All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Relationship Orientation, Jealousy, and Equity: An Examination of Jealousy Evoking and Positive Communicative Responses
Unformatted Document Text:  Relationship Orientation and Jealousy 12 Uncharacteristic to (5) Extremely Characteristic. Items negatively worded were reverse coded in order to have higher scores reflect a higher communal orientation (M=51.51, SD=6.81, α =.74). Positive communicative responses to jealousy were measured using a modified version of the Communicative Responses to Jealousy scale developed by Guerrero et al. (1995) (Appendix A). Nine items were taken from the Integrative Communication (e.g., “Explained feelings”) and Compensatory Restoration (e.g., “Tried to prove love for partner”) aspects of the CRJ. Responses ranged from (1) Never to (7) Always (M=42.7, SD=9.06, α =.84). Exchange orientation was measured using the Dutch Exchange Orientation Scale (Buunk & VanYperen, 1991). This scale is an 8-item (e.g., “It bothers me if my relational partner is praised for deeds that he/she never did, I feel resentment if I believe I have spent more on a friends’ present than he/she spent on mine”), Likert-type instrument with scores ranging from (1) Completely Disagree to (5) Completely Agree (M=21.8, SD=4.66, α =.58). A single question asked have they ever tried to evoke jealousy from their relational partner to which 59.6% (140) answered yes. When asked to “list the ways you attempted to make your partner jealous” the mean number of responses was 2.82 (SD=1.80). Results The first hypothesis predicted that individuals high in exchange orientation compared to those low in exchange orientation will make more attempts to evoke jealousy. High exchange orientation was defined as being one standard deviation above the mean (M=21.80, SD=4.66, N=39). Low exchange orientation was defined as being one standard deviation below the mean (N=44) Results of a chi-square analysis indicated that there was a significant difference in low

Authors: Cayanus, Jacob. and Booth-Butterfield, Melanie.
first   previous   Page 12 of 27   next   last



background image
Relationship Orientation and Jealousy 12
Uncharacteristic to (5) Extremely Characteristic. Items negatively worded were reverse coded
in order to have higher scores reflect a higher communal orientation (M=51.51, SD=6.81,
α
=.74).
Positive communicative responses to jealousy were measured using a modified version of
the Communicative Responses to Jealousy scale developed by Guerrero et al. (1995) (Appendix
A). Nine items were taken from the Integrative Communication (e.g., “Explained feelings”) and
Compensatory Restoration (e.g., “Tried to prove love for partner”) aspects of the CRJ.
Responses ranged from (1) Never to (7) Always (M=42.7, SD=9.06,
α
=.84).
Exchange orientation was measured using the Dutch Exchange Orientation Scale (Buunk
& VanYperen, 1991). This scale is an 8-item (e.g., “It bothers me if my relational partner is
praised for deeds that he/she never did, I feel resentment if I believe I have spent more on a
friends’ present than he/she spent on mine”), Likert-type instrument with scores ranging from (1)
Completely Disagree to (5) Completely Agree (M=21.8, SD=4.66,
α
=.58).
A single question asked have they ever tried to evoke jealousy from their relational
partner to which 59.6% (140) answered yes. When asked to “list the ways you attempted to
make your partner jealous” the mean number of responses was 2.82 (SD=1.80).
Results
The first hypothesis predicted that individuals high in exchange orientation compared to
those low in exchange orientation will make more attempts to evoke jealousy. High exchange
orientation was defined as being one standard deviation above the mean (M=21.80, SD=4.66,
N=39). Low exchange orientation was defined as being one standard deviation below the mean
(N=44) Results of a chi-square analysis indicated that there was a significant difference in low


Convention
Submission, Review, and Scheduling! All Academic Convention can help with all of your abstract management needs and many more. Contact us today for a quote!
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 12 of 27   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.