COMMUNICATION REPORTS, Volume 9, No.

2, Summer 1996

Understanding the Role of Uncertainty in

Jealousy Experience and Expression
WAUD A. AFin and TOM REICHERT
Much of the research on romantic jealousy has failed to provide an explanatory mechanism and
has ignored the difference between the experience and expression of that emotion. We address
these concerns by adopting the construct of uncertainty, and related theoretical work, as an
explanatory framework for predicting jealousy experience and expression in romantic relationships. Our results confirm the value of uncertainty for understanding jealousy, highlight the
importance of differentiating jealousy experience from expression, and corroborate recent
evidence 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-presentation
and uncertainty in relationships.

Despite the abundant research on

romantic jealousy (for review, see Guerrero & Andersen, in press), relatively
few studies have distinguished between the experience and expression of this
emotion. In addition, few researchers have invoked a theoretical framework
to explain processes of jealousy expression and experience in relationships.
Therefore, the purpose of this investigation is twofold: (1) to address the
distinction between the experience and expression of jealousy and (2) to
invoke the concept of uncertainty (and related principles from Uncertainty
Reduction Theory (URT)) as an explanation for patterns of both jealousy
experience and expression in romantic relationships.
THE IMPACT OF UNCERTAINTY
Uncertainty Reduction Theory (Berger & Calabrese, 1975; Berger, 1988,
1993) maintains that individuals seek to predict and explain the behavior of
self and other. Although scholars have challenged the theory's original
premises (for critiques and extensions, see Kellermann, 1993; Sunnafrank,
1990) and Berger himself has suggested theoretical modifications (for
reviews, see Berger, 1987), research has demonstrated consistently that
uncertainty influences both cognitive assessments of others and behavior
toward them (for review, see Honeycutt, 1993). In fact, uncertainty has been
shown 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 of
Communication, University of Delaware. Tom Reichert (M.A., University of Arizona, 1993) is an
instructor in the Department of Journalism, University of North Texas. A previous version of this
manuscript 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 this
project.

94

COMMUNICATION REPORTS

For example. Parks and Adelman (1983) demonstrated that the level of
uncertainty regarding a partner's behavior was a significant predictor of
relationship survival. Relatedly, Clatterbuck (1979) found that a state of high
uncertainty significantly decreased attraction toward a partner. Gudykunst,
Yang, and Nishida (1985) reported that friendships were lower on measures
of uncertainty than acquaintances, and Afifi and Burgoon (1996a) found that
daters were lower on uncertainty than cross-sex friends. Clearly, uncertainty
plays an important role in understanding established as well as initial
relationships.
Research on how individuals go about reducing their uncertainty in
relationships has also produced intriguing results. The evidence generally
supports a typology of three uncertainty reduction strategies: (1) .passive
attempts, which include any attempts to reduce uncertainty through unobtrusive observation; (2) active attempts, which include any attempts to reduce
uncertainty through active manipulation of the environment, but without
direct interaction with the target; and (3) interactive attempts, which include
any attempts to reduce uncertainty based on direct interaction between the
information-seeker and the target (for review, see Berger, 1987). Generally
speaking, the literature suggests a preference in developing relationships
(i.e., in interactions beyond initial ones) for indirect methods of uncertainty
reduction. For example, Baxter and Wilmot (1984) reported the use of seven
"secret tests" as information-seeking strategies, only one of which is very
direct (i.e., "directness"). In addition, Planalp, Rutherford, and Honeycutt
(1988) found that participants often reacted to uncertainty-increasing events
in their relationships by "barely mentioning the event, talk [ing] around the
issue, or engag[ing] in small talk," (p. 536) hardly direct strategies. Therefore, even in cases where individuals choose interactive methods of reducing
uncertainty in relationships, they seem to go about reducing it indirectly.
Other data seem to suggest that the directness with which individuals
seek information is a function of their uncertainty level. Bell and BuerkelRothfuss (1990), for example, found that the use of indirect uncertaintyreduction strategies decreased, while the use of direct ones increased, as
relationships developed. Together with research showing a linear decrease in
uncertainty levels across relationship stages (Reichert & Afifi, 1993), these
data support a pattern in which high levels of uncertainty, and related partner
unpredictability, may discourage direct searches for information. Although
this pattern is counter to that made by Berger and his colleagues to explain
behavior during initial interaction (for review, see Berger & Bradac, 1982),
the reality of relationships may increase the salience of risk associated with
direct uncertainty-reduction techniques. The study of jealousy provides an
ideal target in which to test the role of uncertainty states on emotion
experience and expression in relationships: The emotion is defined by
perceived 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 and
experience, the available evidence unequivocally supports the need to do so
(e.g., Andersen, Eloy, Guerrero, & Spitzberg, 1995). A cursory review of
related literatures illustrates the distinction between the psychological
experience of jealousy and its behavioral expression.
Jealousy Experience
Romantic jealousy is defined as the reaction to a perceived threat to the
exclusive romantic nature of the relationship (Bringle & Boebinger, 1990).
Pfeiffer and Wong (1989), in introducing one of the first models to distinguish
jealousy experience from expression, proposed a three-dimensional conceptualization of jealousy encompassing cognitive, emotional, and behavioral
components. The authors conceptualized cognitive jealousy as including
paranoid thoughts and worries about the behavior of one's partner, and
emotional jealousy as entailing feelings such as fear, anger, insecurity, and
sadness. Behavioral jealousy, on the other hand, involves actions such as
spying on one's partner or rummaging through his or her belongings. Since
emotional experience is generally defined as having cognitive and affective
elements (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 in
nature, with little effort given to explaining the linkages between the experience of jealousy and its predictors. The construct of uncertainty, and related
theoretical work, offers a conceptual framework that helps explain why
individuals may experience jealousy in a romantic relationship. Specifically,
the likelihood of experiencing jealousy may be a direct function of one's level
of uncertainty regarding his or her partner's relational commitment (defined
here as relational state uncertainty). In cases where relational state uncertainty is high, the likelihood of defining a partner's opposite-sex interactions
as threatening should be elevated. On the other hand, "knowing" that one's
partner is committed to the relationship should lessen the chance that the
partner'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 decreases).

