COMMUNICATION REPORTS, Volume 9, No. 2, Summer 1996

Understanding the Role of Uncertainty inJealousy Experience and Expression

WAUD A. AFin and TOM REICHERT

Much of the research on romantic jealousy has failed to provide an explanatory mechanism andhas ignored the difference between the experience and expression of that emotion. We addressthese concerns by adopting the construct of uncertainty, and related theoretical work, as anexplanatory framework for predicting jealousy experience and expression in romantic relation-ships. Our results confirm the value of uncertainty for understanding jealousy, highlight theimportance of differentiating jealousy experience from expression, and corroborate recentevidence showing a preference in relationships for indirectness under conditions of uncertainty.Implications of these findings are discussed in terms of the respective roles of self-presentationand uncertainty in relationships.

Despite the abundant research onromantic jealousy (for review, see Guerrero & Andersen, in press), relativelyfew studies have distinguished between the experience and expression of thisemotion. In addition, few researchers have invoked a theoretical frameworkto explain processes of jealousy expression and experience in relationships.Therefore, the purpose of this investigation is twofold: (1) to address thedistinction between the experience and expression of jealousy and (2) toinvoke the concept of uncertainty (and related principles from UncertaintyReduction Theory (URT)) as an explanation for patterns of both jealousyexperience and expression in romantic relationships.

THE IMPACT OF UNCERTAINTYUncertainty Reduction Theory (Berger & Calabrese, 1975; Berger, 1988,

1993) maintains that individuals seek to predict and explain the behavior ofself and other. Although scholars have challenged the theory's originalpremises (for critiques and extensions, see Kellermann, 1993; Sunnafrank,1990) and Berger himself has suggested theoretical modifications (forreviews, see Berger, 1987), research has demonstrated consistently thatuncertainty influences both cognitive assessments of others and behaviortoward them (for review, see Honeycutt, 1993). In fact, uncertainty has beenshown to influence outcomes well beyond the context of initial interactions.

Walid A. Afifi (Ph.D., University of Arizona, 1996) is an assistant professor in the Department ofCommunication, University of Delaware. Tom Reichert (M.A., University of Arizona, 1993) is aninstructor in the Department of Journalism, University of North Texas. A previous version of thismanuscript was presented at the International Network on Personal Relationships conference,Milwaukee, July, 1993. The authors would like to thank Laura Guerrero for her assistance on thisproject.

94 COMMUNICATION REPORTS

For example. Parks and Adelman (1983) demonstrated that the level ofuncertainty regarding a partner's behavior was a significant predictor ofrelationship survival. Relatedly, Clatterbuck (1979) found that a state of highuncertainty significantly decreased attraction toward a partner. Gudykunst,Yang, and Nishida (1985) reported that friendships were lower on measuresof uncertainty than acquaintances, and Afifi and Burgoon (1996a) found thatdaters were lower on uncertainty than cross-sex friends. Clearly, uncertaintyplays an important role in understanding established as well as initialrelationships.

Research on how individuals go about reducing their uncertainty inrelationships has also produced intriguing results. The evidence generallysupports a typology of three uncertainty reduction strategies: (1) .passiveattempts, which include any attempts to reduce uncertainty through unobtru-sive observation; (2) active attempts, which include any attempts to reduceuncertainty through active manipulation of the environment, but withoutdirect interaction with the target; and (3) interactive attempts, which includeany attempts to reduce uncertainty based on direct interaction between theinformation-seeker and the target (for review, see Berger, 1987). Generallyspeaking, the literature suggests a preference in developing relationships(i.e., in interactions beyond initial ones) for indirect methods of uncertaintyreduction. For example, Baxter and Wilmot (1984) reported the use of seven"secret tests" as information-seeking strategies, only one of which is verydirect (i.e., "directness"). In addition, Planalp, Rutherford, and Honeycutt(1988) found that participants often reacted to uncertainty-increasing eventsin their relationships by "barely mentioning the event, talk [ing] around theissue, or engag[ing] in small talk," (p. 536) hardly direct strategies. There-fore, even in cases where individuals choose interactive methods of reducinguncertainty in relationships, they seem to go about reducing it indirectly.

