Examining and understanding patterns of cognitive,emotional,and behavioral jealousy: Dispositional Mindfulness as a protective factor in romantic relationships

Abstract

The present research proposes that dispositional mindfulness may play a key role in our understanding of romantic jealousy, conceptualized as a multidimensional construct consisting of three components: cognitive, emotional, and behavioral. All three components involve experiencing an outside threat, but diverse aspects of the experience are implied: cognitive jealousy entails thoughts and suspicions, emotional jealousy entails affective responses, and behavioral jealousy entails surveillance behaviors. Across five studies (N = 3275), using non-dyadic and dyadic data, different measurement scales for mindfulness, and different indicators of relationship functioning (couple satisfaction, relationship quality, occurrence of conflicts), we consistently found that mindfulness is negatively related to cognitive and behavioral jealousy. This is explained by increased self-esteem characterizing mindful individuals. In turn, decreased cognitive and behavioral jealousy resulted positively related to couple satisfaction and relationship quality, whereas negatively to occurrence of conflicts. We did not find significant relations between mindfulness, self-esteem, emotional jealousy, and relationship functioning. These results provided evidence, which was also confirmed by a mini meta-analysis, that mindfulness may constitute a protective factor against detrimental cognitive and behavioral (vs. emotional) romantic jealousy. We discuss how these results advance literature and open new research avenues for both theoretical and applied purposes.

Keywords

Mindfulness self-esteem jealousy relationship satisfaction relationship quality actor-partner interdependence model

The emotion of jealousy, which is activated by the real or perceived danger of losing the exclusive possession of the partner (Bringle & Boebinger, 1990), is found in every culture and has been recorded as an integral component of romantic relationships (Weiner & Craighead, 2010). Although a little jealousy may be considered unproblematic, some people’s experience of jealousy can be toxic and become potentially dangerous. Jealousy can cause relationships to end and even lead to violent behavior like stalking, domestic violence, physical abuse, or – in extreme cases – homicide (e.g., Babcock et al., 2004; Harris & Darby, 2010; Wade & Walsh, 2008). One important driver of jealousy is the threat to self-esteem (DeSteno et al., 2006). Psychologists generally agree that jealousy is more about one’s sense of insecurity, self-doubt, and lack of self-confidence than about one’s partner’s actions. Jealousy emerges when people feel like nothing that they have is good enough and believe that their favored position in a romantic relationship could be taken by someone else (see Adams, 2012; Khanchandani & Durham, 2009). At the heart of romantic jealousy is the perception that another person, real or imaginary, is superior to the self (DeSteno & Salovey, 1996b). As an example, jealous people may tell themselves “My partner can find someone else more attractive and leave me”. It is this threat to self-esteem that results in jealousy (Farooq et al., 2020; Tesser, 1988). Given its prevalence and painfulness, understanding the psychological mechanisms for ameliorating self-esteem problems and related romantic jealousy is clinically and socially relevant. The present research proposes that dispositional mindfulness may contribute to the improvement of self-esteem and make thus romantic jealousy less likely to surface. The theoretical association between dispositional mindfulness and self-esteem is empirically supported. Rasmussen and Pidgeon (2011), for example, demonstrated that dispositional mindfulness is associated with high levels of self-esteem. Mindfulness, a quality of consciousness that entails an open, nonjudgmental awareness of what is occurring in the present (Brown & Ryan, 2003), leads to perceive events the way they are, making people less likely to endorse self-critical beliefs that represent low self-esteem (Bajaj et al., 2016). Mindfulness entails living fully in the moment, without engaging in social comparisons and without concern about being negatively evaluated (Carson & Langer, 2006). Accordingly, employing a mindful perspective allows people to embrace positive self-evaluation (Brown et al., 2007), self-confidence (Cayoun, 2015), and self-esteem (see Randal et al., 2015). Given that the relation between dispositional mindfulness and self-esteem has been well established, and self-esteem has been shown to negatively relate to romantic jealousy, we reason that dispositional mindfulness may be associated with decreased romantic jealousy through higher self-esteem. Our central point is that being mindful precludes worries about the possibility that other persons might be more attractive or intelligent than oneself, contributing thus to self-esteem. In turn, higher self-esteem should act as a cushion against experiencing romantic jealousy. Importantly, because the conceptualization of romantic jealousy as a unitary construct may not reflect people’s experience of jealousy accurately, we turned to a more detailed investigation of different jealousy manifestations: cognitive, emotional, and behavioral (Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989). Through this article, we hope to provide strong support for a new, integrative model of romantic jealousy and to contribute to our understanding of how romantic jealousy functions, what are its different manifestations and correlates.

Romantic jealousy

A century ago, Freud (1922) defined jealousy as a fundamental emotion of human social life. It is not surprising then that jealousy has become one of the most studied emotions during the past few decades (Bringle & Buunk, 2021). Within the context of romantic relationships, jealousy predicts negative outcomes such as relational uncertainty (Barelds & Barelds-Dijkstra, 2007; Theiss & Solomon, 2006), lower commitment (Dainton & Gross, 2008) and love (Russell & Harton, 2005). Jealous partners experience greater depression and anxiety (Puente & Cohen, 2003), which can result in relationship dissolution (Barelds & Barelds-Dijkstra, 2007), violence (Babcock et al., 2004), and verbal and physical aggression (Wigman et al., 2008). Despite the abundant research, however, empirical studies mostly relied on a unidimensional conceptualization of jealousy, neglecting a complex and multi-componential interpretation. Following Pfeiffer and Wong (1989), conceptualizing jealousy as a unitary construct masks three distinct components: cognitive, emotional, and behavioral. Each component entails a specific manifestation of the jealousy experience itself: cognitive jealousy is expressed through paranoid thoughts and worries, emotional jealousy through negative feelings such as fear and sadness, and behavioral jealousy through surveillance actions such as spying on one’s partner. Relative to the emotional component, the authors defined cognitive and behavioral components as more detrimental forms of jealousy. Indeed, individuals who are cognitively and behaviorally jealous are obsessed with the idea that their relationship is under threat; they are suspicious of their partner’s behaviors and engage in partner monitoring and surveillance actions (Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989). Consistent with this view, Dandurand and Lafontaine (2014) found that cognitive jealousy and behavioral jealousy undermine couple satisfaction, whereas emotional jealousy increases couple satisfaction (see also Barelds & Barelds-Dijkstra, 2007; Rydell & Bringle, 2007). Bevan (2008) and DiBello et al. (2015) confirmed the negative relation of cognitive jealousy and behavioral jealousy with couple satisfaction, whereas emotional jealousy is unrelated to couple satisfaction in their studies.

Relevant to our purposes, Chin et al. (2017) found that self-esteem may reduce cognitive and behavioral jealousy, but not emotional jealousy. That is, the authors found a negative association of self-esteem with cognitive and behavioral jealousy, whereas a lack of significant association between self-esteem and emotional jealousy. These results suggest that, relative to emotional jealousy, cognitive and behavioral jealousy are more sensitive to (lower) self-esteem. Self-esteem denotes a positive orientation toward the self (Bandura, 1977), which is associated with positive self-thoughts and higher ability to self-regulate or adapt personal behavior (Heatherton & Ambady, 1993; see also Crocker & Park, 2004; Elloy, 2005; Ford & Collins, 2013). As such, self-esteem is seen as more aligned with cognitive and behavioral jealousy, which focus on engaging in self-critical thoughts and maladaptive behaviors, compared to emotional jealousy, which focuses on being emotionally moved by fear and sadness. Furthermore, relative to emotional jealousy, cognitive and behavioral jealousy seem to be more likely reactions when people wish to preserve their self-esteem. In response to the threat to self-esteem, people start thinking about the state of their relationship and engage in surveillance behaviors upon their partner as effective means to eliminate the rival, prevent usurpation of their romantic relationship, and thus restore their self-esteem (see Bryson, 1991).

Based on the above-mentioned findings, we propose that dispositional mindfulness may be negatively associated with cognitive and behavioral (but not emotional) jealousy through higher self-esteem, and thus be beneficial for relationship functioning.

