Discuss relationships in different cultures
A01There had been an abundance of research on adult romantic
relationships some of which focuses on very specific relationship areas,
e.g., theories of attraction, formation, maintenance and dissolution.
A02 Most of the research, however, has been conducted by western
psychologists, e.g., those from North American and European backgrounds
and as a result has been heavily criticised for being ethnocentric and
irrelevant to persons from non-Western backgrounds.
A01 Hofstede conducted extensive research into the differences
between western and non-western societies in a massive questionnaire
study that involved 117,000 employees of IBM across 40 countries. His
conclusions on this research mirror other researchers such as Mogaddam
(1992).
A02 Research into romantic relationships may lack validity due to the
methods used. Thus Questionnaires and interviews, such as the ones used
by Hofstede, are limited, and may be due to subjectivity and participants
answering according to social desirability rather than their true beliefs.
A01According to Moghaddam et al (1993), romantic relationships in
western cultures tend to be: individualistic, voluntary, and temporary.
Those in the non-west tend to be collectivist, involuntary and permanent.
As research has largely been carried out in individualistic cultures
especially the ones in the United States and the United Kingdom, the
relationship focus has tended to be on voluntary, temporary, heterosexual
relationship rather than non-voluntary, permanent, and homosexual
relationships.
A02 These limitations are very important, as theories and research may
only be understood within the cultural background they occur, and if the
behavior and communication differs from one culture to another then
psychologists may have developed a very biased view of the mechanics of
relationships. This means that theories such Filter theory, SET and
Equity may have no relevance to cultures that are not individualistic.
Therefore, such studies lack external validity as they only look at one
type of culture and population and therefore cannot tell us about
universal behaviours.
Research also often has a western bias; it is problematic to apply western
definitions within different cultures. This is known as the Etic approach.
According to the emic approach, relationships can only be considered in
terms of the context or environment in which they occur.
1
A01 According to Moghaddam, there is a social expectation that a
relationship will last in a collectivist culture creating a lot of pressure to
stay together as opposed to the attitude in an individualistic culture,
which holds the view that if a person is unhappy in a relationship they
should leave it. Moreover, the duration of relationships varies
considerably between cultures. In collectivist cultures, divorce is much
less tolerated. For example, in China, divorce is regarded as shameful, and
the divorce rate is only 4% compared to the USA and UK, which is
approximately 40-50%.
From a western individualistic perspective the natural form of marriage is
monogamy (marriage to one spouse at a time). This union is on being “in
love” with the individual concerned choosing their own partner voluntarily.
But voluntary partner selection is only one form that marriages can take.
Most relationships in the world are formed by arranged marriages.
A02 Because there are so such major differences between western and
non-western cultures. Psychologists believe that many of the theories
only have applicability to western cultures. So we are still no nearer to
discovering why individuals form, maintain, and dissolve their
relationships as theories such as Duck, Gotteman, Hazan and Shaver have
no relevance or applicability in countries like India or China.
A02 The counter argument is that the so-called differences between
voluntary /involuntary and permanent/temporary are actually not that
unlike after all. The derived etic approach is correct>
For example, even in collectivist cultures where marriages are arranged,
there is still some degree of individual choice (marriages are not forced).
For example, in Sri Lanka men and women who like one another (or fall in
love) usually let their parents know their choices in advance through
indirect channels (De Munck, 1998). The majority of families in
collectivist societies often use a similar criteria to what the individual
might choose themselves if they had a free choice (including match
matching on attractiveness).
Likewise, in individualistic cultures, parents, friends and social groups do
have a strong (if more subtle) influence on people’s choice of marriage
partner. Indeed Kerckhoff and Davis’s (filter model) found that our
realistic choice of marriage partners is limited by demographic variables.
To this extent, most relationships are arranged.
According to Duck the choice to marry in individualistic cultures is
presumably voluntary. But once that marriage is a few years old, it’s much
less voluntary than it was, since getting out of it (divorcing) is
accompanied by a great deal of social and legal baggage. For example the
2
extortionate legal costs, effects of divorce on children and family, selling
and splitting homes, coping as a single parent emotionally and financially,
introducing step parents and siblings, losing friends, social life etc. As a
result, many unhappy couples stay put even in individualistic societies.