Other data seem to suggest that the directness with which individualsseek information is a function of their uncertainty level. Bell and Buerkel-Rothfuss (1990), for example, found that the use of indirect uncertainty-reduction strategies decreased, while the use of direct ones increased, asrelationships developed. Together with research showing a linear decrease inuncertainty levels across relationship stages (Reichert & Afifi, 1993), thesedata support a pattern in which high levels of uncertainty, and related partnerunpredictability, may discourage direct searches for information. Althoughthis pattern is counter to that made by Berger and his colleagues to explainbehavior during initial interaction (for review, see Berger & Bradac, 1982),the reality of relationships may increase the salience of risk associated withdirect uncertainty-reduction techniques. The study of jealousy provides anideal target in which to test the role of uncertainty states on emotionexperience and expression in relationships: The emotion is defined byperceived relational risk and its expression is often deemed inappropriate(e.g.. White & Mullen, 1989).

SUMMER 1996 95

JEALOUSY

Although few studies of jealousy distinguish between expression andexperience, the available evidence unequivocally supports the need to do so(e.g., Andersen, Eloy, Guerrero, & Spitzberg, 1995). A cursory review ofrelated literatures illustrates the distinction between the psychologicalexperience of jealousy and its behavioral expression.

Jealousy Experience

Romantic jealousy is defined as the reaction to a perceived threat to theexclusive romantic nature of the relationship (Bringle & Boebinger, 1990).Pfeiffer and Wong (1989), in introducing one of the first models to distinguishjealousy experience from expression, proposed a three-dimensional concep-tualization of jealousy encompassing cognitive, emotional, and behavioralcomponents. The authors conceptualized cognitive jealousy as includingparanoid thoughts and worries about the behavior of one's partner, andemotional jealousy as entailing feelings such as fear, anger, insecurity, andsadness. Behavioral jealousy, on the other hand, involves actions such asspying on one's partner or rummaging through his or her belongings. Sinceemotional experience is generally defined as having cognitive and affectiveelements (for review, see Metts & Bowers, 1995) the cognitive and emotional(i.e., affective) components maybe re-conceptualized as jealousy experience.

Unfortunately, many jealousy experience studies have been descriptive innature, with little effort given to explaining the linkages between the exper-ience of jealousy and its predictors. The construct of uncertainty, and relatedtheoretical work, offers a conceptual framework that helps explain whyindividuals may experience jealousy in a romantic relationship. Specifically,the likelihood of experiencing jealousy may be a direct function of one's levelof uncertainty regarding his or her partner's relational commitment (definedhere as relational state uncertainty). In cases where relational state uncer-tainty is high, the likelihood of defining a partner's opposite-sex interactionsas threatening should be elevated. On the other hand, "knowing" that one'spartner is committed to the relationship should lessen the chance that thepartner's interactions with the opposite sex are perceived as a threat. Thus,the first hypothesis is forwarded:Hi: Experience of jealousy in dating relationships is positively related to levels of relational state

uncertainty (i.e., as uncertainty decreases, the likelihood of jealousy experiences de-creases).

An issue that has received very little research attention but that shouldincrease predictive and explanatory precision in research on uncertainty isthe distinction among types of uncertainty. For example, an individual mayberelatively uncertain about his/her partner's commitment to the relationshipbut be very certain about many of his/her partner's other attitudes andbehaviors. Although the various types of uncertainty may be related, it shouldnot be surprising if individuals find certain information more useful for somepredictions than others (Afifi & Burgoon, 1996b). In the case of jealousy

96 COMMUNICATION REPORTS

experience and expression, uncertainty about the partner's relational commit-ment may be more predictive than general uncertainty levels. Considering thedearth of research on this distinction, a research question is presented:

RQi: Does relational state uncertainty (defined here as uncertainty about the partner'srelational commitment) predict jealousy experience better than general uncertaintyregarding the partner's attitudes and behaviors?

