A family has a three-bedroom house. The family consists of a mother, father, three sons aged fifteen, eleven, and eight, and two daughters aged fourteen and three. Who sleeps in the same room?
When we have posed this question to European-American audiences, the response is usually puzzled looks and comments like “Isn’t it obvious?” They articulate that the “obvious” answer is that the parents get one room, the daughters get another room, and the sons get the third room. And, in fact, in the study by Shweder et al. (Reference Shweder, Balle-Jensen, Goldstein and Shweder2003), 88 percent of participants from the United States (Illinois) gave this response. In contrast, only 47 percent of participants from Orissa, India, gave this response. Another 47 percent of the Indian participants responded with arrangements that either placed the youngest child together with the parents and the two oldest sons together (mother, father, and three-year daughter together; fourteen year old daughter and eight-year-old son together; fifteen and eleven-year-old sons together) or separated the mother and father to sleep with same sex children, giving the oldest sons their own room (father and eight-year-old son together; mother and two daughters together; fifteen and eleven-year-old sons together).
Why would the Indians expect a married couple to share a room with a young child, or separate them entirely? Shweder and his colleagues (2003) argue that different belief systems in the United States and India shape these responses. In the United States, there is a widespread belief in the “sacred couple;” couple privacy is paramount (to the point of often putting infants in a separate room). In India, in contrast, concerns about protection of the very young (e.g., the youngest child should sleep in the same room as an adult), anxiety over female chastity (e.g., one must always chaperone unmarried adolescent girls), and respect for hierarchy (e.g., the oldest son should not have to sleep with the youngest son) frame decisions about who sleeps by whom.
This example illustrates that cultural phenomena, such as values, beliefs, attitudes, and practices, shape key aspects of romantic relationships. It also highlights how cultures may tend to see their own traditional practices as “natural” or “obvious.” One benefit of cross-cultural investigations of human behavior is that they reveal cultural assumptions and values that often go unexamined by scholars embedded within a particular context. To date, the prevalent theories of romance, marriage, and close relationships have been developed by Western researchers, and they may take for granted values, beliefs, and social conditions that have created a unique approach to romantic relationships when compared to other parts of the world.
Cultural groups vary in many ways, and to do justice to the ways that culture influences romantic relationships would require much more than a single chapter. Instead, in this chapter, we have used the developing literature on East Asian ways of thinking, feeling, and relating to suggest avenues for further investigation of culturally-defined relationships. Our chapter focuses on research from countries that largely share a Confucian heritage and Taoist ways of thinking (People’s Republic of China (PRC), Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan; Nisbett, Reference Nisbett2003; Therborn, Reference Therborn2004a). We acknowledge that historical, economic, ecological, and other factors have led to diverse policies, practices, and attitudes about marriage within and across these countries. However, their shared legacies of Confucianism and dialectical thinking contribute to core similarities in relationship patterns that diverge from those found in Western contexts marked by Judeo-Christian heritage, Enlightenment values, and analytical ways of thinking. (For perspectives on romantic relationships in other regions of the world, we recommend Campos & Kim, Reference Campos and Kim2017; Hewitt & Churchill, Reference Hewitt, Churchill, Halford and van de Vijver2020; Karandashev, Reference Karandashev2017; Schmitt, Reference Schmitt and Buss2005, Reference Schmitt, Erdman and Ng2010; Therborn, Reference Therborn2004a).
The topics that are central to this book – relationship initiation, maintenance, and dissolution – take different forms in different cultural contexts. For example, dating is not universal across cultures (some societies still widely practice variations of arranged marriage; and dating can look very different in diverse cultural contexts; de Munck, Reference de Munck and de Munck1998); pair-bonding and marriage come in a variety of forms (e.g., unmarried people who cohabit; polygamous families); and romance may not be a central feature of relationship initiation or maintenance in some contexts (Lam et al., Reference Lam, Cross, Wu, Yeh and Su2016; Levine et al., Reference Levine, Sato, Hashimoto and Verma1995).
This chapter focuses primarily on how sociocultural factors shape East Asian models of romantic relationships, with comparisons to the dominant model of relationships in European-heritage contexts (such as the United States, Canada, Western European, New Zealand, and Australia). We first focus on relatively broad social, ideological, and institutional factors that shape the East Asian Confucian cultural model of marriage, then we drill down to describe how East Asian ways of thinking, feeling, and behaving result in relationship processes that diverge from those observed in Western contexts. We conclude with comments and suggestions for scholars who seek to expand their own research to include cross-cultural perspectives.
Cultural Models of Romantic Relationships
Cultural models have been defined as “Presupposed, taken-for-granted models of the world that are widely shared (although not always to the exclusion of other, alternative models) by the members of a society and that play an enormous role in their understanding of that world and their behavior in it” (Quinn & Holland, Reference Quinn, Holland, Holland and Quinn1987, p. 4). These widely shared understandings are shaped throughout childhood and beyond by stories, injunctions, morality tales, media, traditions, and everyday practices; over time, they become tacit, “natural” or “obvious” ways of understanding the world (i.e., the Western cultural model of the sacred couple).
