Personal Relationships, 3 (1996), 5-17. Printed in the United States of America.

Copyright 0 1996 Cambridge University Press. 1350-4126/96$7.50 .OO +

Cultural perspectives on romantic love

KAREN K. DION AND KENNETH L. DION

University of Toronto

Abstract
Culture-related dimensions contribute to a more complete understanding of romantic love. In particular, we
suggest that the dimensions of individualism and collectivism,at both societal and psychological levels, offer
insights into the nature of romantic love and its perceived importance for marriage. Changes in values
pertaining to romantic love and its role in choosing a spouse are evident in several traditionally collectivistic
societies and among persons from these societies emigrating to countries such as Canada, Australia, and the
United States. Given these trends, we discuss the need to study individualism and collectivism at the
psychological level and present findings from our own program of research.

A full understanding of romantic love must
consider the contribution of cultural fac-
tors. Within psychology, cross-cultural re-
search has been a specialized research
topic, separate from the mainstream of
the discipline. The field of cross-cultural
psychology has its own journals and reader-
ship, and research appearing in these
sources may be overlooked by researchers
whose main identification is with other ar-
eas. Moreover, because of its categorization
as a separate subfield, issues of concern to
cross-cultural psychologists are sometimes
not seen as relevant to researchers who re-
gard themselves as studying basic proc-
esses in a subfield of psychology. As a result,
Preparation of this article was facilitated by a research
grant to the authors from the Social Sciences and Hu-
manities Research Council of Canada. The review
process for this article was handled by Patricia Noller,
Editor of Personal Relationships. We would like to
thank two anonymous reviewers for their constructive
comments.
Requests for reprints can be sent to Karen K. Dion,
Psychology, Life Sciences, Scarborough Campus, Uni-
versity of Toronto, Scarborough, Ontario, Canada
M1C 1A4, or Kenneth L. Dion, Dept. of Psychology,
University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S
3G3. F A X (416) 978-4811. Email: (K.K.Dion)
DIONKK@PSYCH.UTORONTO.CA (K.L.Dion)
DIONKL@PSYCH.UTORONTO.CA
most socisl psychological theories and re-
search on personal relationships, including
those pertaining to love, have not consid-
ered the contribution of cultural factors,
whether at the societal level or the psycho-
logical level.
We suggest that, rather than regarding a
cross-cultural or ethnocultural perspective
as a specialized topic, it should be an inte-
gral part of mainstream theory and re-
search on relationships. This suggestion
does not imply that all researchers studying
personal relationships and interpersonal
processes should undertake cross-cultural
research or research on ethnocultural vari-
ables within a given society. It does imply
that scholars studying these topics recog-
nize that theory and research are them-
selves cultural phenomena, emergent from
particular traditions.
An explicit consideration of cultural per-
spectives opens the possibility of greater
discussion and debate among scholars inter-
ested in macro-level variables (e.g., social
institutions, demographic trends) and those
interested in individual-levelvariables (e.g.,
beliefs, values). This perspective also en-
courages dialogue among scholars from dif-
ferent cultural traditions, with the potential
for research collaboration. During the past

5
6 K.K. Dion and K.L. Dion
few years, there has been growing interest in
cross-cultural and ethnocultural research
within the social psychology of personal re-
lationships.
As much of this work, especially that on
mate preferences, has been guided by a so-
cial evolutionary framework (e.g., Buss,
1988),cultural dimensions per se have been
of less interest to researchers working
within this conceptual framework. Al-
though culture is acknowledged as a proxi-
mal influence on specific manifestations of
characteristics valued in a potential mate,
the main focus in the social evolutionary
tradition is on hypothesized distal influ-
ences in the evolution of the human species
(Buss, 1988). Much as a social evolutionary
perspective acknowledges the role of cul-
ture, a cultural perspective must acknow-
ledge the biological bases of sexual attrac-
tion and sexual behavior. We believe,
however, that understanding the social
meanings assigned to these phenomena is
the central issue. In this article we present a
culturally oriented perspective on love, es-
pecially heterosexual, romantic love.
Anthropological evidence in support of
the cross-cultural universality of love was
recently reported by Jankowiak and Fischer
(1992), who undertook a content analysis of
ethnographic material. They coded whether
romantic love was mentioned in this mate-
rial across 166 societies by the presence of at
least one of the following indicators: de-
scriptions of personal anguish and long-
ing; presence of love songs or folklore re-
lated to romantic involvement; elopement
based on mutual affection; native inform-
ants descriptions indicating the presence of
love, or the ethnographers stating that ro-
mantic love existed in that culture. One of
the main challenges in coding this ethno-
graphic material was to distinguish love
from Lust. Jankowiak and Fischer noted that
often it was not clear whether ethnogra-
phers were simply using the term love to
mean sexual attraction. Based on their
analysis, they reported at least one indicator
of romantic love (also referred to as passion-
ate love by these researchers) in 88.5% of
the diverse cultural groups in their sample.
Jankowiak and Fischers (1992) study has
been interpreted by its authors and others as
providing strong evidence that romantic
love is universal (or near-universal)
across cultures. If this is so,why should social
psychologists and other social scientists be
interested in cultural perspectives on ro-
mantic love? Our answer to this question is
revealed by examining the nature of the evi-
dence forming the basis of the claim that ro-
mantic love is a near-universaloccurrence
across cultures. In Jankowiak and Fischers
(1992) study, the folklore of various cultures
was, according to these researchers, the
most fruitful means (p. 151) documenting
the presence of romantic love in a culture.
Love stories and love songs probably occur
in most, if not all, cultures. Stone (1988, p.
16),in his account of the history of romantic
love in Western societies, noted that cases
of romantic love can be found at all times
and places and have often been the subject
of powerful poetic expression, from the
Song of Solomon to Shakespeare.
The important issue, however, is the
meaning of this folklore for members of a
given society. Western historical ev7dence
suggests that romantic love is culturally-
conditioned and neither social approba-
tion nor the actual experience of romantic
love is at all common to all societies
(Stone, 1988, p. 16). Jankowiak and Fischer
themselves acknowledged that cultural fac-
tors may contribute to the likelihood that
members of a given society will experience
romantic love.