Expression of JealousyAlthough research on jealousy has been mostly focused on its experience,

recent research has investigated patterns associated with expression of"jealousy. As noted earlier, Pfeiffer and Wong (1989) were one ofthe first to doso explicitly by including a behavioral component in their three-dimensionalmodel of jealousy. Eloy, Guerrero, Andersen, and Spitzberg (1992) followedby suggesting three communicative reactions to jealousy: integration, distribu-tion, and avoidance. The proposed typology was conceptualized in wayssimilar to that found in the conflict literature: Integration included positivelyvalenced reactions such as asking the partner for an explanation or disclosingfeelings; distribution incorporated more negatively valenced reactions suchas yelling or arguing; and avoidant reactions were those that are passive innature, including silence and denial of feelings. Most recently, these authorshave further expanded this typology into eleven distinct responses tojealousy, ranging from expression of negative affect to surveillance behavior(Guerrero, Andersen, Jorgensen, Spitzberg, & Eloy, 1995).

While only recently addressed in the jealousy research, the differencesbetween the experience and expression of an emotion have been widelystudied elsewhere. Overall, the data show that the farther along the relationalstage ladder (Guerrero, Eloy, Jorgensen, & Andersen, 1993), the greater thesatisfaction (Andersen et al., 1995), and perhaps most importantly, the morepositive the emotion (Sprecher, 1987), the more likely that the experiencedemotion will be expressed in an integrative fashion. Theoretical explanationsof these findings mostly revolve around the notions of relational rules (Argyle& Henderson, 1984) and social exchange (Berg & McQuinn, 1986). However,revisions of URT (e.g., Berger, 1993) and related work on the concept of^uncertainty seem to provide a good "fit" to explaining these expressionpatterns.

As noted earlier, recent evidence suggests that high uncertainty inrelationships may discourage direct expression (e.g.. Bell & Burkel-Rothfuss,1990). One plausible reason for such avoidance is a fear of negative relationalimplications (Baxter & Wilmot, 1985; Guerrero & Afifi, 1995). This logic isespecially consistent with the reality of jealousy expression. Specifically,expression of jealousy implies a heightened level of relational commitmentand desire for exclusivity. In cases where individuals are uncertain about theirpartner's level of commitment, they may be particularly apprehensive aboutdirectly revealing jealousy. They may fear "scaring the other away" orseeming overly possessive. Conversely, knowing that your partner is commit-

SUMMER 1996 97

ted to the relationship makes expressing the desire for exclusivity much lessthreatening. As such, the second hypothesis is forwarded:

H2: Direct expression of jealousy in dating relationships will be negatively related to relationalstate uncertainty levels (i.e., as uncertainty decreases, likelihood of expression increases.).

Here again, it may be important to distinguish between types ofuncertainty:

RQ2: Does relational state uncertainty predict direct jealousy expression better than generaluncertainty regarding the partner's attitudes and behaviors?

The two hypotheses emphasize the importance of distinguishing betweenthe experience of jealousy and its expression. Indeed, the explanatoryframework surrounding the role of uncertainty in relationships leads to theprediction that jealousy experience should be high at high levels ofuncertainty and low at low levels of uncertainty (HI), but that likelihood ofdirect expression of jealousy should be related to uncertainty states in exactlythe opposite way (H2).

METHODS

Overview

Two studies were conducted. Data was collected for the second study toconfirm the results of the first study and to test the difference between thetwo types of uncertainty.

