You are on page 1of 13

Personal Relationships, 3 (1996),5-17. Printed in the United States of America. Copyright 0 1996 Cambridge University Press. 1350-4126/96$7.50 .

OO

Cultural perspectives on romantic love


KAREN K. DION AND KENNETH L. DION
University of Toronto

Culture-related dimensions contribute to a more complete understanding of romantic love. In particular, we suggest that the dimensions of individualism and collectivism,at both societal and psychological levels, offer insights into the nature of romantic love and its perceived importance for marriage. Changes in values pertaining to romantic love and its role in choosing a spouse are evident in several traditionally collectivistic societies and among persons from these societies emigrating to countries such as Canada, Australia, and the United States. Given these trends, we discuss the need to study individualism and collectivism at the psychological level and present findings from our own program of research.

Abstract

A full understanding of romantic love must consider the contribution of cultural factors. Within psychology, cross-cultural research has been a specialized research topic, separate from the mainstream of the discipline. The field of cross-cultural psychology has its own journals and readership, and research appearing in these sources may be overlooked by researchers whose main identification is with other areas. Moreover, because of its categorization as a separate subfield, issues of concern to cross-cultural psychologists are sometimes not seen as relevant to researchers who regard themselves as studying basic processes in a subfield of psychology. As a result,
Preparation of this article was facilitated by a research grant to the authors from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. The review process for this article was handled by Patricia Noller, Editor of Personal Relationships. We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments. Requests for reprints can be sent to Karen K. Dion, Psychology, Life Sciences,Scarborough Campus, University of Toronto, Scarborough, Ontario, Canada M1C 1A4, or Kenneth L. Dion, Dept. of Psychology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 3G3. F A X (416) 978-4811. Email: (K.K.Dion) DIONKK@PSYCH.UTORONTO.CA (K.L.Dion) DIONKL@PSY CH.UTORONTO.CA

most socisl psychological theories and research on personal relationships, including those pertaining to love, have not considered the contribution of cultural factors, whether at the societal level or the psychological level. We suggest that, rather than regarding a cross-cultural or ethnocultural perspective as a specialized topic, it should be an integral part of mainstream theory and research on relationships. This suggestion does not imply that all researchers studying personal relationships and interpersonal processes should undertake cross-cultural research or research on ethnocultural variables within a given society. It does imply that scholars studying these topics recognize that theory and research are themselves cultural phenomena, emergent from particular traditions. An explicit consideration of cultural perspectives opens the possibility of greater discussion and debate among scholars interested in macro-level variables (e.g., social institutions, demographic trends) and those interested in individual-levelvariables (e.g., beliefs, values). This perspective also encourages dialogue among scholars from different cultural traditions, with the potential for research collaboration. During the past

K.K. Dion and K.L. Dion

few years, there has been growing interest in cross-cultural and ethnocultural research within the social psychology of personal relationships. As much of this work, especially that on mate preferences, has been guided by a social evolutionary framework (e.g., Buss, 1988),cultural dimensions per se have been of less interest to researchers working within this conceptual framework. Although culture is acknowledged as a proximal influence on specific manifestations of characteristics valued in a potential mate, the main focus in the social evolutionary tradition is on hypothesized distal influences in the evolution of the human species (Buss, 1988). Much as a social evolutionary perspective acknowledges the role of culture, a cultural perspective must acknowledge the biological bases of sexual attraction and sexual behavior. We believe, however, that understanding the social meanings assigned to these phenomena is the central issue. In this article we present a culturally oriented perspective on love, especially heterosexual, romantic love. Anthropological evidence in support of the cross-cultural universality of love was recently reported by Jankowiak and Fischer (1992), who undertook a content analysis of ethnographic material. They coded whether romantic love was mentioned in this material across 166 societies by the presence of at least one of the following indicators: descriptions of personal anguish and longing; presence of love songs or folklore related to romantic involvement; elopement based on mutual affection; native informants descriptions indicating the presence of love, or the ethnographers stating that romantic love existed in that culture. One of the main challenges in coding this ethnographic material was to distinguish love from Lust. Jankowiak and Fischer noted that often it was not clear whether ethnographers were simply using the term love to mean sexual attraction. Based on their analysis, they reported at least one indicator of romantic love (also referred to as passionate love by these researchers) in 88.5% of the diverse cultural groups in their sample.

Jankowiak and Fischers (1992) study has been interpreted by its authors and others as providing strong evidence that romantic love is universal (or near-universal) across cultures. If this is so,why should social psychologists and other social scientists be interested in cultural perspectives on romantic love? Our answer to this question is revealed by examining the nature of the evidence forming the basis of the claim that romantic love is a near-universaloccurrence across cultures. In Jankowiak and Fischers (1992) study, the folklore of various cultures was, according to these researchers, the most fruitful means (p. 151) documenting the presence of romantic love in a culture. Love stories and love songs probably occur in most, if not all, cultures. Stone (1988, p. 16),in his account of the history of romantic love in Western societies, noted that cases of romantic love can be found at all times and places and have often been the subject of powerful poetic expression, from the Song of Solomon to Shakespeare. The important issue, however, is the meaning of this folklore for members of a given society. Western historical ev7dence suggests that romantic love is culturallyconditioned and neither social approbation nor the actual experience of romantic love is at all common to all societies (Stone, 1988, p. 16). Jankowiak and Fischer themselves acknowledged that cultural factors may contribute to the likelihood that members of a given society will experience romantic love. Folk tales can express cultural ideals, be outlets for suppressed emotions, or be cautionary moral tales (Brislin, 1980). Thus, accounts of passionate love in literature or songs in a given society do not per se provide clear evidence that romantic love is valued and experienced by most members in that society. For example, Hsu (1981, p. 50) argued that, in traditional Chinese society, when a man said that he loved a girl, the statement usually carried the implication that something irregular was afoot. If a woman told anyone she loved some man, it would be tantamount to her downfall.

