2 The theories may receive global support, they may not be mutually exclusive
While models are presented here as discrete explanations for the origins of inter-group prejudice, applying them across cultures alerts us to the possibility that they perhaps should not be regarded as mutually exclusive or entirely in opposition to one another, since elements within them often overlap. For example, ascribing prejudice to conflict over scarce resources (Sherif, 1966) is not incompatible with seeing it as conflicting representations of historical events (Liu et al., 2003).
Having reviewed the cultural applic- ability of social psychological theories of prejudice and found that, though cul- tural and historical contexts clearly influence the emergence of inter-group conflict, certain psychological elements of prejudice do appear across cultures, we will now ask whether friendship and intimacy take similar forms in different cultures.
Culture, love and intimate relationships
Is love culturally relative? Not a very romantic title for a song, perhaps, but an interesting question for global psychology nonetheless. The various marriage permutations worldwide (romantic, arranged, monogamous, polygamous) suggest that how we define, express and institutionalise love and intimacy is affected by culture. Researchers have explored issues of love and cultural variation in a number of ways, for instance by asking whether perceptions of attractiveness are the same the world over.
Are we all looking for the same thing?
Evolutionary psychology (a branch of psychology focusing on gen- etic and biological antecedents of behaviour) predicts our taste in intimate partners to be dominated by the reproductive instinct, not by the vicissitudes of culture. Thus, the pursuit of physically and repro- ductively fit partners would supposedly be a culturally universal practice (Montepare & Zebrowitz, 1993). Males would seek females with most
reproductive potential, with females seeking males who are most able to provide for their family.
Is there evidence to bear out this evolutionary stance? One large- scale international study of partner preferences certainly shows high levels of consensus in tastes in both genders. Surveying 10,000 participants in thirty-seven nations, Buss (1989) found that females rated partners with good financial prospects more highly than males did in thirty-six of those nations. Displaying similar levels of unanimity, males preferred younger (more fertile) female mates than females did in every nation. Youth and health were high on the desirability agenda for males. Industry and earning potential were both valued by females.
Buss et al. (2000) found that males expressing a preference for more children opted for younger partners. Schmitt et al. (2003) found that males wanted more sexual partners than females did, perhaps reflecting a biological need for multiple fathering. Such findings invite an evolutionary interpretation, indicating culturally universal tastes in potential partners, largely determined by biological heritage.
Yet critical voices have been raised against evolutionists. A re- examination of Buss’s survey data revealed cultural variations that in some cases exceeded gender differences (Smith et al., 2006). For example, national levels of affluence predicted differences in selection criteria for intimate partners. Specifically, participants from richer countries showed a greater preference for love (rather than status), for intelligence (rather than domesticity), for dependability (rather than good looks) and for sociability (rather than religion) (Chan, 2004). The influence of socio-economic factors on intimate partner choice is endorsed by Georgas et al. (2005). It seems then that the evolutionary proposition that all humans are biologically predisposed towards making similar partner choices should be treated with caution.
Is beauty more than culture-deep?
It is not the sole prerogative of evolutionary theory to identify cross- cultural agreement about intimate partner choice. Many researchers have produced data suggesting that the criteria for physical beauty are agreed worldwide. Cunningham et al. (1995) found consensus among Europeans, Asians and Hispanics about which facial features were attractive among participants rating photographs of female models (drawn from many cultures).
Elsewhere, when asked to rate physical characteristics for their attractiveness, Japanese and Koreans showed some overlap in their tastes. Koreans reported large eyes, high noses and thin faces to be
typically attractive. Japanese participants agreed about the large eyes, yet were also aroused by small noses and small chins (Daibo et al., 1994). Interestingly, there are also positive correlations between judgements about physical beauty and desirable personality traits (Feingold, 1992). In other words, beautiful people are often perceived as being good, even though our ideas about which traits are good may vary across cultures (Wheeler & Kim, 1997).
Against these findings there is evidence of differing perceptions of physical beauty across cultures and throughout history. For instance, slender figures have not always been regarded as normally desirable, even in Western Europe (Smith et al., 2006). Contemporary data show UK residents from Caribbean and West African countries to rate larger female body size as most desirable (Hodes et al., 1996; Cogan et al., 1996). Indigenous Ugandan males and females endorse this preference for plumpness (Furnham et al., 2002). This casts doubt on evolutionary or universalist approaches to mate selection. Yet we should perhaps allow for the possibility that as more cultural groups are exposed to western media images, a ‘consensualisation’ of opinion about what is attractive may develop (Matsumoto & Juang, 2004).
Is love necessarily romantic the world over?
Loving relationships may be a global phenomenon, but their nature and importance seemingly vary from culture to culture. Romantic love, characterised by passion and intimacy though not necessarily com- mitment (Matsumoto & Juang, 2004), is not necessarily the preferred form of intimacy everywhere. Simmons et al. (1986) found romantic love to be less valued in Japan than in Germany or the US, with close family ties more important in the Asian context. Furnham (1984) also found romantic love to be associated with a European, rather than an Asian or South African, outlook. French and US participants in intimate partner relationships reported more private disclosure (confiding) and greater feelings of belonging than did intimate Japanese partners.
In line with these findings, Chinese and Asian participants equated intimacy more with friendship than did Europeans, with excitement being more of a priority for lovers in the US (Dion & Dion, 1993).
Love too, it seems, is more idealistic in some places than in others.
Danes subscribed more to so-called idealistic intimacy (no one else can love him like I do) than did English and North American respondents (Landis & O’Shea, 2000). While selecting a partner because of being passionately attracted to their personal qualities may be a prerequisite for romantic love, one large-scale international survey KEY TERM
Romantic love.
Passion and intimacy though not necessarily commitment.
found these criteria not to be universally applied (Levine et al., 1995).
Participants were asked how important love was to marriage, and those from countries associated with an individualist outlook (generally the more affluent ones) appeared to value love more than did those from collectivist and less affluent ones.
However, this association between so-called individualism and romantic love is not cut and dried. Anthropological evidence collected in over 180 societies suggests that in some more traditional societies, while attraction to personal characteristics was felt, cultural taboos such as arranged marriages (see key concept) can inhibit its expres- sion (Jankowiak & Fischer, 1992). Furthermore, some participants in Levine et al.’s (1995) survey who were from collectivist contexts were reluctant to marry without love (Smith et al., 2006).