Samples

Study 1. A total of 155 students who were involved in a dating relationshipat the time and enrolled in communication courses at a large southwesternuniversity were recruited. The participants received course credit for theirparticipation. The sample ranged in age from 19 to 44 {M = 21.7), was mostlywhite (80%), and female (55%). The average relationship length was twoyears and one month, and they were generally close (M = 5.9all items wererated on 7-point scales) and satisfying (M = 5.4). Overall, they experiencedlow-to-moderate amounts of jealousy (M = 2.90) and were relativelyconfident in their relational state predictions (M = 2.34). They were alsomore likely to directly express jealousy to their partner (M = 4.68) than avoidits expression (M = 3.16), ^(106) = 5.96,/) < .001.

Study 2. An additional 41 students from a similar population, with similarsample characteristics, were recruited. They were also relatively close {M =7.83all items were rated on 9-point scales) and satisfied in their relation-ship (M = 7.12), were relatively certain about their partner's commitment tothe relationship (M = 2.50) and their partner's attitudes and behaviorsgenerally (M = 2.60), experienced moderate amounts of jealousy (M = 4.10)and were more likely to express it integratively (M = 6.27) than avoid itsexpression (M = 3.84), t(40) = 3.84,/? < .001.

COMMUNICATION REPORTS

Procedure

Participants in both studies were asked to complete a questionnairemeasuring relationship stage, relational state uncertainty, jealousy experi-ence, jealousy expression, relational satisfaction, and closeness. In addition,participants in the second study completed a measure of general uncertaintyabout their partner. For the expression items, participants were asked tothink of the last time they experienced jealousy in the relationship they wererating and indicate how long ago the experience occurred. The elapsed time(assessed in study 2) ranged from 3 hours to one year, with a median of 13days. Since jealousy expression is generally considered a major event inrelationships (e,g,. White & Mullen, 1989), a median of 13 days between theevent and its report does not pose memory decay concerns as it would formore mundane relational issues,

Self-Report Measures

The relational state uncertainty scale (used in both studies) was based onpast general uncertainty measures (Kellermann & Reynolds, 1990) but wasadapted to measure uncenainty regarding the panner's attitudes toward thecurrent and future state of the relationship (e,g,, "If you were asked what thisperson envisions for your relationship, how certain woiild you be with youranswer?") Alpha reliability for the three-item measure was ,89,' The generaluncertainty measure (adapted from Kellermann & Reynolds, 1990) includedfour items (e,g,, "How well do you think you know this person?"), was onlyused in the second study and achieved high reliability (,90),

Pfeiffer and Wong's (1989) operationalization of cognitive jealousy andemotional jealousy were used in this study as tests of jealousy experience(e,g,, "I suspect that my dating partner may be attracted to someone else;""It angers me when this person flirts with someone"). Due to the conceptualsimiiarity and statistical correlation (r(82) = .45,p < ,01) between these twodimensions, they were collapsed into a single "jealousy experience" dimen-sion (six items, alpha reliability = ,84),^

Jealousy expression was measured using Eloy et al,'s (1992) measure ofintegrative and avoidant patterns of communication. Participants wereinstructed to rate the extent to which each item reflected their ownexpression pattern the last time they felt jealousy in this relationship. Theparticipants were instructed to complete the expression items only if theyhad indicated moderate to high experience of jealousy on earlier items,' Theintegrative pattern of communication included four items measuring posi-tively valenced reactions such as asking partner for an explanation ordisclosing feelings. The avoidance scale consisted of four items that assessedbehaviors that are passive in nature, including silence and denial of feelings,"*The two scales achieved alpha reliabilities of ,85 and ,75, respectively. Finally,the satisfaction (adopted from Hendrick, 1988) and closeness (adopted fromMaxwell, 1985) measures were used for descriptive purposes only in thisstudy and each achieved alpha reliabilities of ,82,