Culture and love

Recent findings are consistent with Hsus observation. For example, in an analysis of emotion-related conce ts found f modern in American English compared t L Chinese, Shaver, Wu, and Schwartz (1992) found that love had distinctive hedonically negative connotations in the Chinese conception of love, which they labeled sad or painful love. Wu (1992) found differences between Chinese (Beijing, China) and American (western New York state) university students when they were asked to list freely the features of love. More negative features were listed by the Chinese sample compared to the Americans (Wu, suggesting that this aspect of 1992,Study l), love was more spontaneously salient to the former group. Moreover, Wu (1992, Study 4) also found that Chinese students agreed more strongly than did students in her US. sample with the statement that Love without pain is not true love. According to Hsu (1981), the Chinese term lien ai was a modern linguistic creation to find an expression that described the Western term romantic love. Given the preceding discussion, the validity of the claim that romantic love is universal or almost universal depends on the level of analysis at which this assertion is made. A cultural perspective is necessary to identify the conditions under which similarities and differences in the meaning and the reported experience of romantic love might occur. What is needed is an evolutionary perspective on culture itself. Cultural differences are not simply variations reflecting a biological core. These variations offer insights into qualitatively different views about love that have developed and evolved across different societies and in the same society at different phases of its history. What Is Romantic Love? Scholars from different theoretical perspectives seem to agree on several key features in the conceptual definition of romantic love. For example, Averill (1985), in his social constructionist account, proposed the

following features: idealization of the romantic partner, suddenness of onset, physiological arousal, and commitment to the well-being of the loved person. In their discussion of an evolutionary account of romantic love, Jankowiak and Fischers (1992) pointed out that, from this perspective, romantic love emerged from forces within the hominid brain that are independent of the socially-constructed mind (p. 150). However, they similarly defined romantic love as any intense attraction that involves the idealization of the other, within an erotic context, with the expectation of enduring for some time into the future (Jankowiak & Fischer, 1992,p. 150).In our view, both healization of the partner and idealization of the experience distinguish the concept of romantic love from sexual attraction or infatuation. The partner is regarded as unique and special; the experience%$ romantic love is expected to be all-consuming, fulfilling, and transcendent. Some recent evidence indicates that young adults (specifically, university students in western Ganada) concept of romantic love has these features, namely idealization of and preoccupation with ones lover (e.g., want to be with the person all the time; think about the person all the time), physical attraction, and the belief that the experience of love itself has a special quality (e.g., problems seem to vanish, glowing feeling) (Fehr, 1994, Table 1, p. 312). Participants in another study conducted by Fehr (1994) were asked to identify different types of love by matching lists of features previously generated for each type of love with the designated concept. Romantic love was easily identified from the list of features provided by almost the entire sample (92.31%). Other types of love were more difficult to distinguish from one another, at least given the labels included in this set. Moreover, prototype ratings of romantic love were related both to measures of romantic beliefs and passionate experience (Fehr, 1994,Table 6, p. 323), suggesting that the concept of romantic love included both these components.

K.K. Dion and K.L. Dion

Individualism, Collectivism, and Romantic Love: Cross-Cultural Comparisons


Cultural traditions We turn now to consider culture and romantic love. To study the relation between culture and social psychological variables, one approach has been to identify important dimensions of cultural variation that are of relevance across diverse societies (Triandis et al., 1986). A fundamental issue concerns the relation between the individual and the group, specifically the relative priority accorded to personal versus group goals in different domains of social life. Individualism has been defined by Hui and Triandis (1986) as the subordination of the goals of the collectivitiesto individual goals, and a sense of independence and lack of concern for others (p. 245). Collectivism is defined by these authors as a sense of harmony, interdependence, and concern for others, which at core reflects the subordination of individual goals to the goals of a collective (Hui & Triandis, 1986, pp. 244-245). Hui and Triandis found that social scientists from diverse cultural backgrounds showed high consensus on the meaning of collectivism/individualism,providing support for the relevance of these constructs across different cultures and nations. Based on his extensive survey research on cultural differences in work-related values among employees of a large multinational corporation, Hofstede (1984) identified individualism as one of four main dimensions on which societies can be ranked and compared. He characterized societies in which individualism was valued as emphasizing rights over duties, self-realization, personal autonomy, personal initiative, and identity based on ones personal attributes. When these data were collected between 1967 and 1973,societies scoring highest on individualism (based on the importance assigned to different work-related goals) included the United States, Australia, Great Britain, Canada, the Neth-

