Category Archives: communication of emotions

What Is “Love Marriage”?

Posted on by

Love marriage is a marital relationship that is based on interpersonal love attraction. Men and women experience love attraction for each other and they rely on it in their decisions to marry. Love marriage assumes a mutual desire for a partner. The idea of a free choice and a personal decision to marry are the key features of love marriages. Love marriage is opposite to arranged marriages, in which parents and families decide who is suitable for marriage and who is not.

Cultural evolution from arranged marriages to love marriages occurs when societies evolve from collectivistic to individualistic types of cultures.

Individualistic Societies and Love Marriage

The modern economic, social, and cultural conditions in individualistic European American and European Canadian cultures, West European countries, Australia, and New Zealand are conducive to love marriages. Men and women in those societies have more personal and social rights. They are relatively independent of social institutions such as families. Modern life in those countries provides people with more extended personal and relationship affordances in their marital choices.

Individual autonomy, the independence of members of a social group in their relationships, human rights, gender equality, the independent model of self, self-determination rights, and freedom of choice are among the social norms emphasized in those individualistic societies.

Person’s Individuality in Individualistic Cultures

A person’s personal self is seen as distinct and independent from others. The autonomous self-concept encourages men and women to pursue their own views, personal desires, and preferences. Their individuality encourages open expressions of their unique selves, freedom of choice, and personal decision-making. Their individual selves are the main source of people’s thoughts, feelings, motivations, and behaviors. Social connections and interpersonal bonds are important, yet they assume individual autonomy. Individuals have the option to start and end their relationships  (see for review, Karandashev, 2021; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Uchida, Norasakkunkit, & Kitayama, 2004).

Social Affordances and Love Marriage

Economic wealth, social progress, and modernization of the societies in those nations decreased the values of physical and economic security and the role of survival needs, which were prevalent in traditional materialistic and collectivistic cultures. This socioeconomic progress substantially extended the personal and social affordances of love marriage as an individual enterprise, compared to previous arranged marriages as a family enterprise.

Economic and social modernization of societies increased the values of quality of life, subjective well-being, and self-expression, which have become prevalent in modernized individualistic and postmaterialistic cultures (Inglehart 1997, 2015; Inglehart & Baker, 2000; Inglehart & Welzel 2005).

The Cultural Norms of Love Marriage

Currently, love marriages are common in individualistic countries. They are defined by the free choice of partners and the limited or moderate involvement of families and parents. Women and men are free to choose their mates based on their attraction, passion, and romantic emotions. Parents cannot limit their children’s mate selection choices.

Since the middle of the 20th century, love marriages have been considered culturally normative in Western societies, such as Western European, European American, and Canadian American cultures. For example, during the 1960s, the self-expressive paradigm of love became increasingly popular in the United States. For many Americans, love and marriage have become arenas for individual self-exploration, self-esteem validation, personal discovery, self-fulfillment, and self-growth (Finkel, 2018). Marriage’s function has shifted. Marriage became less necessary as a formal social institution. It became more affordable for those who opt for it and are able to choose.

In many other countries around the world, love marriages are also on the rise, especially in urban areas. Modern individualistic as well as collectivistic societies around the world vary in terms of their beliefs and actual cultural practices. Many countries are in the process of modernization. Anyway, modern cultural ideals expand social and relationship opportunities and affordances in many societies. The conditions give people more freedom in love, dating, and marriage (Karandashev, 2021; Karandashev, 2023). 

How Is Cultural Evolution Different from Social Evolution?

Posted on by

Throughout the centuries, the interaction of biological, ecological, social, economic, and cultural factors has determined the evolution of human mental processes, behaviors, and social practices. Therefore, evolutionary approaches are currently popular not only in the biological sciences but also in the social sciences. Social scientists delve into research on cultural evolution that explains many biological and social phenomena that have appeared throughout human history and in contemporary cultural contexts (see for review, Karandashev, 2022).

What Is an Evolutionary Perspective?

For the comprehension of many events and facts in life, behavior, and society, the evolutionary approach, as a scientific framework of thinking and inquiry, is progressive, productive, and logical. According to general evolutionary theory, evolution is the process by which organisms, individuals, societal groups, ideas, cultural phenomena, artifacts, and societal institutions change over time. These changes occur due to changes in the physical, biological, and social environments and help people adapt, survive, and thrive.