East Asian Models of Romantic Relationships
In East Asian contexts (China, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan), ideals, practices, and traditions are founded in Confucian ethics and values, which include loyalty to one’s family and group, conformity to social expectations and obligations, and respect for those with higher rank or age (Hwang, Reference Hwang and Robila2014; Ikels, Reference Ikels2004). Confucian ethics spell out proper behavior in five cardinal relationships and the ordering of these relationships or roles in terms of importance: ruler and minister, father and son, husband and wife, brother to brother, and between friends (Ho, Reference Ho and Bond1996). As this ordering indicates, the relation between children and their parents is traditionally more important than that of spouses. In traditional Confucian-influenced contexts, marriages are embedded in a web of relational obligations. East Asian families (especially those in China and Taiwan) are founded on the framework of filial piety (which is termed, xial, in China). Filial piety refers to the importance of continuing the family line, and it imposes several obligations on individuals. First, adult children are obligated to show gratitude, respect, and care for their parents until their deaths (Ho, Reference Ho and Bond1996; Ikels, Reference Ikels2004; Wu et al., Reference Wu, Cross, Wu, Cho and Tey2016; Yeh, Reference Yeh, Yang, Hwang, Pederson and Daibo2003). Second, children must continue the family line by having children. Finally, children are expected to behave in ways that bring honor and respect to their families. Filial piety has been referred to as the “essential core of Confucian ethics for ordinary people” (Hwang & Han, Reference Hwang, Han and Bond2010, p. 486); it is the foundation for putting one’s family’s needs before one’s own (Hwang, Reference Hwang and Robila2014; Xu et al., Reference Xu, DeFrain and Liu2017).
Filial piety is a well-articulated cultural value in East Asian contexts, but the Confucian model of relationships also involves other dimensions of cultural variation. In particular, East Asian contexts are relatively tight, which means the range of acceptable behavior in everyday situations is fairly narrow and there is little tolerance of deviations from the norm (Gelfand, Reference Gelfand2018; Gelfand et al., Reference Gelfand, Raver, Nishii, Leslie, Lun, Lim, Duan, Almaliach, Ang, Arnadottir, Aycan, Boehnke, Boski, Cabecinhas, Chan, Chhokar, D’Amato, Ferrer, Fischlmayr and Yamaguchi2011). In contrast, in looser societies (e.g., New Zealand, the Netherlands), social norms are relatively weak; there is a broader range of acceptable behavior within situations and deviant behavior is more acceptable. Cultural tightness has been traced to historical and ecological threats, such as resource scarcity, disease prevalence, natural disasters, and dense populations (Gelfand et al., Reference Gelfand, Raver, Nishii, Leslie, Lun, Lim, Duan, Almaliach, Ang, Arnadottir, Aycan, Boehnke, Boski, Cabecinhas, Chan, Chhokar, D’Amato, Ferrer, Fischlmayr and Yamaguchi2011). Consequently, there are relatively firm, strictly held norms for individuals and families with respect to romantic relationships in East Asian contexts; people who deviate from these norms may be harshly criticized, sanctioned by their families, and punished by their workplaces, communities, or the government.
Western, European-Heritage Models of Romantic Relationships
The cultural model that frames Western, middle-class marriages focuses on the sacred couple (Shweder et al., Reference Shweder, Balle-Jensen, Goldstein and Shweder2003). Western relationships tend to build on Judeo-Christian and enlightenment values, which emphasize individual choice of marriage partners and prioritization of the couple and the nuclear family over the extended family. Therborn (Reference Therborn2004a, Reference Therborn2006, Reference Therborn, Treas, Scott and Richards2014) argues that in the Western European family model (what Therborn terms the Christian-European family model), marriage is not universal (i.e., singleness and celibacy are celebrated for some, such as among priests and nuns in the Catholic church); dissolution of romantic relationships and marriages is relatively easy; and gender equality is frequently enshrined in laws. These societies are relatively loose, allowing for a variety of relationship types (e.g., same sex marriages; couples who chose not to have children, short- and long-term cohabitation). The sacred couple model of marriage stipulates a boundary between the nuclear family (the couple and their children) and their extended families. Of course, there is variation in European-heritage countries in the extent to which this cultural model is lived out, with considerable differences between North-Western European (e.g., Sweden, Denmark) and Eastern and Southern European countries (e.g., Slovenia, Italy, and Greece; Kalmijn, Reference Kalmijn2007; Švab et al., Reference Švab, Rener and Kuhar2012; see also Thornton, Reference Thornton2005).
Legal Influences on Models of Marriage
A country’s laws around marriage and children also shape or frame the ways that marriage is initiated and proceeds. They often stipulate the minimum age for marriage, who is allowed to marry (e.g., whether same-sex couples may marry; whether an already married person may take another spouse), property rights, and the responsibilities of parents. Although many countries have instituted laws to give women equal rights as men in marriage, as of 2020 10 percent of countries continue to legally require women to obey their husbands (Gautier, Reference Gautier, Halford and van de Vijver2020). Similarly, 24 percent of countries do not provide women the same rights as men in obtaining a divorce or in remarrying. European-heritage and richer countries have legally given women more equality, especially compared to Middle Eastern and North African countries (Gautier, Reference Gautier, Halford and van de Vijver2020).
Family law in the East Asia region is fairly diverse, partly due to the division between the more democratic countries of South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, compared to the communist influences in the PRC. In many of these Confucian-heritage countries, families are viewed as the bedrock of society, and laws have traditionally served to maintain family stability (rather than individual rights; Chin et al., Reference Chin, Lee, Lee, Son, Sung and Robila2014; Zhou, Reference Zhou and Zhou2017). Thus, although equal rights are enshrined in law in these countries, men’s rights and wishes continue to be privileged over those of women (Ji, Reference Ji2015). For example, in the PRC, women were officially given equal rights in the marriage laws of 1950 (which were updated in the 1980 Marriage Law); in practice, women may still be discriminated against in the case of a divorce. Chinese laws also require adult children to provide financial and emotional support for their parents (Xu & Xia, Reference Xu and Xia2014; see Hwang, Reference Hwang and Robila2014 for Taiwanese family policy)
China also has many registration laws that shape family life, especially for families that emigrate from rural areas to urban areas to work. Individuals whose registration (termed hukou, in China) is in a rural area do not have equal access to social services, educational recourses, or other support available in an urban hukou (Wang & Xia, Reference Wang, Xia and Abela2020). Cohabitation can be very costly in terms of limiting the partners’ professional opportunities and restricting their access to government services; the children born to unmarried couples may not be registered and do not have the same educational opportunities as other children (Chin et al., Reference Chin, Lee, Lee, Son, Sung and Robila2014; Xu, Reference Xu, Xu, DeFrain and Liu2017). Furthermore, the PRC’s effort to reduce population growth by enforcing a single child law for families gave rise to an imbalanced sex ratio, with 120 men of marriageable age for every 100 women (Xu et al., Reference Xu, DeFrain and Liu2017). This has resulted in a greater number of unmarried men, especially among those in the lower socio-economic rungs of Chinese society (Wang & Xia Reference Wang, Xia and Abela2020; see also Raymo et al., Reference Raymo, Park, Xie and Yeung2015).
