• Nenhum resultado encontrado

“I’m jealous of the way the rain that falls upon your skin”: the role of jealousy in intimate violence

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2020

Share "“I’m jealous of the way the rain that falls upon your skin”: the role of jealousy in intimate violence"

Copied!
28
0
0

Texto

(1)

Maria Mariana Rodrigues Afonso

“I’m jealous of the way the rain that falls

upon your skin”: The role of jealousy in

intimate violence

(2)

Maria Mariana Rodrigues Afonso

“I’m jealous of the way the rain that falls

upon your skin”: The role of jealousy in

intimate violence

Dissertação de Mestrado

Mestrado Integrado em Psicologia

Trabalho efetuado sob a orientação da

Professora Doutora Joana Arantes

(3)

DECLARAÇÃO


Nome: Maria Mariana Rodrigues Afonso

Endereço Eletrónico: a68833@alunos.uminho.pt

Número do cartão do cidadão: 14390779

Título da Dissertação: “I’m jealous of the way the rain that falls upon your skin”: The role of jealousy in intimate violence

Orientador: Professora Doutora Joana Arantes

Ano de conclusão: 2017

Designação do Mestrado: Mestrado Integrado em Psicologia

É AUTORIZADA A REPRODUÇÃO INTEGRAL DESTA DISSERTAÇÃO APENAS PARA EFEITOS DE INVESTIGAÇÃO, MEDIANTE DECLARAÇÃO ESCRITA DO INTERESSADO, QUE A TAL SE COMPROMETE;

Universidade do Minho, ____/____/____

(4)

Index Agradecimentos ... iii Introduction ... 6 Our study ... 8 Methodology ... 9 Participants ... 9 Measures ... 10 Procedure ... 12 Data Analysis ... 12 Results ... 13

Sex differences of Aggressors chronicity and annual prevalence ... 13

Emotional and sexual jealousy and IPV: A correlational analysis ... 15

Age and Relationship Satisfaction: Their relationship with IPV ... 18

General discussion ... 18

Limitations ... 20

Conclusion ... 22

(5)

Agradecimentos,

Gostaria, antes de mais de agradecer à pessoa que tornou este percurso possível e à qual vou estar eternamente grata, à Professora Doutora Joana Arantes, orientadora da minha tese de Mestrado, que durante este percurso se demonstrou sempre disponível e me ajudou a ultrapassar as barreiras que me foram impostas ao longo do caminho. E que, apesar dos inconvenientes sempre acreditou em mim.

Não posso escrever qualquer tipo de agradecimentos, sem mencionar, as pessoas que

estiveram sempre presentes, os meus amigos. Que de alguma maneira, de longe ou de perto, sempre me incentivaram incondicionalmente e me ajudaram a ter fé nos momentos mais tempestuosos. Foi sem dúvida uma viagem atribulada, e que sem eles seria inatingível.

Aos amores da minha vida, os meus pais. Ao qual estarei incessantemente grata. Sem eles, nada disto seria possível, os esforços e sacrifícios que fizeram para eu estar aqui, vão ser sempre guardados no meu coração com carinho. Agradeço também os valores que me transmitiram e o seu amor incondicional.

Finalmente, a todas as pessoas que contribuíram, de alguma forma, para a concretização deste trabalho e deste percurso, um obrigado.

“All have their worth and each contributes to the worth of the others.”

(6)

“Tenho ciúme da maneira que a chuva caí sobre a tua pele: O papel do ciúme na violência intima”

Resumo

A violência íntima tem sido um tópico de grande destaque na literatura e, ao contrário do que se acredita, apesar de mulheres tenderem a ser mais vulneráveis, tanto homens como mulheres são vítimas de violência íntima. A violência nos relacionamentos íntimos, que é uma

subcategoria de violência doméstica, encontra-se fortemente associada ao ciúme. O ciúme por sua vez, é definido como um estado emocional comum, podendo ser sexual e emocional. O principal objetivo do presente estudo é o de relacionar, pela primeira vez, a violência nos relacionamentos íntimos com ciúme emocional e sexual. Pretendemos também investigar o papel da idade e da satisfação no relacionamento. Os participantes (N = 701) completaram um questionário online, onde eram obtidas medidas de VRI, satisfação no relacionamento e ciúme emocional e sexual. Os resultados mostram que diferentes tipos de VRI estão associados com os dois diferentes tipos de ciúme. Adicionalmente, foi possível concluir que o ciúme

emocional aumenta com a idade dos participantes. Por fim, quanto mais satisfeitos com o relacionamento os participantes estão menos perpetuam atos de VRI.

Palavras-chave: Violência nos relacionamentos íntimos, ciúme sexual, ciúme

(7)

“I’m jealous of the way the rain that falls upon your skin”: The role of jealousy in intimate violence”

Abstract

Intimate violence has been a topic of interest for a long time now and contrary to cultural believe, although women tend to be more vulnerable, both males and females face intimate violence. Intimate partner violence (IPV), which is a subcategory of domestic violence, is strongly related to jealousy. Jealousy is defined as a common emotional state that can be sexual or emotional. The main objective of this study is to relate, for the first time, intimate partner violence (IPV) with emotional and sexual jealousy. We also want to investigate the role of age and relationship satisfaction. Participants (N = 701) completed an online

questionnaire, in which measures of IPV, relationship satisfaction and the two types of jealousy were obtained. Results show that the different types of IPV are associated with the two different types of jealousy. Additionally, our data shows that emotional jealousy increases with age and the more participants are within their relationships the less they tend to

perpetrate IPV.

