Self Esteem, Jealousy, and Attraction to Potential Significant Others
Samantha M Hartman
Abstract
Impact of jealousy ratings on the way one rates their potential significant other was researched by survey to 129 students from a small Midwestern university, 18 years of age or older. Surveys were distributed in introductory level classes. Students were asked to rate on a Likert scale a possible significant other, and themselves, based on twenty personality characteristics. A Likert scale was also used to assess jealousy self esteem evaluation. The researcher found an inverse correlation between jealousy scores and self esteem scores (R= -.210 at p= .017) as well as indicated that women had overall lower self esteem than men. Similarity between participants and potential significant others was found in 17 of the 20 possible characteristics. Traits rated high in importance in intelligence, health, religion, and maturity were found to correlate significantly with low levels of jealousy at the .05 level. This research could be used to assist in finding appropriate matches for romantic relationships as well as to help relationship counselors to address issues of jealousy.
The Impact of Jealousy on Self Esteem and Attraction to Potential Significant Others
Do opposites attract? One of the oldest social psychology questions still remains to this day to be conclusively resolved. In the past, there have been countless studies done to explain what causes two individuals to be attracted to one another and just as many more to clarify the raw emotion of romantic jealousy. Yet, there has been little research found that discusses both jealous personality types and individual preferences in potential significant others.
The tendency to over estimate the internal and underestimate the external factors when explaining the behaviors of others, known as the fundamental attribution error, may be a result of our tendency to pay more attention to the situation rather than to the individual(Hider, 1958). This phenomenon may be associated with events centered on jealousy. Those that have jealousy personalities tend to overrate the internal intentions of their significant others and underrate the external factors that may attribute to such situations, though not all jealousy can be based on this theory.
There have also been five reasons found that contribute toward the attraction we have for others: proximity, association, similarity, reciprocal liking, and physical attractiveness. For the purpose of this study only similarity has been examined though all are equally important. It has been found that 'attitude similarity is a significant predictor of initial attraction across pairs' (Neimeyer & Mitchell, 1988). Put simply, we tend to like others that are like ourselves.
White (1981) suggested that romantic jealousy results in a combination of emotion, behavior, and thoughts that follow threats to the self esteem and/or threats to the existence or quality of the relationship. Those that put more effort into a relationship were more likely to be jealous, indicating that a certain personality type, such as those that have low self esteem or are more insecure, may be associated with jealousy
The current study was conducted to demonstrate the inverse relationship between jealousy and self esteem in college students, to show that women have lower levels of self esteem than men, and to illustrate that women have higher levels of jealousy than men as well. The researcher also hypothesized that those that have 'jealous' personality types will be attracted to potential significant others that are dissimilar to themselves, while those that have 'non-jealous' personality types will be attracted to potential significant others that are similar to themselves. The basis of these last two hypotheses comes from the social stigma that most individuals would not like to be in a relationship with a jealous individual and those that are, are not jealous themselves.
JEALOUSY
Evolutionary psychology explains gender differences in jealousy by suggesting that men and women will be most jealous about different things, according to Russell and Harton (2005). The research done by Russell and Harton examined the effects of individual and situational variables on individual and relationship characteristics to predict sexual versus emotional jealousy. College students in romantic relationships rated how jealous they would be if they witnessed their partner in a situation evoking sexual or emotional jealousy with either a good friend or a stranger. This was achieved by subjects reading one of eight versions of a scenario in which their partner interacts with someone else and then rating how jealous they would be in that situation. They also completed measures of love, sociosexual orientation, egalitarian attitudes, and general levels of jealousy in their relationship. The findings did not support the previous evolutionary explanation, though both men and women reported that they would be more upset in response to the sexual scenario than the emotional scenario and when the rival was a stranger rather than a good friend. When predicting levels of jealousy, Russell and Harton found that women reported higher levels of behavioral jealousy, which may be because of socialization and gender norms (Russell and Harton, 2005). The research shows that, though jealousy is an evolutionary based emotion, it has been changed over time by our specific societies and cannot be generalized to any certain gender.
Research done by Massar, Buunk, and Dechesne (2009) investigated whether the evaluation of rivals could be an unconscious process, engaged in automatically whenever a rival is present. Subjects were subliminally primed with words relating to rival characteristics after which they read a jealousy inducing scenario and their jealousy was assessed. Male and female subjects were randomly assigned to either the social dominance condition or the attractiveness condition. While completing an 'association task' subjects were subliminally shown two rival characteristic words for 17 milliseconds each between two neutral words. Later, subjects read a short scenario and indicated how jealous they would feel if the situation described in the scenario would happen to them. Results showed that women with low mate value reported more overall jealousy, but women with high mate value were more jealous after priming with attractiveness words. Accordingly, men with high relationship satisfaction reported more overall jealousy than men with low relationship satisfaction, especially after priming with social dominance words. Due to human evolution, the evaluation of rivals has evolved into a process that occurs largely outside conscious awareness and suffices in activating feelings of jealousy. The outcome of the study indicated that men and women do not differ in the amount of jealousy they feel but instead differ in the variables that cause them jealousy (Massar et al., 2009).
According to Muise, Christofides, and Desmarais (2009) anecdotal evidence suggests that Facebook may be responsible for creating jealousy and suspicion in romantic relationships. Undergraduate students, the majority of which were in a serious relationship, completed an online survey that assessed demographic and personality factors and explored respondents' Facebook use. It was revealed that increased Facebook use significantly predicts Facebook-related jealousy which may be the result of a feedback loop whereby using Facebook exposes people to often ambiguous information about their partner that they may not otherwise have access to and that this new information incites further Facebook use. Women in the sample spent significantly more time on Facebook then men and scored significantly higher on Facebook jealousy than men. The type of jealousy caused by Facebook is due to the degree of which we are exposed on the site. The surveillance of a partner only increases as the intent for information increases (Muise et al., 2009). It is a vicious circle that was described as 'addictive' by many of the participants involved.