In contrast, laws in Western cultural contexts privilege the individual over the family, and they increasingly permit a variety of nontraditional family configurations. The frequency of cohabitation without marriage is increasing in European-heritage countries (Lesthaeghe, Reference Lesthaeghe, Halford and van de Vijver2020), and in many Latin American countries (Esteve et al., Reference Esteve, Castro-Martin and Castro Torres2022). In some Western-heritage countries, more than half of all births are to non-married women (e,g, France, Norway, Sweden, Denmark; OECD Family Database, 2020; Ortiz-Ospina & Roser, Reference Ortiz-Ospina and Roser2020). At the end of 2021, legal partnerships or marriages among same-sex couples were legal in thirty-one countries; most of these are in Northwestern Europe and other European-heritage countries (Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States), with growing acceptance in South American countries (e.g., Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina; Hewitt & Churchill, Reference Hewitt, Churchill, Halford and van de Vijver2020; Navarre & Trimble, Reference Navarre and Trimble2021).
Mate Selection East and West
In many non-western contexts, mate selection is the job of one’s parents (Buunk et al., Reference Buunk, Park and Dubbs2008; Therborn, Reference Therborn2004a). In general, parents are more involved in young people’s mate selection in collectivist societies than in individualistic societies (Buunk et al., Reference Buunk, Park and Duncan2010), and in societies where the extended family systems prevail over the nuclear family (Lee & Stone, Reference Lee and Stone1980).
In Confucian contexts, marriage was traditionally viewed as the union of two families, and the selection of appropriate mates for one’s children was a central parental responsibility. Young people were thought to be too inexperienced to make such decisions themselves. Although the primary purpose of marriage is continuation of the family line, one can better ensure the success of one’s family if the marriage enhances the family’s resources. Thus, accumulation of property, advantageous business alliances, and useful political ties often have been the foundation of marriages (Hsu, Reference Hsu1963). Traditionally, the primary criterion for mate selection is the compatibility of the young people’s family backgrounds. This is known as men tang hu tui, which means “the doors of the two families should be of similar texture and the houses must face each other.” (Chu, Reference Chu, Marsella, deVos and Hsu1985, p. 264; Xia & Zhou, Reference Xia, Zhou, Hamon and Ingoldsby2003). To the Chinese, this means that the partners should come from similar socio-economic backgrounds. The assumption is that this similarity of backgrounds will ensure an easy adjustment to the marriage and the likelihood of compatibility. Furthermore, East Asians assume that any reasonably competent man and woman can forge a good partnership because people are able to adjust and change to fit each other (Chiu et al., Reference Chiu, Hong and Dweck1997; Joo et al., Reference Joo, Lam, Cross, Chen, Lau, Ng and Gunsoy2022). Thus, finding one’s “soulmate” or “being in love” are not always the criteria for finding a partner. Instead, pragmatic concerns may have priority over romance and emotion in mate selection.
Like many aspects of life in East Asian contexts, individuals’ and their family’s expectations and preferences for marital partners are changing. Young people in China, for example, expect to choose their own partners with the guidance of their families (Zhang & Kline, Reference Zhang and Kline2009). When Chinese or Taiwanese young people are asked to describe their ideal partner, men, and women both are interested in partners who will sacrifice for the sake of the family, who exhibit filial piety (Xu & Xia, Reference Xu and Xia2014), who are kind and honest, who are acceptable to their parents, and who they love (Chen et al., Reference Chen, Austin, Miller and Piercy2015; Guo et al., Reference Guo, Li and Yu2017; Jankowiak et al., Reference Jankowiak, Shen, Yao, Wang and Volsche2015; Lam et al., Reference Lam, Cross, Wu, Yeh and Su2016; Zhang & Kline, Reference Zhang and Kline2009; Zhou, Reference Zhou and Zhou2017) Women are more likely than men to seek a partner with higher social status and economic standing than themselves (Schmitt, Reference Schmitt2004). Parents of young people, however, are more likely than their offspring to value attributes related to the future son/daughter-in-law’s political, educational, and religious background and their social status (Guo et al., Reference Guo, Li and Yu2017). A comparison of parent-offspring preferences for the offspring’s future partner found that there was more convergence among Chinese parent-offspring pairs than among a similar group of American parent-offspring pairs (Guo et al., Reference Guo, Li and Yu2017); this reflects a tighter society in China with more agreement about the attributes desired in an ideal partner.