Folk tales can express cultural ideals, be
outlets for suppressed emotions, or be cau-
tionary moral tales (Brislin, 1980). Thus,
accounts of passionate love in literature or
songs in a given society do not per se pro-
vide clear evidence that romantic love is
valued and experienced by most members
in that society. For example, Hsu (1981, p.
50) argued that, in traditional Chinese so-
ciety, when a man said that he loved a
girl, the statement usually carried the im-
plication that something irregular was
afoot. If a woman told anyone she loved
some man, it would be tantamount to her
downfall.
Culture and love
Recent findings are consistent with
Hsus observation. For example, in an
analysis of emotion-related conce ts found
in American English compared t Lf modern
Chinese, Shaver, Wu, and Schwartz (1992)
found that love had distinctive hedonically
negative connotations in the Chinese con-
ception of love, which they labeled sad or
painful love. Wu (1992) found differences
between Chinese (Beijing, China) and
American (western New York state) uni-
versity students when they were asked to
list freely the features of love. More nega-
tive features were listed by the Chinese
sample compared to the Americans (Wu,
1992,Study l),suggesting that this aspect of
love was more spontaneously salient to the
former group. Moreover, Wu (1992, Study
4) also found that Chinese students agreed
more strongly than did students in her US.
sample with the statement that Love with-
out pain is not true love. According to Hsu
(1981), the Chinese term lien ai was a
modern linguistic creation to find an ex-
pression that described the Western term
romantic love.
Given the preceding discussion, the va-
lidity of the claim that romantic love is uni-
versal or almost universal depends on the
level of analysis at which this assertion is
made. A cultural perspective is necessary
to identify the conditions under which simi-
larities and differences in the meaning and
the reported experience of romantic love
might occur. What is needed is an evolu-
tionary perspective on culture itself. Cul-
tural differences are not simply variations
reflecting a biological core. These vari-
ations offer insights into qualitatively dif-
ferent views about love that have devel-
oped and evolved across different societies
and in the same society at different phases
of its history.
What Is Romantic Love?
Scholars from different theoretical perspec-
tives seem to agree on several key features
in the conceptual definition of romantic
love. For example, Averill (1985), in his so-
cial constructionist account, proposed the
7
following features: idealization of the ro-
mantic partner, suddenness of onset, physi-
ological arousal, and commitment to the
well-being of the loved person. In their dis-
cussion of an evolutionary account of ro-
mantic love, Jankowiak and Fischers
(1992) pointed out that, from this perspec-
tive, romantic love emerged from forces
within the hominid brain that are inde-
pendent of the socially-constructed mind
(p. 150). However, they similarly defined
romantic love as any intense attraction
that involves the idealization of the other,
within an erotic context, with the expecta-
tion of enduring for some time into the fu-
ture (Jankowiak & Fischer, 1992,p. 150).In
our view, both healization of the partner
and idealization of the experience distin-
guish the concept of romantic love from
sexual attraction or infatuation. The part-
ner is regarded as unique and special;
the experience%$ romantic love is ex-
pected to be all-consuming, fulfilling, and
transcendent.
Some recent evidence indicates that
young adults (specifically, university stu-
dents in western Ganada) concept of ro-
mantic love has these features, namely
idealization of and preoccupation with
ones lover (e.g., want to be with the person
all the time; think about the person all the
time), physical attraction, and the belief
that the experience of love itself has a spe-
cial quality (e.g., problems seem to vanish,
glowing feeling) (Fehr, 1994, Table 1, p.
312). Participants in another study con-
ducted by Fehr (1994) were asked to iden-
tify different types of love by matching lists
of features previously generated for each
type of love with the designated concept.
Romantic love was easily identified from
the list of features provided by almost the
entire sample (92.31%). Other types of love
were more difficult to distinguish from one
another, at least given the labels included in
this set. Moreover, prototype ratings of ro-
mantic love were related both to measures
of romantic beliefs and passionate expe-
rience (Fehr, 1994,Table 6, p. 323), suggest-
ing that the concept of romantic love in-
cluded both these components.
8 K.K. Dion and K.L. Dion
Individualism, Collectivism,
and Romantic Love:
Cross-Cultural Comparisons
Cultural traditions
We turn now to consider culture and ro-
mantic love. To study the relation between
culture and social psychological variables,
one approach has been to identify impor-
tant dimensions of cultural variation that
are of relevance across diverse societies
(Triandis et al., 1986). A fundamental issue
concerns the relation between the individ-
ual and the group, specifically the relative
priority accorded to personal versus group
goals in different domains of social life. In-
dividualism has been defined by Hui and
Triandis (1986) as the subordination of the
goals of the collectivitiesto individual goals,
and a sense of independence and lack of
concern for others (p. 245). Collectivism is
defined by these authors as a sense of har-
mony, interdependence, and concern for
others, which at core reflects the subordi-
nation of individual goals to the goals of a
collective (Hui & Triandis, 1986, pp.
244-245). Hui and Triandis found that so-
cial scientists from diverse cultural back-
grounds showed high consensus on the
meaning of collectivism/individualism,pro-
viding support for the relevance of these
constructs across different cultures and
nations.
Based on his extensive survey research
on cultural differences in work-related val-
ues among employees of a large multina-
tional corporation, Hofstede (1984) identi-
fied individualism as one of four main
dimensions on which societies can be
ranked and compared. He characterized so-
cieties in which individualism was valued as
emphasizing rights over duties, self-realiza-
tion, personal autonomy, personal initiative,
and identity based on ones personal attrib-
utes. When these data were collected be-
tween 1967 and 1973,societies scoring high-
est on individualism (based on the
importance assigned to different work-re-
lated goals) included the United States,
Australia, Great Britain, Canada, the Neth-
erlands, and New Zealand. In contrast, sev-
eral Asian societies such as Taiwan, Thai-
land, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Pakistan
scored relatively low on individualism. In
countries scoring low on individualism,
Hofstede suggested that the priority of the
collectivity prevails, such that loyalty to the
groups interests predominates; and in turn,
in-groups provide for the well-being of
their members. Ones place in the social sys-
tem defines ones identity, and there is
greater dependence on social institutions.
