HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS: Explain the role that culture plays in the formation and maintenance of relationships
Culture is a defining factor for why relationships are formed and maintained. A striking difference in the nature of interpersonal relationships is found when comparing individualist cultures to collectivist cultures. Generally speaking, western countries tend to fall into the category of individualist cultures whereas eastern countries tend to follow traditions related to collectivist cultures. Individualist cultures emphasize individuals and their goals, rights, attitudes and needs whereas collectivist cultures place importance on the group and its goals, rights, attitudes and needs. Cultural norms therefore highly affect the reasons why we seek out relationships and the nature of these relationships.
There is a strong social norm of monogamous relationships in individualist cultures, which can be seen from the laws present in Western countries, whereas Eastern cultures tend to accept polygamous relationships. Individualist cultures emphasize voluntary choice in relationships, due to both the greater availability of relationships and the notions of romantic love. Contrastingly, collectivist cultures have a lack of voluntary of choice because there is a lack of availability of relationships and because interpersonal relationships include obligations to family and social norms. In collectivist cultures, marriage is supposed to take into consideration the wishes of others, such as the families of the married couple. There is a tendency for the relationship to be more governed by group need whereas in individualist cultures relationships are governed by individual needs.
While western cultures typically hold love as a prerequisite for marriage, individualist cultures expect that love will develop during the marriage. There is evidence that this occurs within arranged marriages, as shown by Gupta and Singh’s study in 1992. Their aim was to study the differences in relationships between people in arranged and love marriages. The method used was a questionnaire – “Rubin’s love scale”. 50 participants were recruited in Jaipur in India, some of which were in arranged marriages and the others were in love marriages. They completed the Rubin’s love scale measurement at various points in time after getting married.
Gupta and Singh found that those who were in arranged marriages felt less love at the start of their marriage than those who had married for love. However, the couples in arranged marriages showed an increase in love during their first five years of marriage, and this new level of love was maintained when asked to complete a questionnaire five years later, ten years into their marriage. In love marriages, the degree of love began at a higher level which was maintained over the first five years. However, after ten years it had fallen well below the level of love experienced by those in arranged marriages. The study suggested that love is likely to develop and be maintained in arranged marriages but this is likely to decrease after a certain period in love marriages.
It is important to note that Gupta and Singh’s study focused on Indian individuals. The cultural norms in India are generally collectivist, and arranged marriages are a popular form of relationship formation. This may have affected the findings in the study, since all of the participants were somehow affiliated to the collectivist culture. However, what makes the findings of the aforementioned study valuable is that it supports the point that arranged marriages are initiated by something other than love, and that love tends to develop as the marriage develops.
Methodologically, the study lacks ecological validity since a love-scale was used to determine the extent of which the participants were in love. Love is a very subjective emotion, and therefore it is impossible to measure accurately. It is also important to note that there are many definitions of love and the questions included in the Rubin’s love-scale questionnaire may have only focused on one of them.
Although there seems to be an emphasis on the arrangement of relationships based on social norms in collectivist cultures, Duck (1999) argues that individualist cultures also show emphasis on social needs in the formation of relationships. Social position, wealth, opportunities and class come into play in the formation of relationships in individualist cultures. According to Duck’s theory, therefore, it seems that the formation and maintenance of relationships in western and eastern cultures is not as different as is perceived. Although it appears that people within an individualistic Western culture have more of a choice as to who they form romantic relationships with, the existence of outside pressures may influence relationship choices more than what is perceived.
Buss’ questionnaire study (1994) on relationships seems to support the idea that cultural attitudes toward relationships are strikingly similar. Buss’ aim was to see what men and women look for in a partner depending on their culture. A questionnaire method was used to obtain the data. There were more than 10,000 participants representing 37 cultures who answered the questionnaires.
Buss found that the cultures shared similar desires and expectations from relationships. In 36/37 of the cultures, women ranked financial prospects as more important than men did. In all 37 of the cultures, men generally preferred younger partners whereas women preferred older ones. In a majority of the cultures (23/37), males rated chastity as more important than women did. The degree of agreement in sex differences across cultures suggested to Buss, that selection preferences in relationships are universal and arise from different evolutionary selection pressures on males and females.
Although the similarities in the findings were striking, there were also some differences between cultures. For instance, USA ranked love first, whereas in Iran, love ranked third, in Nigeria, it ranked fourth and in China love ranked sixth whereas good health, chastity and domestic skills ranked high. This suggests that there still exists a difference in the values that lead people to form and maintain relationships across cultures and supports the idea that individualist/western cultures place a higher value on the idea of romantic love whereas in eastern cultures romantic love is not regarded with the importance that social roles are.
In evaluation of Buss’ study, the methodology used suggests a lack of reliability of the results. The use of questionnaires may have prompted people to answer according to what they believed the researcher’s expected answers were. There is, in other words, a lack of ecological validity that arises due to the use of questionnaires. However, questionnaires are a time-efficient alternative when evaluating differences among cultures and therefore it made sense to use in the given study.
The study is valuable in the sense that it provided insight into the similarities of cultural values in relationships whereas a lot of other studies focus on the differences among cultures in relationship goals.
Another important consideration in regard to Buss’ study is that it was conducted 20 years ago. Because culture is a changing phenomenon, the values that existed twenty years ago may have changed today and have become more dissipated globally due to e.g. globalization and exposure to other cultures.
Goodwin (1995) studied how changing times may affect cultural values especially regarding relationships through interviews. After the fall of the communist regime, people of different ages and backgrounds were interviewed in Russia. Goodwin found that individualistic relationship values were found among the young and affluent. More collectivist values were found among older people and manual workers. The speed with which new individualistic values were being adopted was seen as causing problems between the different sections of society. Goodwin concluded that times of change may bring about a shift in values, including attitudes towards relationships, thus changing culture. Rapid change in particular can lead to tensions within societies.
Goodwin’s study points out that culture is subject to changes and that one nation can experience multiple cultures simultaneously. This is a valuable finding as it adds to the understanding of culture. Instead of limiting our definitions of culture as being formed by geographical borders, perhaps it should be seen as a phenomenon that changes among different demographics.
As Gupta and Singh’s study points out, individualist cultures tend to see love as a prerequisite for marriage whereas collectivist cultures expect love to develop within marriage. However, the distinction between collectivist and individualist cultures is useful, but not clear-cut. This is supported by Buss’ study, as its findings showed that people from varying cultures share similar values in regard to relationships. It is also important to note that people may change their personal cultural identities when, for example, moving to a different country. It is even possible for culture within a country to change and develop as society changes, as pointed out by Goodwin’s study. While it appears that culture plays an important role in the nature of romantic relationships there are also other factors to consider, such as evolution, as Buss (1994) points out. Although culture is not always the sole reason why individuals choose a specific partner, it can be concluded that culture motivates individuals to seek out relationships due to social pressures, which can exist both in individualist and collectivist societies.
jbbartram-illu
origamiaround
annaxmalina
pixelskylines
titsay
theartofmadeline