Given that a child’s first responsibility is to demonstrate filial piety in Confucian contexts by producing children and raising them successfully, unmarried adults are often stigmatized (Xu & Xia, Reference Xu and Xia2014). Indeed, unmarried people over the age of thirty in China are negatively labeled “leftover” or “bare-branches” (Ji, Reference Ji2015; Jin & Guo, Reference Jin and Guo2011). In South Korea, marriage marks the achievement of adulthood, so unmarried adults may be considered “underage” (Park & Hong, Reference Park and Hong2012, cited by Chin et al., Reference Chin, Lee, Lee, Son, Sung and Robila2014). As of 2010, the proportion of never-married adults aged 30–44 in China was about 5 percent (Chen & Tong, Reference Chen and Tong2021), compared to 28 percent in the United States in 2018 (US Census Bureau, 2020). Marriage rates in the PRC have stayed about the same since 1980, despite great increases in affluence and increased rural-urban migration (Lesthaeghe, Reference Lesthaeghe, Halford and van de Vijver2020; Wang & Xia, Reference Wang, Xia and Abela2020), whereas marriage rates in Japan are much lower than in China (Hewitt & Churchill, Reference Hewitt, Churchill, Halford and van de Vijver2020). Married offspring tend to have more resources to share with aging parents than do unmarried children (Jin & Guo, Reference Jin and Guo2011), which may also be part of the reason that Chinese parents, who often have little access to pensions or state welfare programs, pressure their children to marry. As a result of this bias against unmarried people, many Chinese cities have a gathering place for parents to post fliers seeking a mate for their child (Zhou, Reference Zhou and Zhou2017).
In Western contexts, because individuals are selecting romantic partners themselves, mutual love and attraction are the primary grounds for mate selection (Buunk et al., Reference Buunk, Park and Duncan2010). As Buunk et al. (Reference Buunk, Park and Dubbs2008) articulate, many of the existing theories of mate selection, particularly evolutionary theories, operate under the assumption that individuals have complete freedom to select their own mates. Much of this work has been conducted in individualistic and in loose cultural contexts, where there are fewer social norms and expectations around marriage. Marriage rates in Western European countries are low relative to the rest of the world, although US marriage rates are higher than in Western Europe and other Western heritage countries (e.g., New Zealand, Australia, Canada; Hewitt & Churchill, Reference Hewitt, Churchill, Halford and van de Vijver2020). Some of the reasons for low marriage rates in Western contexts include acceptance of singleness as a legitimate personal choice and greater incidence of cohabitation and of children born outside marriage (Horowitz et al., Reference Horowitz, Graf and Livingston2019; Lesthaeghe, Reference Lesthaeghe, Halford and van de Vijver2020; Thornton & Young-DeMarco, Reference Thornton and Young-DeMarco2001).
How do Culturally Distinctive Ways of Thinking and Feeling Influence Relationship Processes?
Independent and Interdependent Models of the Self
As individuals grow up, they become accustomed to the cultural model – a constellation of norms, values, and practices that direct the ways individuals relate to and interpret the world (Cross & Lam, Reference Cross, Lam and Church2017; Quinn & Holland, Reference Quinn, Holland, Holland and Quinn1987). These cultural models are building blocks for developing the normative pattern of social interactions, including how one views the self and maintains relationships with close others (Markus & Kitayama, Reference Markus and Kitayama2010). One of the most influential theories in cultural psychology is cultural models of independent and interdependent self (Markus & Kitayama, Reference Markus and Kitayama1991). People with an independent self recognize themselves as a separate and unique whole. Therefore, it is ideal to be autonomous, to choose personal values over social obligations, and to express one’s authentic self consistently across time and situations. In contrast to individuals with the independent self, for those who have an interdependent model of self, the self is a part of a web of close relationships, fundamentally connected with important others. Hence, the cultural ideal is to fit in, to be appropriate, and to be flexible to maintain harmony with the social environment. Whereas the independent self is prevalent in Western societies, the interdependent model of the self is prevalent in non-Western societies such as East Asian cultural contexts. It is important to note that the emphasis on independent vs. interdependent self is relative. For instance, people from the United States and Western European contexts are more likely to endorse the independent self, compared to those in East Asian cultures (Markus & Kitayama, Reference Markus and Kitayama1991). Within the United States, European Americans are more likely to be independent than African American groups, whose culture facilitates interdependence (Brannon et al., Reference Brannon, Markus and Taylor2015).
As the models of the self explain the ways individuals navigate the social world, they should be closely tied to cultural models of close relationships. However, relatively few studies have examined how culturally normative ways of being a person manifest in one’s close relationships. In this section, we examine how cultural models guide the formation and maintenance of close relationships.
Predispositions
Individuals bring in their distinctive tendencies to close relationships, such as their personality or expectations about close others. Cultural differences in cognition and emotion can influence people’s predispositions that carry over to their relationship dynamic. One important example of such predisposition is one’s attachment style (Bowlby, Reference Bowlby1973). Attachment theory has been applied extensively in various areas such as legal settings and counseling contexts but researchers have remained relatively indifferent to exploration of cultural variations (but see Keller et al., Reference Keller, Lamm, Abels, Yovsi, Borke, Jensen, Papaligoura, Holub, Lo, Tomiyama, Su, Wang and Chaudhary2006; Morelli et al., Reference Morelli, Chaudhary, Gottlieb, Keller, Murray, Quinn, Rosabal-Coto, Scheidecker, Takada, Vicedo, Keller and Bard2017). Among the limited number of studies on culture and attachment, most focus on differences in attachment styles. For instance, individuals from East Asian, interdependent cultures were found to be high in anxious and avoidant attachment styles compared to their Western counterparts (Schmitt, Reference Schmitt2004; Wei et al., Reference Wei, Russell, Mallinckrodt and Zakalik2004; You & Malley-Morrison, Reference You and Malley-Morrison2000). However, this tendency in individuals from interdependent cultures should not be viewed as unhealthy or insecure, as fundamental assumptions in attachment theory may reflect Western ideals about close relationships. Indeed, compared to people in the United States, Taiwanese individuals viewed an insecure attachment style as more ideal (Wang & Mallinckrodt, Reference Wang and Mallinckrodt2006). This cultural difference may partly be due to Chinese relational norms that suppress direct expression of emotion and identity, in contrast to Western norms that encourage open communications with the romantic partner (Wang & Mallinckrodt, Reference Wang and Mallinckrodt2006).
