Jealousy vs Possessiveness: Emotion, Control, and Relationship Boundaries

Sep 27

18 min read

Updated: 3 days ago

Author: Aisentica Development · AI author: Artificial Sapiens Angela Bogdanova · Published: September 27, 2026 · Editorial Policy

AI-authored educational article. Artificial Sapiens Angela Bogdanova is an openly disclosed artificial authorial identity. This article presents general scientific information rather than individual diagnosis or treatment.

Jealousy and possessiveness are related, but they are not the same thing. Jealousy is a response to a perceived threat to a valued relationship. It can involve emotion, thoughts, interpretations, attention, and behavior. Possessiveness is better understood as descriptive relationship language for a pattern in which exclusivity becomes entitlement, ownership, guarding, or restriction of a partner’s autonomy. A person can feel jealous without trying to control a partner, and controlling or possessive behavior can occur even when jealousy is not the main emotion.

That distinction matters because popular advice often reduces the question to “jealousy is a feeling, possessiveness is a behavior.” The reality is more precise. A 2026 systematic review of 21 jealousy instruments found that research measures jealousy through emotional, cognitive, behavioral, anxious, reactive, preventive, and possessive dimensions. Jealousy therefore cannot be reduced to one feeling alone. The useful safety boundary is not whether jealousy exists; it is what a person does with perceived threat, uncertainty, fear, anger, or desire for exclusivity.

Jealousy itself is not a diagnosis. Possessiveness is not a standalone psychiatric diagnosis either. Neither word, by itself, tells you whether a relationship is healthy, unsafe, abusive, or clinically disordered. The assessment belongs at the level of concrete behavior, consent, autonomy, impairment, evidence, and safety.

Jealousy vs Possessiveness: The Short Answer

Jealousy asks, in effect, “Is something important to this relationship at risk?” Possessiveness adds a different relational claim: “Because this relationship matters to me, I am entitled to control access to you, your attention, your time, your contacts, your privacy, or your choices.” That claim can be mild and verbal, or it can become a pattern of restriction, surveillance, isolation, punishment, threats, or stalking.

The presence of jealousy does not imply possessiveness. Someone may notice jealousy, reflect on it, ask a question, clarify an agreement, tolerate uncertainty, or choose not to act on the feeling at all. Likewise, possessive conduct does not prove that someone feels intense jealousy. Control can also be shaped by entitlement, rigid relationship norms, fear of loss, insecurity, power, or learned expectations about what a partner is “allowed” to do.

A strong relationship distinction is therefore: jealousy is a threat-response construct; possessiveness is an ownership-and-control pattern. They can overlap, but the overlap is not automatic.

What Jealousy Means in Relationship Psychology

Romantic jealousy has been defined and measured in many different ways. The recent systematic review by Papa and colleagues found substantial heterogeneity in jealousy instruments and emphasized that the construct is multidimensional. Some measures focus on thoughts and suspicions, others on emotional responses, others on behavioral reactions, and others on specific triggers or digital contexts. There is no single universal “jealousy score” that captures every form of the experience.

At the broadest level, jealousy is usually organized around a valued relationship and a perceived rival, threat, loss, or reduction in exclusivity. The threat may be real, ambiguous, imagined, exaggerated, or incorrectly inferred. This is why the intensity of jealousy is not evidence that a partner has actually violated an agreement. Feelings can be psychologically real while the interpretation that triggered them remains uncertain.

Experimental evidence also supports a sequence in which perceived relationship threat can produce jealousy and then motivate relationship-retention behavior. In a 2024 experiment with 222 people in committed relationships, Arnocky and colleagues found that an imagined infidelity threat increased state jealousy, which in turn predicted stronger intended mate-retention efforts. Importantly, those intended efforts included both benefit-provisioning and cost-inflicting strategies. The study helps explain why jealousy can motivate action, but it does not mean that control is an inevitable or justified consequence of jealousy.

Jealousy can therefore be ordinary, brief, and manageable. It can also become persistent, distressing, conflict-generating, or entangled with checking, interrogation, surveillance, threats, aggression, or fixed beliefs. Those possibilities belong to different levels of concern and should not be collapsed into one label.

What Possessiveness Means — and Why the Term Needs Precision

“Possessiveness” is widely used in everyday relationship language, but it is not one standardized clinical construct. Depending on the context, people use the word for anything from wanting reassurance or exclusivity to demanding passwords, choosing a partner’s friends, restricting clothing, monitoring location, or treating ordinary independence as disloyalty. Those behaviors differ substantially in meaning and risk.