DeSteno, Valdesolo, and Barlett (2006) conducted an experiment in support of a theory of jealousy centering on threats to the self-system. The study was carried out to demonstrate that jealousy can be evoked in a laboratory setting and that threatened self esteem functions as a principal mediator of jealousy. For the testing, participants formed a relationship with a work partner of the opposite sex; said relationship was then threatened by a rival that would produce jealousy. Later the work partner would leave the situation to either work with the rival or leave because of a scheduling conflict. The termination of the relationship due to a partner leaving to work with a rival as opposed to leaving for a scheduling conflict was successful in evoking jealousy. Higher levels of jealousy were reported in the jealousy condition than in the control condition but the variation in reported jealousy is quite large in the jealousy condition relative to the control condition. When the partner did leave to work with the rival, a decrease in implicit self esteem was seen and, overall implicit self esteem scores were demonstrated when the partner left for the rival than when they left for an appointment. As self esteem decreased in response to the partner's interest in the rival, jealousy intensity correspondingly increased. The relation supports the identification of threatened self esteem as a principal mediator of jealousy and points to the important role that may be played by emotion in mediating such outcomes (DeSteno et al., 2006).
A study done by Peretti and Pudowski (1997) was concerned with the influence of jealousy on male and female college daters and the effects that jealousy has on the jealous dating partner. All participants were either in, or had been in, a jealous dating partner in the dating relationship. A questionnaire allowed subjects to list any words or concepts concerning their ideas, attitudes, opinions, norms or values regarding the influence of jealousy on their personality. Results indicated the effect of jealousy on the male and female dating partners tended to be associated with feelings of loss of affection, rejection, insecurity, anxiety, semantics, inadequacy, low self esteem, suspiciousness, and rivalry. These variables were the same for both men and women in each group, the major difference being the rank-order of the responses for each group. Males tended to consider loss of affection and rejection significantly more in their responses than did the females. Females tended to consider anxiety, insincerity, inadequacy, low self esteem, and rivalry significantly more than the males. Jealousy in the college dating partner, like that of older adults, is based on both different and similar variables for both genders. It is a combination of developed feelings that hinders the levels of affection, but it was reported that the influence of jealousy on female daters is somewhat greater as compared to male college daters. In either conclusion, though, it was seen that the amount of jealousy had a direct influence on the strain in the relationship (Peretti and Pudowski, 1997).
The current study was done to examine the distinctions made in attribution theory in regards to its role in the arousal of romantic jealousy. Bauerle, Amirkhan, and Hupka (2002) had individuals rate the intensity of jealous feelings during a jealousy-arousing situation using pre-selected emotion adjectives as attribution s being the independent variable. It was found that jealousy tended to increase when an unfaithful partner's interaction with different-sex others was deliberate, controllable, intentional, and with out justifying excuses. 'The findings verify that attribution theory identifies blame conditions that trigger jealousy responses' (Bauerle et al., 2002, p. 297 ).
In a study done by White (1981) a definition of romantic jealousy is developed based advanced empirical research. Male and female subjects were to rate themselves on nine different jealousy scales which displayed a wide variety of sources of jealous feelings. Results suggested that 'for both sexes jealousy is positively related to exclusivity and feelings of inadequacy as a partner'. For males only though, jealousy was 'positively related to sex role traditionalism and the degree of dependence of self esteem upon partners' evaluations and negatively related to dependence on the relationship'. For females, on the other hand, 'jealousy was positively related to dependence on the relationship' (White, 1981).
In a recent study by Rydell and Bringle (2007), research was done to differentiate jealousy into reactive, the emotional components of jealousy, and suspicious jealousy, the cognitive/behavioral components of jealousy. Subjects were given questionnaires in which their jealous reactions were to be self rated on scales. Results found that 'greater reactive jealousy was related to greater relationship dependency, greater trust, and lower chronic jealousy' while those with more suspicious jealousy had 'greater insecurity, greater anxious attachment, greater avoidant attachment, greater chronic jealousy, and lower self esteem'(Rydell and Bringle, 2007, p. 1099). It is cited in the article that 'suspicious jealousy occurs before major jealousy-evoking events have occurred and reactive jealousy occurs after a major jealousy-evoking event has already happened' (Rydell and Bringle, 2007, p. 1112). This conclusion is logical since not everyone perceives jealousy-evoking events in the same manner and the outcomes of such events are subjective as well.
The study done by Barelds and Barelds-Dijkstra (2007) examined the relationships between relationship quality and three different types of jealousy. It was expected that jealousy in response to a direct threat to the relationship would be positively related to relationship quality, whereas forms of jealousy that may also be triggered in the absence of such a threat would be negatively related to relationship quality. Research was collected from heterosexual married and cohabiting couples. In all three studies both partners' levels of reactive jealousy related positively to relationship quality, while levels of anxious jealousy related negatively to relationship quality. The third type of jealousy, possessive jealousy, had no significant effects on relationship quality (Barelds and Barelds-Dijkstra, 2007).
In an effort to examine the relationship between situational and personality variables and jealousy in dating relationships, Laveena and Thomas (2009) conducted an electronically posted survey in which female college students could participate in exchange for credit in a psychology class they were taking. The research showed that jealousy ratings were lower for women who were in steady dating relationship compared to women who were not. It was also found that 'women who were more satisfied with their dating partner reported lower levels of jealousy than women who reported less satisfaction with their dating relationship'. Finally, it was found that 'women scoring higher in self esteem and lower in neuroticism reported less jealousy than women with low self esteem and high neuroticism scores' (Laveena and Thomas, 2009).