A few studies have shed light on cultural differences in the basic assumptions of attachment theory. According to the theory, the romantic partner serves as the central figure in one’s relationship network. People prioritize their partner over anyone else, mainly turn to them in times of need, and serve as each other’s basis of self-growth (e.g., Zeifman & Hazan, Reference Zeifman, Hazan, Cassidy and Shaver2008). However, whether individuals around the world form their strongest attachment to their romantic partner is questionable. For instance, in a daily diary study, US individuals in dating relationships tended to turn to the romantic partner over other relationships for more severe negative events, demonstrating the centrality of the attachment bond with the romantic partner. In contrast, this difference between the romantic partner and other relationships was not found among Korean individuals (Joo, Reference Joo2021). When Taiwanese and US participants were asked the hypothetical question of whether they would save their mother or their spouse from a burning house, the Taiwanese participants were far more likely than the Americans to choose to save their mother (Wu et al., Reference Wu, Cross, Wu, Cho and Tey2016). Further, residential mobility has been identified as a possible mechanism for such cultural differences. Yilmaz et al. (Reference Yilmaz, Selcuk, Gunaydin, Cingöz-Ulu, Filiztekin and Kent2022) found that Turkish individuals who frequently relocate are more likely to confide in their romantic partner on important matters compared to those who do not, suggesting that dense social connections may attenuate the importance of the romantic partner. These findings emphasize the need to consider relationship networks holistically rather than focusing on the romantic relationship exclusively, especially in cultural contexts with low relational mobility and strong interdependence.
People also bring a set of expectations to their close relationships, which are largely based on cultural norms and ideals. For instance, studies have found that individuals from collectivistic cultural backgrounds, such as Indians (Bejanyan et al., Reference Bejanyan, Marshall and Ferenczi2014), Taiwanese (Lam et al., Reference Lam, Cross, Wu, Yeh and Su2016), and South Asian Canadians (Lalonde et al., Reference Lalonde, Hynie, Pannu and Tatla2004) tend to prefer potential mates who have traditional characteristics (e.g., gender roles, chastity, etc.) compared to their Western counterparts. Such differences were often attributed to an interdependent model of self; if individuals include their close others in the self, they are more likely to employ traditional and normative standards. In a similar vein, endorsement of family values also explained the cultural difference between Indians and Americans in ideal characteristics (Bejanyan et al., Reference Bejanyan, Marshall and Ferenczi2014). Further, the emphasis on family relationships in some cultures leads individuals to explicitly prefer potential mates who are family-oriented. Indeed, individuals from Taiwan were more likely to consider those who endorse extended family-oriented beliefs (e.g., who look after each other’s parents) as ideal marriage partners compared to those from the United States (Lam et al., Reference Lam, Cross, Wu, Yeh and Su2016).
Partner Perception and Evaluation
Across cultures, couples strive to form and maintain happy relationships. In so doing, they engage in processes such as evaluation, conflict management, and expression of emotion. Cultural factors guide and provide the basis on which these processes operate. For instance, culture influences how individuals perceive and evaluate their romantic partner. In Western cultures, it has been consistently found that individuals tend to view their romantic partner in a positive light (Fletcher, Reference Fletcher2015). European Americans often perceive their romantic partner more positively than the partner views themselves (e.g., Murray et al., Reference Murray, Holmes and Griffin1996a, Reference Murray, Holmes and Griffin1996b). In turn, this positive directional bias has been consistently linked to positive consequences such as high relationship quality (Fletcher & Kerr, Reference Fletcher and Kerr2010). However, researchers have found that this positive bias is weaker among East Asian couples, and it is attributable to the cultural theory of dialecticism. Individuals from East Asian cultural contexts tend to endorse the lay belief that the world is full of contradictions that work together to form a harmony (i.e., naïve dialecticism; Peng & Nisbett, Reference Peng and Nisbett1999). Hence, they tolerate contradictions and ambivalence better than Western individuals, and this tendency permeates into one’s close relationships (for a review, see Cross & Lam, Reference Cross, Lam, Spencer-Rodgers and Peng2018). For instance, Lam and colleagues (2016) found that compared to their European American peers, Hong Kong Chinese individuals not only rated partners more ambivalently on an explicit level, describing them as having both positive and negative characteristics, but also were more ambivalent toward their partners on an implicit level; they associated their partner with both positive and negative words. In addition, Hong Kong Chinese individuals were less likely to evaluate a partner in a more positive light than the partner’s self-view (i.e., lower positive directional bias) compared to European Americans (Cross & Lam, Reference Cross, Lam, Spencer-Rodgers and Peng2018).
The cultural difference in the partner assessment is also related to different normative strategies to maintain relationships under independent and interdependent cultural models. For instance, positive bias can make the partner feel good about themselves, thereby strengthening the relationship (Murray et al., Reference Murray, Holmes and Griffin1996b). This aligns with the promotion-oriented relationship maintenance strategy often used among individuals with independent models of self. Because relational ties are often weak, people must constantly engage in behaviors that confirm their intimacy and support for their partner (Kito et al., Reference Kito, Yuki and Thomson2017). In contrast, when problems appear, positive bias can easily shift to negative directional bias, making the relationship vulnerable to dissolution (Fletcher, Reference Fletcher2015; Le et al., Reference Le, Dove, Agnew, Korn and Mutso2010). Therefore, an ambivalent attitude would reduce the risk of the relationship ending, which is consistent with the use of prevention-focused strategies in close relationships among those with interdependent self (Li et al., Reference Li, Adams, Kurtiş and Hamamura2015). Indeed, East Asian people tend to develop the feeling of being embedded in close-knit social networks, and they engage in prevention strategies such as avoiding conflict by suppressing emotions (Cross & Lam, Reference Cross, Lam and Church2017).