(8)

“I’M JEALOUS OF THE WAY THE RAIN THAT FALLS UPON YOUR SKIN”:

THE ROLE OF JEALOUSY IN INTIMATE VIOLENCE

Intimate violence has been a topic of interest for a long time now and contrary to cultural believe, although women tend to be more vulnerable, both males and females face intimate violence (Coker et al., 2002; Stephenson, Koening, & Ahmend 2006). Despite increased global attention to violence (World Health Organization, 2014), and recent advances in knowledge about how to block these abuses, levels of violence against man and women persist unacceptably high and remain a persistent problem in our society (Coker et al., 2002; D’Alessio & Stolzenberg, 2010). Intimate violence presents serious consequences for victims’ physical and mental health, and adversative impacts on both individuals and relationships (Coker et al., 2002; Hines & Malley-Morrison, 2001; O’Leary, Slep & O’Leary, 2007; WHO, 2014). Specifically, intimate violence is associated, in both sexes, with a higher risk of poor mental health,

depressive episodes, substance abuse, developing a chronic disease and injury (Coker et. al., 2002). For example, women that suffer intimate violence have a tendency to be more likely to report poor health, with additional health problems, specifically sexual and reproductive health implications (Campbell & Lewandowski, 1997; Cascardi, Langhinrichsen, & Vivian, 1992; Cascardi, O’Leary, & Schlee, 1999; Coker et al. 2002; Laisser, Nystrom, Lugina & Emmelin, 2011). Additionally, one in five men that

suffered from intimate violence, report being depressed, having anxiety attacks or being hurt (Ansara & Hindin, 2011)

Intimate partner violence (IPV), which is a subcategory of domestic violence, is viewed as physical, emotional, psychological or sexual violence perpetrated by the intimate partner – defined as a current or former partner or cohabiting intimate partner, regardless of the sex (Coker et al., 2002; Dude, 2007). Intimate violence between partners can also be defined as a behavioral model in which aggressive strategies are used by the companion to control the other member of the relationship (Nemeth, Bonomi, Lee & Ludwin, 2012). According to Archer (2000), there are some sex differences in intimate violence, with women being significantly more likely than men to use physical aggression towards their partners but with men being more likely to inflict injuries to their partners.

For evolutionary psychologists, there are several variables that are related to a tendency towards aggressive behaviors, such as feelings of dominance, impulsivity and

(9)

jealousy (Archer & Webb, 2006). O’Leary, Slep and O’Leary (2007) found jealousy to be a strong motivation for partner aggression, in both men and women. Furthermore, jealousy seems to be the leading homicide motive in many studies, often caused by known or suspectedadultery or the partner ending the relationship (Daly & Wilson, 1989; Serran & Firestone, 2014). Therefore, jealousy seems to be, in fact, a crucial factor in explaining the existence of intimate violence between partners.

Jealousy is considered a common emotional state, experienced in couples worldwide (Reiss 1986), and it can be explained as a protective reaction against the threat of losing a valued relationship (Clanton & Smith, 1998). It can lead to certain contingent responses aimed to fight possible, real or imagined, opponents, reducing or ending the threat (Buss, Larsen, Westen & Semmelrolh, 1992; Goetz, 2010). Jealousy can be divided into two types: sexual and emotional (Buss et al., 1992). Sexual jealousy occurs when there is a fear of thinkable sexual involvement of the partner with an individual outside the relationship (Harris, 2003; Shackelford et al., 2004). In turn, emotional jealousy happens when there is a fear of the partner developing a deep emotional relationship with another person (Buss, 1992; Shackelford et al., 2004). Imagining the partner being involved in behaviors such as kissing and having sexual relations is typically used as a measure to define sexual jealousy (Puente & Cohen, 2003; Spitzberg & Yoshimura, 2004), whereas actions that can show emotional

involvement and/or love to someone outside the relationship, such as laughing, talking, sharing secrets, and touching another person during a conversation, can be defined as emotional jealousy (Puente & Cohen, 2003).

Several reports in the literature indicate sex differences in jealousy which seem to emerge when considering the two different types of jealousy – emotional and sexual (Harris, 2003). More specifically, men tend to be more upset over a partner’s sexual infidelity and have higher levels of sexual jealousy, whereas women tend to be more distressed over a partner’s emotional infidelity (Buss & Duntley, 2011; Buss et al., 1992; D'Alessio & Stolzenberg, 2010; Goetz et al., 2008; Harris, 2003). Regarding age differences, the literature seems to be inconsistent. Some studies propose a negative relationship between jealousy and age (Bringle, Roach & Andler, 1979; Shackelford et al., 2004) and others suggest a positive relationship (Bringle and Williams, 1979). The present study will try to fill these gaps in the literature.

These sex differencesare a phenomenon that can be understood in light of natural selection (Harris, 2003), since from an evolutionary perspective both males and females

(10)

have suffered different pressures to ensure their survival and assure reproductive success (Denisiuk, 2011). Specifically,in men, sexual jealousy emerges as a solution to adaptive problems such as paternity uncertainty and functions as a partner retention mechanism (Goetz, 2010; Harris, 2003) and it is often considered the main motivation for aggressive behaviors towards the partner, such as sexual coercion, shielding

behaviors, and intimate femicide (Daly & Wilson, 1988). For women, infidelity poses a different risk to Darwinian fitness which is the fear of loss of attention and resources that would be necessary for the creation and stability of them and their offspring

(Harris, 2003). Therefore, it is argued, that women should be more upset over a partner's emotional infidelity (Goetz, 2010; Goetz et al., 2008; Harris, 2003; Kar & O'Leary, 2013; Pines & Friedman, 2014) and men over sexual jealousy (Goetz, 2010; Harris, 2003).

Although there are already several studies discussing the association between jealousy and the tendency towards IPV (Archer & Webb, 2006; Daly et al., 1982), the previous research on this relation has been limited. More specifically, to the best of our knowledge, there are not studies in IPV that make a distinction between the two types of jealousy – emotional and sexual.