An issue that has received very little research attention but that should
increase predictive and explanatory precision in research on uncertainty is
the distinction among types of uncertainty. For example, an individual maybe
relatively uncertain about his/her partner's commitment to the relationship
but be very certain about many of his/her partner's other attitudes and
behaviors. Although the various types of uncertainty may be related, it should
not be surprising if individuals find certain information more useful for some
predictions than others (Afifi & Burgoon, 1996b). In the case of jealousy

96

COMMUNICATION REPORTS

experience and expression, uncertainty about the partner's relational commitment may be more predictive than general uncertainty levels. Considering the
dearth of research on this distinction, a research question is presented:
RQi: Does relational state uncertainty (defined here as uncertainty about the partner's
relational commitment) predict jealousy experience better than general uncertainty
regarding the partner's attitudes and behaviors?

Expression of Jealousy
Although 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 do
so explicitly by including a behavioral component in their three-dimensional
model of jealousy. Eloy, Guerrero, Andersen, and Spitzberg (1992) followed
by suggesting three communicative reactions to jealousy: integration, distribution, and avoidance. The proposed typology was conceptualized in ways
similar to that found in the conflict literature: Integration included positively
valenced reactions such as asking the partner for an explanation or disclosing
feelings; distribution incorporated more negatively valenced reactions such
as yelling or arguing; and avoidant reactions were those that are passive in
nature, including silence and denial of feelings. Most recently, these authors
have further expanded this typology into eleven distinct responses to
jealousy, ranging from expression of negative affect to surveillance behavior
(Guerrero, Andersen, Jorgensen, Spitzberg, & Eloy, 1995).
While only recently addressed in the jealousy research, the differences
between the experience and expression of an emotion have been widely
studied elsewhere. Overall, the data show that the farther along the relational
stage ladder (Guerrero, Eloy, Jorgensen, & Andersen, 1993), the greater the
satisfaction (Andersen et al., 1995), and perhaps most importantly, the more
positive the emotion (Sprecher, 1987), the more likely that the experienced
emotion will be expressed in an integrative fashion. Theoretical explanations
of 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 expression
patterns.
As noted earlier, recent evidence suggests that high uncertainty in
relationships may discourage direct expression (e.g.. Bell & Burkel-Rothfuss,
1990). One plausible reason for such avoidance is a fear of negative relational
implications (Baxter & Wilmot, 1985; Guerrero & Afifi, 1995). This logic is
especially consistent with the reality of jealousy expression. Specifically,
expression of jealousy implies a heightened level of relational commitment
and desire for exclusivity. In cases where individuals are uncertain about their
partner's level of commitment, they may be particularly apprehensive about
directly revealing jealousy. They may fear "scaring the other away" or
seeming overly possessive. Conversely, knowing that your partner is commit-

SUMMER 1996

97

ted to the relationship makes expressing the desire for exclusivity much less
threatening. As such, the second hypothesis is forwarded:
H2: Direct expression of jealousy in dating relationships will be negatively related to relational
state uncertainty levels (i.e., as uncertainty decreases, likelihood of expression increases.).