Obviously the counter argument raised by critics on this line of reasoning
is that in individualistic cultures the divorce rate is between 40-60% and
in collectivist it is between 1-4%. So the individualistic cultures must be
more temporary even if 40-60% of them they may stay for involuntary
reasons
Other psychologists have pointed out that many people may very well
want to divorce in collectivist societies but for economic reasons they
cannot. The social support or benefit systems in collectivist cultures are
often non-existent or minimal. There are no unemployment benefits,
council housing, free education, health care, pensions etc, Nor transport
systems that make it easier to choose different jobs, relocate, go to
university etc. This means people in collectivist cultures are less
independent and self-sufficient. The state will not provide so they have
to care for their own families and communities. Therefore, if individuals
in collectivist cultures: divorce or marry for love; then they may cause
themselves or another family member to have a much lower quality of
existence. Divorce therefore carries great stigma.
For males deserting their wife and family could make them destitute. For
females who divorce there is no chance of economic independence as
collectivist countries are usually patriarchal and unequal. Plus the stigma
of running away, divorcing, not complying with an arranged marriage can
lead to the worst kind of social disgrace or worse still, honour killings.
Thus the learned outcome of Moghaddam’s work on different cultures
could be that we realise that people don’t divorce in collectivist societies
because of some intrinsic religious virtue or morality but because they
just don’t have the economic freedom to do so. Obviously this has massive
implications for research on romantic relationships as it shows how money
shapes behaviour in a dramatic way.
Other A02 Most of the research we have look at so far in this topic is
all over 15 years old. Would these cultural differences still hold? Has
society or the world changed? For example, Celia Mosher, an American
Doctor, conducted research on the sexual lives of her middle aged female
patients during the latter part of the nineteenth century. She found that
those who were born in the middle of the century described sex
necessary for reproduction but did not regard it as pleasurable. Those
3
who were born later in the century, described sex in much more positive
terms, and said they saw sex as closely linked to passionate love
(Western 1996).
Another weakness with research is that any sample we chose may not be
representative of that whole culture, so generalisations may not be
possible. For example, most research carried out in the UK is on
heterosexual student couples this raises the issue of sub-cultural bias, as
sometimes differences within a culture are stronger than differences
between cultures. As the homosexual population is not represented in
studies, findings cannot be generalised. As a consequence of this type of
investigation, many sub-cultures in the UK are not represented in
research.
This bit could be used instead of other A01
A01
In western (generally individualistic) cultures, it is most often the case
that the choice of marriage partner is based largely on romantic love.
Romantic love is considered a prerequisite for marriage and probably the
most important ingredient of a successful relationship.
It would be easy to assume that this view was universal, but there is
evidence that this is not the case. Shaver, Wu and Schwartz (1991)
studied the cultural differences in attitudes towards romantic love. They
found that in China, romantic love is associated with sorrow, pain and
unfulfilled affection. In the eyes of Chinese people, the western view
that marriage should be based on romantic love is unrealistically
optimistic.
A02
Changing zeitgeist: Romantic love is still a fairly new phenomenon in
western society. Historically this was not the case; marriage was often
based on issues of property and social standing than the emotions of the
bride and groom. Changes in attitudes towards reasons to marry emerged
after the renaissance (14-17 centuries)
In collectivist cultures romantic love is not seen as the basis for a
decision to marry. Families on the basis of economic and religious
similarity arrange rather many marriages.
Looking at the differences across cultures in relationships can be useful
for assessing how well models/theories of relationships apply (derived
etic). For example, if the evolutionary theory of relationships were
correct one would expect the need for romantic love to be universal
(Pinker, 2008) and not culturally driven. According to evolutionary
4
psychology we are supposed to feel romantic love though in order to
survive and perpetuate our species. Indeed Jankowiak and Fischer, (1992)
found romantic love in all but 1 of 166 hunter/gatherer societies.
Suggesting that cultures are similar in craving an element of romantic
love. However other studies dispute this (Allgiert and Wiederman, 1991).
Therefore, the extent to which the evolutionary theory can describe
differences between cultures is not clear.
The concept of romantic love is also difficult to define. If romantic love
cannot be universally and clearly defined then trying to measure it is
questionable.
5