erlands, and New Zealand. In contrast, several Asian societies such as Taiwan, Thailand, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Pakistan scored relatively low on individualism. In countries scoring low on individualism, Hofstede suggested that the priority of the collectivity prevails, such that loyalty to the groups interests predominates; and in turn, in-groups provide for the well-being of their members. Ones place in the social system defines ones identity, and there is greater dependence on social institutions. We have proposed that both individualism and collectivism are dimensions of cultural variation, which contribute to understanding romantic love (K.L.-Qon & K.K. Dion, 1988; K.K. Dion & K.L. Dion, 1993). Moreover, we have stressed the need to distinguish the societal as contrasted with the psychological level of these dimensions when studying their relation t romantic love (K.K. Dion & K.L. Dion, 19 -1,1993). Societal individualism and societal collectivism are revealed by cultural comparisons, whereas psychological individualism and psychological collectivism are manifested by individual differences within a g%en society. The ideology of romantic love centers on pursuing personal fulfillment and following ones personal wishes, even if they oppose those of ones family and kin. This ideology is less likely to be encouraged in collectivistic as contrasted with individualistic societies. Illustrating this point, traditionally in India, love before marriage was thought to be a disruptive element in upsetting the firmly established ties in the family, a transference of loyalty from the family of orientation to a person, and a loss of allegiance . . . leaving the family and kin group . . . for personal goals (Gupta, 1976, p. 78). In a previous paper we suggested that romantic love is more likely to be considered an important basis for marriage in societies where individualism as contrasted with collectivism is a dominant cultural value (K.K. Dion & K.L. Dion, 1993,p. 58). In that article we noted, however, that changes seemed to be occurring in beliefs about the relation between love and mar-

Culture and love

riage among recent cohorts of young adults in traditionally collectivistic societies.What does the current cross-cultural evidence suggest?
Evidence of social change

In a recent cross-cultural study, Levine, Sato, Hashimoto, and Verma (1995) asked undergraduate university students from secondary population centers in 11societies-Brazil, Mexico, Hong Kong, India, Pakistan, Thailand, Japan, the Philippines, Australia, England, and the United States-to respond to three questions originally asked by Kephart (1967) and subsequently reexamined by Simpson, Campbell, and Berscheid (1986). The first question asked: If a man (woman) had all the other qualities you desired, would you marry this person if you were not in love with him (her)? In response to this question, there were three alternatives: yes, no, and undecided. As predicted by Levine and colleagues, young adults from three traditionally collectivistic Asian countries were most likely to answer affirmatively to the above question, with the specific percentages of those replying yes as follows: young adults from India (49%), Pakistan (50.4%), and, to a lesser extent, Thailand (18.8%). However, young adults from other traditionally collectivistic, Asian societies responded in a manner similar to their counterparts from traditionally individualistic, Western societies. Very few of them stated that they were willing to marry without being in love (5.8% in the Hong Kong sample and 2.3% in the Japanese sample). Comparable percentages for the samples from three Western societies were: Australia (4.8%), England (7.3%), and the United States (3.5%). Levine and colleagues (1995) found a positive relation between Hofstedes ratings of societal individualism and the importance of love as a basis for marriage. Sprecher, Aron, Hatfield, Cortese, Potapova, and Levitskaya (1994) compared university students responses from Japan,

Russia, and the United States on a diverse group of measures pertaining to love. They found culture-related differences on almost all of the measures they examined (see Table 4, Sprecher et al., 1994). One of the items included in their measures was the Kephart (1967) question concerning the importance of love as a basis for marriage. Respondents were given only two response options, yes or no; the undecided alternative was not included. Sprecher and her colleagues found that the proportion of respondents who regarded love as a basis for marriage was lower in the Russian sample than either the Japanese or the US. samples, although it should be noted that the Japanese sample ma&y consisted of English-language or American-studies majors. Respondents also completed Sprecher and Metts (1989) Romantic Beliefs Scale, which assesses the ideology of romantic love. On this measure, the Japanese sample scored lower than either the Russian or the US. samples. The extensive cross-cultural study of mate preferences conducted by Buss and his colleagues (1990) is ako relevant to this discussion. This study involved samples from 37 different cultures (weighted mean age of 23.15 years). Participants both rated and ranked the desirability of a set of characteristics that they would want in a potential spouse. Across all respondents, the most valued characteristic mentioned by both women and men was mutual attraction-love. This combined term could have various meanings to respondents, such as being in love and/or love for ones partner. As Berscheid and Meyers note elsewhere in this volume, love and i n love have different connotations to American respondents (university students). There is a potentially important difference between endorsing the necessity of romantic love (being in love) as a prerequisite for marriage and the desire for a caring relationship with ones partner (love). Interestingly, differences occurred in the importance of mutual attraction-love among respondents from different Asian societies in the study by Buss et al. (1990).

10

K.K. Dion and K.L. Dion

In the sample from mainland China, mutual attraction-love was neither the first, nor the second, most highly valued characteristic in a potential spouse for either men or women, as assessed by the rank order of the mean ratings. By contrast, it was at the top of the list for samples from Taiwan and Japan. Of the Asian samples, only those from Japan and Taiwan were student samples; the Chinese sample, obtained from several different locations in mainland China, did not consist of university students (Buss, personal communication, April 21, 1995). It is possible, therefore, that the above findings are partly attributable to sample differences, as university students in Japan and Taiwan would be more likely to encounter Western literature and media compared to adults from mainland China who were not university students.