Mindfulness and romantic jealousy

The state of being attentive and aware of ongoing events has been described as mindfulness, which is a sustained consciousness of what is occurring in the present (Brown, 2004). People high in mindfulness are aware of their experiences in the context of an accepting stance toward these experiences (Cardaciotto et al., 2008). This mindful state can be reached via meditation or mindfulness training aimed at ameliorating people’s ability to “stay in touch” with what arises moment by moment (see Lutz et al., 2008). Alternatively, and as in the current article, this mindful state can be a dispositional trait that refers to people’s tendency to notice what occurs in their everyday life, and that can be measured via self-report scales (see Davidson & Kaszniak, 2015). Mindfulness implies a state of self-acceptance and contributes to a sustainable sense of self (see Carson & Langer, 2006). As defined by Brown and Ryan (2003), being mindful enables one to step out of autopilot and come back to the here-and-now. Here, people are less likely to ruminate (“My partner finds that person over there more attractive than me!”) and to imagine the worst-case scenario such as partner infidelity (Kircaburun et al., 2019). Because they observe events without comparing themselves to others (Grossman et al., 2004), mindful people are less likely to engage in self-doubt and criticism (Bajaj et al., 2016). When one is mindful, one recognizes that thoughts are events in the mind and not self-evident truths. Living mindfully is thus crucial to self-esteem: it means living fully in the present moment without pretense about oneself and without attempts to enhance one’s appearance (Randal et al., 2015).

In this research, we propose that mindful people, who are higher in self-esteem, may be less prone to experience romantic jealousy. Applying a framework of the multidimensional jealousy theory (Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989; see Chin et al., 2017), we specifically expect that mindful people may be less likely to experience the more detrimental manifestations of jealousy, namely cognitive and behavioral (vs. emotional) jealousy, through higher self-esteem. In fact, as defined, mindfulness involves present-centered attention to phenomena without the influence of cognitive distortions and automatic thoughts. Being mindful helps people to better understand their own mental processes, avoid cognitive bias, and act with conscious awareness (Kabat-Zinn, 2003). There is a growing body of literature supporting the efficacy of mindfulness-based interventions (e.g., Grossman et al., 2004; Hayes et al., 2006; Robins & Chapman, 2004) as an integral part of the cognitive-behavioral therapy (see Hayes, 2004 for a detailed discussion on the third wave of the cognitive-behavioral tradition). Among not-clinical populations, Lykins and Baer (2009) demonstrated that dispositional mindfulness increases the ability to self-regulate behavior regardless of emotional state (see also Shapiro et al., 2006; Vago & Silbersweig, 2012). More recently, Lundwall et al. (2019) investigated mechanisms explaining the beneficial effects of dispositional mindfulness for subjective well-being. Interestingly, the authors found that the beneficial effects of dispositional mindfulness are explained by improved behavioral self-regulation and reduced cognitive emotion dysregulation (i.e., cognitive strategies that allow one to manage one’s emotions such as distraction and catastrophizing; Garnefski & Kraaij, 2007). Therefore, because of its inherent incompatibility with maladaptive thoughts and behaviors (Brown & Rayan, 2003) and its associated higher self-esteem (Randal et al., 2015), we propose to examine whether dispositional mindfulness may have a potential for reducing cognitive and behavioral (rather than emotional) manifestations of romantic jealousy.

This new prediction was tested in Study 1 and Study 2 with different measurement scales for mindfulness to avoid reliance on a single operationalization of mindfulness. Then, in Study 3 and Study 4, we moved beyond by investigating whether decreased cognitive and behavioral (vs. emotional) jealousy derived from dispositional mindfulness may be beneficial for relationship functioning, operationalized as couple satisfaction, relationship quality, and occurrence of conflicts. Finally, in Study 5, we collected data from both members of romantic couples to investigate whether, besides being negatively related to one’s own cognitive and behavioral (vs. emotional) jealousy, dispositional mindfulness may be negatively related to cognitive and behavioral (vs. emotional) jealousy experienced by one’s partner. This is useful in the context of romantic relationships, where the way partners think about themselves, and frame daily events can determine how they view each other and whether their relationship continues or ends.

The needed sample size for these studies was established by performing a power analysis through an R application which entails a Monte Carlo simulation approach (Schoemann et al., 2017). We estimated statistical power for mediation models by setting a power threshold of .80 and effect sizes for the expected correlation of .20 among variables (Cohen, 1992). We opted for a large total number of power analysis replication (5000) and wide coefficient draws per replication (20,000). Analysis revealed that the needed sample size should be of 400 participants.

Study 1

Mindfulness is known to be positively related to self-esteem (see Randal et al., 2015). Also, Chin et al. (2017) showed that self-esteem is negatively related to cognitive and behavioral – but not emotional – jealousy. By integrating these parallel, but thus far, separate lines of research, we predicted that dispositional mindfulness would be negatively related to cognitive and behavioral jealousy through higher self-esteem (Hypothesis 1), whereas we did not expect to find significant relations between dispositional mindfulness, self-esteem, and emotional jealousy.

Method

Participants

722 participants were recruited online via social networks in Italy. 239 participants were excluded for being currently not involved in a romantic relationship, 45 for being non-heterosexual¹, and 9 for being less than 18 years old. The final sample was composed by 429 heterosexual adults (65.5% female; age = 18–72 years, Mage = 30.35, SD = 14.68). Average relationship length was 92.31 months (SD = 132.73)². The educational level varied from secondary school to PhD as follows: 4.9% secondary school, 76% high school, 7% bachelor’s degree, 7.2% master’s degree, 4.9% PhD.

Measures and procedure

Using the 15-item Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (Brown & Ryan, 2003), participants assessed their awareness of ongoing events and experiences (e.g., “I could be experiencing some emotion and not be conscious of it until time later”, “I find it difficult to stay focused on what’s happening in the present”). Items were rated on six-point scales (1 = almost always; 6 = almost never), with higher scores indicating greater mindful states (α = .82). Then, participants completed the 10-item Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1979). Examples of items are: “On the whole, I am satisfied with myself”, “I feel that I have a number of good qualities”. Items were rated on five-point scales (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree), with higher scores indicating greater self-esteem (α = .88). Finally, the 24-item Multidimensional Jealousy Scale (Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989) was used to tap individual differences in cognitive, emotional, and behavioral jealousy. Specifically, the 8-item cognitive jealousy subscale assesses how often participants have a set of thoughts (e.g., “I suspect that my partner may be attracted to someone else”) on seven-point scales (1 = never; 7 = always), with higher scores indicating greater cognitive jealousy (α = .87). The 8-item emotional jealousy subscale measures how participants would emotionally react to a set of situations (e.g., “My partner shows a great deal of interest or excitement in talking to someone of the opposite sex”) on seven-point scales (1 = very pleased; 7 = very upset), with higher scores indicating greater emotional jealousy (α = .89). The 8-item behavioral jealousy subscale measures how often participants engage in surveillance actions (e.g., “I look through my partner’s drawers, handbag, or pockets”) on seven-point scales (1 = never; 7 = always), with higher scores indicating greater behavioral jealousy (α = .80).

Results and discussion

Three mediation models (Hayes, 2013; PROCESS Model 4) were tested separately for cognitive, emotional, and behavioral jealousy. In each model, dispositional mindfulness was entered as predictor, self-esteem as mediator, and romantic jealousy as dependent variable. All variables were standardized. Given that gender, age, and relationship length could relate to romantic jealousy (Dijkstra & Buunk, 2002), we controlled for these demographics. Descriptive statistics and correlations are presented in Table 1. As predicted by H1, results showed that dispositional mindfulness was significantly and negatively related to cognitive jealousy, β = −0.10, SE = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.152, −0.053], and behavioral jealousy, β = −0.06, SE = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.102, −0.014], through self-esteem. Instead, and as expected, the indirect relation between dispositional mindfulness and emotional jealousy through self-esteem was not significant, β = −0.01, SE = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.049, 0.038].

Table 1.

Study 1 (N = 429) – Descriptive statistics and correlations.

