Category Archives: cultural values

Cultural and Individual in Cross-cultural Comparisons

Posted on by

Many countries around the world have a diverse population in terms of races, ethnicities, religions, languages, and historical and cultural backgrounds of the people living in their territories. So, researchers widely investigate cross-cultural comparisons.

Even though people in many countries speak a common language, many others are multilingual. Among those are Canada, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Serbia, Moldova, Zimbabwe, India, and Singapore.

Even though people in many countries share a common history, cultural heritage, and ethnicity, many others are multiethnic. Throughout history, various cultural factors have compelled them to remain together on common lands. Among those are Bolivia, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, South Africa, Singapore, Indonesia, India, Canada, and the United States of America.

Do National Cultures Exist?

Cross-cultural comparisons show that despite the heterogeneity in languages, ethnicities, and other cultural characteristics, many nations share a common cultural background. Their sub-cultural variations, which compose their diversity, let them have some common national attributes and live peacefully together for centuries.

Cross-cultural comparisons have demonstrated that on such cultural parameters as Power Distance, Individualism-Collectivism, Masculinity vs. Femininity, Uncertainty Avoidance, and Long-Term Orientation versus Short-Term Orientation, various in-country regions of 28 countries in the Anglo world, Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast and East Asia clustered homogeneously along the national lines of 28 countries. The cases when those regions intermixed between borders were relatively uncommon.

Even in Mexico and Guatemala, or Malaysia and Indonesia, in which each pair of countries has common ethnic groups, religions, and official languages, the cultural divisions were along their national borders. Even the parts of African countries that are close to each other, like Ghana, Mali, and Burkina Faso, do not mix in clusters of cultural parameters (Minkov & Hofstede, 2012).

Individual Variations Within Cultures and Cross-cultural Comparisons

While people living in countries have common national cultures and maintain the diversity of subcultures, they still substantially vary in terms of social classes and individual and typological personality traits (Karandashev, 2021). These differences can expand beyond their national and cultural resemblances.

So, what do cross-cultural comparisons of country-averages of various individual variables, such as perceptions, emotions, attitudes, traits, and beliefs, tell us about national cultural differences? I believe they tell us many things, yet we shall take them with reservations, counting on possible limitations. The average scores of individual variables at the country level can mask and even conceal the individual variety of people within a country.

Many cross-cultural studies tend to average the variables they collect from cultural samples in several countries and compare their statistical means. This way, they presumably compare cultural similarities and differences between countries. Do they? But what if a within-country variation is higher than a between-country variation?

Methodological Pitfalls of Cross-cultural Comparisons

According to some experts, individual variation in some attributes within a country can be significant, while certain categories of people between nations can be similar to each other (Minkov & Hofstede, 2012).

Research has demonstrated that within-country variations in studies often exceed between-country variations (Karandashev, 2021).

A meta-analysis of multiple cross-cultural studies comparing love emotions and love attitudes across countries, for example, revealed that cross-cultural differences are frequently minimal (if any), statistically significant in many cases, but practically too small to be meaningful and scientifically worthwhile (Karandashev, 2019).

So, a question arises: how informative for cross-cultural analysis is a comparison of the statistical means of individual variables between countries? Sometimes, these statistical measures can be mindless (Gigerenzer, 2004; 2018). The aggregation of individual variables for a country’s sample of participants should be done with care. It is important to avoid a methodological fallacy, which I call “the average body temperature of the patients in a hospital.” It appears that not all statistics in cross-cultural research are meaningful.

For example, such aggregation showed that participants from an American sample had a high average score on the personality trait of extraversion. Thus, the USA seems like an extraverted culture, despite the subcultural and individual variety of the American people. Many of them have introverted personalities.

Therefore, what is cultural and what is individual should not be confused in research. Extraversion and introversion are personality traits, not cultural ones. When we say things like “extraverted” Americans or “hot” Italians, we should keep in mind that these are metaphorical cultural stereotypes rather than literal implications.