Our study

Our study aims to find possible associations between IPV and jealousy – emotional and sexual. We also aim to analyze these variables with focus on the age differences, which will also be an innovation in the field. Furthermore, we intent to examine the role of relationship satisfaction. Additionally, the use of two types of measures to evaluate both emotional and sexual jealousy presents itself as an advantage. One of the measures used quantifies the two types of jealousy in specific and routine situations, whereas the other measure is based on forced choice – participants had obligatorily to choose between the option that would cause them more disturbance.

Our main hypothesis is that is that there are sex differences in IPV perpetration within the different types of jealousy – emotional and sexual. More specifically, we hypothesize men will perpetrate more sexual coercion with higher levels of sexual jealousy, whereas women will perpetrate more IPV with higher levels of emotional jealousy.

(11)

Second, we expect that sexual jealousy will decline and emotional jealousy will increase, with age.

With the intent of deepening the reasoning behind IPV, we will also include relationship satisfaction as one of the variables in our study. Relationship satisfaction is one of the major areas of relationship assessment and it is defined as the degree to which people are satisfied or happy in their relationship (Hendrick, 1988). Finally, we hypothesized that participants that are more satisfied with their relationship will perform less acts of IPV – that includes the perpetration of psychological aggression, physical assault, sexual coercion and injury.

Methodology

Participants

Our initial sample consisted of 947 participants. After the exclusion, of partially-completed (we excluded those who did not respond to at least 40% of the survey) and non-completed questionnaires (n = 241), and surveys completed by participants younger than 17 years old (n = 5), our sample was comprised by 701 participants. From those 124 were males and 574 were females. Their mean age was 25.86 years (SD= 10.69; range: 17 to 70 years). Regarding nationality, 697 (99,4%) were Portuguese, and the remaining (n = 4; 0.4%) were Bulgarian, Canadian, French and Swiss. In terms of sexual orientation, 653 (93.2%) stated to be heterosexual, 17 (2.4%) homosexual and 25 (3.6%) bisexual. Most participants (n = 498; 71%) said they were currently involved in an intimate relationship. Specifically, 314 (44.8%) were dating someone, 20 (2.9%) were in an occasional relationship, 118 (16.8%) were married, 42 (6%) were cohabiting and 4 (0.6%) reported to be in other type of relationship (e.g., “it is complicated”). Concerning relationship satisfaction, overall men (M = 6.09; SD= 1,16) were slightly more satisfied that women in their relationship (M = 5.91; SD= 1.21), but this difference is not statistically significant.

Participants were recruited through personal and institutional e-mails and online social networks (e.g., Facebook). Additionally, to get access to an older public, some questionnaires were distributed in a day center and families, these questionnaires were spread in paper format on a closed envelop to assure confidentiality in all responses. Participants answered voluntarily and without any type of compensation.

(12)

Measures

Sociodemographic Questionnaire

Participants answered a sociodemographic questionnaire that contained questions about their age, sex (male or female), nationality and sexual orientation. Additionally, it was asked if they were in an intimate relationship, or if they had been in one in the past. For those that answer affirmatively to the first, it was also asked the level of satisfaction in that relationship on a scale from 1 to 7 (1 being “nothing satisfied” and 7 “extremely satisfied”).

The Revised Conflict Tactic Scales – CTS-2

Initially developed by Strauss, Hamby, Boney-McCoy and Sugarman (1996) and later translated to Portuguese by Paiva and Figueiredo (2002), this scale was created to answers the limitations presented in the first version of the instrument. This scale, according to Strauss and collaborators (1996), has the aim to measure psychological and physical attacks between partners, and the use of negotiation in the relationship.

The scale its comprised, in total, by 78 items, presented in a fixed order,

operating as pairs (39 items), that being, each pair its constituted by questions destined to the participant (perpetration) and partner (victimization). This scale evaluates the chronicity, annual prevalence and global prevalence. The frequency of the behaviors, during the last year it is evaluated through the forced choice of one of the options, being able to be within 1 time in the last year up to 20 times. This scale allows the evaluation, identification and measurement of positive (e.g., negotiation) and negative (e.g.,

aggression) types of strategies used to resolve conflicts between partners. It is divided, then, in five subscales: in perpetration a) negotiation (α = .73) – emotional and

cognitive; b) psychological aggression (α = .68) – minor and severe; c) physical abuse (α = .78) – minor or severe; d) sexual coercion (α = .56) – minor or severe; and e) injury (α = .50) – minor and severe. And in victimization: a) negotiation (α = .71) – emotional and cognitive; b) psychological aggression (α = .74) – minor and severe; c) physical abuse (α = .78) – minor or severe; d) sexual coercion (α = .51) – minor or severe; and e) injury (α = .47) – minor and severe. Showing good internal consistency and in

victimization. Negotiation is defined as the assortment of actions used to resolved a disagreement, with compassion, respect and care in perspective (Paiva & Figueiredo, 2016). Physical aggression is, behaviors that are perpetrated with the intention of

(13)

causing damages (Paiva & Figueiredo, 2016). The concept of physiological aggression consists of the infliction of verbal and emotional actions that may the other, even though it may not result and physical damages causes emotional distress (Paiva & Figueiredo, 2016). Injury, differs between the other types of aggression, in the degree that, the latter because of the consequences, injuries include physical damages like pain in the body for more than one day, bone lesions or any injury that deserves medical attention (Paiva & Figueiredo, 2016).