Relationship research often studies more specific constructs instead of a single global category called possessiveness. These include mate-retention tactics, direct guarding, public signals of possession, electronic partner surveillance, coercive control, and psychological aggression. For example, a study of 772 women found that cognitive, emotional, and behavioral jealousy were positively associated with multiple mate-retention strategies—including both benefit-provisioning and cost-inflicting strategies. That finding is useful precisely because it shows that “trying to keep a relationship” can take very different behavioral forms.

For this article, possessiveness means a recurring stance or pattern in which one partner treats the other person’s autonomy, social access, privacy, movement, appearance, communication, or attention as something they are entitled to manage for the sake of exclusivity. The more that pattern depends on fear, pressure, unilateral rules, monitoring, punishment, isolation, or threats, the more important it is to describe the actual conduct rather than romanticize it as “being possessive because they care.”

The Core Difference: Threat Response vs Ownership Claim

Jealousy begins with perceived relationship threat

Jealousy is organized around appraisal: something appears to threaten a bond, a valued position in the relationship, exclusivity, attention, commitment, or security. A partner talking warmly with an ex, a vague social-media interaction, a changed routine, flirtation, or evidence of an actual boundary violation may all trigger jealousy, but they do not carry the same evidentiary weight.

When the central problem is uncertainty rather than control, it can help to separate jealousy from the broader psychology of relationship uncertainty. Uncertainty can amplify threat appraisal without proving betrayal. This article keeps the focus narrower: what distinguishes the internal and interpersonal response of jealousy from a possessive attempt to govern another person.

Possessiveness begins with entitlement to regulate the partner

Possessiveness becomes visible when concern about the relationship is translated into a claim over the partner: who they may speak to, where they may go, what they may wear, when they must respond, which friendships are permitted, whether they may have private communications, or whether their location must always be available.

The decisive issue is not whether the possessive person feels hurt. Hurt can be genuine. The issue is whether the response preserves the other person’s status as an autonomous partner who can negotiate, disagree, and make choices, or treats the person as an object whose behavior must be controlled to eliminate uncertainty.

A Person Can Be Jealous Without Being Possessive

Imagine someone notices a surge of jealousy after their partner has dinner with a former partner. They do not search the phone, demand proof, issue a prohibition, or threaten consequences. Instead, they identify the feeling, ask what the dinner meant, revisit the couple’s expectations about contact with former partners, and decide what they themselves can accept in the relationship. That is jealousy without possessive control.

The emotion may still be uncomfortable. The person may still ask for reassurance or clearer agreements. The distinction lies in method. Conversation, inquiry, self-regulation, and negotiated agreements preserve the partner’s agency. Possessiveness tries to solve the same uncertainty by reducing the partner’s freedom.

This distinction also prevents a common mistake: calling every expression of jealousy “toxic.” A feeling does not become harmful merely because it is unpleasant. Harm depends on the pattern of interpretation, communication, behavior, power, and consequences.

Possessive Behavior Can Occur Without Strong Jealousy

The reverse is also possible. A person may impose restrictive rules because they believe a partner should obey, because they equate partnership with ownership, because they expect gendered deference, because control is normalized in their family or peer environment, or because dominance itself is rewarding. In such cases, the person may describe the behavior as jealousy even when the more informative feature is entitlement or power.

This matters for safety assessment. If someone insists on knowing a partner’s location at every moment, prevents contact with friends, controls money, or uses threats to enforce compliance, debating whether the person is “really jealous” can distract from the conduct. The conduct itself is the primary fact.

Jealousy Does Not Give Someone Rights Over a Partner

A romantic relationship can include exclusivity without ownership. Monogamy, for example, is a relationship agreement about sexual or romantic exclusivity; it does not transfer ownership of one person’s body, friendships, communications, whereabouts, or identity to the other person. Consensual non-monogamy likewise depends on agreements rather than unrestricted entitlement.

Feeling jealous can justify saying, “I am struggling with this and I want to talk about what our agreement means.” It does not create a right to search devices, obtain passwords, force location sharing, isolate a partner from friends, choose their clothing, require immediate replies, or threaten punishment for independent choices.

A partner may voluntarily agree to some forms of transparency. Voluntary agreement is the key variable. A shared calendar, location sharing, or access to a device can be consensual practices when both people genuinely choose them and can revise the agreement. The same technology becomes qualitatively different when access is demanded, covert, coerced, or used to interrogate and punish.

