.”
81
Appendix J: LIWC Coding Categories
1) Anger/Frustration (slightly modified, established LIWC category)
This coding category captures words related to feelings of anger, strong displeasure, antagonism and/or
annoyance. It also denotes frustration and resentment towards the situation or other individuals in the
scenario.
e.g., angry, frustrated, annoyed, furious, enraged, irritated, hate
2) Anxiety/Distress/Fear (slightly modified, established LIWC category)
This coding category captures words related to feelings of worry, nervousness, unease and fearfulness.
e.g. anxious, nervous, worried, fearful, scared, panicked
3) Sadness/Disappointment (slightly modified, established LIWC category)
This coding category captures words related to feelings of sadness, unhappiness or sorrow. Words indicating
feeling downhearted, rejected or dejected are also included in this category.
e.g. sad, disappointed, depressed, devastated, overwhelmed
4) Hostility/Aggression/Intent to Harm (new category)
This coding category captures words related to hostile or violent intentions or behaviors towards another
person in the scenarios. The category also denotes a readiness to attack or confront another person and
includes derogatory statements about other individuals.
e.g. b**ch, a**hole, stupid, punch, confront, yell, scream, blow up, slap, fight, punish
5) Jealousy (new category)
This coding category captures words related to jealousy, envy, or possessiveness towards one’s partner.
e.g., jealous, jealousy, envy, envious, green-eyed monster, possessive
6) Suspicion/Deceit
This coding category captures expressions of doubt, feelings of betrayal, and suspicion about one’s partner or
the situation. The category also includes words/phrases that reflect a belief that one’s partner is lying, has
crossed a relationship boundary, or has cheated.
e.g., There’s something going on.
I’m assuming the worst
He has ulterior motives
I’m leery.
You’re a liar.
You’re keeping secrets.
I want more answers.
I don’t buy it.
This is not acceptable/inappropriate/unreasonable/awful/deceitful/dishonest/wrong.
7) Benefit of the Doubt/Trust
This coding category captures words/phrases that indicate the participant trusts his/her partner or is giving
his/her partner the benefit of the doubt in the situation. It also includes positive statement/compliments of
one’s partner.
e.g., I’m not going to read too much into this.
This is probably nothing.
I don’t want to assume anything.
I’m not jumping to conclusions.
I have confidence in/believe/trust him/her.
We have a strong relationship.
You are good-hearted/honest/considerate/wonderful/empathic/helpful/committed/faithful.
82
Appendix K: Distributions of LIWC Variables
N Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev. Skewness
LIWC Anger/Frustration 161 .00 3.13 .37 .50 2.46
LIWC Aggression/Hostility 161 .00 4.24 .48 .69 2.13
LIWC Distress/Anxiety 161 .00 2.55 .47 .53 1.47
LIWC Sadness 161 .00 .89 .14 .20 1.66
LIWC Jealousy 161 .00 1.56 .10 .23 3.31
LIWC Suspicion/Deceit 161 .00 2.82 .40 .52 1.83
LIWC Benefit of the Doubt/Trust 161 .00 4.50 1.32 .99 .96
83
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Measuring narcissistic cognitions in response to relationship threat using articulated thoughts in simulated situations
PDF
Reacting to the negative consequences of your decisions: an ATSS comparison of cognitive and affective reactions in older versus younger adults
PDF
The role of age, mood, and time- perspective on the interpretation of emotionally ambiguous information
PDF
How emotional arousal influences memory and learning in younger and older adults
PDF
Emotion, attention and cognitive aging: the effects of emotional arousal on subsequent visual processing
PDF
Influence of age and anxiety on recognition of facial expressions of emotion: exploring the role of attentional processes
PDF
Aging and emotion regulation in the judgment of facial emotion
PDF
Emotional reactivity and memory biases in older and younger adults
PDF
Actual and perceived social reinforcements of weight-related cognitions and behaviors in adolescent peer groups
PDF
Different genetic and environmental structures for the overlap of three antisocial behavior factors with alcohol initiation
PDF
Dedifferentiation of emotion regulation strategies in the aging brain: an MVPA investigation
PDF
Age differences in the effects of anxiety on selective attention: a test of the vigilance-avoidance hypothesis
PDF
Culture, causal attribution, and social support-seeking in Asian college students
PDF
In-flight turbulence: an articulated thoughts in simulated situations (ATSS) paradigm investigation of air travelers ' experiences
PDF
Powerful guts: how power limits the role of disgust in moral judgment
PDF
Longitudinal relationships between bereavement and physical health‐related quality of life in middle‐ to older‐aged women
PDF
How age-related changes in the locus coeruleus affect selective attention and memory
PDF
Young adult dating couple interactions in daily life: links to family aggression and physiological processes
PDF
Influence of sad mood and old age schema on older adults' physical symptoms processing
PDF
Adolescent life stress and the cortisol awakening response: the moderating roles of emotion regulation, attachment, and gender
Asset Metadata
Creator
Babeva, Kalina N.
(author)
Core Title
Age differences in jealousy: an ATSS examination of the role of attributions in the emotional reactions of older and younger adults in relationship-threatening situations
School
College of Letters, Arts and Sciences
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
Degree Program
Psychology
Publication Date
07/28/2015
Defense Date
06/16/2015
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
age differences,ATSS,attributions,Jealousy,OAI-PMH Harvest
Format
application/pdf
(imt)
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Davison, Gerald (
committee chair
), Braudy, Leo (
committee member
), John, Richard S. (
committee member
), Lopez, Steven R. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
babeva@usc.edu,kababeva@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-610096
Unique identifier
UC11299903
Identifier
etd-BabevaKali-3725.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-610096 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-BabevaKali-3725.pdf
Dmrecord
610096
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
Babeva, Kalina N.
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
age differences
ATSS
attributions