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1MAAS	4.15	0.74	1
2RSE	3.54	0.76	.42***	1
3Cognitive	2.27	1.07	−.29***	−.32***	1
4Emotional	4.88	1.25	−.05	−.06	.18***	1
5Behavioral	2.19	0.94	−.29***	−.27***	.53***	.27***	1
6Gender	1.66	0.48	−.02	−.16***	−.04	.14**	.15***	1
7Age	30.35	14.68	.21***	.27***	−.09	−.06	−.12**	−.12**	1
8Lenght	92.31	132.73	.20***	.22***	−.11*	−.02	−.09	−.06	.82***	1

Note: MAAS = Dispositional Mindfulness; RSE = Rosenberg Self-Esteem; Gender (Male = 1, Female = 2); Length = Relationship length in months *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

These results move beyond previous theorizing and research, but also confirm such work in two ways. Consistent with Randal et al. (2015), dispositional mindfulness was positively related to self-esteem. Consistent with Chin et al. (2017), self-esteem was negatively related to cognitive and behavioral jealousy, whereas unrelated to emotional jealousy. Study 2 aimed at replicating these results with a different measurement scale for mindfulness. This would broaden their generalizability as well as their theoretical and practical relevance.

Study 2

Method

Participants

399 Italian participants (44.1% female; age = 18–66 years, Mage = 28.52, SD = 9.07) were recruited online via Prolific. They declared to be heterosexual (86.5%) or primarily heterosexual (13.5%). Average relationship length was 42.08 months (SD = 29.01). 63.7% of participants did not live together, 23.8% lived together, 12% were married, 0.5% other.²

Measures and procedure

The 20-item Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale (Cardaciotto et al., 2008) measures two key constituents of mindfulness, namely awareness and acceptance. Awareness captures individual differences in the tendency to monitor ongoing internal and external stimuli (e.g., “When I am startled, I notice what is going on inside my body”). Acceptance captures individual differences in the tendency to display a nonjudgmental stance toward one’s experience (e.g., “I try to stay busy to keep thoughts or feelings from coming to mind” (R). Responses were made on five-point scales (1 = never; 5 = very often), with higher scores indicating greater present-moment awareness (α = .81) and acceptance (α = .87). Next, participants completed the 10-item Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (α = .90), and the 24-item Multidimensional Jealousy Scale measuring their cognitive (α = .89), emotional (α = .87), and behavioral (α = .84) jealousy.

Results and discussion

The method of the analysis was the same as in Study 1. All variables were standardized, and demographics were controlled as covariates. Descriptive statistics and correlations are displayed in Table 2. For cognitive jealousy, we found a significant and negative indirect effect of both awareness, β = −0.04, SE = 0.02, 95% CI [−0.078, −0.005], and acceptance, β = −0.104, SE = 0.03, 95% CI [−0.159, −0.056], through self-esteem. Similarly, both awareness, β = −0.02, SE = 0.01, 95% CI [−0.050, −0.003], and acceptance, β = −0.07, SE = 0.02, 95% CI [−0.117, −0.024], were significantly and negatively related to behavioral jealousy through self-esteem. As expected, the indirect relations of awareness, β = −0.01, SE = 0.01, 95% CI [−0.022, 0.009], and acceptance, β = 0.03, SE = 0.03, 95% CI [−0.024, 0.081], with emotional jealousy through self-esteem were not significant.

Table 2.

Study 2 (N = 399) – Descriptive statistics and correlations.

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1Awareness	3.54	0.64	1
2Acceptance	2.64	0.82	−.19***	1
3RSE	3.33	0.84	.14***	.46***	1
4Cognitive	2.22	1.14	.01	−.26***	−.30***	1
5Emotional	4.70	1.15	.08	−.21***	−.06	.32***	1
6Behavioral	1.91	0.93	−.05	−.18***	−.19***	.60***	.22***	1
7Gender	1.44	0.50	.16**	−.15**	.01	.02	.17***	.08	1
8Age	28.52	9.07	.05	.20***	.27***	−.08	−.12***	−.06	.01	1
9Lenght	42.08	29.01	.01	.13**	.08	−.06	−.03	−.11*	−.01	.35***	1

Note: RSE = Rosenberg Self-Esteem; Gender (Male = 1, Female = 2); Length = Relationship length in months.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

By using a different measurement scale for mindfulness, Study 2 corroborated the results of Study 1 that mindful individuals have higher self-esteem and are less likely to experience cognitive and behavioral jealousy in their relationship. Again, no significant relation between dispositional mindfulness, self-esteem, and emotional jealousy was found. Specifically, in line with Randal et al. (2015), both awareness and acceptance constituents of mindfulness resulted positively related to self-esteem. Also, consistent with Chin et al. (2017), self-esteem resulted negatively related to cognitive and behavioral (vs. emotional) jealousy. To summarize, the effects of dispositional mindfulness on self-esteem and romantic jealousy that emerged in Studies 1–2 are displayed in Table 3. In Study 3, we took a step forward by investigating the role of romantic jealousy in explaining the relation of dispositional mindfulness with couple satisfaction.

Table 3.

Studies 1–2: Effects of dispositional mindfulness on self-esteem and jealousy.

Study 1		Self-esteem
		Β			SE			p
Mindfulness		0.38		0.04			<.001
	Cognitive			Behavioral			Emotional
	Β	SE	p	β	SE	p	β	SE	p
Self-esteem	−0.26	0.05	<.001	−0.15	0.05	.004	−0.02	0.05	.76
Mindfulness	−0.18	0.05	<.001	−0.22	0.05	<.001	−0.04	0.05	.51

Study 2		Self-esteem
Study 2		Β			SE			p
Awareness		0.13			0.05			.009
Acceptance		0.44			0.05			< .001
Cognitive				Behavioral			Emotional
	Β	SE	p	β	SE	p	β	SE	p
Self-esteem from awareness	−0.31	0.05	<.001	−0.19	0.05	<.001	−0.04	0.05	.48
Self-esteem from acceptance	−0.24	0.06	<.001	−0.15	0.06	.007	0.06	0.06	.29
Awareness	0.05	0.05	.32	−0.04	0.05	.43	0.07	0.05	.19
Acceptance	−0.15	0.05	.008	−0.09	0.06	.11	−0.20	0.06	<.001

Study 3

In line with results from Studies 1 and 2 and past findings that cognitive and behavioral (but not emotional) jealousy are negatively related to couple satisfaction (Bevan, 2008; Dandurand & Lafontaine, 2014; DiBello et al., 2015), in Study 3 we predicted that dispositional mindfulness would be positively related to couple satisfaction through lower cognitive and behavioral jealousy (Hypothesis 2). Instead, we did not expect a significant relationship between dispositional mindfulness, emotional jealousy, and couple satisfaction.

Method

Participants

1057 participants were recruited online via social networks and snowball sampling in Italy. 144 participants were excluded for being currently not involved in a romantic relationship, 73 for being non-heterosexual, and 4 for being less than 18 years old. The final sample was composed by 836 heterosexual adults (66.3% female; age = 18–82 years, Mage = 31.85, SD = 15.21). Average relationship length was 108.91 months (SD = 154.65).

Measures and procedure

In addition to the 15-item Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (α = .82) and the 24-item Multidimensional Jealousy Scale for assessing cognitive (α = .88), emotional (α = .91), and behavioral (α = .81) jealousy, we administrated the 10-item Dyadic Satisfaction Scale (Spanier, 1976) measuring the extent to which participants feel satisfied with their romantic relationship (e.g., “In general, how often do you think that things between you and your partner are going well?”). Items were rated on six-point scales (0 = almost never; 5 = almost always), with higher scores indicating greater couple satisfaction (α = .83).

Results and discussion

Parallel to Studies 1–2, we tested three separate mediation models (Hayes, 2013; PROCESS Model 4) where dispositional mindfulness was entered as predictor, romantic jealousy as mediator, and couple satisfaction as dependent variable. We standardized all variables and covaried for demographics. Table 4 reports descriptive statistics and correlations. As predicted by H2, dispositional mindfulness was significantly and positively associated with couple satisfaction through cognitive jealousy, β = 0.08, SE = 0.01, 95% CI [0.050, 0.108], as well as through behavioral jealousy, β = 0.04, SE = 0.01, 95% CI [0.022, 0.068]. Instead, as expected, the indirect relation between dispositional mindfulness and couple satisfaction through emotional jealousy was not significant, β = 0.001, SE = 0.003, 95% CI [−0.006, 0.007].

Table 4.

Study 3 (N = 836) – Descriptive statistics and correlations.

