Category Archives: What is it?

scholarly ground explanations for the concepts related to love

How Social Propinquity Leads to Love

Posted on by

The article explains how social propinquity and residential proximity affect our interpersonal relationships, love, and marriage.

Men and women tend to like those with whom they get together frequently. In social science, this is called the “propinquity effect.”

They have favorable attitudes and interpersonal attraction towards them, unless there is some aversion from the first encounters. Social psychologists call this phenomenon the “mere exposure effect.”

This is often how our positive relationships and in-group bias develop. This is how we often find friends and fall in love with a girl or boy in our immediate proximity. This can be a benchmate, a classmate sitting next to you, or a guy living nearby in the neighborhood. This can be a spatial or virtual proximity between people who meet in person or online.

The Effect of Residential Proximity and Social Propinquity on Love

Residential propinquity is the geographic proximity and physical closeness between people residing in certain neighborhoods. Spatial nearness is an important factor for the initiation of different kinds of relationships (e.g., Alphonso, 2016).

As for romantic and marital relationships, the role of propinquity is evident both in traditional and modern societies.

How Residential Propinquity Affects Marital Choice in the United States

In America, the early studies examined the residential propinquity of couples in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and New Haven, Connecticut. In 1931, sociologists examined the residential distance between the partners before they dated each other. About one-third of married couples resided within five or fewer blocks of each other when they first met. In cases where men and women resided farther from each other, the chance of marriage was lower—markedly and steadily (Bossard, 1932; Davie & Reeves, 1939).

Residential segregation was the most likely ecological factor explaining why propinquity influences marriage selection. Homogamy of economic, social, and cultural traits as well as ethnic endogamy could also explain why closer neighbors are more likely to marry each other. The propinquity effect was especially strong among American Jews, American Italians, and African Americans, probably due to their tendencies to settle in proximity to their cultural residential communities (Kennedy, 1943).

Another American study was conducted in the 1950s in Duluth, Minnesota, demonstrating the same propinquity effect.

Only “one-fifth of all the couples lived within five or less blocks of each other. The percentage of marriages decreased as the distance between residences increased…”

(Marches & Turbeville, 1953, p. 592).

However, the results showed a weaker propinquity impact than the earlier study in Philadelphia 20 years before. The effect of residential propinquity in marriage selection was once again confirmed. However, the importance of geographical location was lower—likely due to historical changes in the degree of residential segregation.

How Residential Propinquity Affects Marital Choice in New Zealand

Researchers also found the effect of residential propinquity and segregation of social status groups on marital choice in their study in Christchurch, New Zealand (Morgan, 1981).

How Residential Propinquity Affects Marital Choice in Israel

Another study was conducted in Israel, a society where young men and women often reside far from their permanent home regions (due to military service) for several years. As a result of such high mobility among youth, the effect of residential propinquity on dating was less important. The marriage records of 1974–1975 obtained in a centrally located town showed that the effect of residential propinquity on marital choice is lower in that country, with some variations. Cultural factors, however, influenced the effects of residential propinquity: Jews of Eastern origins were more affected by propinquity than Jews of Western origins (Tabory & Weller, 1986).

Residential propinquity and marital choice in India and Pakistan

How Residential Propinquity Affects Marital Choice in India

The factor of territorial propinquity is salient in tribal and traditional societies with limited relational mobility, such as the Lingāyats, a religious group in southern India. Interviews with the heads of the Lingāyat families in a suburb of Dharwar City showed that kinship marriage is preferential. Endogamy and hypergamy are very important rules of mate selection. The rules of this cultural group’s endogamy determine the geographical propinquity of their marital relationships (Chekki, 1968).

How Residential Propinquity Affects Marital Choice in Pakistan

The same role of residential propinquity was found in the study of an urban Muslim community in Karachi, the largest city in Pakistan, conducted in 1961–1964 (Korson, 1968). While among the lower class, the residential distance between husband and wife at the time of marriage was shorter, in the upper social class, the residential distance was higher.