Corrections for the statistical artefacts related to methods can be valuable for obtaining valid results in cross-cultural studies and avoiding cultural bias. A meta-analysis of 190 studies of emotions conducted from 1967 to 2000 showed that

“a correction for statistical artefacts and method-related factors reduced the observed cross-cultural effect sizes considerably.”

(Van Hemert, Poortinga, van de Vijver, 2007, p. 913)

Country-level and Individual-level Cross-cultural Comparisons

Some scholars advocate the use of multilevel analysis in cross-cultural studies. Such multilevel methodology requires researchers to examine cultural variables at both the individual and national levels as distinct but interacting variables (Fischer, & Poortinga, 2018; Smith, Fischer, Vignoles, & Bond, 2013; Van de Vijver, van Hemert, & Poortinga, 2008).

For example, it is inadequate to assume that all participants from the United States are individualistic because they live in an individualist country. Similarly, it is not adequate to think that all individuals from East Asian countries are “collectivistic” (Fischer & Poortinga, 2018). Their individualistic and collectivistic values and attitudes on an individual level can vary.

For example, such multilevel cross-cultural analysis can describe cultural factors with corresponding sets of variables (Karandashev, 2021):

  • at the country level, these can be power distance, individualism of society, relational mobility, or context differentiation.
  • at the individual level, these can be personality traits, intensity, prevalent emotional valence, expressivity, or idiocentrism (psychological variable of individualism).

Thus, it is important to differentiate between cultural and individual variables. We shall recognize what is cultural and what is individual in a culture and treat them separately in research, even though we shall acknowledge that culture affects individual differences among people. American culture can certainly determine the prevalence of extraverted or introverted personalities in a society by their selective promotion or another way.

The Cultures Beyond the Global Western and Eastern Societies

Posted on by

For a very long time, scholars interested in cultures and their comparison have focused on Western and Eastern societies as distinctively different types of cultures. Such a cultural dichotomy was simple and easy to understand and explain in terms of philosophical, social, and psychological phenomena of culture.

The Categories of Western and Eastern Cultures

The concepts of West and East were quite vague and mainly exemplified with Western European and Northern American countries as typical instances of Western cultures and India, China, and Japan as typical examples of Eastern cultures.

The discovery of individualism and collectivism (Hofstede, 1980/1984), as the cultural characteristics that are different in those societies, became a widespread explanatory framework that overshadowed multiple other cultural differences between those countries.

Individualistic Western and Collectivistic Eastern Cultures

Individualistic Western societies are those located in North America and Western Europe, while collectivistic Eastern societies are those located in India, China, and Japan. All other countries in the world presumably fit into one of these global groups.

See more on Western versus Eastern cultures and on Western individualistic cultures and Eastern collectivistic cultures in other blog articles.

Further studies, however, indicate that several other cultural concepts can be useful in explaining social and psychological differences between countries. Several cross-cultural studies have also demonstrated the diversity of both Western and Eastern societies that extends far beyond the United States, Great Britain, the Netherlands, China, India, and Japan (Schwartz, 2014; Schwartz & Ros, 1995).

Researchers also found that many other countries and cultures don’t fit into either the Eastern or Western groups. They are more distinctive than the simple East-West dichotomy (Karandashev, 2021).

See more on the 5 differences between Western and Eastern cultures and on the Diversity of Western and Eastern cultures in other blog articles.

The time has come to look at the diverse societies of the world beyond the global West and East. Researchers revealed the complex, multifaceted, and multilayered natures of individualism and collectivism. They uncovered and identified the diversity of social and cultural factors beyond collectivism and individualism. Besides, societies and their cultural dimensions change, evolve, and transform over time (see review in Karandashev, 2021).

All these factors require an open-minded and flexible approach to modern cultural and cross-cultural studies.