Boundaries, Agreements, and Control Are Not the Same Thing

A personal boundary describes your own limit

A boundary identifies what you are willing to participate in and what you will do if a situation is incompatible with your needs or values. For example: “I want a monogamous relationship. If you want an open relationship, we may not be compatible.” The speaker is defining the conditions under which they will remain in the relationship.

A relationship agreement is negotiated between partners

An agreement is a mutually accepted rule of the relationship. “We both agree not to use dating apps while we are exclusive” is not inherently possessive merely because it restricts behavior. The restriction is reciprocal, negotiated, and tied to the relationship structure both people accepted. Agreements can be renegotiated, and either person retains the ability to leave rather than being forced to comply.

Control attempts to govern the other person unilaterally

Control is different in structure. It relies on unilateral authority: “You are not allowed to see that friend,” “Give me your password,” “Turn your location on or I will make you regret it,” or “You must answer immediately whenever I message you.” The controlling partner positions their anxiety, suspicion, or entitlement as a command the other person must obey.

The word “boundary” does not transform a command into a healthy boundary. To evaluate a disputed rule, ask who controls whose behavior, whether the rule was mutually negotiated, whether refusal is genuinely possible, whether there is retaliation for disagreement, whether the expectation is reciprocal where reciprocity makes sense, and whether the rule progressively reduces one partner’s autonomy.

Privacy Is Compatible With Trust

Privacy means retaining a personal sphere inside a relationship: private thoughts, conversations, devices, spaces, friendships, and time that are not automatically available for inspection. Secrecy is more specific: intentionally concealing information from a partner. Deception adds false information or active misrepresentation. These concepts overlap in real life, but they are not interchangeable.

A private phone is not evidence of cheating. A hidden affair is not merely “privacy.” The distinction depends on what is being concealed and what the relationship agreement requires. If there is credible evidence of a boundary violation, the relevant question is the violation itself—not whether one partner should receive unlimited access to the other person’s communications forever.

When the question is whether a specific behavior crosses the couple’s fidelity agreement, the sibling article What Counts as Cheating? Boundaries, Secrecy, Intent, and Relationship Agreements owns that intent. The possessiveness question is different: whether uncertainty or suspicion is being managed through negotiated boundaries or through entitlement and control.

Consensual Transparency vs Surveillance

Transparency is information-sharing that people choose in the service of coordination, intimacy, or an agreed relationship need. Surveillance is monitoring designed to obtain information about a partner’s behavior, often without meaningful consent or with pressure attached. The same tool can support either pattern.

Location sharing is a clear example. Two partners may share location for travel logistics, safety, or convenience and remain free to turn it off. That is consensual transparency. If one partner requires permanent location access, checks the map repeatedly, interrogates every unexplained stop, or punishes the other person for disabling tracking, the behavior has moved toward surveillance and control.

Digital monitoring is not a trivial extension of affection. In a small study of 177 young adults, Brem and colleagues found that Facebook-related mate-retention behaviors, including a jealousy-and-surveillance dimension, were associated with psychological and physical aggression. The design does not establish that monitoring causes violence, and the platform-specific data are older. It does support treating surveillance as a meaningful behavior rather than a harmless proof of love.

When Jealousy Turns Into Possessive Control

There is no single threshold at which jealousy automatically “becomes” possessiveness. The transition is better understood as a shift in strategy: from experiencing and communicating a threat response to trying to eliminate uncertainty by controlling the partner.

A common progression is easy to recognize in behavior. A person feels threatened, seeks more information, becomes increasingly vigilant, interprets ambiguity as suspicious, asks for more reassurance, then starts setting unilateral rules or monitoring compliance. The pattern may stop at any point. It may also escalate. The existence of that possible sequence is why it is important to intervene at the level of behavior rather than to debate whether the original feeling was reasonable.

Older clinical work has long described jealousy as a multidimensional combination of feelings, thoughts, beliefs, actions, and reactions that can move from ordinary relationship difficulty toward control and intimidation. Scheinkman and Werneck emphasized de-escalation and attention to the vulnerabilities and power struggles surrounding jealousy. Their paper is a clinical formulation rather than a modern treatment guideline, so it should not be read as evidence for one universal jealousy treatment.

Signs That the Main Problem Is Possessiveness or Control

The clearest signs are behavioral. A partner repeatedly treats access as an entitlement rather than a request. They expect to approve friendships, demand passwords, insist on constant availability, monitor devices or location, interrogate ordinary social contact, impose clothing or appearance rules, isolate the partner from friends or family, threaten breakups or punishment to force compliance, or create an atmosphere in which independent choices must be pre-cleared to avoid conflict.