Evolutionary processes in humans and societies happen at different levels, such as the level of individual life, the level of species, the level of local cultural groups, and the level of larger social groups. Because of mutations, organisms, species, social groups, and individuals possess a wide range of qualities, attributes, traits, and features. Some organisms, species, social groups, and individuals have better-suited qualities and are well-suited for their environment. Therefore, they are more likely to “survive,” “reproduce,” and pass on their qualities to a future generation (Karandashev, 2021).

What Is Behavioral Evolution?

The basic needs of humans are the same or similar. However, they live in different local biological and social conditions, which provide them with different ecological, economic, and social affordances to meet these needs. Therefore, they adjust and adapt accordingly. These are the sources of their biological and cultural evolution.

Due to various geographical, economic, and cultural circumstances, different societies and local communities can afford individuals to exhibit certain personality traits, behaviors, and social relations. For example, collectivistic and individualistic societies provide different sets of affordances for people. They differ in the ways in which they shape the personalities and behaviors of people.

Collectivistic societies are characterized by interdependent and often hierarchical social organizations. They have low geographic, social, and relationship mobility. Collectivistic societies’ social norms promote interdependent models of self in people while discouraging the open expression of emotions.

Individualistic societies are characterized by independence in social organization that is often egalitarian. They have relatively high geographic, social, and relationship mobility. Individualistic societies encourage people to develop independent models of themselves and to express their emotions openly (Karandashev, 2021).

What Is Social Evolution?

Social and cultural evolution are changes in social and human life that are based on the same evolutionary process and principles.

According to the evolutionary processes of social selection, societies acquire and transmit some social institutions, actions, and changes more easily than others. Such social transmission transforms and alters them. Organizations of social groups, human cooperation, and competition evolve over time because of the social and economic development of societies (Karandashev, 2021).

For example, social evolution favors human cooperation. From an evolutionary perspective, people who have lived more cooperatively are better suited to their environment. And over time, this capability has been passed down from one generation to the next, changing the way people live and work. The more cooperative type of personality evolved across generations. The evolution of people’s ability to work together also explains the social organization of communities and larger societies throughout history.

As a result, humans are more cooperative than other primates, and this makes a big difference (Tomasello, 2011).

What Cultural Evolution?

Cultural evolution explains how cultural knowledge, ideas, meanings, values, norms, and practices transmit and evolve over time according to the principles of variation, differential fitness, and inheritance (in similar ways as in biological species). Cultural evolution occurs when the environment supports certain social ideas, cultural values, social norms, behaviors, and personality traits over others.

The cultural evolution of languages, social organizations, human cooperation and competition, and cultural traditions and norms present such examples (e.g., Whiten, Hinde, Stringer, & Laland, eds., 2012; Mace, 2000; Mace & Holden, 2005, see for review, Karandashev, 2021). Some principles of genetic evolution, however, are not relevant to cultural evolution (Mesoudi, 2016; Mesoudi, Whiten, & Laland, 2006).

Western Communication Style vs Eastern Communication Style

Posted on by

The key point of this article are that Western communication style vs Eastern communication style differ in their cultural norms. Western cultures value low-context communication, whereas Eastern cultures value high-context communication.

As I have previously stated on this website, Western and Eastern cultures differ in their ways of life and social organization in a variety of ways. They differ in their worldviews and perceptions. They differ in the norms of relationships between people, in the personal construal of self, and in the tendencies toward more individualistic or collectivistic structures in their social lives.

Let us consider the differences in the ways people in Western and Eastern societies prefer to communicate their verbal and nonverbal messages. It should be noted that the divisions in communication patterns frequently lie along lines that are different from the traditional divisions of Western and Eastern cultures.

Cultural Differences in Low-content Versus High-context Communication

The Western communication style vs eastern communication style differ in their values of low-content versus high-context communication.

While individuals differ in their relative personal preferences and orientations regarding the content or context of messages in communication, societies, their values, and cultural norms also differ in this regard. These cultural differences are evident in both verbal and nonverbal communication.

A question of interest once again is whether the content or context of messages is more important for people in their verbal and nonverbal communication. Some cultural traditions can encourage their members to rely more on the content or context of their interpersonal communication.

People mainly convey the content of a message verbally, while they express the context of the message mostly nonverbally. Therefore, low-context cultures favor verbal ways of interaction, while high-context cultures prefer nonverbal ways of communication.

Low-context Versus High-context Cultures of Communication

American anthropologist Edward Hall introduced the concepts of low-context and high-context cultures. Distinguishing these cultures, he emphasized the importance of explicit versus implicit messages in people’s daily communication. In low-context cultures, people convey the main message’s meaning in their explicit verbal codes. In contrast, people in high-context cultures tend to choose messages in which they embed the meaning mainly in the context of the interaction, such as the settings and participants (Hall, 1989; McKay‐Semmler, 2017).