Here again, it may be important to distinguish between types of

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

The two hypotheses emphasize the importance of distinguishing between

the experience of jealousy and its expression. Indeed, the explanatory
framework surrounding the role of uncertainty in relationships leads to the
prediction that jealousy experience should be high at high levels of
uncertainty and low at low levels of uncertainty (HI), but that likelihood of
direct expression of jealousy should be related to uncertainty states in exactly
the opposite way (H2).
METHODS
Overview
Two studies were conducted. Data was collected for the second study to
confirm the results of the first study and to test the difference between the
two types of uncertainty.
Samples
Study 1. A total of 155 students who were involved in a dating relationship
at the time and enrolled in communication courses at a large southwestern
university were recruited. The participants received course credit for their
participation. The sample ranged in age from 19 to 44 {M = 21.7), was mostly
white (80%), and female (55%). The average relationship length was two
years and one month, and they were generally close (M = 5.9all items were
rated on 7-point scales) and satisfying (M = 5.4). Overall, they experienced
low-to-moderate amounts of jealousy (M = 2.90) and were relatively
confident in their relational state predictions (M = 2.34). They were also
more likely to directly express jealousy to their partner (M = 4.68) than avoid
its expression (M = 3.16), ^(106) = 5.96,/) < .001.
Study 2. An additional 41 students from a similar population, with similar
sample characteristics, were recruited. They were also relatively close {M =
7.83all items were rated on 9-point scales) and satisfied in their relationship (M = 7.12), were relatively certain about their partner's commitment to
the relationship (M = 2.50) and their partner's attitudes and behaviors
generally (M = 2.60), experienced moderate amounts of jealousy (M = 4.10)
and were more likely to express it integratively (M = 6.27) than avoid its
expression (M = 3.84), t(40) = 3.84,/? < .001.

COMMUNICATION REPORTS
Procedure
Participants in both studies were asked to complete a questionnaire
measuring relationship stage, relational state uncertainty, jealousy experience, jealousy expression, relational satisfaction, and closeness. In addition,
participants in the second study completed a measure of general uncertainty
about their partner. For the expression items, participants were asked to
think of the last time they experienced jealousy in the relationship they were
rating 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 13
days. Since jealousy expression is generally considered a major event in
relationships (e,g,. White & Mullen, 1989), a median of 13 days between the
event and its report does not pose memory decay concerns as it would for
more mundane relational issues,
Self-Report Measures
The relational state uncertainty scale (used in both studies) was based on
past general uncertainty measures (Kellermann & Reynolds, 1990) but was
adapted to measure uncenainty regarding the panner's attitudes toward the
current and future state of the relationship (e,g,, "If you were asked what this
person envisions for your relationship, how certain woiild you be with your
answer?") Alpha reliability for the three-item measure was ,89,' The general
uncertainty measure (adapted from Kellermann & Reynolds, 1990) included
four items (e,g,, "How well do you think you know this person?"), was only
used in the second study and achieved high reliability (,90),
Pfeiffer and Wong's (1989) operationalization of cognitive jealousy and
emotional 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 conceptual
simiiarity and statistical correlation (r(82) = .45,p < ,01) between these two
dimensions, they were collapsed into a single "jealousy experience" dimension (six items, alpha reliability = ,84),^
Jealousy expression was measured using Eloy et al,'s (1992) measure of
integrative and avoidant patterns of communication. Participants were
instructed to rate the extent to which each item reflected their own
expression pattern the last time they felt jealousy in this relationship. The
participants were instructed to complete the expression items only if they
had indicated moderate to high experience of jealousy on earlier items,' The
integrative pattern of communication included four items measuring positively valenced reactions such as asking partner for an explanation or
disclosing feelings. The avoidance scale consisted of four items that assessed
behaviors 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 from
Maxwell, 1985) measures were used for descriptive purposes only in this
study and each achieved alpha reliabilities of ,82,