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1MAAS	4.10	0.77	1
2Cognitive	2.27	1.11	−.29***	1
3Emotional	4.96	1.31	−.033	.21***	1
4Behavioral	2.31	1.02	−.24***	.54***	.33***	1
5Satisfaction	3.88	0.75	.19***	−.29***	.08**	−.22***	1
6Gender	1.66	0.47	−.05	−.02	.07*	.15***	−.05	1
7Age	31.85	15.21	.17***	−.18***	−.25***	−.20***	−.05	−.10**	1
8Lenght	108.91	154.65	.09**	−.18***	−.21***	−.17***	−.04	−.03	.78***	1

Note: MAAS = Dispositional Mindfulness; Gender (Male = 1, Female = 2); Length = Relationship length in months.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

These results confirmed our hypothesis H2 that mindful people were more satisfied with their relationship through lower cognitive and behavioral (but not emotional) jealousy. Besides providing novel knowledge on jealousy, Study 3 highlights the importance of differentiating between cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components. In Study 4, we conducted a more robust test of H2 by including multiple indicators of relationship functioning.

Study 4

Study 4 investigated whether findings of Study 3 are replicated across several romantic outcomes such as couple satisfaction, relationship quality, and occurrence of conflicts. This enables a more comprehensive view of how the different manifestations of jealousy function in romantic relationships and what are their implications in terms of relationship functioning. In line with Study 3, we predicted that dispositional mindfulness would be negatively related to cognitive and behavioral (vs. emotional) jealousy. In turn, decreased cognitive and behavioral jealousy would be positively related to couple satisfaction and relationship quality, whereas negatively related to occurrence of conflicts.

Method

Participants

We recruited 301 heterosexual adults (71.4% female; age = 21–73 years, Mage = 40.61, SD = 12.25) via Prolific. Average relationship length was 175.51 months (SD = 285.32). All participants were British except one who was Russian. Also, 90% of participants were white Caucasian, 5.6% Asian, 2% Black, 2.3% other.

Measures and procedure

As in Study 3, we administrated the 15-item Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (α = .90), the 24-item Multidimensional Jealousy Scale assessing cognitive (α = .92), emotional (α = .91), and behavioral (α = .87) jealousy, and the 10-item Dyadic Satisfaction Scale (α = .88) assessing the extent to which participants feel satisfied with their relationship. Then, we administrated the 15-item Perceived Relationship Quality Components Inventory (Fletcher et al., 2000). This scale measures five relationship quality components, namely commitment (e.g., “How committed are you to your relationship?”; M = 6.49, SD = 0.91, α = .95), intimacy, (e.g., “How intimate is your relationship?”; M = 5.79, SD = 1.26, α = .87), trust (e.g., “How much do you trust your partner?”; M = 6.18, SD = 0.99, α = .87), passion, (e.g., “How passionate is your relationship?”; M = 4.40, SD = 1.79, α = .96), and love (e.g., “How much do you love your partner?”; M = 6.19, SD = 1.16, α = .94). Responses were made on seven-point scales (1 = not at all; 7 = extremely). A composite relationship quality score was computed (α = .95) so that higher values indicate greater quality. Finally, we measured occurrence of conflicts by asking participants to indicate the frequency of conflicts during the past 30 days they have had with their partner on a list of 8 conflict-prone topics (e.g., “financial resources”, “opinion and/or values”, “free time management”). Items were rated on seven-point scales (1 = almost never; 7 = almost always) with higher scores indicating greater occurrence of conflicts (α = .87). This measure is based on methodologies from past studies on conflict in romantic relationships (see Burk et al., 2009).

Results and discussion

In line with Study 3, we performed three path models separately for cognitive, emotional, and behavioral jealousy. Each model was tested with Lavaan (Rosseel, 2012), an R package for Structural Equation Modelling (Team, 2015), including dispositional mindfulness as independent variable, romantic jealousy as mediator, and relationship functioning as dependent variable. All variables were standardized, and gender, age, and relationship length were included as covariates. Table 5 presents descriptive statistics and correlations for all variables. As expected, we found a significant and positive indirect relation of dispositional mindfulness with couple satisfaction, β = 0.10, SE = 0.03, z = 3.63, p < .001, 95% CI [0.044, 0.146], and relationship quality, β = 0.06, SE = 0.02, z = 2.98, p = .003, 95% CI [0.020, 0.096], whereas a significant and negative indirect relation with occurrence of conflicts, β = −0.09, SE = 0.03, z = −3.10, p = .002, 95% CI [-0.143, −0.032], through cognitive jealousy. Similarly, dispositional mindfulness related significantly and positively to couple satisfaction, β = 0.06, SE = 0.02, z = 3.02, p = .003, 95% CI [0.022, 0.106], and relationship quality, β = 0.04, SE = 0.02, z = 1.94, p = .053, 95% CI [0.000, 0.073], whereas it was significantly and negatively related to occurrence of conflicts, β = −0.10, SE = 0.03, z = −3.66, p < .001, 95% CI [-0.151, −0.046], through behavioral jealousy. The indirect relations of dispositional mindfulness with couple satisfaction, β = −0.01, SE = 0.01, z = −1.43, p = .15, 95% CI [-0.033, 0.005], relationship quality, β = −0.01, SE = 0.01, z = −1.35, p = .18, 95% CI [-0.033, 0.006], and occurrence of conflicts, β = −0.002, SE = 0.01, z = −0.22, p = .82, 95% CI [-0.017, 0.014], through emotional jealousy were not significant.

Table 5.

Study 4 (N = 301) – Descriptive statistics and correlations.

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1MAAS	3.86	0.93	1
2Cognitive	1.72	0.98	−.30***	1
3Emotional	4.94	1.16	−.15**	.23***	1
4Behavioral	1.82	0.90	−.26***	.58***	.22***	1
5Satisfaction	4.83	0.75	.16**	−.31***	.08	−.24***	1
6Quality	5.81	1.04	.08	−.17**	.10	−.12*	.85***	1
7Conflicts	2.68	1.14	−.26***	.34***	.05	.39***	−.65***	−.53***	1
8Gender	1.71	0.45	−.05	.01	.10	.01	−.02	−.01	−.04	1
9Age	40.61	12.26	.14**	−.11†	−.12*	−.03	−.13*	−.19***	.01	−.12*	1
10Lenght	175.51	285.32	−.01	−.09	.01	−.11†	−.22***	−.24***	.10	.05	.42***	1

Note: MAAS = Dispositional Mindfulness; Gender (Male = 1, Female = 2); Length = Relationship length in months.

†p = .05, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

These results demonstrated that decreased cognitive and behavioral jealousy, which are related from dispositional mindfulness, are beneficial for relationship functioning. We found that mindful individuals felt more satisfied with their relationship, perceived greater relationship quality, and were less likely to engage in conflicts with their partner in correspondence with lower cognitive and behavioral jealousy. Instead, we did not find significant relations between dispositional mindfulness, emotional jealousy, and relationship functioning. As such, we conclude that dispositional mindfulness is beneficial for relationship functioning through decreased cognitive and behavioral (vs. emotional) jealousy. To summarize, the effects of dispositional mindfulness on romantic jealousy and relationship functioning that emerged in Studies 3–4 are displayed in Table 6. It should be noted from Table 6 that emotional jealousy was positively related to couple satisfaction in Study 3. This is consistent with existing research suggesting that romantic jealousy may also have positive outcomes such as relational satisfaction (see Dandurand & Lafontaine, 2014 for the association between emotional jealousy and increased couple satisfaction) and commitment (Rydell et al., 2004). Accordingly, feeling jealous may lead individuals to remind the importance of their partner, to care about their current relationship, and to express higher motivation to maintain it over time (Guerrero & Afifi, 1999). Experiencing romantic jealousy may serve an adaptive function (Buss, 2000), promoting relationship security (Carson & Cupach, 2000) and success (Schmitt & Buss, 2001). In the future, more research on the positive outcomes of emotional jealousy should be conducted.

Table 6.

Studies 3–4: Effects of dispositional mindfulness on jealousy and relationship functioning.