Consequently, people in low-context cultures tend to speak openly, directly, explicitly, and in words with precise meaning. In contrast, people in high-context cultures prefer to talk indirectly, implicitly, and with words that have hidden meanings.

What Is the Origin of Low-Context Cultures?

Due to several cultural features, Western societies tend to be low-context cultures. People in individualistic cultures prefer lower-context messages (Gudykunst & Matsumoto, 1996; Karandashev, 2021).

Many scholars believe that the ancient Greek and Roman cultures (with the philosophies of Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates) are the origins of modern Western culture. Therefore, it is logical to assume that they subscribe to the principle of universal meanings and the importance of reasoning. These philosophical beliefs encourage analytical and rational thinking and suggest expressing ideas and thoughts logically, clearly, and persuasively.

What Are the Low-Context Cultures?

In these philosophical cultural traditions, the content of the message is more important than its context. Then, when they talk with someone about something, they need to elaborate on the details of their message and expect that their partner will do the same. This pattern of communication is prevalent in so-called low-context cultures (Gudykunst & Kim, 1984; Hall & Hall, 1990).

People in western North American countries, such as the USA and Canada, and northern European countries, such as Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and Norway, pay less attention to the intricate details of the context in which people communicate.

Men and women choose to be open and transparent in their messages. People say everything explicitly in their words without making implicit assumptions, attempting to avoid unspoken or hidden nonverbal or contextual messages. They tend to compartmentalize their interpersonal relationships. They believe that people should express any messages openly, elaborately, and directly.

When people from high-context Eastern cultures provide insufficient details in their messages, and people from low-context Western cultures feel confused or even lost in their misunderstanding. Perceiving too little information, they can feel left out. People of Western cultural origins consider the long-lasting absence of sound and a pause in a conversation awkward. They feel that such conversation is uneasy (Hasegawa & Gudykunst, 1998; Morsbach, 1976; Oliver, 1971).

What Are High-Context Cultures?

Due to several cultural characteristics, Eastern societies are more likely to be high-context cultures. People in collectivistic cultures prefer the higher-context messages (Gudykunst & Matsumoto, 1996; Karandashev, 2021).

For people in high-context-dependent cultures, in addition to the content of a message, its context is highly informative in terms of its implicit, unspoken, and hidden cultural connotations. Therefore, they put special emphasis on the circumstances of a situation, status relations, invited people, rituals, elaborate greetings, and many other contextual details. They convey their messages mostly through contextual expressions. They convey more meaning than they say. The recipient just needs to be able to decode unspoken messages. They are very polite to everyone. How well they can say “no” without saying “no” can be superb (Karandashev, 2021).

The typical societies of the high-context cultures are China, Taiwan, Japan, and Korea, the so-called Oriental cultures (Hall, 1984).

The Iberian cultures of Spanish and Portuguese societies, as well as Latin American cultures, are also high-context cultures. Societies of the southern and eastern Mediterranean and Indian cultural regions, such as the Turks, Greeks, and Arabs, also belong to high-context cultures.

In the United States, high-context cultures characterize certain cultural groups, such as Native Americans, Mexican Americans, and African Americans (Andersen, Hecht, Hoobler, & Smallwood, 2003; Hall, 1976, 1984; Lustig & Koester, 1999; see for review, Karandashev, 2021).

Variations in Low-context and High-context Cultures

Generally, Western individualistic societies tend to be low-context cultures, while Eastern collectivistic societies are high-context cultures, even though this division is not strictly along West-East lines. As we’ll see below, there is variation within those so-called Western and Eastern societies.

For example, European cultures, however, vary in their cultural norms in this regard. For example, the Germans and other northern Europeans are much lower in context-dependency than the Mediterranean, Spanish, Italian, and French people. This aspect of their communication and interaction affects many situations and relationships in their lives.

The Mixture of Low- and High-context Communication Styles

Many cultures have mixed styles of communication, which can depend on the types of relationships and areas of interaction. For instance, the cultures of England, France, and Italy have characteristics of both low-context and high-context cultures mixed with each other. People in those countries are less explicit in their communication than in other Western European and North American countries. Nevertheless, they are more explicit than people in Eastern countries like Japan and China, for example.

Proxemics and Immediacy in Interpersonal Communication

Posted on by

In this article, I define what proxemics and immediacy in interpersonal communication are. I also explain what the proxemic zones and immediacy of communication tell us about relationships. Cultural variations in the use of proxemics and immediacy still exist.