Implications of social change


Consistent with our conceptual analysis (K.K. Dion & K.L. Dion, 1993),in the U.S., British, and Australian samples of Levine et al. (1995), the importance of a love-based marriage was strongly endorsed. Also, feelings of mutual attraction-love for ones potential spouse were rated as highly important by young adults from these societies and from several Western European societies. Moreover, the relation between Hofstedes ratings of societal individualism and the importance of love as a basis for marriage found by Levine and his colleagues clearly supports our hypothesis that romantic love is more important as a basis for marriage in individualistic societies than in collectivistic ones. The pattern of findings among traditionally collectivistic societies, especially Asian societies, indicated considerable diversity. We suggest that this diversity is consistent with changes in value orientations occurring among recent cohorts of young adults in several traditionally collectivistic, Asian societies-notably, Taiwan and Hong Kong. These changes appear to be in the direction of greater psychological individualism. Based on several studies involving student

samples from Taiwan and Hong Kong, Yang (1986) concluded that young adults there were, in fact, now individualisticrather than collectivistic, contrary to the traditional image of Chinese culture. He suggested that research on value orientations indicated a drastic movement away from the traditional Chinese pattern . . . by Chinese young people in Taiwan and Hong Kong. . . . Chinese students now tend to have value orientation patterns fairly similar to those of American students (Yang, 1986, p. 116). According to Yang, this change has been from a social orientation to an individual orientation7-that is, toward greater emphasis on seltexpression and personal gratification. Compared to previous cohorts of Japanese adults, a similar change toward a more individual orientation also may characterize recent Japanese samples of university students. At t the very least, we would expeb greater variability in value orientations such as individualism and collectivism among recent and current cohorts of university students in Hong Kong, Japan, and Taiwan. The proportion of young adults choosing the undecided option to the Kephart question about love as a basis for marriage also was substantial in samples from several Asian societies, namely Thailand (47.5%), Japan (35.7%), India (26.9%), and the Philippines (25%) (Levine et al., 1995). It is important to retain the undecided response option to this and other similar questions. A high proportion of undecided responses can be interpreted as indicators of changing values, resulting in greater indecision and/or ambivalence on the part of some young adults in societies where views about relationships-in particular, marriage-may diverge from those of previous cohorts.

Individualism, Collectivism, and Romantic Love: Ethnocultural Comparisons


In this section we focus on the relation between ethnocultural factors and romantic love within a given society. In societies

Culture and love

11

characterized by ethnocultural diversity, the potential for different beliefs and styles of love exists, and such differences may partly be attributable to respondents ethnocultural background. In a recent study (K.L. Dion & K.K. Dion, 1993), we investigated the relation between ethnocultural background in an ethnically heterogeneous sample of university undergraduates in Toronto, Canada, to individual differences in styles of love, as assessed by the Love Attitudes Scale (Headrick, Hendrick, Foote & Slapion-Foote, 1984). Participants were asked to indicate the ethnocultural background of both their parents. Considerable ethnocultural diversity existed in this Canadian sample, including participants from traditionally collectivistic (Chinese, East Indian, and Pakistani) and traditionally individualistic (e.g., English, Scottish) backgrounds. Moreover, as the official Canadian government policy has been one of multiculturalism, there is societal support and encouragement for maintaining different ethnocultural traditions, particularly in large urban areas, such as Toronto. These analyses concerned those individuals who indicated the same ethnocultural ancestries for both parents. We found that young adults (university students) from Chinese and from other Asian backgrounds endorsed a love as friendship style more strongly than did those from Anglo-Celtic or European ethnocultural backgrounds. Items illustrative of this love style included the following: You cannot love unless you have first had caring for a while; Love is really a deep friendship, not a mysterious, mystical emotion. We also found an interaction between gender and ethnocultural background on the altruistic style of love (agape). Pairwise comparisons indicated that Asian women from ethnocultural backgrounds other than Chinese (predominantly East Indian and Pakistani in this sample) endorsed this view of the nature of love more than did women from Anglo-Celtic backgrounds (English, Scottish, Irish). This finding was intriguing because in the literature on styles of love, gender differences in agape have not typi-

cally occurred in samples from the United States. We suggested that a belief in love as altruism may reflect the influences of both cultural and gender-related factors. A view of love as agape is consistent with an emphasis on interconnectedness in self-other relationships.

The role of immigration


Research on beliefs about love and marriage among immigrants from diverse ethnocultural backgrounds is also relevant here: in particular, individuals who emigrate from traditionally collectivistic societies (e.g., different Auan societies) to traditionally individualistic societies (e.g., Canada, the United States, Australia). We would expect that to the extent that they possess and retain collectivistic values, adult immigrants f r q traditionally collectivistic societies would not value the more individualistic approach to opposite-sex relationships, including dating, free association with the opposite sex, and the ideology of romantic love found in the host society. These beliefs and behaviors reflect valuing the freedom of the individual to seek his or her own personal development and gratification in close relationships beyond the family and to pursue these relationships without parental interference. In many non-Western societies, however, socialization is not directed toward the development of personal autonomy (LeVine, 1990). Instead, interconnected and interdependent social relationships are stressed; and it is assumed that family members will be involved in influencing each others lives (Shweder & Bourne, 1984). From this perspective, parental influence in the lives of adult children, including arranged marriages, is completely understandable. A love match, especially marrying for love despite strong family opposition, undermines the assumption of interconnectedness in the family. Given space limitations, we focus here on research undertaken with Asian immigrant families residing in Canada. Based on interviews with a small sample of Indo-Ca-