SUMMER 1996 99

RESULTS

Analyses Summary

Zero-order correlations (between relational state uncertainty and theoutcome variable of interest) were used to test the hypotheses. Significantzero-order correlations were foUowed by trend analyses conducted to test thelinear nature of the correlation. First-order correlations were conducted totest the research questions and assess the unique contribution of (a)relational state uncertainty (with general uncertainty as the covariate) and (b)general uncertainty (with re!ational state uncertainty as the covariate) tojea!ousy experience and expression. The high degree of shared variancebetween the two uncertainty measures (r(4l) = .69, p < ,001) made itun!ikely to find significant variance accounted for by the unique contributionof either measure separately, but the lst-order correlation may have revealedunique trends associated with each, Fina!!y, the significant first-ordercorrelation coefficients for general uncertainty and relationa! uncertaintywere compared using the Fisher's Z transformation (Edwards, 1984).

Hypothesis One

Hypothesis one predicted that the experience of jealousy is positive!yre!ated to corresponding !evels of relational state uncertainty, A zero-ordercorre!ation, computed between re!ational state uncertainty and jea!ousyexperience, revealed a significant positive re!ationship between the twovariables (study 1: r(155) = .34,p < .001; study 2: r(4l) = .28,pone-taii < -05),confirming the hypothesis. To test the linear nature of the trend betweenthese two variab!es, uncertainty data in the first study was broken into !ow(M = 2,74), moderate (M = 3.10) and high (M = 3.67) uncertaintycategories.^ A trend ana!ysis showed a significant linear trend, F(l,152) =19.22/> < .001, with jealousy experience decreasing across the three levels ofuncertainty, and a nonsignificant quadratic trend, F(l,152) < l,ns.

Research Question OneThe first research question asked whether the different types of uncer-

tainty are differentially related to jea!ousy experience. A comparison of thefirst-order corre!ations in the second study (controlling for general uncer-tainty and relationa! state uncertainty respectively) suggests that individuals'experience of jealousy is influenced differently by relational state uncertainty(r(38) = .25,p > ,05) than by general uncertainty (r(38) = - .07 , p > .05).However, the fact that neither type of uncertainty accounted for a significantamount of unique variance in jealousy experience makes their statisticalcomparison moot.

Hypothesis Two

Hypothesis two predicted that the direct expression of jealousy isinverse!y related to corresponding levels of uncertainty, A zero-order correla-

100 COMMUNICATION REPORTS

tion, computed between integrative jealousy expression and relationaluncertainty levels, produced a significant inverse re!ationship (study 1:r(106) = - , 3 9 , p < .001; study 2: r(4l) = - . 4 8 , p = ,001), Not surprising,additiona! ana!yses revea!ed that the corre!ation between avoidance anduncertainty was a!so significant, but in the opposite direction (study 1:r(106) = .51,p = .001; study 2: r(4l) = .47,p = ,001). A trend ana!ysis usingthe same uncertainty grouping as the first hypothesis (again using study 1data) was conducted. The resu!ts reinforced the linear nature of therelationship between direct jealousy expression and uncertainty, /"(1,103) =11.92,p < ,001, with the directness ofthe expression decreasing across leve!sof uncertainty, thus confirming the hypothesis. The quadratic trend was notsignificant,/=(!,103) < l,ns.

Research Question TwoThe second research question asked whether different types of uncer-

tainty differentially influenced the !ike!ihood of direct jea!ousy expression.The 1st order corre!ations on the two uncertainty types suggested thatre!ationa! state uncertainty, r(38) = - .31 ,p < .05, may be a better predictorof jea!ousy expression than genera! uncertainty, r(38) = -,09,/> > .05, but astatistical comparison of the corre!ations, using Fisher's Z transformation,revea!ed no significant difference between the two corre!ation coefficients,Z = 1.01, /? > .05. The sma!l n size and high shared variance betweenrelational and general uncertainty decreased the likelihood of finding asignificant difference in the strength of the two correlations for both researchquestions.