Sexual and Emotional Jealousy Scale (SEJS)

This scale along with 6 dilemmas were used to assess the prevalence of two types of jealousy, emotional and sexual. This scale was created by Fernandes,

Natividade and Hutz (2011) and it is constituted by 10 items, 5 referring to emotional jealousy (α = .87) and 5 to sexual jealousy (α = .83). Each item contains situations and/or behaviors which may, or may not, incite jealousy. They are measured in a 5-point Likert scale (1- not bothered to 5- extremally bothered). In this instrument, the concept of emotional jealousy its operationalized by the level of disturbance caused by the potential emotional interest by the partner (attention, time, affection) towards other people out of the relationship and/or the contrary. For example, “Knowing that your partner recently gave a gift to another women / man”, “Finding out that another women/man called my partner and talked for more than one hour” and “Knowing that your partner spent time and/ or gave attention to another woman”. Sexual jealousy its associated with physical attraction or sexual involvement of the partner with some other person and/or the demonstration of sexual interest of someone else towards their

partner. For instance, “Seeing another women/ man flirt with my partner in a party”, “Listening to other women / man commenting that my partner is attractive” and “Knowing that friends of my partner had sexual dreams involving him”.

Dilemmas

These dilemmas were similar to those used by Shackelford et al. (2004). In each dilemma participants were given two possible options (option A and option B), and had to choose the option that would incite the biggest level of disturbance. The first two dilemmas (Buss et al., 1992) were the following: (A) “Imagine your partner involving himself sexually with another person” or (B) “Imagine your partner having a strong

(14)

emotional connection with someone else.”; (A) “Imagine your partner trying different sexual position with someone else.” or (B) “Imagine your partner falling in love with a different person”. The remaining 4 dilemmas were (A) “Imagine your partner having a one night stand with someone else, but being certain that they won’t be involved sexually again, in the future” or (B) “Imagine your partner forming an emotional

connection with someone else, but being sure that they will never be involved sexually.” This dilemma offers a contrast between purely sexual infidelity (“one night stand”) and emotional involvement. The 4th situation presented the subjects had to choose between (A) “Imagine your partner getting sexually involved with someone else, but being certain that they will not get involved emotionally” or (B) “Imagine your partner forming an emotional tie with someone else, but being sure that they will not engage in sexual relations.” This predicament proposes to evaluate the choices of the subjects when only one type of infidelity occurs. The 5th situation referenced an “ex-partner” in the dilemma: (A) “Imagine your current partner sexually interested in their former partner but without any type of emotional involvement” or (B) “Imagine your current partner emotionally connected with their former partner but without any sexual involvement.”. The 6th and last situation presented, distinguished himself from the latter since they were asked to consider one situation where both options – “your partner formed a deep emotional tie and was sexually involved with someone else” occur, and they were asked which options would trouble them the most – if (A) “sexual

involvement with another person” or (B) “the emotional connection created with someone else.”.

Procedure

The data was collected anonymously through an online questionnaire, completed on an internet webpage using Qualtrics software, Version 2017 of the Qualtrics

Research Suite (www.qualtrics.com) and widespread trough out social media and institutional mail. No time was imposed on the task. Firstly, participants were asked to complete the Demographic questionnaire and relationship related question, followed by CTS-2, SEJS and finally the Dilemmas, which were presented randomly through participants.

Data Analysis

The data was exported from Qualtrics to an Excel spreadsheet. Analyses were conducted with Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS; v. 23), and included

(15)

Pearson correlations, to evaluate the association between the different variables in our study and t tests to examine sex differences. A criterion of p < .05 was used for all significance tests. In order to analyze the results from the dilemmas a jealousy ratio was calculated by dividing the emotional jealousy by the sexual jealousy scores.

This formula tells us to which type of jealousy, sexual or emotional, people give more importance, more specifically, the higher the distress towards emotional jealousy compared to sexual jealousy the higher the jealousy ratio.

Results

Sex differences of Aggressors chronicity and annual prevalence

In order to analyze sex differences of aggressors’ chronicity and annual prevalence an independent-sample t-test was conducted. Results are shown in Table 1 and Table 2. Male participants reported to perpetrate more minor sexual coercion against their partner comparing to females, t(154.88) = 2.61, p < .01. When it comes to injury, women reported to perpetrate more minor actions of injury comparing to men,

t(667.98) = -2.12, p < .05. Additionally, annual prevalence data show us that there is a

significant difference between men and women, in both minor and total sexual coercion perpetration, with men having a higher percentage of annual prevalence than women,

t(156.22) = 3.94, p < .001 and t(154.89) = 3.80, p < .001, respectively.

Jealousy Ratio = Emotional jealousy

(16)

Table 1

Sex differences in the chronicity of the different types of IPV perpetration.

Chronicity of Perpetration/ Aggressors

Male Female p M (SD) M (SD) Negotiation (N) Emotional Cognitive Total 37.71 (26.60) 27.94 (23.96) 32.83 (23.78) 39.15 (24.58) 24.99 (20.79) 32.07 (20.97) .581 .204 .742 Psychological Aggression (P) Minor Severe Total 7.63 (11.97) 2.14 (8.40) 4.88 (8.83) 8.65 (15.41) 1.67 (5.14) 5.16 (9.14) .487 .424 .755

Physical Assault (A)

Minor Severe Total .98 (4.89) 1.90 (14.32) 1.44 (9.05) 1.47 (6.32) .22 (1.66) .846 (3.73) .420 .194 .471 Sexual Coercion (S) Minor Severe Total 4.66 (9.38) .44 (4.50) 2.55 (5.85) 2.33 (7.11) .07 (1.12) 1.20 (3.60) .002* .373 .015* Injury (I) Minor Severe Total .08 (.47) 1.24 (10.01) 0.66 (5.17) .37 (3.07) .033 (.39) .20 (1.59) .034* .181 .327

(17)

Table 2

Sex differences in the annual frequency of the different types of IPV perpetration.