12

K.K. Dion and K.L. Dion

nadian families about different aspects of family tradition, Filteau (1980) suggested that respondents perceived a conflict between the concept of love valued in the traditional Hindu family and what they believed to be the North American (in this case, Canadian) ideal. For the former, the themes mentioned included respect, tolerance, obligation, duty, sacrifice, compromise and marriage; for the latter, the themes focused on individualism, materialism, independence, dating, divorce, selfishness and romance (Filteau, 1980,p. 294). The difference in perspective was well captured by the comment of one respondent who suggested that no clear obligation towards others grows out of the dating pattern in Canada (Filteau, 1980,p. 295). Given this contrast in orientation toward others, it is understandable that among Western practices, the most controversial one for Indo-Canadian parents, regardless of their language or religion, was dating and the free association of their adolescent or young adult children with opposite-sex peers (Kurian & Ghosh, 1983). Similarly, Naidoo and Davis (1988) found that, on items pertaining to family relationships, women of South Asian ethnicity in Canada rejected what they perceived to be mainstream Canadian values, such as dating among adolescents and free choice, lovebased marriage for their daughters. When asked about areas of stress in their lives in Canada, over a third reported stress surrounding adolescent boy-girl dating customs; and nearly a fifth were concerned about free choice marriage based on romantic love. Within immigrant families, generational differences in the perceived desirability of dating and the importance of love as a basis for marriage can and do occur. In their samples of Indo-Canadian respondents, Vaidyanathan and Naidoo (1991) found that 80% of second-generation, unmarried young adults had a favorable attitude toward dating, as contrasted with only 27.3% of firstgeneration, predominantly immigrant respondents (parents of young adults). For the latter group, dating only became ac-

ceptable once the couple were committed to a permanent relationship (68.2%). Among the older, first-generation group, the sample was fairly evenly divided between endorsing the view that marriage precedes love (54.5%) and love precedes marriage (45.5%). Among the second generation, the overwhelming preference (75%) was the alternative of marrying for love. Lee and Cochran (1988) identified issues of concern to a small sample of young Chinese women from Hong Kong who had emigrated to Canada. These women frequently commented on their desire to confront their fears of separation from the group to become ones own person. One area mentioned was close relationships, specifically the extent to which they should develop intimacy with individuals outside the family group. The kinds of stresses reportea by both parents and young adult children in these studies of immigrants to Canada may reflect the latters desire for greater autonomy and self-reliance, consistent with greater emphasis on individualistic values such as personal choice and personal fulfillment stressed in the host society. Interestingly, differences between first- and secondgeneration immigrants, when they occur, seem to be most pronounced on issues pertaining to personal relationships and family functioning (Vaidyanathan & Naidoo, 1991; K.L. Dion & K.K. Dion, 1996). In domains such as educational or occupational goals, the issue of greater personal choice seems less likely to be a source of potential conflict between immigrant parents and their teenage or young adult children compared to the domain of dating and marriage (e.g., Kurian & Ghosh, 1983). Thus, attitudes toward free association with opposite-sex peers, romantic love, and the importance of love as a basis for marriage can be viewed as key indicators of different modes of acculturation. Finally, ethnocultural differences on attitudes and values pertaining to close relationships may be more likely to occur in societies such as Canada where there has been structural support (e.g., an

Culture and love

13

official policy of multiculturalism) for ethnocultural diversity than in societies such as the United States with traditionally stronger assimilationist pressures (see K.L. Dion, 1990, for further discussion of this issue).

Psychological Individualism, Psychological Collectivism, and Romantic Love


In the preceding sections, we discussed cross-cultural and ethnocultural research concerning beliefs about romantic love and its perceived importance as a basis for marriage. The evidence we reviewed supports our contention that societal individualism and collectivism are dimensions of cultural variation offering a useful theoretical framework for interpreting these findings. In most of this cross-cultural and ethnocultural research, however, individualism and collectivism have not been independently assessed but rather inferred or assumed. We have used the terms psychological individualism and psychological collectivism to refer to individualism and collectivism at the personal level, as contrasted with the societal one. This differentiation recognizes that regardless of societal levels of individualism and collectivism, there are differences within a given society concerning the extent to which individuals personally endorse prevailing cultural ideals or different ones (Triandis, Leung, Villareal, & Clack, 1985). Thus, psychological individualists can be found in collectivisticsocieties, and psychological collectivists can be found in individualistic societies. Given the likelihood of diversity on these dimensions in changing and/or ethnically heterogeneous societies, it is necessary to measure individualism and collectivism at the psychological level rather than to assume it on the basis of societal levels. We previously have proposed the following paradox. In individualistic societies, romantic love is valued as an important basis for marriage; and the ideology of romantic love contributes to expecting a high degree of personal fulfillment in marriage. How-