Hofstede’s Cultural Dimensions

Dutch social psychologist Geert Hofstede identified and explored six cultural dimensions (Hofstede, 2011). These are

  • Individualism-Collectivism,
  • Power Distance,
  • Masculinity vs. Femininity,
  • Uncertainty Avoidance,
  • Long-Term Orientation vs. Short-Term Orientation,
  • Indulgence vs. Restraint.

Extensive cross-cultural studies have demonstrated the explanatory power of these dimensions that extends beyond individualism-collectivism and the West-East divide (see Karandashev, 2021).

Trompenaars’ Cultural Values

Another Dutch cross-cultural researcher, Alfonsus Trompenaars, proposed two country-level groups of values:

(1) egalitarian commitment versus conservatism,

(2) utilitarian involvement versus loyal involvement.

The author and his colleagues extensively investigated these values across many societies (Trompenaars & Hampden-Turner, 1998; see for review, Karandashev, 2021).

Schwartz Cultural Value Orientations

Social psychologist Shalom Schwartz created the theories of personal and cultural value orientations and extensively explored them across many countries in the world. Cultural values that characterize societies are in focus here.

His theory included seven country-level types of values. The author organizes these cultural values into three dimensions:

  • embeddedness versus autonomy,
  • hierarchy versus egalitarianism,
  • mastery versus harmony

The author depicts these seven cultural value orientations in a quasi-circumplex structure (Schwartz, 2014; see for review, Karandashev, 2021).

The Diversity of World Cultures

In recent years, researchers have delved deeper into the global cultural variation of societies beyond the traditional East-West cross-cultural dichotomy. The extensive exploration of various cultural factors and dimensions, which I noted above, allowed researchers to construct a more diverse cultural classification of world societies.

For example, cross-cultural studies found significant variations within West and East societies in terms of six of Schwartz’s cultural value orientations (Schwartz, 2014; Schwartz & Ros, 1995).

The data collected across many countries revealed eight global transnational cultural regions of the world that are distinctively different in terms of their cultural value orientations. These are

(1) English-speaking,

(2) West European,

(3) East Central and Baltic European,

(4) Orthodox East European,

(5) Latin American,

(6) South Asia,

(7) Confucian influenced, and

(8) African and Middle Eastern.

Typical patterns of cultural values describe these eight transnational regions of the world. Researchers noted, however, that these eight types of cultures do not exactly fit into defined regions.

Many studies have shown that these cultural dimensions determine people’s experiences and expressions of emotions and cultural models of love. They bring cross-cultural research beyond widely accepted individualism and collectivism (Karandashev, 2021, 2022).

The Diversity of Western and Eastern Cultures

Posted on by

For a long time, the cultural distinction between Western and Eastern cultures has been the subject of public debate and academic study.

Western cultures have usually been thought of as those of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, the Netherlands, the United States of America, and other partner countries. The origins of Western culture are regarded as being in ancient Greek and Roman cultures.

Eastern cultures have been deemed those of Japan, China, and India, which have long been thought of as Eastern cultures. Eastern cultures are believed to have their origins in ancient Confucian and Buddhist traditions.

Such a West versus East comparison of the world’s major cultures had historical foundations. And this distinction seems reasonable. Therefore, most previous cultural studies sought to understand how the “East” is different from the “West.”

Many researchers wanted to learn about the mysterious and unknown “East” and compare the unknown East with the known West. These cross-cultural comparisons have revealed several cultural differences between Western and Eastern societies, demonstrating that such global, geographically regional cultures exist.

There are 5 differences between Western and Eastern cultures that I presented in another article.

How Diverse Are Western and Eastern Cultures?

Many studies, however, reveal that such a simple division of the world’s societies into the West and the East is too simplistic and does not capture the real diversity of Western as well as Eastern cultures. After initial fascination, researchers realized that Western and Eastern cultures are somewhat diverse in terms of, for example, emotional experience and expression (Karandashev, 2021).

In the 20th century, cross-cultural researchers of emotions conducted their studies by usually comparing one Western country with one Eastern country. The USA was taken as a representative of Western cultures and compared with China or Japan as a representative of Eastern cultures.