Residential Propinquity and Homogamy in Relationships

The residential structure of a neighborhood according to socioeconomic class, race, and ethnicity, as well as limited communication between cultural groups, certainly lead to segregation. Such segregation, along with propinquity, can be a factor affecting in-group bias in marital choice. Propinquity usually causes homogamy: partners are more favorable to one another in the same local community, church, city, or country. Due to these factors, partners in a dating relationship are often similar to each other in social class, culture, religious affiliation, and education.

Although propinquity generally means physical proximity, modern online technologies of mating extend the concept and expand the opportunities for meeting potential partners. The reported level of intimacy in computer-mediated relationships is not related to the physical distance between partners. Geographical distance does not play the same role in this case as the level of self-disclosure (Merkle & Richardson, 2004).

Among the Other Topics of Interest in this Regard Are:

What Is Beautiful Is Culturally Good

Posted on by

Many people are familiar with the stereotypical expression “what is beautiful is good” (see, for review, Karandashev, 2022a; also another article on this below). However, this stereotype in many cultures is less powerful and more context-specific than researchers previously thought (see for review, Lemay, et al., 2010; Swami & Furnham, 2008).

Cultural Stereotypes of What an Attractive Appearance Is

These beauty stereotypes differ across cultures in terms of their specific content and the value that people place on it. Attractive appearance can signal not only fertility but also kindness, emotional stability, pleasing disposition, intelligence, and dependable character (Fugère, Madden, & Cousins, 2019; Yela & Sangrador, 2001).

Cultures Differ in the Importance of Attractive Appearance for Mating

Cultures differ in how men and women look at the importance of standards of beauty and physical attractiveness for mating relationships. These stereotypes of interpersonal perception based on physical attractiveness depend on cultural values. “What is beautiful is culturally good“(Anderson, 2019; Anderson, Adams, & Plaut, 2008; Wheeler & Kim, 1997).

The Importance of Beauty Differs in Independent and Interdependent Societies

Beauty and attractive appearance are more important in independent cultures, such as mainstream American society, which places a high value on autonomy and places a premium on personal choice when it comes to dating. In contrast, in interdependent societies, people consider beauty and attractive appearances less important. The cultures of Korea in Southeast Asia and Ghana in Africa have different expectations in this regard.

These cultures place a high value on embeddedness and emphasize ties with social networks. Physical attractiveness is related to diminished value in everyday life due to limited societal affordances (Anderson, Adams, & Plaut, 2008; Wheeler & Kim, 1997).

How Gender Equality Affects the Importance of Beauty and Attractive Appearances

The gender differences in men’s and women’s mating preferences for beauty and attractive appearance in a prospective partner vary depending on the value of gender equality in a society. For example, in the Netherlands, where the value of gender equality is high, the gender differences are smaller. However, in Germany, where cultural norms of gender roles are more conventional and gender equality is lower, these differences are larger.

The cultures of many other societies follow more traditional norms of gender roles and have even less gender equality. Consequently, men and women differ even more in their preferences for beauty in a prospective partner (Buss et al., 1990; De Raad & Doddema-Winsemius, 1992).

What Are the Features of Physical Appearance that Societies Consider Beautiful?

There are also cultural differences in which physical traits people consider appealing in a person for their love relationship. They depend on local conditions of living, relationship mobility, and cultural norms.

Men prefer women with more fat in subsistence-based societies, in which gatherers and hunters produce only for their own survival and therefore can deal with the danger of food shortages (e.g., Anderson et al., 1992; Brown and & Konnor, 1987; Sugiyama, 2004).

Such mating preferences people have in the foraging, hunting, or horticultural communities of

  • the Zulu people in South African (Tovée, Swami, Furnham, & Mangalparsad, 2006),
  • the Hadza, a native group of people in north-central Tanzania of East Africa (Wetsman & Marlowe, 1999),
  • the Yali of Papua – an aboriginal tribal group in the rocky terrain in Papua, Indonesia (Sorokowski & Sorokowska, 2012), and
  • Shiwiar (Achuar), an ethnic tribe of Ecuadorian Amazonia in South America (Sugiyama, 2004).

When people’s ecological and social circumstances change due to exposure to a new social environment, they can adjust their attitudes toward what is beautiful and what is now. The Zulu people of South Africa, who immigrated to the UK, have shown remarkable adaptability (Tovée, Swami, Furnham, & Mangalparsad, 2006).