ever, some aspects (or types of) psychological individualism make it more difficult to realize these goals. By contrast, in collectivistic societies, romantic love is less likely to be valued as a basis for marriage. At the psychological level, however, collectivism facilitates intimacy within the in-group, but this intimacy is likely to be expressed in a complex system of family relationships (K.K. Dion & K.L. Dion, 1993). We have found some support for these hypotheses. One source of supportive findings is from our research on personality and romantic love: in particular, self-actualization and love (K.K. Dion & K.L. Dion, 1985). Self-actualization& a personality dimension that reflects individualism (Waterman, 1984).In many respects, self-actualization is a prototypically individualistic construct, as apparent from the term itself and from the underlyiq assumptions of self-actualization and related theories (e.g., Maslow, 1970).In our research, self-actualization was measured by Shostroms (1964) Personal Orientation Inventory, which is still considered the best available measure of this construct (Hattie, Hancock, & Brereton, 1984). We also distinguished among the ideology of love, the subjective experience of love, and feelings about a particular partner. Accordingly, we included attitude items to assess beliefs about love, a series of bipolar ratings of ones love experiences, as well as Wessman and Rickss (1966) Love and Sex Scale to assess the reported experience of romantic love, and the Rubin (1970) Love Scale to assess reported love and related affect toward a particular partner. Our findings confirmed the importance of making these distinctions. Individuals scoring high in self-actualization reported a more gratifying love experience than did those scoring low on this measure. They also tended to report their experience of love as being less guarded and more intense. However, self-actualized individuals reported less love for their partner; in particular, they scored lower on the caring and need subscales of the Rubin Love Scale identified by Steck, Levitan, McLane, and Kelley (1982). In other words, self-actual-

14

K.K. Dion and K.L. Dion

ized people seemed to enjoy the experience of being in love more than did their less self-actualized peers, but the latter seemed to care more for their partner. A similar pattern of findings emerged in a recent study in which we directly examined the relation between psychological individualism and love (K.K. Dion & K.L. Dion, 1991). In that study, psychological individualism and psychological collectivism were measured by 24 items developed by Breer and Locke (1965) to assess these constructs. The items were multidimensional, with additional analyses yielding two factors for individualism and collectivism, respectively.The items in one of these factors, which we labeled as self-contained individualism, reflected valuing freedom and self-reliance. Psychological individualism, especially this self-contained component, was negatively related to affective involvement with ones partner, as measured by Rubins Love Scale and its three components (caring, need, and trust). These findings were obtained after controlling for the effects of psychological collectivism, as well as age and sex of respondent. Psychological individualists were more likely to view love as a game. Moreover, in this sample, self-contained7individualism was associated with a lower likelihood of ever having been in love; and among those who had been in love, this type of individualism was negatively related to characterizing ones experience of romantic love as being tender, deep, and rewarding. We have extended the above paradigm to study the relation between psychological individualism and collectivism, using a more extensive set of items, and attitudes toward marriage and toward divorce (K.L. Dion & K.K. Dion, 1994).Psychological individualism, specifically self-contained individualism, was related to a less positive attitude toward marriage. By contrast, psychological collectivism was associated with a less favorable attitude toward divorce. In a recent study, Doherty, Hatfield, Thompson, and Choo (1994) found a negative relation between a 12-item measure of

individualism and collectivism (Triandis, 1992) and Hatfield and Sprechers (1986) measure of Passionate Love, which assesses intensity of attraction to, and affective involvement with, ones romantic partner. Although small in magnitude, this negative relation found by Doherty and his colleagues is consistent with our previous finding (K.K. Dion & K.L. Dion, 1991) of a negative relation between self-contained individualism and reported love for ones romantic partner, as measured by the Rubin Love Scale. Interestingly, Hatfield and Sprechers (1986) Passionate Love Scale has been found to be highly related to the Rubin Love Scale in a,sampk of U.S. university students (Y = .86 for men; Y = .83 for women). Thus, two independent studies, one conducted in Canada and one in the United States, using different measures of psychological individualism and different measures of romanticlpassionafe love have found a negative relation between psychological individualism and reported love for ones partner. Findings from a very different cultural context also suggest that some aspects of individualism may work against developing intimacy with a romantic partner. Goodwin (1995) examined the reported willingness to engage in intimate self-disclosure by individuals from three different social groups (manual workers, entrepreneurs, and students) in Russia shortly after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The entrepreneurs as a group were characterized as being very individualistic, especially in highly valuing self-reliance. Respondents were asked to list off limits topics in relationships of differing degrees of intimacy.In Study 2, topics related to sex and love were the most frequently mentioned category of taboo topics. The entrepreneurs and the students reported difficulty when discussing love and sex, particularly in the context of intimate relationships (Goodwin, 1995). Although Goodwins research was conducted to test a different conceptual model, one of his major findings is consistent with our prediction of a negative relation between self-contained individualism and inti-

Culture and love

15

macy with a romantic partner-in intimate self-disclosure.