SUMMER 1996

99

RESULTS
Analyses Summary
Zero-order correlations (between relational state uncertainty and the
outcome variable of interest) were used to test the hypotheses. Significant
zero-order correlations were foUowed by trend analyses conducted to test the
linear nature of the correlation. First-order correlations were conducted to
test 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) to
jea!ousy experience and expression. The high degree of shared variance
between the two uncertainty measures (r(4l) = .69, p < ,001) made it
un!ikely to find significant variance accounted for by the unique contribution
of either measure separately, but the lst-order correlation may have revealed
unique trends associated with each, Fina!!y, the significant first-order
correlation coefficients for general uncertainty and relationa! uncertainty
were compared using the Fisher's Z transformation (Edwards, 1984).
Hypothesis One
Hypothesis one predicted that the experience of jealousy is positive!y
re!ated to corresponding !evels of relational state uncertainty, A zero-order
corre!ation, computed between re!ational state uncertainty and jea!ousy
experience, revealed a significant positive re!ationship between the two
variables (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 between
these 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) uncertainty
categories.^ A trend ana!ysis showed a significant linear trend, F(l,152) =
19.22/> < .001, with jealousy experience decreasing across the three levels of
uncertainty, and a nonsignificant quadratic trend, F(l,152) < l,ns.
Research Question One
The first research question asked whether the different types of uncertainty are differentially related to jea!ousy experience. A comparison of the
first-order corre!ations in the second study (controlling for general uncertainty 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) = - . 0 7 , p > .05).
However, the fact that neither type of uncertainty accounted for a significant
amount of unique variance in jealousy experience makes their statistical
comparison moot.
Hypothesis Two
Hypothesis two predicted that the direct expression of jealousy is
inverse!y related to corresponding levels of uncertainty, A zero-order correla-