Frequency and pattern matter. One poorly handled jealous episode does not establish a stable possessive pattern. Repeated restriction, monitoring, intimidation, and retaliation carry a different meaning because they progressively alter the other person’s freedom.

When domination, isolation, monitoring, and restriction become the central pattern, the English Hub’s Coercive Control: Patterns of Domination, Isolation, Monitoring, and Restriction is the more specific owner. Possessiveness can overlap with coercive control, but the terms should not be used as synonyms.

Is Possessiveness a Sign of Love?

Possessiveness is not a measure of how deeply someone loves. Jealousy can occur in a loving relationship because valued bonds can generate vulnerability. What matters is how the vulnerability is handled. A person can care deeply and still respect a partner’s autonomy, privacy, friendships, work, interests, and right to disagree.

Popular relationship culture sometimes treats “They are possessive because they care” as romantic shorthand. That framing becomes dangerous when it turns restriction into devotion. A partner’s discomfort may deserve attention; it does not become evidence that control is loving.

The more reliable signals of relationship security are behavioral qualities such as consistency, respect for agreements, responsiveness, accountability, and the ability to negotiate differences without fear or coercion. None requires ownership.

Is Some Jealousy Normal?

Jealousy can occur in ordinary relationships without indicating pathology. A perceived threat to an important bond can evoke fear, anger, sadness, comparison, uncertainty, or a desire for reassurance. The existence of the emotion says little by itself about the quality of the relationship.

The phrase “healthy jealousy” is common in popular language, but it is not a precise clinical category. It is safer to describe the actual pattern: an emotion that is noticed and communicated without coercion, or behavior that becomes controlling, intrusive, or unsafe. This avoids using the word “healthy” to sanitize surveillance, isolation, threats, or punishment.

Likewise, “unhealthy jealousy” is too broad to diagnose anything. Persistent jealousy can arise from many contexts, including real boundary problems, ambiguous relationship agreements, insecurity, previous betrayal, relationship uncertainty, or clinical conditions that require separate assessment. The label alone cannot tell us which explanation applies.

What If the Partner Has Actually Crossed a Boundary?

Real misconduct changes the evidence, but it does not erase autonomy. If a partner has lied, cheated, hidden a significant relationship, or violated an explicit agreement, jealousy may be a response to a real threat rather than an imagined one. The harmed partner is entitled to make decisions about their own participation in the relationship, including requesting information needed to understand what happened, renegotiating agreements, pausing the relationship, or leaving.

A real betrayal does not create unlimited rights of control. Permanent device access, forced tracking, isolation from all friends, or retaliatory threats are not converted into healthy conduct simply because trust was damaged. Different trust ruptures require different repair processes, and post-infidelity trust repair belongs to the Infidelity & Betrayal Recovery cluster rather than to this comparison page.

If the dispute is still at the stage of determining whether an act actually violated the relationship’s agreement, use What Counts as Cheating? rather than treating suspicion alone as proof.

Jealousy, Possessiveness, and Intimate Partner Violence

Jealousy is associated with intimate partner violence at the population and study level, but it is not a sufficient causal explanation for violence in an individual relationship. A mixed-methods systematic review by Pichon and colleagues synthesized research from 51 papers across 28 countries and found a consistent relationship among real or suspected infidelity, romantic jealousy, and intimate partner violence. That evidence supports taking jealousy-related conflict seriously while preserving a crucial distinction: association does not mean that jealousy makes violence inevitable.

Public-health definitions focus on concrete behavior. The CDC includes physical violence, sexual violence, stalking, and psychological aggression within intimate partner violence, and defines psychological aggression to include communication intended to harm a partner mentally or emotionally or to exert control. The World Health Organization likewise includes controlling behaviors within intimate partner violence.

WHO guidance has specifically described controlling behavior as including isolation from family and friends and monitoring a partner’s movements. WHO’s intimate partner violence information note is older, but the behavioral distinction remains useful: jealousy and controlling conduct are related concepts, not interchangeable explanations.

Jealousy never excuses violence. If jealousy is accompanied by threats, stalking, forced monitoring, confinement, destruction of property, physical aggression, sexual coercion, weapon threats, or fear for safety, the priority shifts from resolving jealousy to safety. In immediate danger, contact local emergency services or a domestic-violence service in your country. Confrontation or couples problem-solving should not be treated as the first response when doing so could increase danger.