Study 3	Cognitive				Behavioral			Emotional
Study 3		β	SE	p	Β	SE	p	β	SE	p
Mindfulness	−0.27	0.03	<.001	−0.21	0.03	<.001	0.01	0.03	.81
	Satisfaction
				Β			SE		p
Cognitive		−0.28			0.03			<.001
Behavioral		−0.20			0.04			<.001
Emotional		0.08			0.03			.029
Mindfulness for cognitive		0.13			0.03			<.001
Mindfulness for behavioral		0.17			0.03			<.001
Mindfulness for emotional		0.21			0.03			<.001

Study 4	Cognitive				Behavioral			Emotional
Study 4	β	SE	p	Β	SE	p	β	SE	p
Mindfulness	−0.30	0.06	< .001	−0.27	0.05	< .001	−0.13	0.06	.018
	Satisfaction				Quality			Conflicts
		β	SE	p	Β	SE	p	β	SE	p
Cognitive	−0.32	0.06	<.001	−0.20	0.05	<.001	0.30	0.07	<.001
Behavioral	−0.23	0.06	<.001	−0.13	0.06	.038	0.36	0.06	<.001
Emotional	0.10	0.06	.08	0.10	0.06	.12	0.01	0.06	.82
Mindfulness for cognitive	0.08	0.05	.156	0.04	0.06	.052	−0.18	0.06	.003
Mindfulness for behavioral	0.11	0.06	.051	0.06	0.06	.304	−0.17	0.06	.003
Mindfulness for emotional	0.19	0.06	<.001	0.11	0.06	.054	−0.26	0.06	<.001

Study 5

Study 5 collected data from both members of romantic couples, which allowed us to examine not only the relation between one’s own dispositional mindfulness and one’s own jealousy experience (i.e., actor effect) but also the relation between one’s own dispositional mindfulness and one’s partner’s jealousy experience (i.e., partner effect). The Actor-Partner Interdependence Model (APIM; Kenny et al., 2006) is a statistical method that accounts for the interdependence between partners. Past studies have used this method to examine the association of individual differences factors, such as narcissism (Wurst et al., 2017), playfulness (Proyer et al., 2019), and self-forgiveness (Pelucchi et al., 2013), with romantic outcomes. Yet, no APIM studies have investigated the relation between dispositional mindfulness and romantic jealousy. Study 5 aimed to provide a more robust understanding of the dispositional mindfulness-jealousy link intra-personally and inter-personally. In line with Studies 1–4, we predicted a negative relation of dispositional mindfulness with cognitive and behavioral jealousy, whereas we did not expect a significant relation between dispositional mindfulness and emotional jealousy.

Method

Participants

655 heterosexual couples (total N = 1310; female’s age = 15–85 years, Mage = 31.71, SD = 15.04; male’s age = 16–92 years, Mage = 33.90, SD = 15.86) participated in this study. Participants were recruited via e-mail, online social networks, and snowball sampling in Italy. Average relationship length was 11.93 months (SD = 13.22).

Measures and procedure

We administered the 15-item Mindful Attention Awareness Scale assessing mindful states displayed by male (α = .82) and female (α = .82). Also, the 24-item Multidimensional Jealousy Scale was used for measuring male’s cognitive (α = .87), emotional (α = .88), and behavioral (α = .81) jealousy as well as female’s cognitive (α = .87), emotional (α = .88), and behavioral (α = .81) jealousy.³

Results and discussion

Three APIMs were estimated separately for cognitive, emotional, and behavioral jealousy. Again, we standardized all variables and covaried for demographics. Descriptive statistics and correlations are presented in Table 7. To test for gender differences, we constrained the male paths to be equal to the corresponding female paths and compared this model to an unrestricted model in which paths were estimated freely (Wurst et al., 2017, Studies 5 and 7). The fact that constraining the paths did not worsen the model fit indicated that there were no gender differences in the effects of dispositional mindfulness on cognitive (Table 8), behavioral (Table 9), and emotional (Table 10) jealousy. Therefore, we reported the results of the restrained model specifying equal path coefficients for males and females. As can be seen in Table 11, dispositional mindfulness was negatively related to one’s own cognitive jealousy as well as to one’s partner’s cognitive jealousy. Similarly, as reported in Table 12, dispositional mindfulness was negatively associated with one’s own behavioral jealousy as well as with one’s partner’s behavioral jealousy. Instead, as reported in Table 13, dispositional mindfulness was unrelated to one’s own emotional jealousy as well as to one’s partner’s emotional jealousy.

Table 7.

Study 5 (N = 1310) – Descriptive statistics and correlations.

	A	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1MAAS	.82	4.26	0.70	1
2RSE	.85	3.68	0.75	.42***	1
3Cognitive	.87	2.32	1.13	−.25***	−.27***	1
4Emotional	.88	4.97	1.22	−.08**	−.12***	.31***	1
5Behavioral	.81	2.19	1.04	−.27***	−.24***	.50***	.35***	1
6Gender	—	1.50	0.50	−.11***	−.19***	.01	.11***	.15***	1
7Age	—	32.80	15.49	.17***	.25***	−.21***	−.28***	−.20***	−.07**	1
8Lenght	—	11.93	13.22	.13***	.21***	−.16***	−.17***	−.13***	.01	.79***	1

Note: MAAS = Dispositional Mindfulness; RSE = Rosenberg Self-Esteem; Gender (Male = 1, Female = 2); Length = Relationship length in months **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Table 8.

Goodness of fit indicators for cognitive jealousy.

	χ ²	df	TLI	CFI	SRMR	RMSEA	Model comparison	Δχ ²	Δdf	p
Model 1 No constraints	1.06	4	1.06	1.00	0.002	0.000 (0.000, 0.025)	—	—	—	—
Model 2 full constraints	1.66	6	1.06	1.00	0.005	0.000 (0.000, 0.005)	1 versus 2	0.59	2	0.74

Table 9.

Goodness of fit indicators for behavioral jealousy.

	χ ²	Df	TLI	CFI	SRMR	RMSEA	Model comparison	Δχ ²	Δdf	p
Model 1 No constraints	3.41	4	1.01	1.00	0.003	0.000 (0.000, 0.055)	—	—	—	—
Model 2 full constraints	4.81	6	1.02	1.00	0.008	0.000 (0.000, 0.045)	1 versus 2	1.33	2	0.51

Table 10.

Goodness of fit indicators for emotional jealousy.

	χ ²	Df	TLI	CFI	SRMR	RMSEA	Model comparison	Δχ ²	Δdf	p
Model 1 No constraints	8.67	4	0.92	0.98	0.006	0.042 (0.000, 0.081)	—	—	—	—
Model 2 full constraints	12.59	6	0.93	0.98	0.013	0.041 (0.001, 0.073)	1 versus 2	3.85	2	0.15

Table 11.

Dispositional mindfulness and cognitive jealousy: Actor and Partner effects.

					95%CI
	Β	SE	Z	p	ULCI	LLCI
Actor effect	−0.20	0.03	−7.19	<.001	−0.253	−0.144
Partner effect	−0.10	0.03	−3.47	.001	−0.148	−0.041

Note: β = standardized coefficients.

Table 12.

Dispositional mindfulness and behavioral jealousy: Actor and Partner effects.

					95%CI
	Β	SE	Z	p	ULCI	LLCI
Actor effect	−0.22	0.03	−7.55	<.001	−0.278	−0.163
Partner effect	−0.07	0.03	−2.62	.009	−0.130	−0.019

Note: β = standardized coefficients.

Table 13.

Dispositional mindfulness and emotional jealousy: Actor and Partner effects.

					95%CI
	Β	SE	Z	p	ULCI	LLCI
Actor effect	−0.03	0.03	−1.02	.31	−0.086	0.027
Partner effect	−0.01	0.03	−0.21	.83	−0.062	0.050

Note: β = standardized coefficients.

In line with Studies 1, 2, 3, and 4, we found significant actor effects, that is mindful individuals were less prone to experience cognitive and behavioral (but not emotional) jealousy in their relationship. Moreover, the dyadic nature of the present data allowed us to gain information about the link between individual’s dispositional mindfulness and his/her partner’s romantic jealousy. The APIMs results revealed significant partner effects, that is significant associations of individual’s dispositional mindfulness with his/her partner’s cognitive and behavioral jealousy, whereas individual’s dispositional mindfulness was unrelated to his/her partner’s emotional jealousy. This means that dispositional mindfulness is associated with decreased cognitive and behavioral (but not emotional) jealousy experienced by one’s partner: mindful people seem to be less likely to arouse cognitive and behavioral (but not emotional) jealousy in their partner. Several explanations might be advanced for these findings. For example, mindfulness researchers have proposed that receptive attention characterizing mindful individuals leads them to take more interest in their partner’s thoughts and emotions (Boorstein, 1996). Because of their sustained consciousness, mindful individuals are more willing to adopt adaptive interaction styles (Brown, 2004; Brown & Ryan, 2003; Salvati et al., 2020). As a result, their partner may be less motivated to display destructive responses such as cognitive and behavioral jealousy. Moreover, mindful people’s higher self-control suggests that they may be less inclined to commit infidelity within their relationship. This may make their partner less preoccupied with the idea that their relationship is under threat, hence less prone to engage in suspicious thoughts and surveillance behaviors. In support of this reasoning, past research showed that dispositional mindfulness and self-control were strongly related (Bowlin & Baer, 2012), and that self-control was negatively related to infidelity (McIntyre et al., 2015). Along these lines, another explanation could be attributable to the fact that increased self-esteem, which is a strong correlate of mindfulness, was found to be negatively associated with infidelity. Because of their self-confidence and ability to self-regulate behavior in socially acceptable ways, people with high self-esteem are less likely to engage in extramarital affairs (Whisman et al., 2007). Therefore, their partner may be less likely to become jealous. We see all these explanations as intriguing avenues for future theory development and empirical research.