Other articles of interest on the topic are

Our Predisposition to Homogamy in Love

Posted on by

Genetic similarity and social homogamy play important roles in our interpersonal attraction and love.

As I showed elsewhere, genetic resemblance between individuals predisposes them to fall in love. Partners in a couple share more genetic traits than random strangers. Nonetheless, it may be misleading to conclude that people fall in love solely due to their genetic similarity.

Many other life circumstances, individual preferences, and socio-cultural characteristics also play an important role. Besides, social and cultural predispositions to homogamy increase the similarity of loving partners even more.

Assortative mating, or homogamy, as a predisposition to choose a similar partner for a relationship, is evident in many social, economic, and cultural characteristics. Among those are social class, socioeconomic status, education, religion, ethnicity, caste, gender, and age. They can have a significant impact on who men and women select to love and marry. Let us consider some of them.

The Interpersonal Attraction of Social and Economic Homogamy

In many societies, homogamy and endogamy in terms of race, ethnicity, religion, and socioeconomic status are especially important for marriage. Generally, people prefer relationships with individuals of similar social and economic groups, ethnicity, religion, age, and educational level (Kalmijn, 1994, 1998).

The principles of homogamy intentionally or unintentionally motivate men and women to select partners from similar social, economic, or cultural backgrounds. They tend to date and mate with those who are similar to them in social and economic status and belong to the same cultural group. At the early stages of a relationship, men and women often pay less attention to this homogamy with a prospective mate. They tend to rely on their immediate emotions. Nonetheless, as the relationship progresses, they certainly take these factors into consideration.

However, in some traditional cultures, such as India, the economic exchange often takes place in marriage arrangements. In some cases, when a person marries a spouse from a higher social stratum, sociologists call such a marriage hypergamy—“marrying up.” In this type of mating relationship, women often marry men of a slightly higher social class than their own (Van Den Berghe, 1960).

This is also considered “upward mobility,” when women or men from low socio-economic classes prefer to date a potential partner of high economic status. This relationship would advance their status in society (Blossfeld & Timm, 2003).

Nonetheless, in many modern societies, there is a tendency toward homogamy in mating based on economic status. The plots in which a rich prince accidentally meets and marries a poor girl are good for fairy tales and modern romantic movies. However, they are far from the reality of life.

A good financial prospect in a prospective mate is important for both women’s and, surprisingly, for men’s preferences (Eastwick & Finkel, 2008).

Interpersonal Attraction of Religious Homogamy

According to surveys, people consider similar faith and affiliation to be a very important factor in their marriage choice. Their religious families often care about this even more (see for review, Karandashev, 2017, 2019).

For instance, in Jordanian traditional conservative culture, people expect as their top preference that a prospective mating partner should be of the same religion (Khallad, 2005).

In modern Western European societies, many people do not consider religious beliefs important for love. For example, many American university students do NOT rate the religious affiliation of a prospective partner as an important quality.

However, in the seemingly modern society of the USA, where religion has historically played an important role in societal life and politics, the value of religiosity for mating varies across states and cultural groups. For example, American respondents from Texas, a conservative state, rated a similar religious background as essential in prospective mates (Buss et al., 2001).

Some cultural groups in America also place a high value on the religiosity of a prospective mating partner. For instance, modern Muslim women living in the United States prefer and seek a religious marriage partner (Badahdah & Tiemann, 2005).

Interpersonal Attraction of Educational Homogamy

Across many societies throughout history, husbands were usually more educated than their wives. Husbands might need education for their breadwinner’s work, while wives working in the household and taking care of children presumably did not need education.

In recent decades, women have received more opportunities for education and have expressed an interest in studying. Gender educational equality has substantially increased, providing more opportunities for contact and communication between educated men and women. Because of this, they frequently preferred relationships with equal partners. Colleges and universities have become the places where men and women have the opportunity to meet and marry (Blossfeld, 2009; Blossfeld & Timm, 2003).