DISCUSSION

This study was conducted to test the efficacy of uncertainty as aexplanatory framework for jealousy experience and expression in romanticrelationships. Although the nature ofthe data does not allow the time-orderconclusion necessary for establishing causal relationships, the results showpromising imp!ications for our understanding of jealousy. Results confirmedthat participants were more likely to experience and less likely to directlyexpress jealousy at high, versus low, levels of relationa! state uncertainty.These findings support the important ro!e p!ayed by uncertainty in re!ation-ships and reify the importance of distinguishing between the experience ofan emotion and its expression. In fact, our resu!ts suggest that patterns ofexpression and experi^ence may often be quite divergent.

The success of uncertainty as a predictor of jea!ousy experience andexpression may a!so ref!ect re!ated concerns for face and facework. Volumi-nous evidence may be cited to support the ro!e that self-presentation plays inour communicative choices (for review, see Cupach & Metts, 1994). Forexamp!e, Shimanoff (1985) found that face-threatening emotions wereexpressed significant!y !ess than other emotions. Metts (1992), in ana!ysis of

SUMMER 1996 101

disengagement strategies from a facework perspective, forwarded a similar!ogic in arguing that the perceived imp!ications to face is re!ated to strategyselection. As such, it may very we!! be that our interest in saving facediscourages the direct expression of an emotion perceived as negative, suchas jealousy. Our resu!ts !end support to such a conc!usion but suggest thatuncertainty about the impact on face makes expression even !ess like!y. Theinabi!ity to predict the partner's reaction to a direct expression of jea!ousymay be too menacing to risk a possible re!ationship- or face-threateningreaction. Partners adjust to such possib!e consequences by avoiding directexpression in cases of high uncertainty.

These findings also add to the increasing number of studies showing thathigh uncertainty leve!s in re!ationships are !ike!y to !ead to more indirectsearches for information, as compared to low levels of uncertainty. Althoughinconsistent with the original predictions of URT (Berger & Ca!abrese, 1975),this pattern reflects a !ogic that is compatible with Berger's thinking onuncertainty since then (Berger, 1993; 1995). Specifically, the strugg!e be-tween appropriate and effective means of reducing uncertainty often resu!tsin more appropriate, rather than effective, information-seeking choices. Incases where uncertainty is re!ative!y low, concerns over appropriateness maybe !essened a!ong with increased predictabi!ity over the partner's reaction tomore direct expression. The choice between these two continua may beespecia!!y sa!ient for the expression of jea!ousy due to rea! concerns aboutre!ationaJ maintenance.

Although both of our hypotheses were supported, neither of our researchquestions were answered in the affirmative. Relational state uncertainty didnot differ from general uncertainty in its influence on jealousy. As such, thedata suggest that the inabi!ity to predict a partner's behavior increases thelike!ihood of jea!ousy experience while discouraging its expression regard!essof which specific partner behavior is unpredictab!e. No specific type ofuncertainty seems to contribute to that pattern more than the other. On theother hand, in both the test for experience and the one for expression, thetrend (although not statisticaUy significant) was for re!ationa! state uncer-tainty to have a greater effect on jea!ousy than genera! uncertainty, A futurestudy with greater statistica! power to detect differences may produce datathat better reject the difference in types of uncertainty,

Overa!!, the consistency across two studies of the hypothesized relation-ships between uncertainty and jea!ousy c!ear!y suggests that uncertaintystates should p!ay a key role in our understanding of jea!ousy in romanticre!ationships. Furthermore, the clear separation in patterns between theexperience of jea!ousy and its expression ref!ects the need to devoteincreased attention to the mechanisms differentiating the experience of anemotion from its expression. Fina!!y, the resu!ts of this investigation empha-size the role of changing uncertainty !eve!s in re!ationship deve!opment andshow the imp!ications of such changes for communication behavior in thesere!ationships.