What Is Proxemic Communication?

Proxemics (distance), kinesics (body language), and haptics (touch) are important nonverbal messages that we use in our communication.

Proxemics is a form of nonverbal communication in which personal and social spaces of interaction convey specific meanings about interpersonal relationships. Such spatial signs and behavioral indicators express, tacitly or explicitly, certain cultural connotations.

Proxemic communication relies on the spatial distance that we keep with others around us during interaction, conversation, or just passing by. The space we leave between the other person and ourselves can signal many things about our relationships.

The American cultural anthropologist Edward Hall proposed the proxemic theory (Hall, 1966). He characterized proxemics as the hidden dimension that focused on how people in different cultures used physical space in their communication with others.

Edward Hall outlined spatial zones that characterize typical interpersonal distances that people in Western cultures tend to maintain in different kinds of social relations.

Proxemic Zones

Proxemics describe the relative distances between people in communication. These are the four proxemic zones of social interaction. E. Hall classified and defined them as public space, social space, personal space, and intimate space.

  • “Public distance” is the distance typical for public speeches and interactions. This distance is approximately greater than 210 cm. At this distance, there is little eye contact between the people who are talking, and their voices sound at a high volume. 
  • “Social distance” is the distance that is maintained during formal interactions. This distance is approximately 122-210 cm. At this distance, communicators use only visual and auditory messages.
  • “Personal distance” is the distance that is maintained during informal interactions with friends. This distance is about 46–122 cm. At this distance, communicators rely on visual and auditory contact. Facial expressiveness and vocalizations increase.
  • “Intimate distance” is the distance that is maintained in close relationships. This distance is approximately 0 to 46 cm. At this distance, communicators’ visual perceptions are blurred. A voice is low-pitched, soft, and quiet. Perception of temperature, olfactory, and touch senses play a greater role.

What Is Immediacy?

I call these territorial and spatial facets of communication “immediacy.” This cultural concept characterizes the preferred proximity of interpersonal relationships, psychological closeness, and behavioral closeness between people that is prevalent in a society (Karandashev, 2021).

The psychological concept of immediacy is closely associated with communicative concepts of proxemics.

Immediacy is an invisible psychological bubble we feel beyond our bodies. We can call it “personal space.” Individuals tend to prefer a certain personal space with other people depending on what kind of relationship they are in and how culturally appropriate it is.

The immediacy is evident in interpersonal interactions ranging from proximity to spatial distance.

What Does Immediacy Tell Us About Relationships?

Western scholars and laypeople often interpret physical closeness as a sign of accessibility, approach inclination, and warmth, while a physical distant space is interpreted as a sign of inaccessibility, avoidance inclination, and psychological detachment. Initiating and maintaining a certain distance in interpersonal communication can be evident in several expressions of nonverbal behavior (Andersen, 1985; Andersen & Andersen, 1984).

Psychological immediacy of interaction is characterized by close proximity in interaction, open body positions, eye contact, smiling, more vocal animation, touching, and expressiveness. When people have a relaxed or positive relationship with each other, they are more likely to reciprocate such behaviors.

Psychological distant interaction is characterized by greater distance in interaction, close body positions, a lack of eye contact, a lack of smiling, less vocal animation, a lack of touching, and less expressiveness. When people have a tense or negative relationship, they tend to reciprocate such immediate behaviors.

Cultural Variations in the Understanding of Proxemics and Immediacy

Due to cultural evolution, social ideas of territoriality and appropriate territorial space evolved. The territorial spaces that are identified as “ours” and “mine” vary across human societies and depend on several cultural factors (Hall & Hall, 1990; Karandashev, 2021).

Therefore, the Western psychological interpretation of proxemics and immediacy may be inadequate from a cross-cultural perspective. Explanations of spatial distance can vary across cultures (Karandashev, 2021).

Cultural connotations of proxemics and immediacy are closely associated with corresponding understandings of intimacy in close relationships in different cultures (see another article).

How Expressive Is the Culture of Intimacy in a Relationship

Posted on by

The feeling of intimate belonging fulfills people’s needs for intimacy. However, people can satisfy their need to belong in various ways in different cultures, depending on their norms. A distinction between collectivistic (interdependent) and individualistic (independent) values is especially important for our understanding of intimacy as a fulfilled need to belong.

