Cultural & Sub-cultural Differences in Relationships

Differneces between Western and Non Western Cultures

Individualist and collectivist

Many theories of relationships are more appropriate for individualist, Western, societies probably because they are based on research studies conducted there.

 

Research evidence

Argyle et al. (1986) compared the friendship rules selected by people from Japan and Hong Kong (collectivist cultures), and Italy and Britain (individualist cultures). They found evidence of universal features, for example all respondents distinguished between intimate and non-intimate relationships. They also found differences, such as the Japanese endorsing more rules for avoiding conflict, the Italians being more concerned with regulating intimacy, and there were more rules for obedience in the East.

LeVine et al. (1995) interviewed young people in 11 countries, asking them ‘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 most collectivist societies the highest percentage was ‘yes’ (e.g. India 49%) whereas in England it was 7.3%. 

 

Voluntary and involuntary

Moghaddam (1998) identifies the major difference between Western-style marriage and non-Western arranged marriages in terms of Sternberg’s love triangle . In Western, romantic marriages, passion is most important during the initial stages of a relationship but in arranged marriages commitment is, and that commitment involves the entire family.

Research evidence

Harris (1995) found that only 6 out of 42 societies world-wide gave individuals complete freedom of choice of marriage partner.

Ghuman (1994) studied Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims living in Britain and found that arranged marriages are common.

Yelsma and Athappilly (1988) compared happiness in arranged Indian marriages with both Indian and American love matches, and found satisfaction higher in the former.

 

Permanent and impermanent

Social norms affect the way individuals conduct their relationships.

 

Research evidence

Statistics indicate Chinese divorce rates are less than 4% and US rates are over 40% (US Bureau of Census, 1992). Divorce is likely to be higher in individualist societies because of the view that one should seek the ideal partner.

Brodbar-Nemzer (1986) found greater marital stability in traditional New York Jewish families (collectivist) than those who had assimilated more into the individualist US society. Over 4000 households were interviewed.

All Muslim men are permitted to have up to four permanent wives, Shi‘i Muslims are additional allowed any number of temporary wives (lasting between 15 minutes and 15 years) (Haeri, 1989). This means that extramarital affairs are essentially condoned and more common than, e.g. in the US where 25% of men admit to such affairs (Gagnon et al., 1994).

 

Sub-cultural differences in relationships

Research evidence

Risavy (1996) found that men tended to display Lee’s love style called Agape (altruistic love) whereas women endorsed Pragma (logical love). Older men were generally more pragmatic than younger men. There were no social class differences. 

Haskey (1984) reported that divorce rates were four times higher in unskilled manual families than in professional families.

Argyle (1994) noted a tendency for middle-class individuals to have friendships based on shared interests and attitudes, and with work colleagues.

Evaluation of cultural research

• Research conducted in different cultures is likely to suffer from observer bias and the use of imposed etics (such as the use of Western questionnaires to assess attitudes).
• Conclusions may be based on small and possibly biased samples.
• The differences within cultures may be as great as those between cultures.

‘Understudied’ relationships

Gay and lesbian relationships

Kitzinger and Coyle (1995) suggest that research on gays and lesbians has gone through three phases:

• heterosexual bias – heterosexuality is more natural than homosexuality
• liberal humanism – homosexual and heterosexual couples are basically similar
• liberal humanism plus – there are special characteristics of gay and lesbian relationships.

Research evidence

Similarities: Kurdek and Schmitt (1986) measured love and liking and found no significant differences in married, heterosexual cohabiting, gay and lesbian couples. 

Differences: Blumstein and Schwartz (1983) interviewed couples who had been together for more than ten years; 22% of wives, 30% of husbands, 43% of lesbians and 94% of gay men reported having had sex with at least one person other than their partner. They also found that a lack of power equality was more a factor in the breakdown of lesbian and gay relationships than heterosexual marriages.

Kitzinger and Coyle (1995) point out that gay and lesbian couples have to survive in the face of considerable hostility from society. The longer duration of heterosexual relationships is likely to be due to the greater social support they receive. 

 

Electronic relationships

Usenets

Discussion groups (‘usenets’) exist for sharing information (e.g. about sleep problems), seeking advice (e.g. counselling services), conversation (e.g. chat rooms) or playing games (e.g. MUDs – Multi-User Dungeons). 

 

Cyberaffairs

Griffiths (1999) suggests that there are three types of cyberaffair:

• two people meet on the Internet and engage in an erotic dialogue
• relationships that are more emotional than sexual, leading to offline contact
• two people meet offline but maintain their relationship online, possibly because of geographical distance.

Young (1999) explains the appeal of such relationships with the ACE Model (anonymity, convenience and escape) and Cooper (1998) uses the Triple A Engine (access, affordability and anonymity).

 

Problems with electronic relationships

• Individuals may masquerade as something they are not.
• Internet relationships encourage vulnerable individuals to be seduced emotionally and sexually, and may replace real-life relationships; the latter are ultimately more complex and satisfying.