We have proposed that both individual-
ism and collectivism are dimensions of cul-
tural variation, which contribute to under-
standing romantic love (K.L.-Qon & K.K.
Dion, 1988; K.K. Dion & K.L. Dion, 1993).
Moreover, we have stressed the need to dis-
tinguish the societal as contrasted with the
psychological level of these dimensions
when studying their relation t romantic
%
love (K.K. Dion & K.L. Dion, 19 -1,1993).
Societal individualism and societal collec-
tivism are revealed by cultural comparisons,
whereas psychological individualism and
psychological collectivism are manifested
by individual differences within a g%en so-
ciety. The ideology of romantic love centers
on pursuing personal fulfillment and fol-
lowing ones personal wishes, even if they
oppose those of ones family and kin. This
ideology is less likely to be encouraged in
collectivistic as contrasted with individual-
istic societies. Illustrating this point, tradi-
tionally in India, love before marriage was
thought to be a disruptive element in up-
setting the firmly established ties in the
family, a transference of loyalty from the
family of orientation to a person, and a loss
of allegiance . . . leaving the family and kin
group . . . for personal goals (Gupta, 1976,
p. 78).
In a previous paper we suggested that
romantic love is more likely to be consid-
ered an important basis for marriage in so-
cieties where individualism as contrasted
with collectivism is a dominant cultural
value (K.K. Dion & K.L. Dion, 1993,p. 58).
In that article we noted, however, that
changes seemed to be occurring in beliefs
about the relation between love and mar-
Culture and love
riage among recent cohorts of young adults
in traditionally collectivistic societies.What
does the current cross-cultural evidence
suggest?
Evidence of social change
In a recent cross-cultural study, Levine,
Sato, Hashimoto, and Verma (1995) asked
undergraduate university students from
secondary population centers in 11socie-
ties-Brazil, Mexico, Hong Kong, India,
Pakistan, Thailand, Japan, the Philippines,
Australia, England, and the United
States-to respond to three questions origi-
nally asked by Kephart (1967) and sub-
sequently reexamined by Simpson, Camp-
bell, and Berscheid (1986). The first
question asked: If a man (woman) had all
the other qualities you desired, would you
marry this person if you were not in love
with him (her)? In response to this ques-
tion, there were three alternatives: yes, no,
and undecided. As predicted by Levine and
colleagues, young adults from three tradi-
tionally collectivistic Asian countries were
most likely to answer affirmatively to the
above question, with the specific percent-
ages of those replying yes as follows:
young adults from India (49%), Pakistan
(50.4%), and, to a lesser extent, Thailand
(18.8%).
However, young adults from other tradi-
tionally collectivistic, Asian societies re-
sponded in a manner similar to their coun-
terparts from traditionally individualistic,
Western societies. Very few of them stated
that they were willing to marry without be-
ing in love (5.8% in the Hong Kong sam-
ple and 2.3% in the Japanese sample).
Comparable percentages for the samples
from three Western societies were: Austra-
lia (4.8%), England (7.3%), and the United
States (3.5%). Levine and colleagues
(1995) found a positive relation between
Hofstedes ratings of societal individualism
and the importance of love as a basis for
marriage.
Sprecher, Aron, Hatfield, Cortese, Pota-
pova, and Levitskaya (1994) compared uni-
versity students responses from Japan,
9
Russia, and the United States on a diverse
group of measures pertaining to love. They
found culture-related differences on almost
all of the measures they examined (see Ta-
ble 4, Sprecher et al., 1994). One of the
items included in their measures was the
Kephart (1967) question concerning the
importance of love as a basis for marriage.
Respondents were given only two response
options, yes or no; the undecided alterna-
tive was not included. Sprecher and her col-
leagues found that the proportion of re-
spondents who regarded love as a basis for
marriage was lower in the Russian sample
than either the Japanese or the US. sam-
ples, although it should be noted that the
Japanese sample ma&y consisted of Eng-
lish-language or American-studies majors.
Respondents also completed Sprecher and
Metts (1989) Romantic Beliefs Scale,
which assesses the ideology of romantic
love. On this measure, the Japanese sample
scored lower than either the Russian or the
US. samples.
The extensive cross-cultural study of
mate preferences conducted by Buss and
his colleagues (1990) is ako relevant to this
discussion. This study involved samples
from 37 different cultures (weighted mean
age of 23.15 years). Participants both rated
and ranked the desirability of a set of char-
acteristics that they would want in a poten-
tial spouse. Across all respondents, the most
valued characteristic mentioned by both
women and men was mutual attrac-
tion-love. This combined term could
have various meanings to respondents, such
as being in love and/or love for ones
partner. As Berscheid and Meyers note
elsewhere in this volume, love and i n love
have different connotations to American
respondents (university students). There is
a potentially important difference between
endorsing the necessity of romantic love
(being in love) as a prerequisite for mar-
riage and the desire for a caring relation-
ship with ones partner (love).
Interestingly, differences occurred in the
importance of mutual attraction-love
among respondents from different Asian
societies in the study by Buss et al. (1990).
10
In the sample from mainland China, mu-
tual attraction-love was neither the first,
nor the second, most highly valued charac-
teristic in a potential spouse for either men
or women, as assessed by the rank order of
the mean ratings. By contrast, it was at the
top of the list for samples from Taiwan and
Japan. Of the Asian samples, only those
from Japan and Taiwan were student sam-
ples; the Chinese sample, obtained from
several different locations in mainland
China, did not consist of university students
(Buss, personal communication, April 21,
1995). It is possible, therefore, that the
above findings are partly attributable to
sample differences, as university students in
Japan and Taiwan would be more likely to
encounter Western literature and media
compared to adults from mainland China
who were not university students.