ATTRACTION
In a study on interpersonal attitudes, Lott, Lott, Reed, and Crow (1970) investigated how people use adjectives, or personality-trait words, to describe actual individuals whom they like a great deal, dislike, or feel neutrally about. Participants, who were in one of two independent samples, one from California, the other from Kentucky, were instructed to describe the stimulus persons based on a list of 200 personality-trait words. Results showed that the mean likableness values for liked, neutral, and disliked persons were remarkably similar for both samples despite a wide geographical separation and an assumed corresponding difference in subjects' backgrounds. It also showed that like persons are described by more favorable words than neutral and disliked persons, and disliked persons are described by less favorable words than neutral persons. A relation between number of words used and attraction toward the person described was confirmed for both the California and Kentucky groups showing that the greatest number of words was used for liked person, less for disliked persons, and least for neutral persons. The research may indicate the tendency for likeable persons, in general, to generate more descriptive trait words than disliked and neutral persons is precisely what makes one likeable person more similar to another likeable person and would therefore lead to least discrimination among such persons. Results suggest, also, that likeable persons have certain personality traits in common and that disliked persons and neutral persons also share separate groups of traits (Lott et al., 1970).
Klohnen and Luo (2003) of the University of Iowa tested four major attraction hypotheses ' self similarity, ideal-self similarity, complementarity, and attachment security ' to overcome the limitations of past experiments on personality characteristics. To do this, participants completed ratings concerning their own attachment organization, which consisted of secure, preoccupied, dismissing, or fearful styles, read either one or four romantic partner descriptions, rated their reactions to the partner(s), provided adjective-based descriptions of the partner(s), and completed attachment style ratings of the partners(s). It was found that attraction for specific romantic partners varied significantly by attachment classification. Secure partners were rated as significantly more attractive than the preoccupied partner, and the preoccupied partner, in turn was rated as significantly more attractive than the fearful and dismissing partners. Secure partners were also rated as significantly more attractive than any of the other partners across attachment styles and samples. Across samples it was found that the romantic partner with the same attachment style was considered to be significantly more attractive than the participants in the other three attachment classification. Similarly, subjects scoring high on anxiety were consistently more attracted to preoccupied and fearful partners, whereas participants who scored high on the avoidance dimension were more attracted to fearful and dismissing partners. This suggests that certain types of attachment dissimilarities are not only unattractive, but may even carry with them aversive reactions (Klohnen and Luo, 2003).
A study done by Izard (1960) examined whether interpersonal positive affect is a key determinant of interpersonal dynamics and that personality similarity facilitates the mutual expression of positive affect. Izard required female students to list the three most likeable and the three least likeable girls in their class and to avoid listing people on the basis of general popularity. Her results showed that the personality profiles were significantly similar for subjects and their sociometric choices but not for subjects and their sociometric rejections. The study demonstrated that actual personality similarity was an antecedent of unilateral sociometric choice but not of sociometric rejection which goes to say that personality similarity facilitates the expression of interpersonal positive affect. In other words, those that have similar personality types to us usually have favorable feelings of liking towards us and us towards them (Izard, 1960).
Three studies were done by Montoya and Horton (2004) to 'examine a model of attraction in which the cognitive evaluation of the target individual was the primary determinant of interpersonal attraction' (Montoya and Horton, 2004, p. 696). By the reasoning of the experimenters, results showed that 'similarity on negative characteristics would imply negative information about a target, which would make one's cognitive evaluation of the individual poor, thus not creating attraction'(Montoya and Horton, 2004, p. 707). It was found that quality of an individual's personality, based on similar attitudes, possession of positive qualities, occupational success, and physical attractiveness, could predict the attraction one had for another person (Montoya and Hortonto, 2004).
Attraction does not have to be limited to only significant others. A study done by Selfhout, Denissen, Branje, and Meeus (2009) examined perceived, similarity, actual similarity, and peer-rated similarity with friendship intensity for college-aged freshmen during the acquaintanceship process. On average it was found, over time, that friendship intensity significantly increases, whereas communication significantly decreases. The finding suggests that individuals become better friends over time but tend to communicate less with each other. Results also showed higher perceived similarity and higher peer-related similarity were associated with higher friendship intensity, though actual similarity was not. These results indicate that specific types of similarity in personality are not associated with friendship intensity during the early stages of acquaintanceship (Selfhout et al., 2009).
In a study done by Jamieson, Lydon, and Zanna (1987) it has been found that attitude similarity influences initial attraction to a stimulus person more than activity preference similarity for those that are low self-monitors. 'By contrast, for high self-monitors, activity preference similarity influences initial attraction more than attitude similarity' (Jamieson et al., 1987, p. 1052). Results were achieved by having low and high self-monitors form impressions of four persons representing the 'crossed combinations of high and low value-based attitude similarity, and high and low activity preference similarity'(Jamieson et al., 1987, p. 1052). It has been indicated overall that subjects were more attracted to others who they shared preferences for engaging in activities than to others that were dissimilar in this area. Though high self-monitors were influenced more by activity preference similarity than were low self-monitors (Jamieson et al., 1987).
In an attitude survey, done by Tor and Singh (2007), it was found that 'attraction toward an attitudinally similar stranger is driven not only by the given information but also by cultural stereotypes of strangers'(Tor and Singh, 2007, p. 191). For example, in the United States participants' mean attraction toward a similar stranger was often much higher than the nominal neutral point of the response measure, while in Singapore participants' mean attraction centered around the nominal neutral point. The study demonstrates the 'possibility that the attitudes-and-attraction paradigm has the potential to uncover inferences that people make in everyday interactions' (Tor and Singh, 2007, p. 191).