Emotional Experience and Expression
One of the important ways such promotion vs. prevention strategies are manifested is through emotional experience and expression in romantic relationships. Individuals with an independent model of the self must keep recognizing and expressing their love and intimacy to maintain the relationship because relationships are relatively mobile (Schug et al., Reference Schug, Yuki and Maddux2010).
Indeed, studies found that individuals from Western cultural contexts tended to feel more intimate with their close others than Polish people (Rybak & McAndrew, Reference Rybak and McAndrew2006) and Chinese Canadians (Marshall, Reference Marshall2008). Also, individuals from Western, independence-oriented cultures reported higher passion and love toward their romantic partner compared to those from non-Western, interdependence-oriented cultures (Goodwin & Findlay, Reference Goodwin and Findlay1997; Sprecher, Sullivan, et al., Reference Sprecher, Sullivan and Hatfield1994). One possible reason behind such cultural patterns of love among East Asian individuals is the tendency to see the “bad in the good.” Individuals from East Asian cultures tend to show a dialectical understanding of emotion (for a review, see Goetz et al., Reference Goetz, Spencer-Rodgers, Peng, Sorrentino and Yamaguchi2008). They tend to experience mixed and ambivalent emotions more frequently compared to Western individuals in close relationships (Tsai, Levenson, et al., Reference Tsai, Levenson and McCoy2006). For example, after engaging in a structured discussion, Chinese American couples were more likely to experience both love and negative emotions (e.g., anger), but European American couples were more likely to experience either love or negative emotions (Shiota et al., Reference Shiota, Campos, Gonzaga, Keltner and Peng2010).
Not only are individuals with an independent self-concept more likely to experience high intimacy but they also are more likely to directly express their affection, compared to those with an interdependent model of the self. For instance, Americans are more likely to say “I love you” to close others than are Chinese individuals (Caldwell-Harris et al., Reference Caldwell-Harris, Kronrod and Yang2013). Such cultural differences are also evident in media; both verbal and nonverbal affection are more likely to be found in American books than in Chinese books (Wu et al., Reference Wu, Li, Zhu and Zhou2019). In contrast to the Western emphasis on direct expression of affection, in interdependence-oriented cultures, implicit communication is valued over direct emotional expression because the latter can disrupt group harmony (Gao et al., Reference Gao, Ting-Toomey, Gudykunst and Bond1996; Hofstede, Reference Hofstede2001). For example, African Americans and Asian Americans are less likely to consider self-expressive skills as a crucial factor in close relationships than are European Americans (Samter et al., Reference Samter, Whaley, Mortenson and Burleson1997). For African American individuals, simply keeping the company of close others could be considered a good conversation. Similarly, Chinese individuals were less likely to use verbal expressions of love but were more likely to use an indirect method of expressing gratitude (e.g., offering advice) or love (e.g., gift-giving) compared to US individuals (Beichen & Murshed, Reference Beichen and Murshed2015; Bello et al., Reference Bello, Brandau-Brown, Zhang and Ragsdale2010). Taken together, close relationships among those with an interdependent model of the self may not be so much rooted in explicit emotional expression but in companionship and implicit reciprocity (Burleson, Reference Burleson2003).
Relationship Maintenance
Cultural norms influence how individuals deal with difficulties in relationships. At a fundamental level, the meaning of conflict differs across cultures. In independence-oriented cultures, conflict is perceived as a chance to strengthen the relationship if managed effectively. Hence, the ability to voice one’s thoughts and anger constructively to negotiate conflicting goals between partners is critical to the well-being of the relationship (Greenberg & Goldman, Reference Greenberg and Goldman2008). In these contexts, a primary focus is on expressing and maintaining the authentic self throughout the conflict management process (Knee et al., Reference Knee, Hadden, Porter and Rodriguez2013). In interdependence-oriented societies, in contrast, surfaced disagreement denotes the failure of the relationship. Therefore, individuals strive to avoid conflicts by reading their partner’s mind so they can fulfill the partner’s needs before being asked, or by suppressing their own thoughts and emotions (Rothbaum et al., Reference Rothbaum, Pott, Azuma, Miyake and Weisz2000). Indeed, Koreans were more likely to use passive conflict management strategies such as neglecting the situation, compared to the United States individuals (Yum, Reference Yum2000).
Another important process behind relationship maintenance is the regulation of the self and the partner. Being able to protect and maintain one’s self-concept is critically important in Western cultural contexts (Cross et al., Reference Cross, Gore and Morris2003). Therefore, attempts to change or improve the partner’s behavior could make the partner feel negatively regarded and could decrease relationship quality among Western individuals (for a review, see Overall, Reference Overall, Noller and Karantas2012). However, changing the self for the partner may come naturally for individuals in interdependence-fostering cultures as they tend to use prevention-oriented strategies. In societies with high social interdependence, people prioritize avoiding conflicts by adjusting themselves to situations rather than by expressing themselves and influencing the situation (Morling et al., Reference Morling, Kitayama and Miyamoto2002). This tendency carries over to self- and partner-regulation in romantic relationships. For instance, Joo et al. (Reference Joo, Lam, Cross, Chen, Lau, Ng and Gunsoy2022) found that compared to US married couples, Chinese couples perceived that they had changed more in their relationships because they were more likely to value obligatory adjustments (e.g., “[It is important to] go along with one’s partner even if one does not agree with his or her point of view”). Furthermore, the degree to which individuals changed in the relationship was related to higher relationship quality among Chinese individuals but not among US individuals. The results of the study suggest that attempts to change the partner’s behavior and thoughts may not be as harmful in East Asian contexts as in Western contexts.