Emotional and sexual jealousy and IPV: A correlational analysis

In order to analyze the relation between emotional and sexual jealousy and different types of intimate violence within sexes, Person correlations were conducted. Results are shown in Table 3. Negotiation was also significantly positively correlated with psychological aggression for both sexes [r(124) = .27, p < .01 for man and r(574)

Annual Prevalence of Perpetration/ Aggressors

Male Female p M (SD) M (SD) Negotiation (N) Emotional Cognitive Total 83.07 (37.66) 81.45 (39.03) 82.45 (36.73) 87.63 (32.95) 86.41 (34.30) 87.02 (33.05) .213 .192 .185 Psychological Aggression (P) Minor Severe Total 62.10 (48.71) 21.77 (41.44) 41.93 (37.93) 61.50 (48.70) 23.51 (42.45) 42.51 (38.12) .901 .677 .879

Physical Assault (A) Minor Severe Total 16.94 (37.66) 4.84 (21.55) 10.89 (24.33) 20.04 (40.06) 4.53 (20.81) 12.28 (25.61) .430 .882 .579 Sexual Coercion (S) Minor Severe Total 33.87 (47.52) 1.61 (12.65) 17.74 (25.66) 16.03 (36.72) .87 (9.30) 8.45 (19.44) .000*** .453 .000*** Injury (I) Minor Severe Total 4.03 (19.75) 2.42 (15.43) 3.23 (15.28) 4.53 (20.81) 1.39 (11.73) 2.96 (13.85) .808 .406 .850

(18)

= .31, p < .01 for women], with physical assault for females [r(574) = .13 p < .01], and with sexual coercion for both sexes [r(124) = .19, p < .05 for man and r(574) = .15, p < .01 for women], showing that those participants that reported to negotiate more, tended to perpetrate more psychological aggression and sexual coercion for both male and female; and female participants that reported to negotiate more tended to enact more physical assault. Psychological aggression was also significantly positively correlated with physical assault for both sexes [r(124) = .71, p < .01 for man and r(574) = .55, p < .01 for women], sexual coercion for both sexes [r(124) = .55, p < .01 for man and

r(574) = .13, p < .01 for women], injury for both sexes [r(124) = .69, p < .01 for man

and r(574) = .36, p < .01 for women] and emotional jealousy for women, [r(542) = .16,

p < .01], indicating that both men and women whom stated to perpetrate more

psychological aggression, inclined to perpetrate more physical assault, sexual coercion, while women that stated to perpetrate more psychological aggression, tended to

experienced more emotional jealousy. In addition, physical assault was significantly positively correlated with sexual coercion [r(124) = .57, p < .01 for man and r(574) = .11, p < .05 for women] and injury [r(124) = .99, p < .01 for man and r(574) = .29, p < .01 for women] for both sexes and correlated to emotional jealousy in females [r(542) = .09, p < .05], demonstrating that, in both sexes, participants that inflict more physical assault also perpetrate more sexual coercion and injuries, additionally, female

participants that inflict more physical assault have more emotional jealousy. Sexual coercion was significantly positively correlated, in men, with injuries [r(124) = .58, p < .01], and emotional jealousy [r(118) = .26, p < .01] and significantly negatively

correlated with the jealousy ratio [r(542) = -.24, p < .01]. This indicates that men that reported to inflict more physical assault, tended to perform more injuries on their partners, experience more emotional jealousy but give more importance to sexual jealousy. Emotional jealousy was significantly positively correlated with sexual jealousy in both sexes [r(118) = .63, p < .01 for man and r(542) = .68, p < .05 for women], showing that those participants that reported to experience more emotional jealousy, also experience high levels of sexual jealousy. Lastly, Sexual jealousy was significantly negatively correlated with the jealousy ratio [r(117) = -.24, p < .01 for man and r(539) = -.10, p < .05 for women], showing that higher levels of sexual jealousy are related with more importance given to sexual jealousy.

(19)

Table 5

Correlations between sex in the different types of IPV (CTS-2), emotional and sexual jealousy (SEJS) and jealousy ratio between emotional and sexual jealousy (dilemmas) (N=801).

(N) (P) (A) (S) (I) Emotional

Jealousy Sexual Jealousy Jealousy ratio Negotiation (N) M - .27** .07 .19* .07 .03 .14 .04 F .31** .13** .15** .04 .04 .04 .04 Psychologic al Aggression (P) M - .71** .55** .69** .14 .13 -.17 F .55** .13** .36** .16** .08 -.02 Physical Assault (A) M - .57** .99** .05 .01 -.10 F .11* .29** .09* .00 -.02 Sexual Coercion (S) M - .58** .26** .13 -.24** F -.00 .10* .04 -.03 Injury (I) M - .05 .00 -.08 F -.04 -.04 .01 Emotional Jealousy (SEJS) M - .63** -.16 F .68** .02 Sexual Jealousy (SEJS) M - -.24** F -.10* Jealousy ratio M F - Note: * p<.05; **p<.01; *** p <.001

(20)

Age and Relationship Satisfaction: Their relationship with IPV

Results showed that age was significantly correlated with relationship

satisfaction [r(495) = -.16 p < .01], with enactment of negotiation [r(699) = -.15 p <.01], with sexual coercion [r(699) = - .10 p<.01], emotional jealousy [r = .10 p < .05], and the jealousy ratio of emotional to sexual jealousy [r(664) = .09 p < .05]. Indicating that the older participants are, the less they are satisfied in their relationship, the less they tend to negotiate and perpetrate sexual coercion. Additionally, with age, participants tend to report higher levels of emotional jealousy and give more importance to emotional jealousy comparatively with sexual jealousy.

Relationship satisfaction was significantly correlated with psychological aggression, [r(497) = -.29, p <.01], physical assault [r(497) = -.18, p < .01] and injury [r(497) = -.25, p <.01]. Demonstrating that the more satisfied participants are in their relationship the less IPV they enact, more specifically, less psychological aggression, physical assault and injury.