Implications of social change
Consistent with our conceptual analysis
(K.K. Dion & K.L. Dion, 1993),in the U.S.,
British, and Australian samples of Levine et
al. (1995), the importance of a love-based
marriage was strongly endorsed. Also, feel-
ings of mutual attraction-love for ones
potential spouse were rated as highly im-
portant by young adults from these socie-
ties and from several Western European so-
cieties. Moreover, the relation between
Hofstedes ratings of societal individualism
and the importance of love as a basis for
marriage found by Levine and his col-
leagues clearly supports our hypothesis that
romantic love is more important as a basis
for marriage in individualistic societies than
in collectivistic ones.
The pattern of findings among tradition-
ally collectivistic societies, especially Asian
societies, indicated considerable diversity.
We suggest that this diversity is consistent
with changes in value orientations occur-
ring among recent cohorts of young adults
in several traditionally collectivistic, Asian
societies-notably, Taiwan and Hong Kong.
These changes appear to be in the direction
of greater psychological individualism.
Based on several studies involving student
K.K. Dion and K.L. Dion
samples from Taiwan and Hong Kong, Yang
(1986) concluded that young adults there
were, in fact, now individualisticrather than
collectivistic, contrary to the traditional im-
age of Chinese culture. He suggested that
research on value orientations indicated a
drastic movement away from the tradi-
tional Chinese pattern . . . by Chinese
young people in Taiwan and Hong
Kong. . . . Chinese students now tend to
have value orientation patterns fairly simi-
lar to those of American students (Yang,
1986, p. 116). According to Yang, this
change has been from a social orientation
to an individual orientation7-that is, to-
ward greater emphasis on seltexpression
and personal gratification. Compared to
previous cohorts of Japanese adults, a simi-
lar change toward a more individual ori-
entation also may characterize recent
Japanese samples of university students. At
t
the very least, we would expeb greater
variability in value orientations such as in-
dividualism and collectivism among recent
and current cohorts of university students
in Hong Kong, Japan, and Taiwan.
The proportion of young adults choosing
the undecided option to the Kephart
question about love as a basis for marriage
also was substantial in samples from several
Asian societies, namely Thailand (47.5%),
Japan (35.7%), India (26.9%), and the Phil-
ippines (25%) (Levine et al., 1995). It is
important to retain the undecided re-
sponse option to this and other similar
questions. A high proportion of unde-
cided responses can be interpreted as indi-
cators of changing values, resulting in
greater indecision and/or ambivalence on
the part of some young adults in societies
where views about relationships-in par-
ticular, marriage-may diverge from those
of previous cohorts.
Individualism, Collectivism,
and Romantic Love:
Ethnocultural Comparisons
In this section we focus on the relation be-
tween ethnocultural factors and romantic
love within a given society. In societies
Culture and love
characterized by ethnocultural diversity,
the potential for different beliefs and styles
of love exists, and such differences may
partly be attributable to respondents eth-
nocultural background. In a recent study
(K.L. Dion & K.K. Dion, 1993), we investi-
gated the relation between ethnocultural
background in an ethnically heterogeneous
sample of university undergraduates in
Toronto, Canada, to individual differences
in styles of love, as assessed by the Love
Attitudes Scale (Headrick, Hendrick, Foote
& Slapion-Foote, 1984). Participants were
asked to indicate the ethnocultural back-
ground of both their parents. Considerable
ethnocultural diversity existed in this Cana-
dian sample, including participants from
traditionally collectivistic (Chinese, East
Indian, and Pakistani) and traditionally in-
dividualistic (e.g., English, Scottish) back-
grounds. Moreover, as the official Canadian
government policy has been one of mul-
ticulturalism, there is societal support and
encouragement for maintaining different
ethnocultural traditions, particularly in
large urban areas, such as Toronto.
These analyses concerned those indi-
viduals who indicated the same ethnocultu-
ral ancestries for both parents. We found
that young adults (university students)
from Chinese and from other Asian back-
grounds endorsed a love as friendship
style more strongly than did those from An-
glo-Celtic or European ethnocultural back-
grounds. Items illustrative of this love style
included the following: You cannot love
unless you have first had caring for a
while; Love is really a deep friendship,
not a mysterious, mystical emotion.
We also found an interaction between
gender and ethnocultural background on
the altruistic style of love (agape). Pairwise
comparisons indicated that Asian women
from ethnocultural backgrounds other than
Chinese (predominantly East Indian and
Pakistani in this sample) endorsed this view
of the nature of love more than did women
from Anglo-Celtic backgrounds (English,
Scottish, Irish). This finding was intriguing
because in the literature on styles of love,
gender differences in agape have not typi-
11
cally occurred in samples from the United
States. We suggested that a belief in love as
altruism may reflect the influences of both
cultural and gender-related factors. A view
of love as agape is consistent with an em-
phasis on interconnectedness in self-other
relationships.
The role of immigration
Research on beliefs about love and mar-
riage among immigrants from diverse eth-
nocultural backgrounds is also relevant
here: in particular, individuals who emi-
grate from traditionally collectivistic socie-
ties (e.g., different Auan societies) to tradi-
tionally individualistic societies (e.g.,
Canada, the United States, Australia). We
would expect that to the extent that they
possess and retain collectivistic values,
adult immigrants f r q traditionally collec-
tivistic societies would not value the more
individualistic approach to opposite-sex re-
lationships, including dating, free associa-
tion with the opposite sex, and the ideology
of romantic love found in the host society.
These beliefs and behaviors reflect valuing
the freedom of the individual to seek his or
her own personal development and gratifi-
cation in close relationships beyond the
family and to pursue these relationships
without parental interference. In many
non-Western societies, however, socializa-
tion is not directed toward the develop-
ment of personal autonomy (LeVine, 1990).
Instead, interconnected and interdepend-
ent social relationships are stressed; and it
is assumed that family members will be in-
volved in influencing each others lives
(Shweder & Bourne, 1984). From this per-
spective, parental influence in the lives of
adult children, including arranged mar-
riages, is completely understandable. A
love match, especially marrying for love
despite strong family opposition, under-
mines the assumption of interconnected-
ness in the family.