Additional mini meta-analysis

Across five studies (N = 3275), this research consistently showed that dispositional mindfulness relates to decreased cognitive and behavioral (vs. emotional) jealousy. Before concluding this article, we conducted a mini meta-analysis to quantitatively synthesize these results and explore the consistency of the emerged effects. As illustrated in Figure 1, three distinct random effects confirmed that dispositional mindfulness plays a role in reducing cognitive and behavioral jealousy rather than emotional jealousy. Specifically, we found robust combined effect size for cognitive jealousy, r = −0.23, SE = 0.047, z = −4.99, p < .001, 95% CI [−0.323, −0.141], and behavioral jealousy, r = −0.22, SE = 0.035, z = −6.30, p < .001, 95% CI [−0.288, −0.151]. For emotional jealousy, analysis showed a weak association with dispositional mindfulness, r = −0.07, SE = 0.039, z = −1.88, p = .060, 95% CI [−0.150, 0.003].

Figure 1.

Forest plots.

General discussion

Based on the three-dimensional jealousy structure (Pfeiffer & Wong, 1989), we investigated whether dispositional mindfulness was negatively related to cognitive and behavioral jealousy, and then was beneficial for relationship functioning. This was expected to be explained by increased self-esteem of mindful people (Randal et al., 2015), which has been shown to negatively relate to cognitive and behavioral jealousy (Chin et al., 2017). Instead, we did not expect significant relations between dispositional mindfulness, self-esteem, emotional jealousy, and relationship functioning. Results obtained from five studies (N = 3275), using non-dyadic and dyadic data, different measurement scales for mindfulness, and different indicators of relationship functioning (i.e., couple satisfaction, relationship quality, and occurrence of conflicts), supported our expectations.

Study 1 showed that dispositional mindfulness was negatively related to cognitive and behavioral jealousy through increased self-esteem, whereas no significant relationship between dispositional mindfulness, self-esteem, and emotional jealousy was found. Similar results were found with a different measurement scale for mindfulness in Study 2: both awareness and acceptance constituents of mindfulness were negatively related to cognitive and behavioral jealousy through increased self-esteem, whereas unrelated to emotional jealousy. These findings extend previous theory and research according to which being mindful, because of inherent self-acceptance, has a central function in promoting well-being (see Carson & Langer, 2006). According to Ryan and Deci (2000), mindfulness facilitates behavioral self-regulation, which is associated with well-being. Specifically, bringing awareness to the present moment leads individuals to behave consistently with their needs, values, and interests. Conversely, states of habitual or automatic functioning are more likely to preclude individuals from engaging in responses that would fulfill their basic needs. By the same token, mindfulness was found to positively relate to empathic concern (Berry et al., 2018) and positive views of one’s interpersonal relationship (Kozlowski, 2013), whereas negatively to ostracism (Ramsey & Jones, 2015), social dominance (De Cristofaro et al., 2021; 2022), and conflict (Hertz et al., 2015).

Studies 3 and 4 examined whether dispositional mindfulness was beneficial for relationship functioning through decreased cognitive and behavioral jealousy. We found that mindful individuals were more satisfied with their relationship, perceived higher relationship quality, and reported less occurrence of conflicts as their cognitive and behavioral jealousy decreased. Instead, we did not find significant relations between dispositional mindfulness, emotional jealousy, and relationship functioning. These results are consistent with theoretical assumptions and empirical findings that, relative to emotional jealousy, cognitive and behavioral jealousy are more detrimental forms of jealousy (Bevan, 2008; Dandurand & Lafontaine, 2014; DiBello et al., 2015). These results also highlight the importance of differentiating between cognitive, emotional, and behavioral jealousy. This is not only a theoretical concern – understanding how dispositional mindfulness relates to different jealousy manifestations, which are differently related to relationship functioning, has important practical consequences.

Finally, Study 5 investigated whether dispositional mindfulness was negatively related not only to one’s own cognitive and behavioral jealousy but also to one’s partner’s cognitive and behavioral jealousy. Results further substantiated findings from Studies 1–4 showing a negative relation of dispositional mindfulness with one’s own cognitive and behavioral jealousy, whereas a lack of significant relationship with one’s own emotional jealousy. Additionally, we found that dispositional mindfulness was negatively related to one’s partner’s cognitive and behavioral jealousy, whereas unrelated to one’s partner’s emotional jealousy. Knowing that cognitive and behavioral jealousy are negatively related not only to individual’s dispositional mindfulness but also to that of his/her partner enriches prior knowledge and stimulates new hypotheses.

Overall, the present studies provided evidence – which was also confirmed by a mini meta-analysis – that dispositional mindfulness may constitute a protective factor against cognitive and behavioral (vs. emotional) jealousy. Therefore, we interpret our results as offering a potential pathway to ameliorate the more detrimental manifestations of romantic jealousy.

Limitations and future directions

These results open new questions and avenues for future research. For example, because of the correlational nature of our studies, the causal direction of the emerged associations between mindfulness, self-esteem, romantic jealousy, and relationship functioning remains to be resolved. Thus, future studies manipulating mindfulness (e.g., via short mindfulness training) would help to define the predictive role of mindfulness. In doing so, we encourage future studies to assess attachment-styles differences, which are known to be related to romantic jealousy (see for example Guerrero, 1998; Karakurt, 2001), and were not considered in this article.

Future directions in this field could also assess longitudinal data on the benefits of being mindful. This would allow researchers to answer the question: “How does the impact of mindfulness change over time?”. The inclusion of longitudinal designs would enable to better examine how couple’s dynamics develop, change, and their consequences.

Another road for future research is to further develop our mediation model by investigating other pathways through which dispositional mindfulness relates to decreased cognitive and behavioral jealousy. In the present research, we focused on self-esteem because it has been recognized as one of the most important drivers of romantic jealousy (DeSteno et al., 2006). Because of its well-established relationship with mindfulness (see Randal et al., 2015), we investigated self-esteem as a primary mediator in the dispositional mindfulness-romantic jealousy link. However, the next steps could focus on diverse mediators. For example, it has been found that being mindful reduces rumination (Kircaburun et al., 2019; see also Giacomantonio et al., 2020), which positively relates to cognitive and behavioral (but not emotional) jealousy (Elphinston et al., 2013). Therefore, dispositional mindfulness may be negatively associated with cognitive and behavioral (vs. emotional) jealousy through a decreased tendency to ruminate.

Finally, although previous research showed that romantic jealousy is experienced regardless of marital status and sexual orientation (Bernhard, 1986), it would be interesting to examine whether our results hold among non-heterosexual individuals (see Salvati & Koc, 2022) and committed long-term couples with and without marriage. Future research would benefit from assessing the role of demographic and cultural factors, including gender identity, nationality, ethnicity, education, income, employment, physical disability, and pregnancy status. This would provide a more complete understanding of jealousy in the context of romantic relationships.

Conclusion

Romantic jealousy is a pervasive interpersonal phenomenon, which can have negative consequences on relationship functioning. Given that many negative relationship outcomes and aggressive behaviors involving intimate partners can be attributed to romantic jealousy, investigating its correlates is important, not only theoretically but also empirically. Across five studies (N = 3275), we consistently found negative associations of dispositional mindfulness with the more detrimental manifestations of romantic jealousy, that is cognitive and behavioral (vs. emotional) jealousy, through increased self-esteem. These associations resulted beneficial for relationship functioning, operationalized as higher couple satisfaction, higher relationship quality, and lower occurrence of conflicts. This set of studies opens new research avenues on the mindfulness-romantic jealousy link, for both theoretical and applied purposes. These results constitute indeed first evidence for the usefulness of mindfulness as a protective factor against detrimental romantic jealousy and as a constraint of its negative consequences.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the author(s) have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered.