A study done by Kleck and Rubenstein (1975) examined the effects of physical appearance and perceived attitude similarity on self-reported interpersonal attraction. Male subjects were interviewed by their female peers and were then given a Survey of Attitudes questionnaire in which they indicated their position on current issues, such as the ones they discussed with the interviewers. Subject also rated their interviewers on perceived attitudinal similarity and physical attractiveness, both during the experimental session and two to four weeks later. It was found that despite the attractiveness level of the interviewer similarity ratings were not effected, though it was found that those subjects being interviewed by a more attractive female tending to spend more time talking and smiling at her than the less attractive interviewers (Kleck and Rubenstein, 1975).
A study done by Devendorf and Highhouse (2008) has sought to extend the similarity-attraction effect to the workplace by 'examining whether applicant similarity to prospective co-workers enhances attraction to the potential employer' (Devendorf and Highhouse, 2008, p. 607) . Researchers believed that applicants would be attracted to organizations where employees were similar to them. Results showed a correlation between prototype similarity and perceived similarity and attraction to the predicted employers, though perceived similarity correlated much more strongly. Overall, the test showed that 'similarity to a typical employee seems to predict attraction to that employee's organization' (Devendorf and Highhouse, 2008, p. 613).
To find the reason behind the effect of attitude similarity, Byrne's (1961) original research hypothesized (a) a stranger with a similar attitude with be better liked than a stranger with a dissimilar attitude, (b) a stranger with a similar attitude is judged to be more intelligent, better informed, more moral, and better adjusted than a stranger with a dissimilar attitude, and (c) a stranger that has similar attitudes on important issues and dissimilar attitudes on unimportant issues will be better liked than a stranger where the reverse is true. By an attitude measure given out by the researcher it was found that people tend to indicate higher attraction levels towards those that have similar attitudes and perceive these individuals as being more intelligent, more knowledgeable on current events, more moral and better adjusted, while the third hypothesis was not supported (Byrne, 1961).
Researchers Byrne, London, and Reeves (1968) examined if it was possible for attraction responses to be made prior to interaction, i.e. what makes up a first impression of a stranger. It was proposed that attraction would be greater toward an attractive, rather than an unattractive, stranger, and attraction toward an opposite-sex stranger would be greater than towards a same-sex stranger. Findings indicate that 'interpersonal attraction is influenced by physical attractiveness and that the sex of the stranger is of little importance in this relationship' (Byrne et al., 1968, p. 263).
To separate the effects of similarity and the effects of the information's affective value, a study by Ajzen (1974) was conducted in which a subject was given not only personality feedback about another person but about themselves as well. It was predicted that 'attraction toward the other person would increase with the desirability of the personality traits used to describe them, regardless of the degree to which these traits are similar to those describing the subject themselves' (Ajzen, 1974, p. 374). Results for study one, which provided feedback in the form of personality traits only, showed 'a tendency for similar strangers to be seen as more attractive than dissimilar strangers' though the effect of similarity on attraction was not significant (Ajzen, 1974, p. 374). In the second part of the study the stranger's opinions were offered only to see if a judgment could be formed about the other person. Results supported the claim that information about another person's opinions can attribute to personality characteristics (Ajzen, 1974).
To examine the relationship between attitude similarity and interpersonal similarity Tesser (1971) conducted a study to find if it is possible to distinguish between evaluative similarity, which is the number of attitude objects that two people share, and structural similarity, which refers to the relatedness of how one attitude can change another. Subjects were asked to respond to an attitude questionnaire which then followed by pairing 34 attitude statements based on how they were related to each other. It was found that 'subjects can perceive differences in structural similarity, and these perceived differences do have consequences of interpersonal attraction, as do differences in evaluative similarity'(Tesser, 1971, p. 92). Evaluative similarity was also found to have more influenced more variables than structural similarity (Tesser, 1971).
For the current research, attraction due to similarity will be tested on the basis of jealousy levels. Research has told us that people will be attracted to others that are similar to them more often than those that are dissimilar to them. On this source, a hypothesis for this study is that jealousy will have an inverse relationship in attraction to potential significant others that are similar or dissimilar to them. In other words, those people that score as jealous individuals will be attracted to others that are dissimilar to them. The reasoning behind this hypothesis is that although two jealous individuals would have seemingly similar personalities, to make a relationship work the amount of jealousy would need to decline, hence the idea that jealous individuals would be attracted to those that were much less jealous than themselves. In accordance, those persons that score as being low in jealousy would still be attracted to those that are similar to them, i.e. people that are low in jealousy as well. The research will indicate that, overall, 'non-jealous' individuals will be attracted to potential significant others that are similar to them and 'jealous' individuals will be attracted to potential significant others that are dissimilar to them. The research was based on self-evaluation of personality attributes, jealousy, and self esteem so that the outcome could be operationalized into numeric terms by participants rather than the researcher.
Method
Participants
Fifty-eight male, and seventy-one female college-level students, ranging in age from 18-51, with a mean of X and a median of X, were randomly selected to participate in the study. The participants were surveyed in introductory psychology, ethics, and anthropology classes at a small midwestern university.
Materials
A four part survey was designed by the researcher and adapted from existing research to find the relationship between self esteem and jealousy and the relationship similarity of the participant and the participant's potential significant other. Subjects were asked to imagine a person they would find attractive as a potential significant other and then rate this person, and themselves on 20 separate characteristics using at 7-point Likert scale to assess similarity in personality traits. Ten jealousy questions were adapted from a survey provided by gagirl.com that assessed jealous thoughts, emotions, and behaviors and were measured by using a 7-point Likert scale as well. Participants were asked to answer questions based on how they would feel or act toward either their current significant other, their most recent significant other, or, if they had never been in a relationship, how they think they would act or feel in the given situations. Finally, 10 questions from the Index of Self Esteem (ISE) questionnaire were used to measure how each individual saw themselves on a 7-point Likert scale. Five positive and five negative self esteem questions were used to counterbalance this section of the survey with negative questions being recoded in order to maintain a consistent method of scoring.