100

COMMUNICATION REPORTS

tion, computed between integrative jealousy expression and relational

uncertainty 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 and
uncertainty 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 using
the same uncertainty grouping as the first hypothesis (again using study 1
data) was conducted. The resu!ts reinforced the linear nature of the
relationship between direct jealousy expression and uncertainty, /"(1,103) =
11.92,p < ,001, with the directness ofthe expression decreasing across leve!s
of uncertainty, thus confirming the hypothesis. The quadratic trend was not
significant,/=(!,103) < l,ns.
Research Question Two
The second research question asked whether different types of uncertainty differentially influenced the !ike!ihood of direct jea!ousy expression.
The 1st order corre!ations on the two uncertainty types suggested that
re!ationa! state uncertainty, r(38) = - . 3 1 , p < .05, may be a better predictor
of jea!ousy expression than genera! uncertainty, r(38) = -,09,/> > .05, but a
statistical 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 between
relational and general uncertainty decreased the likelihood of finding a
significant difference in the strength of the two correlations for both research
questions.
DISCUSSION
This study was conducted to test the efficacy of uncertainty as a
explanatory framework for jealousy experience and expression in romantic
relationships. Although the nature ofthe data does not allow the time-order
conclusion necessary for establishing causal relationships, the results show
promising imp!ications for our understanding of jealousy. Results confirmed
that participants were more likely to experience and less likely to directly
express jealousy at high, versus low, levels of relationa! state uncertainty.
These findings support the important ro!e p!ayed by uncertainty in re!ationships and reify the importance of distinguishing between the experience of
an emotion and its expression. In fact, our resu!ts suggest that patterns of
expression and experi^ence may often be quite divergent.
The success of uncertainty as a predictor of jea!ousy experience and
expression may a!so ref!ect re!ated concerns for face and facework. Voluminous evidence may be cited to support the ro!e that self-presentation plays in
our communicative choices (for review, see Cupach & Metts, 1994). For
examp!e, Shimanoff (1985) found that face-threatening emotions were
expressed 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 strategy
selection. As such, it may very we!! be that our interest in saving face
discourages the direct expression of an emotion perceived as negative, such
as jealousy. Our resu!ts !end support to such a conc!usion but suggest that
uncertainty about the impact on face makes expression even !ess like!y. The
inabi!ity to predict the partner's reaction to a direct expression of jea!ousy
may be too menacing to risk a possible re!ationship- or face-threatening
reaction. Partners adjust to such possib!e consequences by avoiding direct
expression in cases of high uncertainty.
These findings also add to the increasing number of studies showing that
high uncertainty leve!s in re!ationships are !ike!y to !ead to more indirect
searches for information, as compared to low levels of uncertainty. Although
inconsistent with the original predictions of URT (Berger & Ca!abrese, 1975),
this pattern reflects a !ogic that is compatible with Berger's thinking on
uncertainty since then (Berger, 1993; 1995). Specifically, the strugg!e between appropriate and effective means of reducing uncertainty often resu!ts
in more appropriate, rather than effective, information-seeking choices. In
cases where uncertainty is re!ative!y low, concerns over appropriateness may
be !essened a!ong with increased predictabi!ity over the partner's reaction to
more direct expression. The choice between these two continua may be
especia!!y sa!ient for the expression of jea!ousy due to rea! concerns about
re!ationaJ maintenance.
Although both of our hypotheses were supported, neither of our research
questions were answered in the affirmative. Relational state uncertainty did
not differ from general uncertainty in its influence on jealousy. As such, the
data suggest that the inabi!ity to predict a partner's behavior increases the
like!ihood of jea!ousy experience while discouraging its expression regard!ess
of which specific partner behavior is unpredictab!e. No specific type of
uncertainty seems to contribute to that pattern more than the other. On the
other hand, in both the test for experience and the one for expression, the
trend (although not statisticaUy significant) was for re!ationa! state uncertainty to have a greater effect on jea!ousy than genera! uncertainty, A future
study with greater statistica! power to detect differences may produce data
that better reject the difference in types of uncertainty,
Overa!!, the consistency across two studies of the hypothesized relationships between uncertainty and jea!ousy c!ear!y suggests that uncertainty
states should p!ay a key role in our understanding of jea!ousy in romantic
re!ationships. Furthermore, the clear separation in patterns between the
experience of jea!ousy and its expression ref!ects the need to devote
increased attention to the mechanisms differentiating the experience of an
emotion from its expression. Fina!!y, the resu!ts of this investigation emphasize the role of changing uncertainty !eve!s in re!ationship deve!opment and
show the imp!ications of such changes for communication behavior in these
re!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 to
Guerrero 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 express
jealousy " i f they had felt experienced jealousy.
4. The distributive pattern of communication is unrelated to the predictions in this
manuscript and will not be described.
5. Although these means suggest inadequate separation among the groups, they adequately
serve 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-sex
friendships and dating relationships on uncertainty and topic avoidance. Manuscript
submitted for publication.
Afifi, W. A., & Burgoon, J. K. (November, 1996b). Behavioral violations in interactions: The
combined consequences of valence and change in uncertainty on interaction outcomes. 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 and
relational 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 Personal
Relationships, 1,211-237.
Baxter, L. A., & Wilmot, W. W. (1984). "Secret tests": Social strategies for acquiring information
about the state ofthe relationship. Human Communication Research, 11,171-201.
Baxter, L. A., & Wilmot, W. W. (1985). Taboo topics in close personal relationships./OMma/ of
Social 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 relational
information-seeking in courtship and beyond. Communication Quarterly, 38,64-82.
Berg, J. H., & McQuinn, R. D. (1986). Attraction and exchange in continuing and noncontinuing
dating 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.), Communication
yearbook 16 (pp. 491-502). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Berger, C. R. (1995). Inscrutable goals, uncenain plans, and the production of communicative
action. In C. R. Berger & M. Burgoon (Eds.), Communication and social influence
processes (pp. 1-32). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.
Berger, C. R. & Bradac, J. J. (1982). Language and social knowledge: Uncertainty in interpersonal 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 Communication 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. Human
Communication 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 the
green-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 family
relationships. Communication Quarterly, 43,276-296.
Guerrero, L K and Andersen, P. A. (in press). Jealousy experience and expression in romantic
relationships. 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). Coping
with the green-eyed monster: Conceptualizing and measuring communicative and behavioral 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 differences
in 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 reduction
theory: 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 the
Family, 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 reduce
uncertainty in Uncertainty Reduction Theory. Communication Monographs, 77, 5-75.
Maxwell, M. (1985). Behavior of lovers: Measuring closeness of relationships./owrwa/ of Social
and 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). Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Parks, M. R., & Adelman, M. B. (1983). Communication networks and the development of
romantic relationships: An expansion of Uncertainty Reduction Theory. Human Communication Research, 10,55-79.
Pfeiffer, S. M., & Wong, P. T. (1989). Multidimensional iealousy. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships, 6,181-196.
Planalp, S., Rutherford, D. K., & Honeycutt, J. M. (1988). Events that increase uncertainty in
personal 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 certain
event: A study of Jealousy experience. Jealousy expression, and urwertainty. Paper
presented 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 married
couples. Western Journal of Speech Communication,
49,147-165.
Sprecher, S. (May, 1987). The experience and expression of emotions in the close, heterosexual
relationship. Paper presented at the Iowa Conference on Personal Relationships, Iowa
City, IA.
Sunnafrank, M. (1990). Predicted outcome value and uncertainty reduction theories: A test of
competing perspectives. Human Communication Research, 17,76-103.
White, G. L., & Mullen, P. E. (1989). Jealousy: Theory, research, and clinical strategies. New
York: Guilford.