Educational homogamy between men and women in dating relationships has increased in many modern societies. Marriage partners become homogamous couples in terms of education in such countries as

However, in many countries, another trend occurs. College education became more prevalent among women than among men. Women with higher education outnumbered men. Therefore, the number of women who marry downward has increased (De Rose & Fraboni, 2016; Esteve, García‐Román, & Permanyer, 2012).

Interpersonal Attraction and Love in Egalitarian Societies

Nowadays, in modern egalitarian societies, many men and women usually have equal access to financial, social, and educational resources. That means better chances for equal relationships and marriage. All these societal factors reflect on the ways young people form relationships (see for review, Karandashev, 2023).

The other articles of interest on this topic are

Love Words Across Languages and Cultures

Posted on by

Why do people use so many love words? What is the meaning behind all these love words? Love is so diverse in its variety of meanings and connotations, such as attraction and attachment, passion and compassion, intimacy and commitment, that a variety of words and expressions have emerged across times, societies, languages, and cultural contexts.

How People in Different Cultures Say “Love” and “I love you“

Some of the most widely known love words are French amour, Spanish amor, Italian amore, English love, German Liebe, and Russian любовь (lyubov’). The least known are probably Sanskrit sringara (śṛṅgāra), Indonesian asmara, Chinese ài (爱), Japanese koi (恋) or ai (愛), Arabic hubb (‘حب’), Persian and Arabic ishq (ešq or eshgh), as well as several other languages of Muslim countries with some variations in the spelling. Each language has a variety of love words for different kinds of love (see Karandashev, 2017, 2019).

With increasing intercultural communication (see for review, Karandashev, 2017), people sometimes wonder how to say “I love you” in a language other than their own. The verbal and nonverbal expressions of love are diverse: the German Ich liebe Dich German, the Dutch Ik hou van jou, the Swedish Jag alskar dig, the Norwegian Jeg elsker deg, the Finnish Mina rakastan sinua, the French Je t’aime, the Spanish Te quiero/Te amo, the Italian Ti amo, the Farsi Dooset daram/ Ashegetam, the Turkish Seni Seviyorum, the Georgian Mikvarhar, the Ukrainian Ya tebe kohayu, the Russian Ya tebya liubliu, the Czech Miluji te, the Yiddish Ikh hob dikh, the Cantonese Chinese Ngo oi nei (vary in Mandarin and other Chinese languages), the Hindi Hum tumhe pyar karte hae, the Tamil Naan unnai kathalikiraen, the Tagalog Mahal kita, the Creole Mi aime jou, the Swahili (Bantu language) Nakupenda or Begg naa la.

Gender Specificity of Love Words

The grammatical gender of nouns can play a role in the forms of related words. There are no grammatical genders in such languages as English, Finnish, Estonian, Georgian, Armenian, Hungarian, Persian, Bengali, and Tamil. Nouns do not have a feminine or masculine gender, unless they refer to biological sex (e.g., girl, boy, man, woman, Mr., Ms.). Different from this, gendered languages, such as Arabic, Spanish, French, German, Russian, and Hindi, have the grammatical gender of a noun (e.g., masculine, feminine, neuter).

In Spanish, for instance, many masculine nouns (with some exceptions) end in the letter “o”—Latino, el niño (son), el tío (uncle), el dormitorio (bedroom), and feminine nouns end in the letter “a”—Latina, la hija (the daughter), la profesora (the teacher), la mesa (table). Not only people and animals, but also things, feelings, places, and ideas have a gender in a grammatical sense. Gendering words is conventional and can vary across languages. For example, the Spanish word la mesa (table) is feminine, whereas the German der Tisch (table) is masculine. These “gendered” nouns determine the forms of other related words. The forms of determiners, pronouns, adjectives, and verbs depend on the grammatical gender of the nouns they refer to.

Consequently, the ways people say “I love you” vary when they are addressed to a man or a woman. For example, in Arabic, one says “Ana uħibbuk” to a man and “Ana baħibbik” to a woman. In Hebrew, one says Ani ohev et otha to a man and Ani ohev otah to a woman. In Thai, Chan rak khun is addressed to a man, while Phom rak khun is addressed to a woman.

You may also be interested in the articles:

Where do you feel your love?

Love as a natural force

Body metaphors of emotions across cultures

Love-as-fire across European and North American cultures