Given space limitations, we focus here
on research undertaken with Asian immi-
grant families residing in Canada. Based on
interviews with a small sample of Indo-Ca-
12
nadian families about different aspects of
family tradition, Filteau (1980) suggested
that respondents perceived a conflict be-
tween the concept of love valued in the
traditional Hindu family and what they be-
lieved to be the North American (in this
case, Canadian) ideal. For the former, the
themes mentioned included respect, toler-
ance, obligation, duty, sacrifice, compromise
and marriage; for the latter, the themes
focused on individualism, materialism, in-
dependence, dating, divorce, selfishness and
romance (Filteau, 1980,p. 294). The differ-
ence in perspective was well captured by
the comment of one respondent who sug-
gested that no clear obligation towards
others grows out of the dating pattern in
Canada (Filteau, 1980,p. 295).
Given this contrast in orientation toward
others, it is understandable that among
Western practices, the most controversial
one for Indo-Canadian parents, regardless
of their language or religion, was dating and
the free association of their adolescent or
young adult children with opposite-sex
peers (Kurian & Ghosh, 1983). Similarly,
Naidoo and Davis (1988) found that, on
items pertaining to family relationships,
women of South Asian ethnicity in Canada
rejected what they perceived to be main-
stream Canadian values, such as dating
among adolescents and free choice, love-
based marriage for their daughters. When
asked about areas of stress in their lives in
Canada, over a third reported stress sur-
rounding adolescent boy-girl dating cus-
toms; and nearly a fifth were concerned
about free choice marriage based on ro-
mantic love.
Within immigrant families, generational
differences in the perceived desirability of
dating and the importance of love as a basis
for marriage can and do occur. In their sam-
ples of Indo-Canadian respondents, Vaidy-
anathan and Naidoo (1991) found that 80%
of second-generation, unmarried young
adults had a favorable attitude toward dat-
ing, as contrasted with only 27.3% of first-
generation, predominantly immigrant re-
spondents (parents of young adults). For
the latter group, dating only became ac-
K.K. Dion and K.L. Dion
ceptable once the couple were committed
to a permanent relationship (68.2%).
Among the older, first-generation group,
the sample was fairly evenly divided be-
tween endorsing the view that marriage
precedes love (54.5%) and love precedes
marriage (45.5%). Among the second gen-
eration, the overwhelming preference
(75%) was the alternative of marrying for
love.
Lee and Cochran (1988) identified issues
of concern to a small sample of young Chi-
nese women from Hong Kong who had
emigrated to Canada. These women fre-
quently commented on their desire to con-
front their fears of separation from the
group to become ones own person. One
area mentioned was close relationships,
specifically the extent to which they should
develop intimacy with individuals outside
the family group.
The kinds of stresses reportea by both
parents and young adult children in these
studies of immigrants to Canada may re-
flect the latters desire for greater auton-
omy and self-reliance, consistent with
greater emphasis on individualistic values
such as personal choice and personal fulfill-
ment stressed in the host society. Interest-
ingly, differences between first- and second-
generation immigrants, when they occur,
seem to be most pronounced on issues per-
taining to personal relationships and family
functioning (Vaidyanathan & Naidoo, 1991;
K.L. Dion & K.K. Dion, 1996). In domains
such as educational or occupational goals,
the issue of greater personal choice seems
less likely to be a source of potential con-
flict between immigrant parents and their
teenage or young adult children compared
to the domain of dating and marriage (e.g.,
Kurian & Ghosh, 1983). Thus, attitudes to-
ward free association with opposite-sex
peers, romantic love, and the importance of
love as a basis for marriage can be viewed
as key indicators of different modes of ac-
culturation. Finally, ethnocultural differ-
ences on attitudes and values pertaining to
close relationships may be more likely to
occur in societies such as Canada where
there has been structural support (e.g., an
Culture and love
official policy of multiculturalism) for eth-
nocultural diversity than in societies such as
the United States with traditionally
stronger assimilationist pressures (see K.L.
Dion, 1990, for further discussion of this
issue).
Psychological Individualism,
Psychological Collectivism,
and Romantic Love
In the preceding sections, we discussed
cross-cultural and ethnocultural research
concerning beliefs about romantic love and
its perceived importance as a basis for mar-
riage. The evidence we reviewed supports
our contention that societal individualism
and collectivism are dimensions of cultural
variation offering a useful theoretical
framework for interpreting these findings.
In most of this cross-cultural and ethnocul-
tural research, however, individualism and
collectivism have not been independently
assessed but rather inferred or assumed.
We have used the terms psychological
individualism and psychological collec-
tivism to refer to individualism and collec-
tivism at the personal level, as contrasted
with the societal one. This differentiation
recognizes that regardless of societal levels
of individualism and collectivism, there are
differences within a given society concern-
ing the extent to which individuals person-
ally endorse prevailing cultural ideals or
different ones (Triandis, Leung, Villareal, &
Clack, 1985). Thus, psychological individu-
alists can be found in collectivisticsocieties,
and psychological collectivists can be found
in individualistic societies. Given the likeli-
hood of diversity on these dimensions in
changing and/or ethnically heterogeneous
societies, it is necessary to measure indi-
vidualism and collectivism at the psycho-
logical level rather than to assume it on the
basis of societal levels.
We previously have proposed the follow-
ing paradox. In individualistic societies, ro-
mantic love is valued as an important basis
for marriage; and the ideology of romantic
love contributes to expecting a high degree
of personal fulfillment in marriage. How-
13
ever, some aspects (or types of) psychologi-
cal individualism make it more difficult to
realize these goals. By contrast, in collec-
tivistic societies, romantic love is less likely
to be valued as a basis for marriage. At the
psychological level, however, collectivism
facilitates intimacy within the in-group, but
this intimacy is likely to be expressed in a
complex system of family relationships
(K.K. Dion & K.L. Dion, 1993).