The data used in the research are available. The data can be obtained at: or by emailing: valeria.decristofaro@uniroma1.it

The materials used in the research are available. The materials can be obtained at: or by emailing: valeria.decristofaro@uniroma1.it

ORCID iDs

Valeria De Cristofaro

Valerio Pellegrini

Notes

References

Adams

(2012). Jealousy in romantic relationships, self-esteem and ego defenses (Doctoral dissertation. Victoria University.

Babcock

J. C.

Costa

D. M.

Green

C. E.

Eckhardt

C. I.

(2004). What situations induce intimate partner violence? A reliability and validity study of the Proximal antecedents to violent episodes (PAVE) scale. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(3), 433–442. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.18.3.433

Bajaj

Gupta

Pande

(2016). Self-esteem mediates the relationship between mindfulness and well-being. Personality and Individual Differences, 94, 96–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.01.020

Bandura

(1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

Barelds

D. P.

Barelds-Dijkstra

(2007). Relations between different types of jealousy and self and partner perceptions of relationship quality. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy: An International Journal of Theory & Practice, 14(3), 176–188. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.532

Bernhard

K. F.

(1986). Psychology roots. In Benard

K. F.

(Ed.), Jealousy: Its nature and treatment (pp. 35–52). Thomas.

Berry

D. R.

Cairo

A. H.

Goodman

R. J.

Quaglia

J. T.

Green

J. D.

Brown

K. W.

(2018). Mindfulness increases prosocial responses toward ostracized strangers through empathic concern. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(1), 93–112. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000392

Bevan

J. L.

(2008). Experiencing and communicating romantic jealousy: Questioning the investment model. Southern Communication Journal, 73(1), 42–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/10417940701815626

Boorstein

(1996). Transpersonal psychotherapy. State University of New York Press.

10.

Bowlin

S. L.

Baer

R. A.

(2012). Relationships between mindfulness, self-control, and psychological functioning. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(3), 411–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.050

11.

Bringle

R. G.

Boebinger

K. L.

(1990). Jealousy and the third’ person in the love Triangle. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7(1), 119–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407590071007

12.

Bringle

R. G.

Buunk

(2021). Examining the causes and consequences of jealousy: Some recent findings and issues The emerging field of personal relationships (pp. 225–240).

13.

Brown

K. W.

(2004). Mindfulness predicts lower psychophysiological reactivity to video-induced stress. University of Rochester.

14.

Brown

K. W.

Ryan

R. M.

(2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 822–848. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822

15.

Brown

K. W.

Ryan

R. M.

Creswell

J. D.

(2007). Addressing fundamental questions about mindfulness. Psychological Inquiry, 18(4), 272–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/10478400701703344

16.

Bryson

J. B.

(1991). Modes of response to jealousy-evoking situations. In Salovey

(Ed.), The psychology of jealousy and envy (pp. 178–207). Guilford Press.

17.

Burk

W. J.

Denissen

Van Doorn

M. D.

Branje

S. J.

Laursen

(2009). The vicissitudes of conflict measurement: Stability and reliability in the frequency of disagreements. European Psychologist, 14(2), 153–159. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.14.2.153

18.

Buss

D. M

(2000). The dangerous passion: Why jealousy is as necessary as love and sex. Simon and SchusterFree Press.

19.

Cardaciotto

Herbert

J. D.

Forman

E. M.

Moitra

Farrow

(2008). The assessment of present-moment awareness and acceptance: The Philadelphia Mindfulness Scale. Assessment, 15(2), 204–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191107311467

20.

Carson

C. L.

Cupach

W. R.

(2000). Fueling the flames of the green-eyed monster: The role of ruminative thought in reaction to romantic jealousy. Western Journal of Communication, 64(3), 308–329. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570310009374678

21.

Carson

S. H.

Langer

E. J.

(2006). Mindfulness and self-acceptance. Journal of Rational-Emotive and Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, 24(1), 29–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10942-006-0022-5

22.

Cayoun

B. A.

(2015). Mindfulness-integrated CBT for well-being and personal growth: Four steps to enhance inner calm, self-confidence and relationships. John Wiley & Sons.

23.

Chin

Atkinson

B. E.

Raheb

Harris

Vernon

P. A.

(2017). The dark side of romantic jealousy. Personality and Individual Differences, 115, 23–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.10.003

24.

Cohen

(1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155

25.

Crocker

Park

L. E.

(2004). The costly pursuit of self-esteem. Psychological Bulletin, 130(3), 392–414. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.3.392

26.

Dainton

Gross

(2008). The use of negative behaviors to maintain relationships. Communication Research Reports, 25(3), 179–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090802237600

27.

Dandurand

Lafontaine

M. F.

(2014). Jealousy and couple satisfaction: A romantic attachment perspective. Marriage & Family Review, 50(2), 154–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2013.879549

28.

Davidson

R. J.

Kaszniak

A. W.

(2015). Conceptual and methodological issues in research on mindfulness and meditation. American Psychologist, 70(7), 581–592. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039512

29.

De Cristofaro

Giacomantonio

Pellegrini

Salvati

Leone

(2021). Being mindful in the tax context in Italy: Examining whether and how mindfulness relates with tax evasion intentions and support for tax progressivity. Plos One, 16(6), Article e0253627. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253627

30.

De Cristofaro

Giacomantonio

Pellegrini

Salvati

Leone

(2022). Assessing social dominance orientation and system justification as psychological pathways from practicing meditation to tax evasion intentions and support for tax progressivity. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.2630

31.

DeSteno

D. A.

Salovey

(1996b). Jealousy and the characteristics of one's rival: A self-evaluation maintenance perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(9), 920–932. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167296229006

32.

DeSteno

D. A.

Valdesolo

Bartlett

M. Y.

(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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.626

33.

DiBello

A. M.

Rodriguez

L. M.

Hadden

B. W.

Neighbors

(2015). The green-eyed monster in the bottle: Relationship contingent self-esteem, romantic jealousy, and alcohol-related problems. Addictive Behaviors, 49, 52–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2015.05.008

34.

Dijkstra

Buunk

B. P.

(2002). Sex differences in the jealousy‐evoking effect of rival characteristics. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32(6), 829–852. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.125

35.

Elloy

D. F.

(2005). The influence of superleader behaviors on organization commitment, job satisfaction and organization self‐esteem in a self‐managed work team. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(2), 120–127. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730510582554

36.

Elphinston

R. A.

Feeney

J. A.

Noller

Connor

J. P.

Fitzgerald

(2013). Romantic jealousy and relationship satisfaction: The costs of rumination. Western Journal of Communication, 77(3), 293–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2013.770161

37.

Farooq

Irfan

Farooq

(2020). Relationship between self-esteem, jealousy, and Anger in emerging adults. ANNALS OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND PERSPECTIVE, 1(2), 67–74. https://doi.org/10.52700/assap.v1i2.18

38.

Fletcher

G. J.

Simpson

J. A.

Thomas

(2000). The measurement of perceived relationship quality components: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(3), 340–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200265007

39.

Ford

M. B.

Collins

N. L.

(2013). Self-esteem moderates the effects of daily rejection on health and well-being. Self and Identity, 12(1), 16–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2011.625647

40.

Freud

(1922). Some neurotic mechanisms in jealousy, paranoia, and homosexuality. In Strachey

(Ed. & Trans), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 18; pp. 221–232). Hogarth Press.

41.

Garnefski

Kraaij

(2007). The cognitive emotion regulation questionnaire - psychometric features and prospective relationships with depression and anxiety in adults. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23(3), 141–149. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.23.3.141

42.

Giacomantonio

De Cristofaro

Panno

Pellegrini

Salvati

Leone

(2020). The mindful way out of materialism: Mindfulness mediates the association between regulatory modes and materialism. Current Psychology, 41(5), 1046–3134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00850-w

43.

Grossman

Niemann

Schmidt

Walach

(2004). Mindfulness-based stress reduction and health benefits: A meta-analysis. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 57(1), 35–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3999(03)00573-7

44.

