A common opinion is that arranged non-voluntary marriages do not place importance on love, that this is a Western concept, but Epstein noted that in nearly half of the arranged marriages that he researched, the spouses reported that they had fallen in love with each other. This contradicts the statement that romantic love isn’t important in non-Western relationships. However, Chinese people associate romantic love with pain and unfulfilled affection. They look upon the Western view that relationships should be based on romantic love as unrealistically optimistic. Contradicting the above points; Yelsma and Athappily found no differences in marital satisfaction between Indian arranged marriages and Indian/North American love marriages. Guta and Singh, drew different conclusions: they found that love increased in arranged marriages and steadily declined in ‘love’ ones until in the 10 year marriages, the arranged marriage couples showed far greater love than those in the ‘love’ ones. The same applied to liking, but the differences were not so extreme.
Divorce rates are also extremely low for these marriages, compared to Western marriages which have higher divorce rate, but Moghaddam et al. suggested that this is because there is a greater element of choice, relationships are less permanent than those in non-Western cultures because we have the choice whether to continue it or not. Western individualistic cultures place great importance on the rights and freedom on an individual, whereas collectivist cultures place more importance on the group – members of the society are encouraged to be interdependent rather than independent. The cultural attitudes of individualist cultures, where individual goals and interests are more highly regarded than group goals and interests, are consistent with the formation of relationships that are voluntary and between individuals. Collectivism, on the other hand, leads to a more group based non-voluntary relationship.
It is worth noting however, that non-Western cultures are changing fast. As they become more urbanised, they become more individualist. Adar for example, describes how kibbutz families in Israel have changed from being extended units consisting of three or four generations to one couple, their children and possibly one parent. This means that non-Western relationships are becoming less collectivist, and cultural changes are an important force in the formation of relationship.
Hsu suggested another difference between Western and non-Western cultures, that of continuity and discontinuity. Using a comparison of Chinese and USA societies, Hsu describes the Chinese regard for heritage and ancestry, and the suspicion with which change is generally viewed. On the other hand, American culture emphasises progress, and change is seen as inevitable and important. Things that are ‘old-fashioned’ are generally viewed with disdain in this capitalist society. However, when describing Western relationship style as discontinuous we must note that this is a relatively recent phenomenon. Fifty years ago, divorce was rate in the West, and extended family groups more common. Divorce rates for British women were 2 per 1000 in 1960, rising to 12 per 1000 in 2988 according to EUROPA-Euro Stat. This marks a shift within Western societies, which may be related to greater urbanisation and mobility, indicating that the significant cleavage may not be individualist/collectivist but urban/non-urban. We also must look at Western society in that now it is much more liberal, conservatism is not as high as it was in the latter part of the 20th Century and there is much less stigma attached to divorce nowadays – so attitudes of a culture are also important when considering differences.
Lower divorce rates do however seem to prevail in more collectivist cultures. Goodwin noted that in China divorce is regarded as shameful, and the divorce rate is less than 4%, compared to about 40%-50% in USA. Simmel claims that divorce is higher in individualistic societies because the philosophy is that one should constantly seek the idea partner. This individualistic/collectivist difference was illustrated in a study of Jewish families in New York, by Brobar-Nemzer. Over 4000 households were interviewed. Some were more traditionally Jewish – they attended synagogue regularly, had close friends who were Jewish, belonged to Jewish organisations and contributed to Jewish charities. These families were examples of collectivist subcultures, as distinct from those Jewish families who classed themselves as Jewish, but more representative of individualist society. The former group had more marital stability, suggesting that interdependence has benefits. However, one must ask is the greater marital stability not because they are more of a collectivist subculture, but because they have the benefits of the individualist American society as well as the collectivist culture – e.g. more disposable income, freedom and rights as well as a large social network and interdependence?
Styles of marriage also differ between cultures. Monogamy is the dominant style of marriage in the West, but is less so in non-Western cultures. This may be due to economic pressures. For example, in certain areas of Tibet where living conditions are harsh, a woman may marry two or more brothers. This is called polyandry and may have benefits for both men and women – it means that there are more men to produce resources, and all parents share a genetic interest in all the children. Polygyny develops in conditions where resources are plentiful and women do better to share a husband and childcare duties. Smith claims that 84% of non-Westernised societies practise polygny.
Behaviour in relationships also differs between cultures – norms and rules. One such norm that plays a key part in personal relationships is the norm of reciprocity, i.e. for a benefit received, an equivalent benefit should be returned. The norm of reciprocity appears to be almost universal, yet it takes many different forms in different cultures. Ting-Toomey found that whereas individualist cultures voluntary reciprocity was the norm, in collectivist cultures, reciprocity in personal relationships was more obligatory. In such cultures, failure to return a favour is seen as failure of one’s moral duty. Argyle noted that in Japanese culture, there are specific rules about gift-giving and reciprocating whereas no such formal norms exist in Western culture.
Rules also differ. Work by Argyle et al. examined the presence and nature of relationship rules in the UK, Italy, HK and Japan. They found differences in that different rules e.g. rules for close friendships were seen as being relevant to different relationships across the four cultures, but there were also important similarities. All cultures acknowledged the importance of relationship rules such as showing courtesy and respect and avoiding social intimacy. Argyle et al. concluded that rules function to maintain relationships so that the specific goals of those relationships can be achieved.
Friendship relationships also differ greatly. Goodwin pointed out that people in collectivist societies tend to have fewer but closer friendships than do people in individualistic societies. For example, Salamon studied friendship in Japan and in West Germany. Japanese friendships were much more likely to be ones in which there were no barriers between the friends, so that very personal information could be discussed freely – known as the ‘shin yin’ relationship.
.