We have found some support for these
hypotheses. One source of supportive find-
ings is from our research on personality and
romantic love: in particular, self-actualiza-
tion and love (K.K. Dion & K.L. Dion,
1985). Self-actualization& a personality di-
mension that reflects individualism (Water-
man, 1984).In many respects, self-actualiza-
tion is a prototypically individualistic
construct, as apparent from the term itself
and from the underlyiq assumptions of
self-actualization and related theories (e.g.,
Maslow, 1970).In our research, self-actuali-
zation was measured by Shostroms (1964)
Personal Orientation Inventory, which is
still considered the best available measure
of this construct (Hattie, Hancock, & Bre-
reton, 1984). We also distinguished among
the ideology of love, the subjective experi-
ence of love, and feelings about a particular
partner. Accordingly, we included attitude
items to assess beliefs about love, a series of
bipolar ratings of ones love experiences, as
well as Wessman and Rickss (1966) Love
and Sex Scale to assess the reported experi-
ence of romantic love, and the Rubin (1970)
Love Scale to assess reported love and re-
lated affect toward a particular partner.
Our findings confirmed the importance
of making these distinctions. Individuals
scoring high in self-actualization reported a
more gratifying love experience than did
those scoring low on this measure. They
also tended to report their experience of
love as being less guarded and more in-
tense. However, self-actualized individuals
reported less love for their partner; in par-
ticular, they scored lower on the caring and
need subscales of the Rubin Love Scale
identified by Steck, Levitan, McLane, and
Kelley (1982). In other words, self-actual-
14
ized people seemed to enjoy the experi-
ence of being in love more than did their
less self-actualized peers, but the latter
seemed to care more for their partner.
A similar pattern of findings emerged in
a recent study in which we directly exam-
ined the relation between psychological in-
dividualism and love (K.K. Dion & K.L.
Dion, 1991). In that study, psychological in-
dividualism and psychological collectivism
were measured by 24 items developed by
Breer and Locke (1965) to assess these con-
structs. The items were multidimensional,
with additional analyses yielding two fac-
tors for individualism and collectivism, re-
spectively.The items in one of these factors,
which we labeled as self-contained indi-
vidualism, reflected valuing freedom and
self-reliance. Psychological individualism,
especially this self-contained component,
was negatively related to affective involve-
ment with ones partner, as measured by
Rubins Love Scale and its three compo-
nents (caring, need, and trust). These find-
ings were obtained after controlling for the
effects of psychological collectivism, as well
as age and sex of respondent. Psychological
individualists were more likely to view
love as a game. Moreover, in this sample,
self-contained7individualism was associ-
ated with a lower likelihood of ever having
been in love; and among those who had
been in love, this type of individualism was
negatively related to characterizing ones
experience of romantic love as being ten-
der, deep, and rewarding.
We have extended the above paradigm
to study the relation between psychologi-
cal individualism and collectivism, using
a more extensive set of items, and atti-
tudes toward marriage and toward divorce
(K.L. Dion & K.K. Dion, 1994).Psychologi-
cal individualism, specifically self-con-
tained individualism, was related to a less
positive attitude toward marriage. By con-
trast, psychological collectivism was associ-
ated with a less favorable attitude toward
divorce.
In a recent study, Doherty, Hatfield,
Thompson, and Choo (1994) found a nega-
tive relation between a 12-item measure of
K.K. Dion and K.L. Dion
individualism and collectivism (Triandis,
1992) and Hatfield and Sprechers (1986)
measure of Passionate Love, which assesses
intensity of attraction to, and affective in-
volvement with, ones romantic partner. Al-
though small in magnitude, this negative re-
lation found by Doherty and his colleagues
is consistent with our previous finding
(K.K. Dion & K.L. Dion, 1991) of a nega-
tive relation between self-contained indi-
vidualism and reported love for ones ro-
mantic partner, as measured by the Rubin
Love Scale. Interestingly, Hatfield and
Sprechers (1986) Passionate Love Scale
has been found to be highly related to the
Rubin Love Scale in a,sampk of U.S. uni-
versity students (Y = .86 for men; Y = .83 for
women). Thus, two independent studies,
one conducted in Canada and one in the
United States, using different measures of
psychological individualism and different
measures of romanticlpassionafe love have
found a negative relation between psycho-
logical individualism and reported love for
ones partner.
Findings from a very different cultural
context also suggest that some aspects of
individualism may work against developing
intimacy with a romantic partner. Goodwin
(1995) examined the reported willingness
to engage in intimate self-disclosure by in-
dividuals from three different social groups
(manual workers, entrepreneurs, and stu-
dents) in Russia shortly after the dissolu-
tion of the Soviet Union. The entrepreneurs
as a group were characterized as being very
individualistic, especially in highly valuing
self-reliance. Respondents were asked to
list off limits topics in relationships of dif-
fering degrees of intimacy.In Study 2, topics
related to sex and love were the most
frequently mentioned category of taboo
topics. The entrepreneurs and the students
reported difficulty when discussing love
and sex, particularly in the context of inti-
mate relationships (Goodwin, 1995). Al-
though Goodwins research was conducted
to test a different conceptual model, one of
his major findings is consistent with our
prediction of a negative relation between
self-contained individualism and inti-
Culture and love 15

macy with a romantic partner-in this case, ceptualize individualism and collectivism
intimate self-disclosure. as different facets of self, rather than con-
trasting attributes, when studying their im-
plications for different forms of personal
Concluding Remarks
relationships. In our research, we have
In summary, the empirical findings pre- found that each of these constructs is mul-
sented in this article clearly support our tidimensional. Our findings suggest that
contention that the dimensions of individu- one component of individualism in particu-
alism and collectivism, respectively-both lar-namely self-contained individual-
at the societal and the psychological lev- ism-is related to variations in reported
els-provide a heuristic framework for love experiences as well as beliefs about
better understanding romantic love. The love and about marriage, which may be
constructs of individualism and collectiv- problematic for fostering intimacy in ro-
ism are, of course, not the only relevant mantic relationships (K.K. Dion & K.L.
cultural dimensions. They do, however, Dion, 1991; K.L. Dion & K.K. Dion, 1994).