Sociocultural Influences and Relationship Dissolution
Laws and Norms Related to Divorce and Dissolution
A society’s views of divorce and relationship dissolution intertwine traditional cultural viewpoints, social and family concerns, and legal options. In most East Asian contexts, people who divorce face considerable stigma, as do their children (Xu & Xia, Reference Xu and Xia2014). Children from divorced families may face discrimination in finding marriage partners, so parents often decide to stay together for the sake of their children (Soumuchou, Reference Soumuchou1987, cited in Rothbaum, Rosen et al., Reference Rothbaum, Rosen, Ujiie and Uchida2002). This perspective is reflected in courts’ decisions whether or not to grant a divorce; despite laws providing for no-fault divorce in China, for example, judges may be reluctant to grant a divorce due to beliefs that the welfare and development of children depend on an intact family (Wang & Xia, Reference Wang, Xia and Abela2020).
Since 1990, divorce rates have increased in East Asian contexts; in China, this rise is often attributed to urbanization and increased unemployment rates (Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Wang and Zhang2014, cited in Wang & Xia, Reference Wang, Xia and Abela2020). Chinese couples cite other reasons for seeking a divorce, including domestic violence, family dysfunction, gender inequality, and property rights disputes (Johnson et al., Reference Johnson, Nguyen, Anderson, Liu and Vennum2015; Liu et al., Reference Liu, Bell and Zhang2019; Wang & Xia, Reference Wang, Xia and Abela2020; Yang et al., Reference Yang, Poon and Breckenridge2018). Taiwan and South Korea have instituted no-fault divorce laws (Chin et al., Reference Chin, Lee, Lee, Son, Sung and Robila2014; Hwang, Reference Hwang and Robila2014). Nevertheless, the net divorce rates in East Asian contexts are still considerably lower than in Western contexts (Hewitt & Churchill; Reference Hewitt, Churchill, Halford and van de Vijver2020).
These sociocultural influences in East Asian contexts serve as centripetal forces (i.e., outside influences acting on the couple) that keep the couple together. Laws, social stigma, and family pressure may work together to offset centrifugal forces (i.e., influences from within the couple that might cause them to separate). Rothbaum and his colleagues (2000) describe the external forces that keep Japanese couples together as “an incentive structure, enforced by the social network, that surrounds all relationships within the group and serves to support those relationships” (2000, p. 1133; see also the notion of structural commitment by Johnson, Reference Johnson, Jones and Perlman1991; Johnson et al., Reference Johnson, Caughlin and Huston1999). With strong centripetal forces keeping the couple together, there is less expectation that the marriage needs intimacy, romance, or passion to thrive (Iwao, Reference Iwao1993).
In contrast, in Western cultural contexts, the centripetal forces of norms, expectations, and laws that hold a marriage together are weaker; no-fault divorce, legal gender equality, affluence, and declines in stigma and discrimination against divorced people make the dissolution of a marriage much easier to contemplate than in the past (Brown & Wright, Reference Brown and Wright2019; Gillath & Keefer, Reference Gillath and Keefer2016). Western or European-heritage countries have been exposed to broad social changes (e.g., increased individualism, greater residential mobility, increases in women’s rights, greater participation of women in the workforce) longer than have most East Asian countries, and these social changes contribute to rising rates of divorce (Vignoli et al., Reference Vignoli, Matysiak, Styrc and Tocchioni2018; Wang & Schofer, Reference Wang and Schofer2018). Likewise, social norms and attitudes within Western societies, such as increased focus on personal satisfaction, self-fulfillment, intimacy, and romantic love, have contributed to higher expectations of a marriage partner, and consequently to higher rates of divorce (Cherlin, Reference Cherlin2004; Finkel et al., Reference Finkel, Hui, Carswell and Larson2014). In short, the centripetal forces acting to keep a couple together have weakened, whereas the centrifugal forces (e.g., higher expectations of self-fulfillment and increased acceptance of divorce) have tended to push couples apart, leading to high levels of divorce in Western contexts.
Couple-Level Factors That Influence the Dissolution of Relationships and Marriage
A relationship can come to an end because of one’s feelings or decisions (e.g., lack of love and intimacy) or due to contextual factors (e.g., bad relationships with extended family). As has been discussed throughout this chapter, one’s internal motivation and choice play more important roles in relationship processes among individuals with independent versus interdependent self-concepts. Two widely examined internal motivators of relationship dissolution are (loss of) love and relationship satisfaction (Rodrigues et al., Reference Rodrigues, Hall, Fincham, Fine and Harvey2013).
Often, love is considered to be fundamental to long-lasting relationships. Especially in Western, independence-oriented cultures, romantic and passionate love serve as the foundation for marriage (Finkel et al., Reference Finkel, Hui, Carswell and Larson2014; Kephart, Reference Kephart1967; Sprecher, Aron et al., Reference Sprecher, Aron, Hatfield, Cortese, Potapova and Levitskaya1994). Indeed, individuals who get divorced tend to show diminished love and affection toward their partner (Huston et al., Reference Huston, Caughlin, Houts, Smith and George2001).