General discussion

The main goal of the present study was to examine the relationship between intimate partner violence and the different types of jealousy – emotional and sexual. We also aimed to identify the role of sex, age and relationship satisfaction within these domains. To this end, participants completed an online questionnaire that included measures of intimate violence and emotional and sexual jealousy. Our hypotheses were that: a) men will perpetrate more sexual coercion with higher levels of sexual jealousy and women will perpetrate more physical aggression with higher levels of emotional jealousy; b) emotional jealousy will increase and sexual jealousy will decrease, with age; and c) participants that are more satisfied with their relationship will perform less IPV acts, which include psychological aggression, physical aggression, sexual coercion and injuries.

Our study found sex differences in intimate partner violence within the different types of jealousy, emotional and sexual. Consistent with our first hypothesis, results showed that men that perpetrated more sexual coercion had higher levels of sexual jealousy and women that perpetrated more physical aggression had higher levels of emotional jealousy. As the literature tells us, men tend to be more upset over a possible partner’s sexual infidelity and women more upset over emotional infidelity (Buss &

(21)

Duntley, 2011; Buss et al 1992; D'Alessio & Stolzenberg, 2010; Goetz et al., 2008; Harris, 2003). Thus, with the fact that men and women get upset with different types of jealousy, there is, man get distress over sexual jealousy (Harris, 2003), and women get upset over emotional jealousy (Goetz, 2010; Goetz et al., 2008; Harris, 2003; Kar & O'Leary, 2013; Pines & Friedman, 2014), it would be expected that they would react in different ways. In addition, research has shown that men tend to perpetrate more sexual coercion than women, since sexual jealousy in men is associated with sexual coercion (Archer 2000; Daly & Wilson, 1988). Also, women tend to perform more acts of physical aggression when experiencing emotional jealousy since, as research has shown, women are significantly more likely than men to have some aggressive

behaviors such as, scratching, kicking, slapping or shoving their mate in anger (Archer, 2000). So that being, the way each sex reacts to the type of jealousy, that causes more distress, will be in accordance with the way each sex reacts to anger.

As we can see, the literature shows us that there is, a undeniably, relation between jealousy and intimate partner violence (Daly & Wilson, 1989), with IPV behaviors, such as psychological aggression, physical aggression, sexual coercion and injury, possibly, emerging with the purpose to protect the relationship, since it prevents the existence of infidelity on the part of the partner and stops rivals from approaching the partner, as suggested by different authors (Daly & Wilson, 1989; Symons, 1979). More

specifically, in men, sexual jealousy emerges as a solution to adaptive problems such as paternity uncertainty (Goetz et al., 2008; Harris, 2003), so IPV behaviors such as sexual coercion is produced as an answer to prevent the partner from seeking sexual

involvement outside the relationship. On the other hand, women face another challenge, which is, the loss of resources, which is put at risk when there is a possible emotional involvement with another person.

Results from our data shows that with age, participants report higher levels of emotional jealousy and give more importance to emotional infidelity compared to sexual infidelity. The increase of emotional jealousy with age it is a fascinating finding that can perchance, be enlightened with the study of Antonucci and Akiyama (1987) that revealed that older men and women tend to rely more on their spouses with age. Therefore, because older people rely so much on their partner, losing an emotional connection to someone outside the relationship, may cause more distress than sexual infidelity. Even though our data showed that sexual jealousy also tends to decline, this result was not statistically significant. Therefore, our second hypothesis was only

(22)

partially confirmed. Even so, the decrease of sexual jealousy could be explained through the lens of evolutionary psychology (Goetz, 2010; Harris, 2003). By one hand men, as they age, the major threat to Darwinian fitness, which is cuckoldry will decrease, consequently tending to spend less resources worrying about parental uncertainty (Harris, 2003). This is expected because, as women age their reproductive potential declines, decreasing the likelihood of putting a man in a position of uncertainty of parenthood (Goetz, 2010; Harris, 2003). On the other hand, sexual jealousy in women will also decrease, since the male's reproductive capacity, although endures, it is smaller (Nankin, 1985). One conceivable reason for the lack of significance in this data, is that, our sample is manly comprised by women and as it was presented, the decrease of sexual jealousy would be significantly stronger in a sample where the majority of the sample are men. The likelihood of women having children from someone else is

substantially lower (Goetz, 2010; Harris, 2003) than men having other children with one other woman (Nankin, 1985), as they get older.

Additionally, we found that the more satisfied participants were with their intimate relationship, the less they tended to perpetrate IPV. This speculation seems to be true for all types of IPV, but only significant for sexual coercion, partially supporting our last hypothesis. This can be reasoned with the fact that, when people are more satisfied with their relationship they do not feel the need to reach for mate retention mechanisms, such as violence, to secure, or the loss of resources, for women, or the uncertainty of fatherhood, for men.

In accordance with our last hypothesis, results from our data also show that with age people tend to be less satisfied with their relationship. Consistent with findings of Silva, Saraiva, Albuquerque and Arantes (in press) that found that older people have less relationship satisfaction.

In general, we also found that levels of IPV perpetration are higher for

participants with higher levels of jealousy, supporting studies of Ellsberg et al. (2000) which discovered that jealousy is a strong predictor of intimate violence between partners.

Limitations

Before concluding, it is advantageous to discuss the limitations of the current study. First, although our sample is comprised of ages ranged from 17 to 70, the majority of our participants ranged from 17 to 38, which may be a limitation for our

(23)

study since does not provide a range large enough to reveal possible correlations in our variables specially, in older ages. Thus, it would be interesting to investigate if the same pattern of results would be obtained with a much older sample.

Secondly, and disguised as a suggestion for future research, the non-inclusion of the partners’ age on the questionnaire may present itself as a limitation. Because as Buss and Shackelford (1997) showed, mate retention techniques, which include violence, are associated with the age of the partner for both sexes. With men using more retention techniques once their partner is younger and more attractive, and women using more retention techniques once their partner is older, more mature and financially stable. Thus, the inclusion of these variable would be relevant to assess differences in IPV perpetration.