provide one starting point. As emphasized Research on romantic love from a cul-
above, it is important to distinguish be- tural perspective has relevance for under-
tween individualism and collectivism at the standing changing norms surrounding insti-
societal and at the personal level, respec- tutions, such as marriage. The search for
tively, when studying their relation to personal growth/fulfillment through mar-
romantic love. Given cultural change, im- riage based-gn romantic love assumes that
migration, and ethnocultural diversity, in- marriage primarily should function to pro-
creasingly there is likely to be heteroge- mote self-development. Given this assump-
neity in the prevalence of psychological tion, if both members of a couple are not
individualism and psychological collectiv- growing together (or at least not hinder-
ism within specific, traditionally individu- ing each others personal growth), the basis
alistic and collectivistic societies. There- for the marriage may be questioned by one
fore, it is important to measure these and or both parties. It is this view of marriage
other related constructs in a particular that some individuals from traditionally
sample rather than to assume their uni- collectivistic societies find distasteful, for it
form presence among individuals within a conflicts with core assumptions about the
given society. Thus, for example, re- relation between self and family. We and
searchers studying personal relationships other scholars have contended that height-
in some Asian societies should not assume ened individualism has contributed to in-
that those taking part in their study, espe- creasing rates of marriage failure and di-
cially if they are university students, are vorce in the United States and Canada in
psychologically collectivistic. As Yang recent decades (Brehm, 1992;Cherlin, 1981;
(1986) suggested, many of these students K.L. Dion & K.K. Dion, 1988; Schwartz,
may now endorse individualistic values as 1988). Furstenberg (1990) commented that
strongly as their Western counterparts in current ideals of marriage in the United
individualistic countries. States virtually demanded divorce if the
The constructs of individualism and col- couple were no longer in love with each
lectivism typically have been conceptual- other.
ized as contrasting poles of a continuum. Recent research indicates increasing di-
The distinction between the relative em- versity in views of the relation between
phasis on the priority of the individual, as love and marriage among young adults
contrasted with the priority of the group, from several different and traditionally col-
highlights important differences that are lectivistic societies (Levine et al., 1995;
important for understanding personal rela- Sprecher et al., 1994). This diversity may
tionships. At the psychological level, how- reflect change in the direction of greater
ever, it may be of heuristic value to con- psychological individualism, notably self-
16 K.K. Dion and K.L. Dion

contained individualism, characterized by chological individualism takes forms other

valuing personal freedom. If so, it remains than self-contained individualism. If so,
to be seen whether young adults in these then individuals from more collectivistic
societies (e.g., Japan, Taiwan) and young cultural traditions who become more indi-
adults whose parents emigrated from tra- vidualistic might show a different pattern
ditionally collectivistic societies to Canada, of relationship-related correlates. Clearly, a
Australia, or the United States show in- cultural perspective raises important and
creasingly high rates of divorce and remar- intriguing questions about the psychology
riage. On the other hand, it is possible that of love and, more generally, about self and
in traditionally collectivistic societies psy- close relationships.

References
Averill, J. R. (1985). The social construction of emo-
tion: With special reference to love. In K. J. Gergen
& K. E. Davis (Eds.), The social construction ofthe
person (pp. 89-109). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Brehm, S. (1992). Intimate relationships (2nd ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Breer, J? E., & Locke, E. A. (1965). Task experience as
a source of attitudes.Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
Brislin, R. W. (1980). Translation and content analysis
of oral and written materials. In H. C. lkiandis & J.
W. Berry (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psy-
chology: Methodology, Vol. 2 (pp. 389-444).
Toronto: Allyn & Bacon.
Buss, D. M. (1988). The evolutionary biology of love. In
R. J. Sternberg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), Thepsychol-
ogy of love (pp. 100-118). New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Buss, D. M., Abbott, M., Angleitner, A., et al. (1990).
International preferences in selecting mates: A
study of 37 cultures.Journal of Cross-CulturalPsy-
chology, 21,547.
Cherlin, A. J. (1981). Marriage, divorce, remarriage.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Dion, K. K., & Dion, K. L. (1985). Personality, gender,
and the phenomenology of romantic love. In ? R.
Shaver (Ed.), Selj situations, and behavior: Review
of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 6, pp.
209-239). Thousand Oaks, C A Sage.
Dion, K. K., & Dion, K. L. (1991). Psychological indi-
vidualism and love. Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality, 6,17-33.
Dion, R. K., & Dion, K. L. (1993). Individualistic and
collectivistic perspectives on gender and the cul-
tural context of love and intimacy. The Journal of
Social Issues, 49(3), 53-69.
Dion, K. L. (1990). The joy of ethnicity: Doing eth-
nocultural research in your own backyard. Interna-
tional Society for the Study of Personal Relation-
ships Bulletin, 7(1),3-7.
Dion, K. L., & Dion, K. K. (1988). Romantic love:
Individual and cultural perspectives. In R. J. Stern-
berg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love
(pp. 264-289). New Haven, CI? Yale University
Press.
Dion, K. L., & Dion, K. K. (1993). Gender and eth-
nocultural comparisons in styles of love. Psychol-
ogy of Women Quarterly, 17,463-473.
Dion,K.L., & Dion,K. K. (1994). Individualism-collec-
tivism and love. Paper presented at the Seventh
Annual Conference of the International Society
for the Study of Personal Relationships,Gronigen,
The Netherlands, July 1994.
Dion, K. L., & Dion, K. K. (1996). Chinese adaptation
to foreign cultures.In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The hand-
book of Chinese psychology (pp. 441-462). Hong
Kong: Oxford University Press.
Doherty, R. W., Hatfield, E., Thompson, K., & Choo,
P. (1994). Cultural and ethnic influences on love
and attachment. Personal Relationships, I ,
391-398.
Fehr, B. (1994). Prototype-based assessment of laypeo-
ples views of love. Personal Relationships, I ,
309-331.
Filteau, C .H. (1980).The role of the concept of love in
the Hindu family acculturation process. In K. V.
Ujimoto & G. Hirabayashi (Eds.), Visible minori-
ties and multiculturalism:Asians in Canada (pp.