ceptualize individualism and collectivism as different facets of self, rather than contrasting attributes, when studying their implications for different forms of personal Concluding Remarks relationships. In our research, we have In summary, the empirical findings pre- found that each of these constructs is mulsented in this article clearly support our tidimensional. Our findings suggest that contention that the dimensions of individu- one component of individualism in particualism and collectivism, respectively-both lar-namely self-contained individualat the societal and the psychological lev- ism-is related to variations in reported els-provide a heuristic framework for love experiences as well as beliefs about better understanding romantic love. The love and about marriage, which may be constructs of individualism and collectiv- problematic for fostering intimacy in roism are, of course, not the only relevant mantic relationships (K.K. Dion & K.L. cultural dimensions. They do, however, Dion, 1991; K.L. Dion & K.K. Dion, 1994). provide one starting point. As emphasized Research on romantic love from a culabove, it is important to distinguish be- tural perspective has relevance for undertween individualism and collectivism at the standing changing norms surrounding instisocietal and at the personal level, respec- tutions, such as marriage. The search for tively, when studying their relation to personal growth/fulfillment through marromantic love. Given cultural change, im- riage based-gn romantic love assumes that migration, and ethnocultural diversity, in- marriage primarily should function to procreasingly there is likely to be heteroge- mote self-development. Given this assumpneity in the prevalence of psychological tion, if both members of a couple are not individualism and psychological collectiv- growing together (or at least not hinderism within specific, traditionally individu- ing each others personal growth), the basis alistic and collectivistic societies. There- for the marriage may be questioned by one fore, it is important to measure these and or both parties. It is this view of marriage other related constructs in a particular that some individuals from traditionally sample rather than to assume their uni- collectivistic societies find distasteful, for it form presence among individuals within a conflicts with core assumptions about the given society. Thus, for example, re- relation between self and family. We and searchers studying personal relationships other scholars have contended that heightin some Asian societies should not assume ened individualism has contributed to inthat those taking part in their study, espe- creasing rates of marriage failure and dicially if they are university students, are vorce in the United States and Canada in psychologically collectivistic. As Yang recent decades (Brehm, 1992;Cherlin, 1981; (1986) suggested, many of these students K.L. Dion & K.K. Dion, 1988; Schwartz, may now endorse individualistic values as 1988). Furstenberg (1990) commented that strongly as their Western counterparts in current ideals of marriage in the United individualistic countries. States virtually demanded divorce if the The constructs of individualism and col- couple were no longer in love with each lectivism typically have been conceptual- other. ized as contrasting poles of a continuum. Recent research indicates increasing diThe distinction between the relative em- versity in views of the relation between phasis on the priority of the individual, as love and marriage among young adults contrasted with the priority of the group, from several different and traditionally colhighlights important differences that are lectivistic societies (Levine et al., 1995; important for understanding personal rela- Sprecher et al., 1994). This diversity may tionships. At the psychological level, how- reflect change in the direction of greater ever, it may be of heuristic value to con- psychological individualism, notably self-

this case,

16

K.K. Dion and K.L. Dion

contained individualism, characterized by chological individualism takes forms other valuing personal freedom. If so, it remains than self-contained individualism. If so, to be seen whether young adults in these then individuals from more collectivistic societies (e.g., Japan, Taiwan) and young cultural traditions who become more indiadults whose parents emigrated from tra- vidualistic might show a different pattern ditionally collectivistic societies to Canada, of relationship-related correlates. Clearly, a Australia, or the United States show in- cultural perspective raises important and creasingly high rates of divorce and remar- intriguing questions about the psychology riage. On the other hand, it is possible that of love and, more generally, about self and in traditionally collectivistic societies psy- close relationships.
References
Averill, J. R. (1985). The social construction of emotion: With special reference to love. In K. J. Gergen & K. E. Davis (Eds.), The social construction ofthe person (pp. 89-109). New York: Springer-Verlag. Brehm, S. (1992). Intimate relationships (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Breer, J? E., & Locke, E. A. (1965). Task experience as a source of attitudes.Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press. Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis o f oral and written materials. In H. C. lkiandis & J. W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Methodology, Vol. 2 (pp. 389-444). Toronto: Allyn & Bacon. Buss, D. M. (1988). The evolutionary biology of love. In R. J. Sternberg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), Thepsychology of love (pp. 100-118). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Buss, D. M., Abbott, M., Angleitner, A., et al. (1990). International preferences in selecting mates: A study of 37 cultures.Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology, 21,547. Cherlin, A. J. (1981). Marriage, divorce, remarriage. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Dion, K. K., & Dion, K. L. (1985). Personality, gender, and the phenomenology of romantic love. In ? R. Shaver (Ed.), Selj situations, and behavior: Review of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 209-239). Thousand Oaks, C A Sage. Dion, K. K., & Dion, K. L. (1991). Psychological individualism and love. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6,17-33. Dion, R. K., & Dion, K. L. (1993). Individualistic and collectivistic perspectives on gender and the cultural context of love and intimacy. The Journal of Social Issues, 49(3), 53-69. Dion, K. L. (1990). The joy of ethnicity: Doing ethnocultural research in your own backyard. International Society for the Study of Personal Relationships Bulletin, 7(1),3-7. Dion, K. L., & Dion, K. K. (1988). Romantic love: Individual and cultural perspectives. In R. J. Sternberg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love (pp. 264-289). New Haven, CI? Yale University Press. Dion, K. L., & Dion, K. K. (1993). Gender and ethnocultural comparisons in styles of love. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 17,463-473. Dion,K.L., & Dion,K. K. (1994). Individualism-collectivism and love. Paper presented at the Seventh Annual Conference of the International Society for the Study of Personal Relationships,Gronigen, The Netherlands, July 1994. Dion, K. L., & Dion, K. K. (1996). Chinese adaptation to foreign cultures.In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 441-462). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press. Doherty, R. W., Hatfield, E., Thompson, K., & Choo, P. (1994). Cultural and ethnic influences on love and attachment. Personal Relationships, I , 391-398. Fehr, B. (1994). Prototype-based assessment of laypeoples views of love. Personal Relationships, I , 309-331. f the concept o f love in Filteau, C .H. (1980).The role o the Hindu family acculturation process. In K. V. Ujimoto & G. Hirabayashi (Eds.), Visible minorities and multiculturalism:Asians in Canada (pp. 289-299). Toronto: Butterworths. Furstenberg, F. E (1990). Divorce and the American family. American Review of Sociology, 16,379-403. Goodwin,R. (1995). The privatisation of the personal? I: Intimate disclosure in modern-day Russia. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12, 121-131. Gupta, G. R. (1976). Love, arranged marriage, and the Indian social structure. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 7(1), 75-85. Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1986). Measuring passionate love in intimate relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 9,383-410. Hattie, J., Hancock,?,& Brereton, K. (1984). The relationship between two measures of self-actualization. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48,17-25. Hendrick, C., Hendrick, S.,Foote, F. H., & SlapionFoote, M. J. (1984). Do men and women love differently?Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, I , 177-195. Hofstede, G. (1984). Cultures consequences: International differences i n work-related values.Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage. Hui, C. H., & lkiandis, H. C. (1986). Individualism-collectivism: A study of cross-cultural researchers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17,222-248. Hsu, F. L. K. (1981).Americans and Chinese:Passage to differences (3rd ed.), Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii. Jankowiak, W. R., & Fischer, E. F. (1992). A cross-cultural perspective on romantic love. Ethnology, 31, 149-155. Kephart, W . M. (1967). Some correlates of romantic