Procedure
The survey was first field tested in an experimental psychology class, consisting of approximately 15 students and was modified based on the feedback. It was then submitted to an IRB committee for examination and printed once it was approved. Professors of introductory psychology, ethics, or anthropology classes were contacted to present the survey in their classes. One-hundred twenty nine participants currently enrolled in the courses were asked to complete all of the sections of the survey in the first ten minutes of their class time. Prior to beginning, participants were given the option of withdrawing from the study if they felt uncomfortable with answering any of the questions. They were asked to be as honest as possible in analyzing themselves and the potential significant other, as well as their jealousy and self esteem. A Pearson Correlation was done to find the relationship significance between self esteem and jealousy. To find the jealousy and self esteem ratings of women a one way ANOVA was completed. A two-tailed t-test was also run on '. To find the similarity between the participants' personality ratings and how they rated a potential significant other Pearson Correlations were run for all 20 individual traits. The similarity in traits was also correlated with jealousy ratings to find a significant relationship between similarity and jealousy level.
Results
To determine the hypothesis that self esteem and jealousy will have an inverse correlation, the relationship between the variables was calculated by using a Pearson Correlation Coefficient. Inspection of the results found a significant inverse correlation between self esteem and jealousy at the .05 level, r = .016, p= -.213; meaning, as self esteem decreases, jealousy increases, with the reverse being true as well.
Table 1
Bivariate Correlation between Self Esteem and Jealousy Totals
To support the hypotheses that women will have lower self esteem one-way ANOVA was run to determine a relationship between self esteem level and gender. It was indicated that, according to the surveys collected, women (M=50.53, SD = 7.20) do have lower self esteem levels than men (M=53.00, SD = 6.91), F (1,126) = 3.87, p = .051.
Table 2
Means and Standard Deviations for Self Esteem Totals by Gender
Table 3
Summary of Analysis of Variance scores for Self Esteem Totals by Gender
A one-way ANOVA was used to determine the third hypothesis, that is, if women had higher jealousy levels when compared to men. Results indicated that women (M = 26.47, SD = 10.77) had overall higher jealousy than men (M = 23.84, SD = 8.39) but were not at a significant level, F (1,126) = 2.29, p = 1.32.
Table 4
Means and Standard Deviations for Jealousy Totals by Gender
Table 5
Summary of Analysis of Variance scores for Jealousy Totals by Gender
Additionally, an independent samples t-test comparing total scores of jealousy for men and women illustrated female scores (M = 26.47, SD = 10.77) as differing significantly from male scores (M = 23.84, SD = 8.39), though the result was still not significant, t (126) = -1.515, p = .132. By dividing the two-tailed t-test in half, results are then closer to significance, p = .066, and may be achieved with a larger sample size.
Table 6
Summary of Independent Samples T-Test scores for Jealousy Totals by Gender
Bivariate correlations were taken between the scores of participants self-rated personality traits and the way participants scored potential significant others in order to indicate a similarity between ratings on all 20 characteristics. Eighteen of the twenty qualities were found to correlate significantly in regards to similarity; intelligent (r = .207, p = .019), talkative (r = .374, p = .0001), compassionate (r = .307, p = .0001), laid-back (r = .530, p = .0001), physically attractive (r = .390, p = .0001), has athletic ability (r = .532, p = .0001), enthusiastic (r = .376, p = .0001), believe they have good earning capability (r = .374, p = .0001), spontaneous (r = .645, p = .0001), creative (r = .499, p = .0001), loyal (r = .186, p = .036), spiritual (r = .734, p = .0001), sensitive (r = .455, p = .0001), honest (r = .205, p = .020), healthy (r = .249, p = .005), religious (r = .778, p = .0001), mature (r = .664, p = .0001), and competitive (r = .541, p = .0001). The remaining two qualities, responsible and good self esteem, were not found to be significant as r = .145, p = .102 and r = .155, p = .080, respectively.
To relate the similarity of participants and potential significant others to jealousy ratings, bivariate correlations compared the jealousy variable to the similar trait ratings to find a significant correlation. Though most characteristic traits were found to have no correlation, a few did stand out. Intelligent (r = -.191, p = .030), healthy (r = -.182, p = .039), religious (r = -.184, p = .038) and mature (r = -.180, p = .042) were all found to be statistically significant with. It is important to note, however that these correlations, as well as many others that were not statistically significant, resulted in an inverse correlation. An example of the bivariate correlation for both similarity and jealousy can be found below (refer to table 7) for the intelligent personality trait.
Table 7
Example of Bivariate Correlation for both Similarity and Jealousy scores
Additional findings were noted when comparing jealousy scores to participants' self evaluations only. The bivariate correlations between jealousy and the loyal (r = -.239, p = .007) and mature (r = -.192, p = .030) personality traits resulted in significant correlations.
Table 8
Bivariate Correlation between Loyal and Jealousy scores
Table 9
Bivariate Correlation between Mature and Jealousy scores
Discussion
In the past there have been very few studies found that encompass both attraction to similarity and jealousy issues. The current study has sought to include both variables as well as answer the hypotheses introduced by the researcher. By operating statistical analysis' results showed that as self esteem decreased, jealousy increased, as well as the opposite being true. The outcome is consistent with the preconceived notion that those individuals that tend to have low self esteem also have jealous personalities (White, 1981). Preceding researchers have indicated that women with high self esteem report less jealousy than women with low self esteem and that a threatened self esteem is a principal mediator of jealousy (DeSteno et al., 2006; Laveena and Thomas, 2009). Accordingly, the present researcher's results indicated that women do tend to have lower levels of self esteem, as predicted, when compared to men, though they were not found to have higher levels of jealousy, which is combative towards the previous results. Past research indicates that not only are there many different types of jealousy but not everyone perceives jealousy-evoking events in the same manner (Russell and Harton, 2005; Rydell and Bringle, 2007). Additionally, it has been found that men and women do not differ in the amount but the variables that cause jealousy are diverse and have a direct influence on the strain of relationships (Massar et al., 2009; Peretti and Pudowski, 1997).