289-299). Toronto: Butterworths.
Furstenberg, F. E (1990). Divorce and the American
family. American Review of Sociology, 16,379-403.
Goodwin,R. (1995). The privatisation of the personal?
I: Intimate disclosure in modern-day Russia. Jour-
nal of Social and Personal Relationships, 12,
121-131.
Gupta, G. R. (1976). Love, arranged marriage, and the
Indian social structure. Journal of Comparative
Family Studies, 7(1), 75-85.
Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1986). Measuring passion-
ate love in intimate relationships. Journal of Ado-
lescence, 9,383-410.
Hattie, J., Hancock,?,& Brereton, K. (1984). The rela-
tionship between two measures of self-actualiza-
tion. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48,17-25.
Hendrick, C., Hendrick, S.,Foote, F. H., & Slapion-
Foote, M. J. (1984). Do men and women love differ-
ently?Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,
I , 177-195.
Hofstede, G. (1984). Cultures consequences: Interna-
tional differences in work-related values.Thousand
Oaks, CA, Sage.
Hui, C. H., & lkiandis, H. C. (1986). Individualism-col-
lectivism: A study of cross-cultural researchers.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17,222-248.
Hsu, F. L. K. (1981).Americans and Chinese:Passage to
differences (3rd ed.), Honolulu: The University
Press of Hawaii.
Jankowiak, W. R., & Fischer, E. F. (1992). A cross-cul-
tural perspective on romantic love. Ethnology, 31,
149-155.
Kephart, W. M. (1967). Some correlates of romantic
Culture and love
love. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 29,
470-474.
Kurian, G., & Ghosh, R. (1983). Child rearing in tran-
sition in Indian immigrant families in Canada. In G.
Kurian & R. P. Srivastava (Eds.), Overseas Indians:
A study in adaptation (pp. 128-138). New York:
Advent Books.
Lee, C. C., & Cochran, L. R. (1988). Migration prob-
lems of Chinese women. Canadian Journal of
Counseling, 22,202-211.
Levine, R., Sato, S., Hashimoto, T., & Verma, J. (1995).
Love and marriage in eleven cultures. Journal of
Cross-CulturalPsychology, 26,554-571.
LeVine, R. A. (1990). Enculturation: A biosocial per-
spective on the development of self. In D. Cichetti
& M. Beeghly (Eds.), The self in transition: Infancy
to childhood (pp. 99-117). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd
ed.). New York: Harper.
Naidoo, J. C., & Davis, J. C. (1988). Canadian South
Asian women in transition: A dualistic view of life.
Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 19(2),
311-327.
Rubin, 2. (1970). Measurement of romantic love.Jour-
nal o f Personality and Social Psychology, 16,
265-273.
Schwartz,P. (1988).Thefamily as a changed institution.
Journal of Family Issues, 8,455-459.
Shaver, F., Wu, S., & Schwartz, J. C. (1992). Cross-cul-
tural similarities and differences in emotion and its
representation: A prototype approach. In M. S.
Clark (Ed.), Review of personality and social psy-
chology (Vol. 13,pp. 175-212). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Shostrom, E. L. (1964). An inventory for the measure-
ment of self-actualization. Educational and Psy-
chological Measurement,24,207-218.
Shweder, R. A., & Bourne, E. J. (1984). Does the con-
cept of the person vary cross-culturally?In R. A.
Shweder & R. A. LeVine (Eds.), Essays on mind,
selj and emotion. (pp. 158-199). Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Simpson,J., Campbell, B., & Berscheid, E. (1986). The
association between romantic love and marriage:
Kephart (1967) twice revisited. Personality and So-
cial Psychology Bulletin, 12,363-372.
Sprecher, S., Aron, A., Hatfield, E., Cortese, A., Pota-
17
pova, E., & Levitskaya, A. (1994). Love: American
style, Russian style, and Japanese style. Personal
Relationships, 1,349-369.
Sprecher, S., & Metts, S. (1989). Development of the
Romantic Beliefs Scale and examination of the
effects of gender and gender-role orientation. Jour-
nal of Social and Personal Relationships, 6,
387-411.
Steck, L., Levitan, D., McLane, D., & Kelley, H. H.
(1982). Care, need, and conceptions of love. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 43,481491.
Stone, L. (1988). Passionate attachments in the West in
historical perspective. In W. Gaylin & E. Person
(Eds.), Passionate attachments: Thinking about
love. New York: The Free Press.
Triandis, H. C., Leung, K., Villareal, M. J., & Clack, F.
(1985). Allocentric versus idiocentric tendencies:
Convergent and discriminant validation. Journal of
Research in Personality, 19,395-415.
Triandis, H,C., Bontempo, R., Betancourt, H., Bond,
M., Leung,rK., Brenes, A., Georgas, J., Hui, C. H.,
Marin, G., Setiadi, B., Sinha, J. P., Verma, J.,
Spangenberg,J., Touzard, H., & de Montmollin, G.
(1986). The measurement of the etic aspects of in-
dividualism and collectivism across cultures. Aus-
tralian Journal of Psychology, 38,257-267.
lkiandis, H. C. (1992). Individualism and collectivism
manual. UItpublished manuscript, Department of
Psychology, University of Illinois, Champaign.
Vaidyanathan,P., & Naidoo, J. (1991). Asian Indians in
Western countries: Cultural identity and the ar-
ranged marriage. In N. Bleichrodt & P. Drenth
(Eds.), Contemporary issues in cross-cultural psy-
chology (pp. 3749). Amsterdam, The Netherlands:
Swets & Zeitlinger.
Waterman, A. S. (1984). The psychology ofindividual-
ism. New York: Praeger.
Wessman, A. E., & Ricks, D. F. (1966). Mood and per-
sonality.New York: Holt.
Wu, S. (1992). A comparison of American and Chinese
conceptions of love.Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion, Psychology Dept., State University of New
York at Buffalo.
Yang, K.-S. (1986). Chinese personality and its change.
In M. H. Bond (Ed.), Thepsychologyofthe Chinese
people (pp. 106-170). Hong Kong: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.