Guerrero

L. K.

(1998). Attachment-style differences in the experience and expression of romantic jealousy. Personal Relationships, 5(3), 273–291. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00172.x

45.

Guerrero

L. K.

Afifi

W. A.

(1999). Toward a goal‐oriented approach for understanding communicative responses to jealousy. Western Journal of Communication, 63(2), 216–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570319909374637

46.

Harris

C. R.

Darby

R. S.

(2010). Jealousy in adulthood. In Hart

S. L.

Legerstee

(Eds.), Handbook of jealousy: Theory, research, and multidisciplinary approaches (pp. 547–571). Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444323542.ch23

47.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

48.

Hayes

S. C.

(2004). Acceptance and commitment therapy, relational frame theory, and the third wave of behavioral and cognitive therapies. Behavior Therapy, 35(4), 639–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(04)80013-3

49.

Hayes

S. C.

Luoma

J. B.

Bond

F. W.

Masuda

Lillis

(2006). Acceptance and commitment therapy: Model, processes and outcomes. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2005.06.006

50.

Heatherton

T. F.

Ambady

(1993). Self-esteem, self-prediction, and living up to commitments. In Self-esteem (pp. 131–145). Springer.

51.

Hertz

R. M.

Laurent

H. K.

Laurent

S. M.

(2015). Attachment mediates effects of trait mindfulness on stress responses to conflict. Mindfulness, 6(3), 483–489. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-014-0281-7

52.

Kabat-Zinn

(2003). Mindfulness-based interventions in context: Past, present, and future. Clinical Psychology Science and Practice, 10(2), 144–156. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy/bpg016

53.

Karakurt

(2001). The impact of adult attachment styles on romantic jealousy (Master's thesis. Middle East Technical University.

54.

Kenny

D. A.

Kashy

D. A.

Cook

W. L.

(2006). Dyadic data analysis. Guilford Press.

55.

Khanchandani

Durham

T. W.

(2009). Jealousy during dating among female college students. College Student Journal, 43(4), 1272–1278.

56.

Kircaburun

Griffiths

M. D.

Billieux

(2019). Trait emotional intelligence and problematic online behaviors among adolescents: The mediating role of mindfulness, rumination, and depression. Personality and Individual Differences, 139, 208–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.11.024

57.

Kozlowski

(2013). Mindful mating: Exploring the connection between mindfulness and relationship satisfaction. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 28(1-2), 92–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2012.748889

58.

Lundwall

Fairborn

Quinones-Camacho

Estep

Davis

(2019). Self-regulation mechanisms explain how dispositional mindfulness promotes well-being. Journal of Positive Psychology and Wellbeing, 3(2), 153–164.

59.

Lutz

Slagter

H. A.

Dunne

J. D.

Davidson

R. J.

(2008). Attention regulation and monitoring in meditation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(4), 163–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.01.005

60.

Lykins

Baer

(2009). Psychological functioning in a sample of long-term practitioners of mindfulness meditation. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 23(3), 226–241. https://doi.org/10.1891/0889-8391.23.3.226

61.

McIntyre

J. C.

Barlow

F. K.

Hayward

L. E.

(2015). Stronger sexual desires only predict bold romantic intentions and reported infidelity when self‐control is low. Australian Journal of Psychology, 67(3), 178–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.12073

62.

Pelucchi

Paleari

F. G.

Regalia

Fincham

F. D.

(2013). Self-forgiveness in romantic relationships: It matters to both of us": Correction to Pelucchi et al. Journal of Family Psychology, 27(6), 861. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034776

63.

Pfeiffer

S. M.

Wong

P. T.

(1989). Multidimensional jealousy. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6(2), 181–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/026540758900600203

64.

Proyer

R.T.

Brauer

Wolf

Chick

(2019). Adult playfulness and relationship satisfaction: An APIM analysis of romantic couples. Journal of Research in Personality, 79, 40–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.02.001

65.

Puente

Cohen

(2003). Jealousy and the meaning (or nonmeaning) of violence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(4), 449–460. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202250912

66.

Ramsey

A. T.

Jones

E. E.

(2015). Minding the interpersonal gap: Mindfulness-based interventions in the prevention of ostracism. Consciousness and Cognition, 31, 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2014.10.003

67.

Randal

Pratt

Bucci

(2015). Mindfulness and self-esteem: A systematic review. Mindfulness, 6(6), 1366–1378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12671-015-0407-6

68.

Rasmussen

M. K.

Pidgeon

A. M.

(2011). The direct and indirect benefits of dispositional mindfulness on self-esteem and social anxiety. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 24(2), 227–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2010.515681

69.

Robins

C. J.

Chapman

A. L.

(2004). Dialectical behavior therapy: Current status, recent developments, and future directions. Journal of Personality Disorders, 18(1), 73–89. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.18.1.73.32771

70.

Rosenberg

(1979). Conceiving the self. Basic Books.

71.

Rosseel

(2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling and more. Version 0.5–12 (BETA). Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02

72.

Russell

E. B.

Harton

H. C.

(2005). The “other factors”: Using individual and relationship characteristics to predict sexual and emotional jealousy. Current Psychology, 24(4), 242–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-005-1026-5

73.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2000). When rewards compete with nature: The undermining of intrinsic motivation and self-regulation Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (pp. 13–54). Academic Press.

74.

Rydell

R. J.

McConnell

A. R.

Bringle

R. G.

(2004). Jealousy and commitment: Perceived threat and the effect of relationship alternatives. Personal Relationships, 11(4), 451–468. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2004.00092.x

75.

Rydell

R. J.

Bringle

R. G.

(2007). Differentiating reactive and suspicious jealousy. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 35(8), 1099–1114. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2007.35.8.1099

76.

Salvati

Giacomantonio

Ten Velden

(2020). Dispositional mindfulness moderates the association between social value orientation and in-group love and out-group hate. Current Psychology, 1–7(6), 3625–3631. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00853-7

77.

Salvati

Koc

(2022). Advancing research into the social psychology of sexual orientations and gender identities: Current research and future directions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 52(2), 225–232. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2875

78.

Schmitt

D. P.

Buss

D. M.

(2001). Human mate poaching: Tactics and temptations for infiltrating existing mateships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 894–917. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.894

79.

Schoemann

A. M.

Boulton

A. J.

Short

S. D.

(2017). Determining power and sample size for simple and complex mediation models. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 379–386. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617715068

80.

Shapiro

S. L.

Carlson

L. E.

Astin

J. A.

Freedman

(2006). Mechanisms of mindfulness. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62(3), 373–386. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20237

81.

Spanier

G. B.

(1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: New scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 38(1), 1528. https://doi.org/10.2307/350547

82.

Team

(2015). RStudio: Integrated development for R (42, p. 14). RStudio, Inc. http://www. rstudio. com

83.

Tesser

(1988). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social behavior. In Berkowitz

(Ed), Advances in experimental social psychology (21, pp. 181–227). Academic Press.

84.

Theiss

J. A.

Solomon

D. H.

(2006). Coupling longitudinal data and multilevel modeling to examine the antecedents and consequences of jealousy experiences in romantic relationships: A test of the relational turbulence model. Human Communication Research, 32(4), 469–503. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2006.00284.x

85.

Vago

D. R.

Silbersweig

D. A.

(2012). Self-awareness, self-regulation, and self-transcendence (S-ART): A framework for understanding the neurobiological mechanisms of mindfulness. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 296. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00296

86.

Wade

T. J.

Walsh

(2008). Does the big-5 relate to jealousy, or infidelity reactions? The Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 2(3), 133–143. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0099349

87.

Weiner

I. B.

Craighead

W. E.

(2010). The corsini encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 44). John Wiley & Sons.

88.

Whisman

M. A.

Gordon

K. C.

Chatav

(2007). Predicting sexual infidelity in a population-based sample of married individuals. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(2), 320–324. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.2.320

89.

Wigman

S. A.

Graham-Kevan

Archer

(2008). Investigating sub-groups of harassers: The roles of attachment, dependency, jealousy, and aggression. Journal of Family Violence, 23(7), 557–568. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-008-9171-x

90.

Wurst

S. N.

Gerlach

T. M.

Dufner

Rauthmann

J. F.

Grosz

M. P.

Küfner

A. C.

Denissen

J. J. A.

Back

M. D.

(2017). Narcissism and romantic relationships: The differential impact of narcissistic admiration and rivalry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(2), 280–306. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000113