Eighteen of the 20 personality traits assessed resulted in similarity between participant ratings and ratings of their potential significant other, supporting the hypothesis of the study that participants tended to like others that were rated similar to themselves. This type of result has been publicized in many previous, similar studies (Neimeyer and Mitchell, 1988; Lott, 1970; Izard, 1960; Montoya, 2004; Jamieson, 1987; Byrne 1961), as well as being adapted to different types of scenarios such as the work place (Tor, 2007; Devendorf, 2008) or interactions with a stranger (Byrne, 1968; Ajzen, 1974). It is important to note, however, that the responsible and good self esteem traits, perhaps two of the more important characteristics, were not found to be significantly correlated in similarity concluding that not all characteristics of two person's personalities need to be similar in order for a friendship or romantic relationship to occur.
It was hypothesized that those participants that score higher on the jealousy scale will be attracted to those that are dissimilar in the personality characteristics than themselves. This is based from the past schema that 'opposites attract' and the assumption of the researcher that two jealous persons, subconsciously, cannot combine to create a working, non-threatening, relationship. Admittedly, the reasoning is far stretched, but the researcher believed that there would be possibilities for findings which could begin to explain jealous romantic relationships. Though 16 of the 20 personality characteristics were not found to correlate significantly with jealousy, four traits, intelligent, healthy, religious, and mature, did stand out. Results were correlated in the opposite direction has the hypothesis, however, meaning that as similarity in characteristics between participants and potential significant others increased, levels of jealousy decreased. Traits such as intelligence, religiousness, and maturity are understandable in this aspect since it is usually assumed that persons that are more intelligent can usually think through jealousy feelings and perhaps, unknowingly, point them towards the fundamental attribution error (Hider, 1958). The healthy characteristic, however, also resulted in an inverse correlation and reasoning behind this finding is questionable.
Overall this study has demonstrated that self esteem is an important factor of jealousy and that as self esteem decreases, jealousy increases. When comparing genders it was supported that women report lower levels of self esteem than men, but a larger sample size may be need to find a significance of women's jealousy levels. However, results of jealousy scores when compared to participants' self evaluations showed that as levels of loyalty and maturity rise, levels of jealousy tend to decrease. This finding solidifies results of less jealous participants, who have high levels of maturity, being attracted to potential significant others that also possess high levels of maturity.
Since the sample size of the study was so small it was difficult to support all of the hypotheses for which the researcher was testing. Instead of using a convenience sample of available classes, perhaps a campus wide study would be more efficient to better show the reactions of college students. Additionally, it can be argued that survey questions may have been subjective to each individual participant, which could have skewed the data. It was also difficult to find statistical tests that could clearly define the desired outcome. Perhaps creating a more straight forward questionnaire, in terms of how personality traits and jealousy-evoking situations should be judged by the participant, would accomplish the preferred effect and result in more accurate statistics.
There has been little found on past research that incorporates attempts to correlate similarities in jealousy and non-jealousy personality types. This study, even with its implications, gives future researchers a guide to follow when exploring either self esteem and jealousy, similarity in personality characteristics, or the combination of the two. Findings of the experiment can contribute to real life applications, such as serving as a statistical measure for internet dating networks attempting to arrange potential matches or helping relationship therapists better understand reasons for romantic jealousy and assisting clients in finding common areas that could revive their lost connections.
Results
Ajzen, I. (1974). Effects of information on interpersonal attraction: Similarity versus affective value.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29(3), 374-380. doi:10.1037/h0036002.
Bauerle, S., Amirkhan, J., & Hupka, R. (2002). An attribution theory analysis of romantic jealousy.Motivation and Emotion, 26(4), 297-319. doi:10.1023/A:1022871104307.
Byrne, D. (1961). Interpersonal attraction and attitude similarity. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62(3), 713-715. doi:10.1037/h0044721.
BYRNE, D., LONDON, O., & REEVES, K. (1968). THE EFFECTS OF PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS, SEX, AND ATTITUDE SIMILARITY ON INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION. Journal of Personality, 36(2), 259-271. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1968.tb01473.x.
DeSteno, D., Valdesolo, P., & Bartlett, M. (2006). Jealousy and the threatened self: Getting to the heart of the green-eyed monster. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4), 626-641. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.626.
Devendorf, S., & Highhouse, S. (2008). Applicant-employee similarity and attraction to an employer.Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81(4), 607-617. doi:10.1348/096317907X248842.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relationships. New York: Wiley.
Jamieson, D., Lydon, J., & Zanna, M. (1987). Attitude and activity preference similarity: Differential bases of interpersonal attraction for low and high self-monitors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,53(6), 1052-1060. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1052.
Khanchandani, L., & Durham, T. (2009). Jealousy during dating among female college students. College Student Journal, 43(4, PtB), 1272-1278.
Kleck, R., & Rubenstein, C. (1975). Physical attractiveness, perceived attitude similarity, and interpersonal attraction in an opposite-sex encounter. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,31(1), 107-114. doi:10.1037/h0076243.
Klohnen, E., & Luo, S. (2003). Interpersonal attraction and personality: What is attractive--self similarity, ideal similarity, complementarity or attachment security?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,85(4), 709-722. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.4.709.
Lott, A., Lott, B., Reed, T., & Crow, T. (1970). Personality-trait descriptions of differentially liked persons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16(2), 284-290. doi:10.1037/h0029851.
Massar, K., Buunk, A., & Dechesne, M. (2009). Jealousy in the blink of an eye: Jealous reactions following subliminal exposure to rival characteristics. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(5), 768-779. doi:10.1002/ejsp.579.