102 COMMUNICATION REPORTS

ENDNOTES

1. All reliability estimates, except general uncertainty, represent averages from the two studies.2. Due to social desirability concerns, all items referred to emotions that have been shown

to be highly correlated with jealousy and avoid direct use of the work "jealousy". Refer toGuerrero et al. (1995) for a test of the validity concerns associated with this choice.

3. This was done so as to avoid participants having to imagine how they would expressjealousy " i f they had felt experienced jealousy.

4. The distributive pattern of communication is unrelated to the predictions in thismanuscript and will not be described.

5. Although these means suggest inadequate separation among the groups, they adequatelyserve the purpose ofthe procedure (i.e., confirming the linear nature ofthe trend).

REFERENCES

Afifi, W. A., & Burgoon, J. K. (1996a). We never talk about that': A comparison of cross-sexfriendships and dating relationships on uncertainty and topic avoidance. Manuscriptsubmitted for publication.

Afifi, W. A., & Burgoon, J. K. (November, 1996b). Behavioral violations in interactions: Thecombined consequences of valence and change in uncertainty on interaction out-comes. Paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe Speech Communication Association,San Diego.

Andersen, P. A., Eloy, S. V., Guerrero, L. K., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1995). Romantic jealousy andrelational satisfaction: A look at the impact of jealousy experience and expression.Communication Reports, 8, TI-%5.

Argyle, M., & Henderson, M. (1984). The rules of (nendship. Journal of Social arid PersonalRelationships, 1,211-237.

Baxter, L. A., & Wilmot, W. W. (1984). "Secret tests": Social strategies for acquiring informationabout the state ofthe relationship. Human Communication Research, 11,171-201.

Baxter, L. A., & Wilmot, W. W. (1985). Taboo topics in close personal relationships./OMma/ ofSocial and Personal Relationships, 2,253-269.

Bell, R. A., & Buerkel-Rothfiiss, N. L. (1990). S(he) loves me, s(he) loves me not: Prediaors of relationalinformation-seeking in courtship and beyond. Communication Quarterly, 38,64-82.

Berg, J. H., & McQuinn, R. D. (1986). Attraction and exchange in continuing and noncontinuingdating relationships. Journal of Personality and Social PsycholQgy, 50,942-952.

Berger, C. R. (1987). Communicating under uncertainty. In M. E. Roloff & G. R. Miller (Eds.),Interpersonal processes: New directions in communication research, (pp. 39-62).Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Berger, C. R. (1988). Uncertainty and information exchange in developing relationships. In S.Duck (Ed.), Handbook df personal relationships: Theory, research, and interventions(pp. 239^256). Chichester, PA: John Wiley and Sons.

Berger, C. R. (1993). Uncertainty and social interaction. In S. A. Deetz (Ed.), Communicationyearbook 16 (pp. 491-502). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Berger, C. R. (1995). Inscrutable goals, uncenain plans, and the production of communicativeaction. In C. R. Berger & M. Burgoon (Eds.), Communication and social influenceprocesses (pp. 1-32). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.

Berger, C. R. & Bradac, J. J. (1982). Language and social knowledge: Uncertainty in interper-sonal relations. London: Edward Arnold.

Berger, C. R., & Calabrese, R. J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond:Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. Human Communica-tion Research, 7,99-112.

Bringle, R. G., & Boebinger, K. L. G. (1990). Jealousy and the 'third' person in the love triangle.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7,119-133.

Clatterbuck, G. W. (1979). Attributional confidence and uncertainty in initial interaction. HumanCommunication Research, 5,147-157.

Cupach, W. R, & Metts, S. (1994). Facework. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Edwards, A. L. (1984). An introduction to linear regression and correlation (2nd edition). New

York: W. H. Freeman and Company.

SUMMER 1996 103

Eloy, S. V., Guerrero, L. K., Andersen, P. A., & Spitzberg, B. H. Qune, 1992). Coping with thegreen-eyed monster: Relational satisfaction and communicative reactions to Jealousy.Paper presented at the International Communication Association in Miami, FL.