The Cultures of Intimacy in Collectivistic and Individualistic Societies

People in an individualistic, independence-oriented society like the United States are constantly assured from childhood that they belong and are loved. Yet, as they grow in childhood, parents encourage them to be independent and autonomous. Over time, they feel proudly autonomous, yet they may feel a little lonely. Parents are busy with their jobs and own problems. Therefore, teenagers strive to break through such lonely autonomy and look for other intimate bonds, such as moving in with someone else, marriage, and family.

People in a collectivistic, family-oriented society like Japan feel embedded in a family group from childhood. They implicitly feel these intimate ties with other members of the family. Therefore, they do not really need the reassurance of intimacy in family bonds. This is why they don’t really feel the need for another source of reassurance of intimate belonging from their marital partner, at least not to the same degree as people in individualistic cultures do.

What Is Special about Japanese Intimacy?

Some studies have shown that Japanese intimacy is not low – just different from North American and Western European views and notions of intimacy (see for review, Karandashev, 2019).

As I said above, Euro-Americans living in individualistic, middle-class, or urban cultures are proud of being independent in relationships. However, despite this feeling of being autonomous, they feel an obvious need to belong to their parents’ family.

When pushed out of their parental nest, they look for another source (a partner) to whom they could belong. And, as before in childhood, they need to feel from others that they are accepted and doing a “good job!” And they frequently do this to each other, both verbally and explicitly. It is because they have an implicit feeling of autonomy and independence. They need to hear that “they are doing great!” explicitly and repeatedly. Yet their need to belong must also be assured through direct verbal communication.

On the other hand, Japanese people have different cultural socialization strategies and childrearing philosophies. Children living in a collectivistic culture from birth already feel embedded in their family ties. Their model of attachment in childhood is culturally different. They are already aware of their intimate connections with other members of their family. Therefore, they don’t need constant and explicit verbal confirmation that they belong, as European Americans do (see, for instance, Keller, 2013, 2018).

This is why the Japanese may appear less direct in their intimate communication. It is because they understand it implicitly. However, Japanese couples in committed love relationships are high only in such qualities of intimacy as mind reading, compassion, assurance, and social network support (Roland, 1988).

Expressive versus Low-expressive Intimacies

The comparison of Japanese culture, as an East-Asian collectivistic culture, with European-American culture, as a Western individualistic culture of expressions of intimacy, might be simplistic. Many other non-collectivistic cultures can still be reserved and emotionally inhibited in their communicative preferences.

The difference in high-contact versus low-contact cultural values could be another explanation. Not only are Asian societies low-contact cultures (Barnlund, 1975; Klopf & Thompson, 1991; McDaniel & Andersen, 1998).

The Cultures of Low-Expressive Intimacies

People in Scandinavian and Nordic societies also display a low-expressive style of interpersonal interaction (see more in Karandashev, 2021).

Finns, like Norwegians and Swedes, prefer silent speech with relatively long pauses and slow-moving turns of speech. They often listen to each other without external evidence or feedback, yet this is their way of listening most attentively (Nishimura, Nevgi, & Tella, 2008; Tella, 2005).

For instance, in Finnish culture, people use the word “rakkaus” (love) only occasionally. Several other Finnish words implying the emotions of love without direct reference to the word “rakkaus” are also used by Finns (Haavio-Mannila & Roos, 1999).

Here is a folklore anecdote on Nordic marital intimacy. A Finnish couple, husband Eino and wife Aino, are celebrating their 5-year anniversary of marriage. She asked:

  • Eino, do love me?

Eino answered:

  • Yes, Aino, I already told you about this five years ago. If something changes, I will let you know.

This joking folklore anecdote is surely an exaggeration. But the reserved expression of intimacy is quite common for Nordic people, such as in Norway, Sweden, and Finland, as well as for East-Asian people, such as in Japan, China, and Korea.

The Japanese Dating Culture of “Tsukiau” Relationships

Posted on by

This article describes the Japanese dating culture. It is evident in the cultural practices of “tsukiau” relationships between men and women. These are some kinds of romantic relationships with Japanese cultural characters.

In another place, I consider when and how young Japanese start dating, what Japanese “group dating” is, and how “confession” serves as a step towards intimacy.

The Japanese word “tsukiau” (“going steady”) means steady dating relationships. Farrer and colleagues studied what and how young Japanese experience being involved in such relationships (Farrer et al., 2008).

What Are the Functions of Tsukiau Relationships?

Men and women engage in tsukiau relationships to enjoy the pleasure of intimate emotional and sexual relations and to experience feelings of closeness, comfort, and support. Like American dating, Japanese tsukiau relationships do not assume the imminence or expectations of a wedding or marriage.