Culture and love


love. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 29, 470-474. Kurian, G., & Ghosh, R. (1983). Child rearing in transition in Indian immigrant families in Canada. In G. Kurian & R. P. Srivastava (Eds.), Overseas Indians: A study in adaptation (pp. 128-138). New York: Advent Books. Lee, C. C., & Cochran, L. R. (1988). Migration problems of Chinese women. Canadian Journal of Counseling, 22,202-211. Levine, R., Sato, S., Hashimoto, T., & Verma, J. (1995). Love and marriage in eleven cultures. Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology, 26,554-571. LeVine, R. A. (1990). Enculturation: A biosocial perspective on the development of self. In D. Cichetti & M. Beeghly (Eds.), The self in transition: Infancy to childhood (pp. 99-117). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York: Harper. Naidoo, J. C., & Davis, J. C. (1988). Canadian South Asian women in transition: A dualistic view of life. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 19(2), 311-327. Rubin, 2. (1970). Measurement of romantic love.Journal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 265-273. Schwartz,P. (1988).Thefamily as a changed institution. Journal of Family Issues, 8,455-459. . , Wu, S., & Schwartz, J. C. (1992). Cross-culShaver, F tural similarities and differences in emotion and its representation: A prototype approach. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 13,pp. 175-212). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Shostrom, E. L. (1964). An inventory for the measurement of self-actualization. Educational and Psychological Measurement,24,207-218. Shweder, R. A., & Bourne, E. J. (1984). Does the concept of the person vary cross-culturally?In R. A. Shweder & R. A. LeVine (Eds.), Essays on mind, selj and emotion. (pp. 158-199). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Simpson,J., Campbell, B., & Berscheid, E. (1986). The association between romantic love and marriage: Kephart (1967) twice revisited. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12,363-372. Sprecher, S., Aron, A., Hatfield, E., Cortese, A., Pota-

17
pova, E., & Levitskaya, A. (1994). Love: American style, Russian style, and Japanese style. Personal Relationships, 1,349-369. Sprecher, S., & Metts, S. (1989). Development of the Romantic Beliefs Scale and examination of the effects of gender and gender-role orientation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6, 387-411. Steck, L., Levitan, D., McLane, D., & Kelley, H. H. (1982). Care, need, and conceptions of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43,481491. Stone, L. (1988). Passionate attachments in the West in historical perspective. In W. Gaylin & E. Person (Eds.), Passionate attachments: Thinking about love. New York: The Free Press. Triandis, H. C., Leung, K., Villareal, M. J., & Clack, F. (1985). Allocentric versus idiocentric tendencies: Convergent and discriminant validation.Journal of Research in Personality, 19,395-415. Triandis, H,C., Bontempo, R., Betancourt, H., Bond, M., Leung,rK., Brenes, A., Georgas, J., Hui, C. H., Marin, G., Setiadi, B., Sinha, J. P., Verma, J., Spangenberg,J., Touzard, H., & de Montmollin, G. (1986). The measurement of the etic aspects of individualism and collectivism across cultures. Australian Journal of Psychology, 38,257-267. lkiandis, H. C. (1992). Individualism and collectivism manual. UItpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois, Champaign. Vaidyanathan,P., & Naidoo, J. (1991). Asian Indians in Western countries: Cultural identity and the arranged marriage. In N. Bleichrodt & P. Drenth (Eds.), Contemporary issues in cross-cultural psychology (pp. 3749). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger. Waterman, A. S. (1984). The psychology ofindividualism. New York: Praeger. Wessman, A. E., & Ricks, D. F. (1966). Mood and personality.New York: Holt. Wu, S. (1992). A comparisonof American and Chinese conceptions of love.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Psychology Dept., State University of New York at Buffalo. Yang, K.-S. (1986). Chinese personality and its change. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), Thepsychologyofthe Chinese people (pp. 106-170). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.

You might also like