However, in some developing western cultures, such as China, there has been an increase in ‘love matches’. Parents are no longer dominant and the effect that this had on marital satisfaction was found by Xiahoe et al in 1990. They said that women who were voluntary married felt better than those with arranged marriage.
There is a limitation with this cultural influence. Cultural bias may occur, when etic constructs are assumed to be emic. For example, lack of equality is rarely the cause of relationship dissatisfaction in collectivist culture, though a western researcher may assume this to be a source of dissatisfaction throughout all relationships in all cultures. Some ethical issues may occur in research such as demand characteristic in Epstein’s research which spouses in arranged marriages claimed to have fallen in love with their partners. Some research on this topic may have high internal validity, researchers assume that the way things are done in their own culture is normal and it can be difficult to avoid cultural bias.
The evolutionary approach explains romantic relationships. It suggests that love is adaptive, as it promotes reproduction, so love should be present across all cultures. The influence of culture on romantic relationships vary due to the type of culture (e.g. western/non western or collectivist/individualistic). There is a distinction between collectivist and individualistic cultures. Individualistic cultures are seen as a society which has a big emphasis n independence of the individual and a disposition to focus on their own personal goal (e.g. Chinese culture). Whereas a collectivist culture, the significance is on interdependence and behaving to achieve collective aims (e.g. Jewish cultures). They are consistent with the formation f relationships that are based n freedom of choice, where as collectivists lead to relationships that may have more to do with the concerns of family or group (Moghaddam et al, 1993)
Relationships based only on love may not always bring about compatible partners to suit us. This may be due to well wishers (e.g. parents/friends) getting involved and help identify potential partners. Parents may truly be in a better position to judge as they have grown up and seen the world whereas young people may be blinded by love and overlook areas of personal compatibility that will become apparent later. Therefore they know who is suitable for us in long-term relationships. However, contrary to this view, Xiahoe and Whyte studied freedom of mate choice which appeared to promote marital stability rather than instability. For example, people in some cultures but people may marry for reasons, such as financial support or family connections. Suri women, for example, wear lip plates of varying sizes which indicate how many cattle her family expect to receive for her marriage. In this case, the marriage is for gain.
This type of cultural influence may be questioned as it is oversimplified. Oversimplification of cultures into only two variations (Individualistic or collectivist), may be a limitation as cultures tend to be more diverse and distinction may not be reliable as cultures are always changing. For example, Li et al. compared attitudes of collectivist (India/China) cultures with those of individualist (Canada) cultures and found few differences between Canadian and Chinese attitudes. There is also cultural bias in Moghaddam and Gibbons’ research, that ethnocentric views affect perspective due to western ideals. It is due to this that researchers who are indigenous to the cultures being studied should be involved to limit the cultural bias.
by
amnhussain (student)