Additionally, this data was only collected in Portugal. For this reason, the current participant sample cannot produce data that are certainly universal. Cultural and social norms and different contexts may be an important factor that change the results. For instance, the definition of sexual coercion is quite ambiguous, and it may differ from country to country and culture to culture. People from one country may think that forcing a kiss is acceptable but people from another country may believe that is

unacceptable. Nowadays first world countries are used to see on TV movies like “Fifty Shades of Grey” that portrait sexual behaviors like BDSM, which involves bondage, dominance and submissive actions, and may somehow, make people think that these types of behaviors are always acceptable, with or without consent, which is not true. Furthermore, our sample was mainly constituted by women, which may be a limitation on our study. A larger number of men would, possibly, be relevant to get stronger results.

Although we had a large sample, it is conceivable that the most aggressive individuals, did not contribute to our study. Moreover, the present analyses rely upon the participants’ perspective on their behaviors, and because the perpetration of intimate partner violence may be a hard subject, that is, people may not feel comfortable

revealing what they do, can create reporting biases.

Lastly, even though we propose that emotional and sexual jealousy have an impact on the experience of intimate partner violence, our data was correlational and therefore, we cannot make strong inferences. It is possible that jealousy is indeed the cause for intimate partner violence, but intimate partner violence can also be the cause

(24)

of jealousy. Therefore, it would be very interesting to test which path is the most likely to occur by doing a prospective, longitudinal study.

Conclusion

Overall, our results show that there are differences in intimate partner violence within emotional and sexual jealousy. Men that have higher levels of sexual jealousy tend to perpetrate more sexual coercion and, women that have higher levels of emotional jealousy perpetrated more physical aggression. Additionally, there is a relationship between age and jealousy. More specifically, the older participants are more emotional jealousy they have. Furthermore, participants that reported high relationship satisfaction tend to perpetrate less IPV behaviors comparatively with people that are not satisfied with their relationship. Finally, with age participants tend to be less satisfied with their relationship.

Our study adds to the literature with some novel information about the relationship between IPV and jealousy. The differentiation between the two types of jealousy seems to be an important addition to studies about IPV perpetration.

Overall, results of the present study add to our understanding of variables that play an important role in intimate violence perpetration such as, emotional and sexual jealousy, and relationship satisfaction. Since IPV is a huge concern for public health there is a need to expose the type of variables associated with this behavior. With the expanding of our understanding about this subject, health professionals are given more information to build more tools to fight IPV. Specifically, these findings may be useful for clinicians in the prevention of IPV as they reinforce the need for healthy

relationships in society with focus on the types of jealousy. Additionally, another intervention strategy to reassure and encourage protection against intimate violence, it would be emboldening of self-defense classes in every context of the population. Finally, education in schools provided to young boys and girls, parents and educators would be relevant to try and fight IPV, since early age.

(25)

References

Ansara, D., L. & Hindin, M., J. (2011). Psychosocial consequences of intimate partner violence for women and men in Canada. Journal of interpersonal Violence, 26(8), 1628–1645.

Antonucci, T., Akiyama, H (1987). An examination of sex differences in social support among older men and women. Sex Roles, 17, 737–749

Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 651 – 680.

Archer, J. & Webb, I.A. (2006). The relation between scores on the Buss-Perry aggression questionnaire and aggressive acts, impulsiveness, competitiveness, dominance, and sexual jealousy. Aggressive behavior, 32, 464-473.

Bringle, R. G., Roach, S., Andler, C., et.al. (1979). Measuring the intensity of jealousy reactions. Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 9, 23-24.

Bringle, R. G., Williams, L. J. (1979). Parental off-spring similarity on jealousy and related personality dimensions. Motivation and Emotion, 3, 265-286.

Buss, D. M. & Duntley, J. D. (2011). The evolution of intimate partner violence.

Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16, 411-419.

Buss, D. M., Larsen, R. J., Westen, D., & Semmelrolh, J. (1992). Sex differences in jealousy: Evolution, physiology, and psychology. Psychological Science, 3, 251-255. Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). From vigilance to violence: Mate retention

tactics in married couples. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 72, 346 – 361.

Campbell, J. C., & Lewandowski, L. A. (1997). Mental and physical effects of intimate partner violence on women and children. Psychiatric Clinics of North America,

20, 353–374.

Cascardi, M., Langhinrichsen, J., & Vivian, D. (1992). Marital aggression, impact, injury, and health correlates for husbands and wives. Archives of Internal Medicine,

152, 1178 –1184.

Cascardi, M., O’Leary, K. D., & Schlee, K. A. (1999). Co-occurrence and correlates of post traumatic stress disorder and major depression in physically abused women.

(26)

Clanton, G., & Smith, L. G. (Eds.). (1998). Jealousy. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Coker, L. A., Davis, E. K., Arias, I., Desai, S., Sanderson, S., Brandt, M. H. & Smith, H. P. (2002). Physical and mental health effects of intimate partner violence for men and women. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23, 260 –268.

D'Alessio, S. J., & Stolzenberg, L. (2010). The sex ratio and male-on-female intimate partner violence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 555-561.

Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Homicide. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyer. De Luca, M., Brunetti, D., James, E., L. (Producer), & Taylor-Johnson, S. (Director).

(2015). Fifty shades of grey [Motion picture]. United States: Universal Pictures. Denisiuk, S., J. (2011). Evolutionary versus social structural explanations for sex

differences in mate preferences, jealousy, and aggression. Personality research.

http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/denisiuk.html.

Daly, M., Wilson, M., & Weghorst, S. J. (1982). Male sexual jealousy. Ethology and

Sociobiology, 3, 11–27.