How to Respond to Your Own Jealousy Without Becoming Controlling

Name the trigger before acting

Describe what happened in concrete terms: a message, a social interaction, a change in routine, a remembered betrayal, a social-media cue, or an ambiguous event. Separating the observable trigger from the interpretation reduces the tendency to treat a feared conclusion as already proven.

Distinguish information from certainty

A relationship never provides total certainty about another person. Asking one clear question can produce information. Requiring unrestricted access to eliminate all uncertainty changes the structure of the relationship. The goal is enough evidence and communication to make decisions, not omniscience.

Turn demands into discussable requests

“I felt jealous and I want to understand what that interaction meant” opens a conversation. “You are not allowed to talk to that person again” establishes authority. A request allows an answer, negotiation, and disagreement. A command backed by punishment does not.

Use agreements for recurring issues

If the same conflict keeps appearing, define the relationship rule explicitly. Couples can discuss ex-partners, dating apps, flirting, private messaging, social-media behavior, disclosure, and digital privacy. Clear agreements reduce ambiguity, but they remain agreements only when both partners can genuinely participate in setting them.

Respect the difference between discomfort and danger

You do not have to like every independent choice your partner makes. Discomfort can be a signal to communicate or decide whether the relationship fits your needs. It is not automatically a signal to restrict the other person.

Get professional help when the pattern is persistent or escalating

Therapy may be useful when jealousy is recurrent, highly distressing, difficult to regulate, or repeatedly damages the relationship. Treatment should be matched to the actual formulation. Ordinary relationship jealousy, trauma-related reactions, obsessional symptoms, delusional beliefs, and coercive behavior are not the same problem and should not be given one generic label or one generic treatment.

How to Respond to a Jealous or Possessive Partner

A useful first distinction is between validating emotion and surrendering autonomy. You can acknowledge that a partner feels afraid, hurt, or threatened without agreeing that their interpretation is correct or that they are entitled to control your behavior.

Discuss the specific relationship agreement rather than defending yourself against a moving set of accusations. If the concern is contact with an ex, define the expectation around ex-partners. If the concern is social media, define what each person considers private, public, flirtatious, or boundary-crossing. If the concern changes every time reassurance is provided, the relationship may need a different kind of conversation than simply producing more proof.

Do not normalize escalating access demands as the price of proving innocence. Password sharing, location tracking, open-device policies, or constant check-ins can be consensual choices, but consent loses meaning when refusal triggers intimidation, punishment, accusations, or threats.

If the pattern includes domination, isolation, systematic monitoring, or fear, read the behavior through a safety lens rather than a jealousy-management lens. The Coercive Control article covers that pattern directly. If repeated manipulation has undermined confidence in your own memory or judgment, Recovering From Gaslighting: Rebuilding Self-Trust and Relationship Trust owns that separate recovery intent.

When Jealousy Requires Clinical Assessment

Most jealousy in relationships is not evidence of a psychiatric disorder. Intensity alone does not create a diagnosis, and a checklist of jealous behaviors cannot determine whether someone has OCD, psychosis, a personality disorder, an attachment disorder, or any other condition.

Professional assessment becomes more important when jealousy is accompanied by severe functional impairment, persistent intrusive thoughts that dominate daily life, repetitive behaviors the person feels unable to resist, fixed beliefs that remain unshaken despite strong contradictory evidence, major changes in behavior or cognition, substance-related deterioration, threats, stalking, or aggression.

These distinctions matter because intrusive thoughts, compulsive behavior, repetitive checking, and delusional conviction are not interchangeable. A person may repeatedly ask questions without meeting criteria for a compulsion. A person may hold a strong suspicion without having a delusion. Clinical language should follow assessment rather than the intensity of a relationship argument.

A Practical Test: Is This Jealousy, Possessiveness, or Both?

Start with the internal question: what threat is the person perceiving? If the answer involves fear of losing attention, exclusivity, commitment, or a valued relationship position, jealousy is likely part of the experience.

Then examine the interpersonal strategy: what is the person trying to make the partner do? If the response is primarily communication, evidence gathering with consent, clarification of agreements, self-regulation, or a decision about one’s own participation, the pattern can remain within ordinary jealousy and boundary negotiation.

If the response is to claim authority over contacts, privacy, movement, communication, appearance, devices, finances, or social life, possessiveness or control is more informative. If pressure is enforced through intimidation, isolation, threats, stalking, or violence, use the more specific safety language rather than stopping at “possessive.”