Montoya, R., & Horton, R. (2004). On the Importance of Cognitive Evaluation as a Determinant of Interpersonal Attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(5), 696-712. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.5.696.
Muise, A., Christofides, E., & Desmarais, S. (2009). More information than you ever wanted: Does Facebook bring out the green-eyed monster of jealousy?. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(4), 441-444. doi:10.1089/cpb.2008.0263.
Neimeyer, R. A. & Mitchell, K. A. (1998). Similarity and attraction: A longitudinal study. Journal of Social and Personality Relationships, 5, 131-148.
Peretti, P., & Pudowski, B. (1997). Influence of jealousy on male and female college daters. Social Behavior and Personality, 25(2), 155-160. doi:10.2224/sbp.1997.25.2.155.
Russell, E., & Harton, H. (2005). The 'Other Factors': Using Individual and Relationship Characteristics to Predict Sexual and Emotional Jealousy. Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse Psychological Issues, 24(4), 242-257. doi:10.1007/s12144-005-1026-5.
Selfhout, M., Denissen, J., Branje, S., & Meeus, W. (2009). In the eye of the beholder: Perceived, actual, and peer-rated similarity in personality, communication, and friendship intensity during the acquaintanceship process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(6), 1152-1165. doi:10.1037/a0014468.
Tesser, A. (1971). Evaluative and structural similarity of attitudes as determinants of interpersonal attraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18(1), 92-96. doi:10.1037/h0030711.
Tor, X., & Singh, R. (2007). Inferred negative trait in the attitude similarity-attraction relationship. The Journal of Social Psychology, 147(2), 190-192. doi:10.3200/SOCP.147.2.190-192.
White, G. L. (1981). A Model of Romantic Jealousy. Motivation and Emotion, 5(4), 295-310.
Appendices
Appendix A
Confidentiality Statement
Read this consent form. If you have any questions ask the experimenter and he/she will answer your questions.
'I have read the above statement and have been fully advised to the procedures to be used in this project. I have been given sufficient opportunity to ask any questions I had concerning the procedures and possible risks involved. I understand the potential risks involved and I assume them voluntarily.'
Please sign your initials, detach below the dotted line, and continue with the survey.
Sign your initials here _______________ Date_________
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The McKendree University Psychology Department supports the practice of protection for human participants participating in research and related activities. The following information is provided so that you can decide whether you wish to participate in the present study. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. You should be aware that even if you agree to participate, you are free to withdraw at any time, and that if you do withdraw from the study, your grade in this class will not be affected in any way. This survey is being conducted to assist the researcher in fulfilling a partial requirement for PSY 496W.
You must be over 18 years of age to participate in the survey. It should not take more than 10 minutes for you to complete and will be completely anonymous and confidential. If you should have any other questions, don't hesitate to contact me, Samantha Hartman, [email protected], or Dr. Bosse, 618-537-6882 or at [email protected]. Some of the questions in the survey may confront sensitive topics. If answering any of these questions causes you problems or concerns, please contact one of our campus psychologists, Bob Clipper or Amy Champion, at 537-6503.
Appendix B
Sample Survey
1. Gender (circle one): Male Female
2. Age: '______________
Think of the type person that you would find attractive as a potential significant other. Please circle the answer based what you would like best.
3. He/she is intelligent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-strongly 2-disagree 3-somewhat 4 5-somewhat 6-agree 7-strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
4. He/she is talkative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-strongly 2-disagree 3-somewhat 4 5-somewhat 6-agree 7-strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
5. He/she is compassionate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-strongly 2-disagree 3-somewhat 4 5-somewhat 6-agree 7-strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
6. He/she is laid-back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-strongly 2-disagree 3-somewhat 4 5-somewhat 6-agree 7-strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
7. He/she is physically attractive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-strongly 2-disagree 3-somewhat 4 5-somewhat 6-agree 7-strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
8. He/she has athletic ability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-strongly 2-disagree 3-somewhat 4 5-somewhat 6-agree 7-strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
9. He/she is enthusiastic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-strongly 2-disagree 3-somewhat 4 5-somewhat 6-agree 7-strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
10. He/she has good earning capability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-strongly 2-disagree 3-somewhat 4 5-somewhat 6-agree 7-strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
11. He/she is spontaneous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-strongly 2-disagree 3-somewhat 4 5-somewhat 6-agree 7-strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
12. He/she is creative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-strongly 2-disagree 3-somewhat 4 5-somewhat 6-agree 7-strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
13. He/she is loyal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-strongly 2-disagree 3-somewhat 4 5-somewhat 6-agree 7-strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
14. He/she is spiritual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-strongly 2-disagree 3-somewhat 4 5-somewhat 6-agree 7-strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
15. He/she is sensitive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-strongly 2-disagree 3-somewhat 4 5-somewhat 6-agree 7-strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
16. He/she is honest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-strongly 2-disagree 3-somewhat 4 5-somewhat 6-agree 7-strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
17. He/she is responsible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-strongly 2-disagree 3-somewhat 4 5-somewhat 6-agree 7-strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
18. He/she is healthy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-strongly 2-disagree 3-somewhat 4 5-somewhat 6-agree 7-strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
19. He/she is religious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-strongly 2-disagree 3-somewhat 4 5-somewhat 6-agree 7-strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
20. He/she is mature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-strongly 2-disagree 3-somewhat 4 5-somewhat 6-agree 7-strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
21. He/she is competitive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-strongly 2-disagree 3-somewhat 4 5-somewhat 6-agree 7-strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
22. He/she has good self esteem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-strongly 2-disagree 3-somewhat 4 5-somewhat 6-agree 7-strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
The follow section should be answered to the best of your ability. If you are not in a relationship currently, think of your most recent one. If you have never been in a relationship, answer based on how you think you would feel or act. Please circle your answers.