Dude, A. (2007). Intimate partner violence and increased risk of sexually transmitted infection among women in Ukraine. Studies in Family Planning, 38, 89–100. Fernandes, H. B. F., Natividade, J. C., & Hutz, C. S. (Submetido). Escala de ciúme

emocional e sexual: Validação em duas culturas.

Gage, A.J. & Hutchinson, P. (2006). Power, control, and intimate partner sexual violence in Haiti. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35(1), 11-24.

Goetz, A. T. (2010). The evolutionary psychology of violence. Psicothema, 22, 15-21. Goetz, A. T., Shackelford, T. K., Romero, G. A., Kaighobadi, F., & Miner, E. J. (2008).

Punishment, proprietariness and paternity: Men’s violence against women from an evolutionary perspective. Agressioan and Violent Behaviour, 13, 481-489. Harris, C. R. (2003). A review of sex differences in jealousy, including self-report data,

psychophysiological responses, interpersonal violence, and morbid jealousy.

Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 102 – 128.

Hendrick, S., S. (1988). A generic measure of relationship satisfaction. Journal of

marriage and family, 50(1), 93-98.

Hines, A. D. & Malley-Morrison, K. (2001). Psychological effects of partner abuse against men: a neglected research area. Educational Publishing Foundation, 85.

(27)

Kaighobadi, F., Shackelford, T.K. & Goetz, A.T (2009). From mate retention to

murder: Evolutionary psychological perspectives on men’s partner-directed violence.

Review of General Psychology, 13, 327-334.

Kar, L. H., & O’Leary, D. (2013). Patterns of Psychological Aggression, Dominance, and Jealousy within Marriage. Journal of Family Violence, 28, 109–119. doi: 10.1007/s10896-012-9492-7.

Katz, J., Kuffel, S., W. & Coblentz, A. (2002). Are there gender differences in

sustaining dating violence? An examination of frequency, severity, and relationship satisfaction. Journal of family violence, 17(3), 247-271.

Kear, J., Hemby, N. & Mckenzie, T. (2014). Jealous [Labrinth]. On Take me to the

thruth [Digital download]. Nashville: Syco.

Laisser, R. M., Nystrom, L., Lugina, H., & Emmelin, M. (2011). Community perceptions of intimate partner violence—a qualitative study from urban Tanzania. BMC Women’s Health, 11:13. doi: 10.1186/1472-6874-11-13.

Nankin, H., R. (1985). Fertility in aging men. The European menopause journal, 7(3), 259 –265.

Nemeth, J.M., Bonomi, A.E., Lee, M.A & Ludwin, J.M. (2012). Sexual infidelity as trigger for intimate partner violence. Womens Health, 21, 942–949.

O’Leary, K. D., Slep, M. S. A., & O’Leary, G. S. (2007). Multivariate Models of Men’s and Women’s Partner Aggression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical

Psychology75(5), 752–764. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.75.5.752.

Paiva, C. A., & Figueiredo, B. (2006). Versão Portuguesa das escalas de táticas de conflicto revisadas: estudo de validação. Psicologia: teoria e prática, 8(2), 14–39. Puente, S., Cohen, D. (2003). Jealousy and the meaning (or nonmeaning) of violence.

Personality and social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 449-460.

Reiss, I. R. (1986). Journey into sexuality: An exploratory voyage. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall.

Semonsky, M., R., & Rosenfeld, L., B. (1994). Perceptions of sexual violations: Denying a Kiss, stealing a kiss. Sex Roles, 30(7), 503–520.

Serran, G. & Firestone, P. (2004). Intimate partner homicide: a review of the male proprietress and self-defense theories. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9, 1-15. Shackelford, T. K. & Buss, D., M. (2000). Marital satisfaction and spousal cost

(28)

Shackelford, T. K., Voracek, M., Schmitt, D. P., Buss, D. M., Weekes-Shackelford, V.A., & Michalski, R. L. (2004). Romantic jealousy in early adulthood and in later life. Human Nature, 15, 283-300.

Silva, A., Saraiva, M., Albuquerque, P. & Arantes, J. (in press). The influence of relalationship quality on attitudes toward and perceptions of infidelity. Stephenson, R., Koening, A. M., & Ahmend S., 2006. Domestic violence and

contraceptive adoption in Uttar Pradesh, India. Studies in Family Planning, 37(2), 75-86.

Strauss, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data.

Journal of Family Issues, 17, p. 283-316, 1996.

Symons. D. (1979). The evolution of human sexuality. New York: Oxford University (in Press).

World Health Organization (2014). Worldwide action needed to address hidden crisis of

violence against women and girls. Retrieved from

Referências

Documentos relacionados

Material e Método Foram entrevistadas 413 pessoas do Município de Santa Maria, Estado do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil, sobre o consumo de medicamentos no último mês.. Resultados

É uma ramificação da ginástica que possui infinitas possibilidades de movimentos corporais combinados aos elementos de balé e dança teatral, realizados fluentemente em

didático e resolva as ​listas de exercícios (disponíveis no ​Classroom​) referentes às obras de Carlos Drummond de Andrade, João Guimarães Rosa, Machado de Assis,

Visando avaliar os efeitos do tempo entre colheita e o armazenamento refrigerado sobre a preservação da qualidade pós-colheita de butiá, os frutos foram colhidos em

Ousasse apontar algumas hipóteses para a solução desse problema público a partir do exposto dos autores usados como base para fundamentação teórica, da análise dos dados

The fourth generation of sinkholes is connected with the older Đulin ponor-Medvedica cave system and collects the water which appears deeper in the cave as permanent

i) A condutividade da matriz vítrea diminui com o aumento do tempo de tratamento térmico (Fig.. 241 pequena quantidade de cristais existentes na amostra já provoca um efeito

Despercebido: não visto, não notado, não observado, ignorado.. Não me passou despercebido