Guerrero, L. K., & Afifi, W. A. (1995). Some things are better left unsaid: Topic avoidance in familyrelationships. Communication Quarterly, 43,276-296.

Guerrero, L K and Andersen, P. A. (in press). Jealousy experience and expression in romanticrelationships. In P. A. Andersen and L. K, Guerrero (Eds.), Communicalion and emotion:Theory, research and application. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Guerrero, L. K., Andersen, P. A., Jorgensen, F. P., Spitzberg, B. H., & Eloy, S. L. (1995). Copingwith the green-eyed monster: Conceptualizing and measuring communicative and behav-ioral responses to romantic jealousy. Western Journal of Communication, 59, 270-304.

Guerrero, L. K., Eloy, S. V., Jorgensen, P. F., & Andersen, P. A. (1993). Hers or his? Sex differencesin experience and communication of jealousy in dating and married relationships. In P.Kalbfleish (Ed.), Interpersonal communication in evolving interpersonal relationships(pp. 109-131). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gudykunst, W. B., Yang, S. M., & Nishida, T. (1985). A cross-cultural test of uncertainty reductiontheory: Comparisons of acquaintances, friends, and dating relationships in Japan, Korea,and the United States. Human Communication Research, 11,407-455.

Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relational satisfaction./owma/ of Marriage and theFamily, 50,93-98.

Honeycutt, J. M. (1993). Components and functions of communication during initial interaaion,with extrapolations to beyond. In S. A. Deetz (Ed.), Communication yearbook 16 (pp.461^90). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Kellermann, K. (1993). Extrapolating beyond: Processes of uncertainty reduction. In S. A. Deetz(Ed.), Communication yearbook 16 (pp. 503-514). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Kellermann, K., & Reynolds, R. (1990). When ignorance is bliss: The role of motivation to reduceuncertainty in Uncertainty Reduction Theory. Communication Monographs, 77, 5-75.

Maxwell, M. (1985). Behavior of lovers: Measuring closeness of relationships./owrwa/ of Socialand Personal Relationships, 2,215-238.

Metts, S. (1992). The language of disengagement: A face-management perspective. In T. L.Ofbuch (Ed.), Close relationship loss: Theoretical approaches (pp. 111-127). New York:Springer-Verlag.

Metts, S. & Bowers, J. W. (1995). Emotion in interpersonal relationships. In M. L. Knapp & G. R.Miller (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 508-541). ThousandOaks: Sage.

Parks, M. R., & Adelman, M. B. (1983). Communication networks and the development ofromantic relationships: An expansion of Uncertainty Reduction Theory. Human Commu-nication Research, 10,55-79.

Pfeiffer, S. M., & Wong, P. T. (1989). Multidimensional iealousy. Journal of Social and PersonalRelationships, 6,181-196.

Planalp, S., Rutherford, D. K., & Honeycutt, J. M. (1988). Events that increase uncertainty inpersonal relationships II: Replication and extension. Human Communication Research,14, 516-547.

Reichert, W. T., & Afifi, W. A. (June, 1993). Decreasing uncertainty and its effects on a certainevent: A study of Jealousy experience. Jealousy expression, and urwertainty. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the International Network of Personal Relationships,Milwaukee, WI.

Shimanoff, S. B. (1985). Rules governing the verbal expression of emotions between marriedcouples. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 49,147-165.

Sprecher, S. (May, 1987). The experience and expression of emotions in the close, heterosexualrelationship. Paper presented at the Iowa Conference on Personal Relationships, IowaCity, IA.

Sunnafrank, M. (1990). Predicted outcome value and uncertainty reduction theories: A test ofcompeting perspectives. Human Communication Research, 17,76-103.

White, G. L., & Mullen, P. E. (1989). Jealousy: Theory, research, and clinical strategies. NewYork: Guilford.