Meanwhile, any intervention of external factors such as marriage arrangement by family carries a negative connotation. Even though arranged marriages can signify compatibility, the reduced role of love seems to discount the sacredness of such marriage (Eastwick, Reference Eastwick, Simpson and Campbell2013). In contrast, in interdependence-oriented cultures, prioritizing the feeling of love over harmony with one’s social environment is viewed as being immature (Shaver et al., Reference Shaver, Wu, Schwartz and Clark1992). In such cultural contexts, relationships are built upon the individual as well as social compatibility rather than romantic love. For instance, individuals from Chinese backgrounds were more likely to value the relationship with extended family and relational harmony compared to those from European heritage backgrounds (Hiew et al., Reference Hiew, Halford, van de Vijver and Liu2015; Lam et al., Reference Lam, Cross, Wu, Yeh and Su2016). Furthermore, a study found that Chinese couples had high cohesiveness even though they did not endorse romantic love as the building block of their marriage (Xu & Ye, Reference Xu and Ye1999). The role of relationship satisfaction in relationship dissolution is also subject to cultural influence. Low satisfaction in relationships has consistently been linked to a high risk of relationship dissolution in Western cultures (Gager & Sanchez, Reference Gager and Sanchez2003; Karney & Bradbury, Reference Karney and Bradbury1995). Happiness is constitutive of relationships; thus, low satisfaction signals the inability of the relationship to serve its core function. However, research has shown that those with interdependent self-construals tend to care less about satisfaction with their partner and more about fulfilling obligations and meeting social expectations. For example, East Asian couples tend to report lower relationship satisfaction and higher negative emotions in relationships than their Western counterparts (Cross & Lam, Reference Cross, Lam, Spencer-Rodgers and Peng2018; Schoebi et al., Reference Schoebi, Wang, Ababkov and Perrez2010; Tsai, Knutson, et al., Reference Tsai, Knutson and Fung2006; Williamson et al., Reference Williamson, Ju, Bradbury, Karney, Fang and Liu2012). More importantly, Broman (Reference Broman2002) found that marital satisfaction was a significant predictor of divorce for European-heritage Americans but not for African Americans, whose culture tends to foster interdependence (Brannon et al., Reference Brannon, Markus and Taylor2015).
Conclusions
Romantic relationships in East Asian and Western contexts have many similarities and many differences. We have focused primarily on differences here because most of relationship science has assumed similarities. Western scientists have seldom examined the assumptions embedded in their theories and research, or whether these assumptions might vary cross-culturally. Relationships involve people’s thoughts and attitudes, their emotional reactions, their motives, and goals, and mounting research shows that these and other basic processes (e.g., cognition, emotion, brain activity) vary cross-culturally (Cohen & Kitayama, Reference Cohen and Kitayama2019; Kitayama & Uskul, Reference Kitayama and Uskul2011; Masuda et al., Reference Masuda, Russell, Li, Lee, Cohen and Kitayama2019; Tsai & Clobert, Reference Tsai, Clobert, Cohen and Kitayama2019).
Ideally, a chapter like this would have included information from a broader range of cultural contexts. We focused on East Asian relationships because there is an established literature on cultural variation in basic psychological processes in this region and a growing research base applying that literature to romantic and family relationships. Creative scholars in other cultural contexts are also contributing to a broader understanding of romantic relationships (e.g., the Philippines [Vazhappily & Reyes, Reference Vazhappily and Reyes2016]; the Middle East [Alhuzail, Reference Alhuzail2022; Sadeghi et al., Reference Sadeghi, Mazaheri, Motabi and Zahedi2012; Yilmaz et al., Reference Yilmaz, Selcuk, Gunaydin, Cingöz-Ulu, Filiztekin and Kent2022]; S. Asia [Fonseca et al., Reference Fonseca, Kamble, Duggi, Flores and Butler2018; Iqbal et al., Reference Iqbal, Ayub, van de Vijver and Halford2019]; Latin America [Bravo & Martinez, Reference Bravo and Martinez2016; Esteve et al., Reference Esteve, Castro-Martin and Castro Torres2022; Falconier & Epstein, Reference Falconier and Epstein2011]; and Africa [Nwoye, Reference Nwoye2000; Osei-Tutu et al., Reference Osei-Tutu, Affram and Dzokoto2021; Salter & Adams, Reference Salter and Adams2012; Therborn, Reference Therborn2004b]).
Relationship scientists who want to be on the cutting edge of our discipline have many opportunities to expand into new cultural contexts, but they must go beyond simply seeking to generalize existing Western theories in non-Western contexts. We encourage scholars to partner with indigenous researchers who can bring to the investigation the key cultural concepts, values, and beliefs about relationships in that context, and who can point out the cultural assumptions in existing theories and research. Research that combines indigenous concepts, beliefs, and processes with existing Western theories and approaches will be most successful in developing a more global and equitable science of relationships (see Zhang & Kline, Reference Zhang, Kline, Halford and van de Vijver2020, for more suggestions for cross-cultural research in relationships). We encourage investigators venturing into unfamiliar cultural contexts to approach their work with a sense of humility: Western scholars need to be willing to consider non-Western relationships from within that culture’s worldview and perspective, looking for the ways culturally specific beliefs and practices have developed over time and their functions in maintaining families and societies. As our opening example of assigning family members to rooms illustrates, a decision that seems odd or unusual to a Westerner will often have deep cultural roots based in long-standing values and beliefs. We recognize that thinking outside the Western-focused relationship science “box” has many challenges, and that it is safer, faster, and cheaper to study easily accessed populations in the United States, Canada, and Western Europe. Doing research with romantic couples at all is difficult and expensive. But the time has come to recognize that if relationship science is to be a human science, it must be a global science.
Open access