Partners are aware of the various circumstances involved. And before making a marriage commitment, they weigh several conditions, such as personal, family, career, and financial obstacles. Therefore, they know they should wait for such a responsible decision.

However, their dreams, thoughts, and conversations about marriage still allow partners to express themselves. They discuss their prospects for the future. They believe that their romantic love (“renai“) and relationship will keep going.

How Intimate Japanese Men and Women Are in Their Tsukiau Relationships

When men and women are in “tsukiau” relationships, they perceive intimacy, along with passion and commitment, as their primary experiences. Partners assume and appreciate closeness, intimacy, and comfort. They like spending more time together (issho ni sugosu). For them, just being together brings psychological support (sasae), comfort (anshin, kokochiyosa), and even healing (iyashi).

When Japanese men and women are in a tsukiau relationship, then just being together is a way to express their personal feelings of love. A desire to be together is accompanied by an expectation of communication (komyunicasyon), dialogue (taiwa), and conversation (kaiwd) between partners.

They enjoy seeing each other by meeting up and talking in person (issho ni ini). They pay special attention to such events as the relationship anniversary, a partner’s birthday, Valentine’s Day, and “White Day.” They often exchange gifts and go to locations that have special meanings for them, such as the place of their first date. They go out, catch a movie, eat at a restaurant, or spend special time at home. These things bring joy and delight to their tsukiau relationship. All this communication reignites and strengthens their feelings of commitment while their relationships progress.

How Sexually Intimate the Japanese Are in the Tsukiau Relationship

Men and women in tsukiau relationships frequently engage in sexual intimacy. The expressed desire for sex (ecchi wo suru) is a central expression of passion (netsujou) and romance (koi). A formal “confession” (kokuhaku) establishes an expectation of sex. Having sex is a matter of course. It is the key feature that distinguishes being in a tsukiau relationship from simply being a friend. Many may have sex at least once a week.

For Japanese boys and girls, having sex is a way to increase communicative intimacy in the relationship. For many, sex looks like an intimate form of verbal and physical communication. Others pursue sex for the fulfillment of other motivations and emotions.

Excessive Intimacy and over-commitment can be a burden for Japanese men and women

Japanese men and women recognize that excessive intimacy and over-commitment can be perceived negatively as a burden (Farrer et al., 2008).

Expansive and accepted intimacy and commitment can restrict partners. In a tsukiau relationship, emotional attachments can evolve into implicit or explicit restrictions on a partner’s and their own behaviors, thoughts, and feelings. Men and women in a relationship acknowledge that they restrict their partners, just as their partners restrict themselves.

For example, controlling and monitoring the partner’s actions, thoughts, and jealousy impose such constraints. Excessive intimacy can make a person or their partner feel tethered and controlled. They can feel a loss of their independence. Therefore, sometimes they think of avoiding excessive restrictions (sokubaku), and feelings of excessive “restrictions” are among their frequent complaints.

According to the study, in more than 50% of cases, young Japanese people say they take restrictive measures against their partner. They also admit they have experienced such restrictions from a partner. Persistent expectations of the need for conversations, emails, and other messages sometimes make men and women in a tsukiau relationship feel irritated. Therefore, they tend to dislike, argue, and loathe such restrictions (Farrer et al., 2008).

Restrictive Intimacy, Obligations, and Trust in the Tsukiau Relationship

Emotional intimacy presumes and advances interpersonal trust. Nevertheless, apprehensive jealousy—even without any reasonable basis—is inevitable for some possessive people.

The obsessive thoughts and actions can become annoyingly restrictive. The explicit display of jealousy can undermine trust in a tsukiau relationship. Then, it is expected that partners should avoid expressing their feelings of jealousy.

Men and women in a tsukiau relationship may feel the intense and anxious emotions of their partners as overly weighty. When a partner is emotionally over-involved in a relationship, a person feels and expresses concerns, which the Japanese call “heaviness” (omoi). Many partners believe that such pressure and the “heaviness” of an overly committed partner should be avoided. Such serious over-involvement, feelings of heaviness, and disbalanced devotion can trigger a breakup (Farrer et al., 2008).

Interpersonal Self-Disclosure Differs in Different Cultures 

Posted on by

Self-disclosure is the way an individual communicates and shares personal information with another. Values and opinions, goals and aspirations, plans and thoughts, feelings and preferences, achievements and failures, fears and hopes, dreams and disappointments—all these internal personal things can be disclosed. They can be private and confidential to a greater or lesser extent. Some information can be sensitive because it makes a person vulnerable in a relationship.