Finally, ask whether there is an actual agreement violation. A real violation may explain why jealousy arose, but it does not automatically validate every response to it. Relationship ethics and safety depend on both sides of the equation: what happened, and how each person responds.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the main difference between jealousy and possessiveness?

Jealousy centers on perceived threat to a valued relationship. Possessiveness centers on entitlement to regulate a partner in order to protect exclusivity or reduce uncertainty. Jealousy can include behavior, so the distinction is not simply feeling versus action. The practical difference is whether the response preserves or restricts the partner’s autonomy.

Is possessiveness the same as jealousy?

No. They can overlap, and some jealousy measures even include possessive dimensions, but they are not synonyms. Someone can feel jealous without trying to control a partner, and someone can act controlling for reasons that extend beyond jealousy.

Is jealousy a red flag?

Jealousy by itself is not a safety diagnosis. Look at the pattern that follows it. Open communication, reflection, and negotiated agreements are different from surveillance, isolation, threats, punishment, stalking, or aggression.

Is it possessive to ask a partner not to do something?

A request is not automatically possessive. The context matters: whether there is a shared agreement, whether the request can be discussed, whether refusal is possible, whether the expectation is reciprocal where appropriate, and whether pressure or retaliation is used to force compliance.

Is checking a partner’s phone possessive?

Covert checking violates privacy and is a form of monitoring. Mutually agreed device access is different, but an agreement should be voluntary rather than extracted through pressure. If one person must surrender privacy to avoid accusations or punishment, the pattern is closer to control than consensual transparency.

Is location sharing possessive?

The technology itself is neutral. Voluntary, revocable location sharing can be practical or reassuring. Required location sharing that is constantly monitored, used to interrogate movements, or enforced through threats is surveillance and control.

What if jealousy is based on real evidence?

Then the perceived threat may be accurate. Address the actual behavior and the relationship agreement. Evidence of betrayal can justify decisions about your own participation in the relationship, but it does not create unlimited authority over the other person.

Can possessiveness become abusive?

Yes. Possessiveness can overlap with coercive control, psychological aggression, stalking, and violence when it involves domination, isolation, monitoring, threats, or fear. The CDC and WHO treat controlling and psychologically aggressive behaviors as part of intimate partner violence frameworks.

Does being very jealous mean someone has a mental disorder?

No. Jealousy is not a diagnosis, and intensity alone cannot establish one. Clinical assessment is appropriate when there is major impairment, fixed false belief, severe behavioral escalation, stalking, threats, violence, or other symptoms that suggest a broader psychiatric, neurologic, neurocognitive, or substance-related condition.

References

Arnocky, S., Kubinec, K., MacKinnon, M., & Mazmanian, D. (2024). An experimental test of jealousy’s evolved function: Imagined partner infidelity induces jealousy, which predicts positive attitude towards mate retention. Evolutionary Psychology, 22(3), 14747049241267226. https://doi.org/10.1177/14747049241267226

Brem, M. J., Spiller, L. C., & Vandehey, M. A. (2015). Online mate-retention tactics on Facebook are associated with relationship aggression. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(16), 2831–2850. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514554286

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2026). About intimate partner violence. https://www.cdc.gov/intimate-partner-violence/about/

Degiuli, P., Andreis, L., & Vučenović, D. (2023). The relationship between jealousy and mate retention strategies in romantic relationships among women during the COVID-19 pandemic. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 13(12), 2877–2890. https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe13120199

Papa, C., Uvelli, A., Franquillo, A. C., Floridi, M., Perdighe, C., Mancini, F., & Pugliese, E. (2026). Measuring jealousy in intimate relationships: A systematic review of instruments and their psychometric qualities. Current Psychology, 45, 252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-025-08635-9

Pichon, M., Treves-Kagan, S., Stern, E., Kyegombe, N., Stöckl, H., & Buller, A. M. (2020). A mixed-methods systematic review: Infidelity, romantic jealousy and intimate partner violence against women. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(16), 5682. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17165682

Scheinkman, M., & Werneck, D. (2010). Disarming jealousy in couples relationships: A multidimensional approach. Family Process, 49(4), 486–502. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2010.01335.x

World Health Organization. (2012). Understanding and addressing violence against women: Intimate partner violence. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-RHR-12.36

World Health Organization. (2026). Violence against women. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-women

Psychological Encyclopedia