Motivation and Emotion, Vol. 26, No. 4, December 2002 ( C  2002) An Attribution Theory Analysis of Romantic Jealousy 1 Stacie Y. Bauerle, 2 James H. Amirkhan, 2 and Ralph B. Hupka 2,3 Two studies examined the utility of attribution theory (B. Weiner, 1985, 1995) in explaining romantic jealousy responses. In Study 1, by varying hypothetical sce- narios according to Weiner’s attribution distinction (B. Weiner, 1995), 156 under- graduates perceived jealousy to increase when an unfaithful partner’s interaction with interlopers was deliberate (i.e., personal causality), controllable, intentional, and without mitigating excuses. High trait jealousy amplified these ratings but did not affect the underlying attribution relationships. Reversing the attribution-to- jealousy linkage in Study 2, 128 participants from the general population recalled jealousy episodes in their lives, then made attributions for the events and catego- rized them using Weiner’s dimensions (B. Weiner, 1985). Jealousy was more likely when the cause of a partner’s indiscretion was perceived to be internal, control- lable, and intentional—although not necessarily stable. The findings verify that attribution theory identifies blame conditions that trigger jealousy responses. KEY WORDS: jealousy; attribution theory; blame. Romantic jealousy has been analyzed from the perspective of cultural values (Hupka, 1981, 1991), exchange theory (Buunk, 1991), sociobiology (Buss, Larsen, Westen, & Semmelroth, 1992; Daly, Wilson, & Weghorst, 1982), psychoanalytic theory (Freud, 1922/1955), personality constructs (Bringle, 1981, 1991; Salovey & Rodin, 1984; White, 1980; White & Mullen, 1989), and a prototype approach (Sharpsteen, 1993). But to date there has been no systematic analysis of ro- mantic jealousy, using recent elaborations of attribution theory (Weiner, 1995). 1 Study 1 is based on a thesis submitted by the first author to California State University, Long Beach, under the direction of the third author. The second author conducted Study 2. We thank Scott L. Hershberger for his assistance with the data analyses. 2 California State University–Long Beach, Long Beach, California. 3 Address all correspondence to Ralph Hupka, Department of Psychology, California State University – Long Beach, Long Beach, California 90840-0901; e-mial: rhupka@csulb.edu. 297 0146-7239/02/1200-0297/0 C  2002 Plenum Publishing Corporation