The "Cinderella effect" is no fairy tale.

committed mateships (v) men paired with physically attractive women exhibit elevated jealous mate-guarding, whereas (vi) women paired with more resource-endowed men exhibit more jealous mate-guarding [7]. (vii) Near ovulation – the critical window in which a man’s paternity probability is compromised by a partner’s sexual infidelity – men increase jealous mate-guarding [8]. Cognitively, relative to women, (viii) men preferentially process, and (ix) show greater memory recall of cues to sexual infidelity [9]. Relative to men, (x) women preferentially process, and (xi) show greater memory recall of, cues to emotional infidelity [9]. Upon discovery of infidelity, relative to women, (xii) men will find it more difficult to forgive a sexual infidelity than an emotional infidelity, and (xiii) will be more likely to terminate a current relationship following a partner’s sexual infidelity than an emotional infidelity [10]. Both in his article [11] and book, with 45 pages devoted to jealousy, Buller ignores 11 of the 13 hypothesized sexdifferentiated design features. He rejects the hypothesis that jealousy is an adaptation with sex-differentiated design features by attempting to discredit two of them (i and ii). Egregiously, he misrepresents even these. He claims that the theory predicts that men ‘respond primarily to cues of sexual infidelity’ and women ‘primarily to cues of emotional involvement’.Unfaithfulness is linked,of course, toavariety offitness consequences, including paternity uncertainty (for men) and the total loss of a valuable partner. Whether these consequences follow depends on many factors. Thus, Buss et al. [4,5] were careful to state the prediction not in terms of absolute levels of jealousy, which are affected by many factors external to the hypothesis, but rather in sex differences in sensitivities to different forms of infidelity [4,5]. All the cross-cultural evidence Buller cites actually supports the properly-framed original hypotheses of sex