*S.O. = significant other
23. I am worried that someone is trying to seduce my s.o.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-never 2-very 3-somewhat 4-sometimes 5-somewhat 6-very 7-all the
rarely rarely often often time
24. I look through my s.o.'s drawers, handbag, or pockets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-never 2-very 3-somewhat 4-sometimes 5-somewhat 6-very 7-all the
rarely rarely often often time
25. I call my s.o. unexpectedly just to see if s/he is there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-never 2-very 3-somewhat 4-sometimes 5-somewhat 6-very 7-all the
rarely rarely often often time
26. I question my s.o. about previous or present romantic relationships.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-never 2-very 3-somewhat 4-sometimes 5-somewhat 6-very 7-all the
rarely rarely often often time
27. I say something nasty about another person if my s.o. shows interest in them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-never 2-very 3-somewhat 4-sometimes 5-somewhat 6-very 7-all the
rarely rarely often often time
28. I question my s.o. about his/her telephone calls.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-never 2-very 3-somewhat 4-sometimes 5-somewhat 6-very 7-all the
rarely rarely often often time
29. I question my s.o. about his/her whereabouts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-never 2-very 3-somewhat 4-sometimes 5-somewhat 6-very 7-all the
rarely rarely often often time
30. I join in whenever I see my s.o. talking to someone who could be considered a romantic option.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-never 2-very 3-somewhat 4-sometimes 5-somewhat 6-very 7-all the
rarely rarely often often time
31. I pay my s.o. a surprise visit just to see who is with him/her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-never 2-very 3-somewhat 4-sometimes 5-somewhat 6-very 7-all the
rarely rarely often often time
32. I am a jealous person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-never 2-very 3-somewhat 4-sometimes 5-somewhat 6-very 7-all the
rarely rarely often often time
The following section should be answered based upon your own personality as you see it.
Please circle your answers.
33. I am intelligent
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-strongly 2-disagree 3-somewhat 4 5-somewhat 6-agree 7-strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
34. I am talkative
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-strongly 2-disagree 3-somewhat 4 5-somewhat 6-agree 7-strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
35. I am compassionate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-strongly 2-disagree 3-somewhat 4 5-somewhat 6-agree 7-strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
36. I am laid-back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-strongly 2-disagree 3-somewhat 4 5-somewhat 6-agree 7-strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
37. I am physically attractive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-strongly 2-disagree 3-somewhat 4 5-somewhat 6-agree 7-strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
38. I have athletic ability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-strongly 2-disagree 3-somewhat 4 5-somewhat 6-agree 7-strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
39. I am enthusiastic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-strongly 2-disagree 3-somewhat 4 5-somewhat 6-agree 7-strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
40. I have good earning capability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-strongly 2-disagree 3-somewhat 4 5-somewhat 6-agree 7-strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
41. I am spontaneous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-strongly 2-disagree 3-somewhat 4 5-somewhat 6-agree 7-strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
42. I am creative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-strongly 2-disagree 3-somewhat 4 5-somewhat 6-agree 7-strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
43. I am loyal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-strongly 2-disagree 3-somewhat 4 5-somewhat 6-agree 7-strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
44. I am sensitive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-strongly 2-disagree 3-somewhat 4 5-somewhat 6-agree 7-strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
45. I am spiritual.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-strongly 2-disagree 3-somewhat 4 5-somewhat 6-agree 7-strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
46. I am honest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-strongly 2-disagree 3-somewhat 4 5-somewhat 6-agree 7-strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
47. I am responsible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-strongly 2-disagree 3-somewhat 4 5-somewhat 6-agree 7-strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
48. I am healthy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-strongly 2-disagree 3-somewhat 4 5-somewhat 6-agree 7-strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
49. I am religious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-strongly 2-disagree 3-somewhat 4 5-somewhat 6-agree 7-strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
50. I am mature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-strongly 2-disagree 3-somewhat 4 5-somewhat 6-agree 7-strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
51. I am competitive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-strongly 2-disagree 3-somewhat 4 5-somewhat 6-agree 7-strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
52. I have good self esteem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-strongly 2-disagree 3-somewhat 4 5-somewhat 6-agree 7-strongly
disagree disagree agree agree
The following section should be based upon yourself. Please circle the answer that you believe fits you the best.
53. I feel that people would not like me if they really knew me well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-never 2-very 3-somewhat 4-sometimes 5-somewhat 6-very 7-all the
rarely rarely often often time
54. I feel that others get along much better socially than I do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-never 2-very 3-somewhat 4-sometimes 5-somewhat 6-very 7-all the
rarely rarely often often time
55. I feel that people really like to talk with me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-never 2-very 3-somewhat 4-sometimes 5-somewhat 6-very 7-all the
rarely rarely often often time
56. I think I make a good impression on others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-never 2-very 3-somewhat 4-sometimes 5-somewhat 6-very 7-all the
rarely rarely often often time
57. When I am with strangers I am very nervous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-never 2-very 3-somewhat 4-sometimes 5-somewhat 6-very 7-all the
rarely rarely often often time
58. I think my friends find me interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-never 2-very 3-somewhat 4-sometimes 5-somewhat 6-very 7-all the
rarely rarely often often time
59. I feel that if I could be more like other people I would have it made.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-never 2-very 3-somewhat 4-sometimes 5-somewhat 6-very 7-all the
rarely rarely often often time
60. I feel I get pushed around more than others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-never 2-very 3-somewhat 4-sometimes 5-somewhat 6-very 7-all the
rarely rarely often often time
61. I feel that I am a likeable person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-never 2-very 3-somewhat 4-sometimes 5-somewhat 6-very 7-all the
rarely rarely often often time
62. I feel that people have a good time when they are with me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1-never 2-very 3-somewhat 4-sometimes 5-somewhat 6-very 7-all the
rarely rarely often often time
Adapted from: Index of Self Esteem and gagirl.com 'How Strong is Your Jealousy'
©