Self-disclosure can be verbal or nonverbal. People differ in their willingness to self-disclose.

Cultural patterns of self-disclosure in romantic and marital relationships vary across societies. Societies differ in their cultural norms of how close the interpersonal relationship between partners should be and how emotionally intimate they should be in a close relationship.

Intimacy as Self-disclosure

Self-disclosure of personal information is the way to express intimacy in relationships. Partners do this both verbally and nonverbally. Many Western scholars and laypeople conceptualize intimacy as self-disclosure, as the way of revealing personal values, thoughts, and feelings to another person. Many European Americans consider such experiences and expressions as important things for personal growth and relationship satisfaction, while many Asians and Asian Americans don’t think this way.(Altman & Taylor, 1973; Derlega, et al., 1993; Ignatius & Kokkonen, 2007; Jourard, 1971; Sprecher & Hendrick, 2004, see Karandashev, 2019, for review).

Cultural Differences in Self-disclosure

Cross-cultural studies have shown that the degree of self-disclosure between American partners is usually higher than between Japanese or Chinese partners. These cultural differences might be due to their differences in individualism and collectivism as cultural values (Barnlund, 1975; Chen, 1995; Hocker and Wilmot, 1995; Gudykunst & Nishida, 1983; Ting-Toomey, 1991; see for a review, Karandashev, 2019).

For instance, spouses in North America communicate verbally more than Chinese spouses. Self-disclosure is frowned upon in Chinese culture, which encourages greater self-restraint in marital communication and limited self-disclosure. These differences can be due to differences in corresponding cultural values. Alternatively, people in different cultures can express their personal information and feelings in various ways (Chen, 1995; Hocker & Wilmot, 1995; Fitzpatrick et al., 2006; Juang & Tucker, 1991; see Karandashev, 2019 for a review). 

The boundaries and meanings of privacy, intimacy, and self-expression may differ across cultures. Various aspects of what is viewed as private, intimate, and public are culturally determined (Coffey, 2017; Heitler, 2012; Moore, 2003).

Self-disclosure in Individualistic Western Cultures

Western individualistic cultures consider self-disclosure as the prototypical expression of intimacy (Jamieson, 1998, 1999). For example, North American culture encourages men and women to communicate in relationships in an open, direct, and assertive manner. As a result, Americans naturally use self-disclosure to lower emotional distance and foster marital intimacy (Bradford et al., 2002; Hocker & Wilmot, 1995; Rosenfeld & Bowen, 1991; see for a review, Karandashev, 2019).

American men and women believe that self-disclosure with a partner is a vital process to achieve closeness in a relationship. This possibility reflects their individualistic ideals like independence, autonomy, self-assertion, and directness. This perspective appears to be more consistent with an American emphasis on verbal and non-verbal self-expression than with a Chinese emphasis on restraint and silence.

Self-disclosure in Collectivistic Eastern Cultures

Sharing personal information and the exchange of feelings are less important in East Asian cultural settings (Chen, 1995; Goodwin & Lee, 1994). For example, Chinese and Japanese cultural norms teach people to be restrained and reserved in interpersonal interactions. Societies frown upon being too expressive.

These cultural factors determine the manner of reserved self-disclosure in Chinese marital relationships. According to research findings, Chinese native spouses disclose less than North American spouses. For Chinese men and women, self-disclosure can reflect their collectivistic values like harmony, connectivity, and solidarity (Chen, 1995; Hocker and Wilmot, 1995; Fitzpatrick et al., 2006; Wolfson & Pearce, 1983; see for a review, Karandashev, 2019).

In Chinese households, disclosure is layered: the most intimate expressions are shared with the spouse, while less sensitive information is shared with other family members or strangers. As a result, in both cultures, a married relationship can be intimate yet linked to different social values (Ow & Katz, 1999).

The Culturally High Emotional Expressiveness of Love

Posted on by

The studies presented in this article show that high levels of emotional expressiveness have become culturally normative forms of self-expression in modern societies.

Multiple studies throughout the decades have reported numerous cross-cultural findings on how physical types of appearance, such as skin, body, and face, are perceived by men and women as attractive in their desired mates.

These qualities are the static physical features that researchers expose to people in pictures. Surprisingly, many of these attractive qualities are similar across cultures, yet many of these qualities are specific to some societies living in specific ecological, social, and cultural conditions.

The static physiological characteristics of beauty are especially important in traditional collectivistic (see another post). However, in modernized individualistic societies, their importance for partnership has substantially decreased. Instead, expressive characteristics of physical appearance, such as expressive faces, bodies, smiles, deodorants, original hair styles, and clothes, have become more valuable in modern societies (Karandashev, 2022a).

The Cultures of High Emotional Expressiveness versus Low Emotional Expressiveness

A comprehensive meta-analysis of multiple studies has revealed the two typologies of expressivity in emotional life across cultures.

  • One typology identified (a) expressive and (b) non-expressive cultural models of emotions.
  • Another typology identified cultural models of (c) direct and (d) indirect emotional expressivity.

Each of these models represents a spectrum of variations representing a diversity of ways in which people express their emotions across different societies, rather than dichotomies (Karandashev, 2021).

The patterns of emotional expressiveness are apparently different between highly expressive cultures, preferred and prevalent among European Americans, and low-expressive cultures, preferred and prevalent among East Asians (Karandashev, 2021).

A meta-analysis of numerous studies undertaken across 26 countries discovered that people in societies with higher levels of individualism are more emotionally expressive. Men and women living in wealthy societies are not necessarily emotionally expressive, while social and political factors in those societies affect expressivity. In countries that respect democracy and human rights, people are generally more emotionally expressive. People in politically stable societies are also more expressive of their positive emotions (Van Hemert, Poortinga, & van de Vijver, 2007).

In modern individualistic societies, the expressive nonverbal behavior of men and women is displayed in closer proximity in interaction: open body position, eye contact, more vocal animation, touching, smiling, and expressiveness. When partners mutually love each other, they tend to reciprocate these kinds of behaviors (Andersen & Andersen, 1984).

The Cultural Values of Emotional Self-expression in Modern Societies

Recent cross-cultural research showed that people in comparatively modernized societies differ from traditional ones in the physical characteristics that they view as more valuable in their love partners. Data revealed that modernized individualistic societies (such as France, Portugal, and the USA) are mainly self-expression cultures, which are characterized by a decreased value of the Power Distance and prevalent values of Individualism, Indulgence, and Emancipation. These cultures are largely liberal and encourage open and sincere facial and body expressiveness (Karandashev et al., 2016, 2020).

The culturally determined dynamic, flexible, and expressive physical qualities of a partner’s appearance, such as an expressive face and body, a smile, expressive speaking, outfits, and fashion, are especially valuable for men and women in more modernized societies. Fashion does not require one to follow cultural conventions. It is more about personal style. It encourages self-expression rather than conformism to social rules (Karandashev et al., 2016, 2020).

Expressive Individualism of European American Culture

For instance, expressive individualism is one of the most important features of European-American culture. Men and women communicate with others by expressing their feelings. Personal feelings are of the utmost importance to them (Lutz, 1988). Their emotional styles are more expressive than the suppressive styles found in East Asian cultures. European Americans tend to be more emotionally expressive than Japanese, both verbally and non-verbally (Matsumoto et al., 1988).

People in expressive societies, such as the United States and some countries in Europe, often rely on overt behaviors and explicit messages (Hall, 1976; Lustig & Koester, 1999). Men and women in those cultures are consistently in contact with their feelings. They trust verbal communication of emotions, preferring direct and explicit emotional messages. People from other cultures frequently perceive them as excessively talkative and emotional in interpersonal communication.

The Cultural Values of Verbal Emotional Expressiveness

People in emotionally expressive cultures rely on verbal communication when they interact with each other. People in the United States, for example, find more verbally expressive men and women more attractive (Elliott et al., 1982).

Women and men, especially men, are less sensitive to nonverbal communication. They have difficulties understanding such aspects of relationships as unarticulated emotions, moods, and subtle gestures (Andersen, Hecht, Hoobler, & Smallwood, 2003; Hall, 1976).

How Does Self-expression Affect Life Satisfaction?

Across 46 countries, in modernized societies with high values of self-expression, such as the Netherlands, the USA, Canada, and Australia, the expression of positive emotions determined greater life satisfaction than in countries with prevalent values of survival, such as Russia, Hungary, China, and Zimbabwe (Kuppens et al., 2008).

For example, Americans are very expressive when they communicate their happiness to others. And happiness is one of the most admired focal emotions in American culture (see for review: Mesquita & Leu, 2007).

Here Are Some Other Related Articles on This Topic

To better understand the low level of expressed emotion in collectivistic cultures, it is interesting to compare how people experience and express emotions in individualistic cultures and how the culturally low emotional expressiveness of love is culturally valuable in traditional collectivistic societies.

It is also interesting to know about,