The United States and Western Europe have long been seen as typical “Western individualist” cultures. Can the USA be viewed as representative of all so-called Western cultures? Can Japan or China be considered representatives of other so-called Eastern countries? Scholars realized that such a Western-Eastern contrast was too global and overgeneralizing. It looks like this broad generalization may not be enough to show how different the cultures are in each of these global regions.

How Diverse Are Western Cultures?

There are many differences between North American and West European cultures. For example, many West European countries, such as France, Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands, substantially differ from the United States and Canada. The USA and Canada are also different, although all are commonly considered Western societies.

There are diverse cultural distinctions between different West European countries. What about southern, presumably western-European countries? Spain and Portugal, for example, are among those that can be categorized in different ways. The cultures of Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Greece are even more different from those of the USA and traditional western European countries. For example, many findings indicated differences in cultural values in the “West” (Schwartz, 2014). 

How Diverse Are Eastern Cultures?

Eastern societies are even more diverse in terms of global cultural regions. For instance, there are many differences between East-Asian and South-Asian cultures. The East Asian countries are very distinct from the South Asian and Central Asian ones. The cultures of Japan and China are quite different from those of India, Pakistan, Iran, and Turkey. Thus, the East is a very diverse set of various cultural traditions.

The Diversity of Individualism and Collectivism in the West and East

Empirical cross-cultural studies of the West and East revealed that individualism and collectivism explain many of the cultural differences between these global cultures. The United States, the Netherlands, and, on rare occasions, other European countries (as Western cultural representatives) were frequently compared to China and Japan (as Eastern cultural representatives). Researchers found that the cultural differences between these two world cultures are often about individualism and collectivism.

Many other studies, however, have demonstrated that both individualism and collectivism are multifaceted and complex cultural characteristics that can be quite different in various societies. For instance, Schwartz (2014) suggested that multiple findings showed that the general characteristic of Western cultures as individualistic does not adequately reflect the diversity of individualism.

What about the individualism and collectivism of southern European countries? For instance, are Spain and Portugal individualistic or collectivistic cultures? Studies have shown that they can be categorized in both ways (Karandashev, 2021).

A Variety of Western Cultural Orientations

Several cultural orientations considerably vary within the West. For example, Schwartz and Ros (1995) found significant differences between the samples in the US and those in Western Europe in six cultural value orientations. Mastery, embeddedness, and hierarchy were valued more highly in the United States, while intellectual autonomy, egalitarianism, and harmony were valued more highly in Western European countries.

What about southern European countries such as Italy, Greece, Spain, and Portugal? To which cultural group do the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, and Lithuania belong?

Researchers began to delve into a variety of cultural characteristics that describe and explain, for example, people’s emotional experiences and expressions in various societies (Karandashev, 2021).

They started to realize that the cultural configurations of European societies should be based on several cultural dimensions, not just individualism. Exploration of cultural diversity in both Western and Eastern societies is on the way (Karandashev, 2021).

5 Differences Between Western and Eastern Cultures

Posted on by

The cultural opposition of Western and Eastern societies has been widely recognized in public discourse and scholarship. This division of the major world cultures had historical roots, valid justification, and adequacy.

Great Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, the United States of America, and other allied countries were traditionally viewed as having Western cultures. It is thought that ancient Greek and Roman cultures are the origins of Western cultures.

China, Japan, and India have traditionally been considered Eastern cultures. The ancient Confucian and Buddhist cultures are thought to be at the origins of Eastern cultures.

See more in Western versus Eastern cultures.

The scholarly significance of cultural comparisons between the West and the East

Most cultural studies of the past have focused on learning how the “East” is different from the “West”. Since many believed that they knew their own “Western” culture pretty well, they were interested in learning about the mysterious and less-known “East”. Therefore, such cultural opposition has become popular among scholars. Being ethnocentric, Western researchers were interested in knowing how similar or different the unknown East was from the well-known West. The first interest was to search for cross-cultural universality, while the others were more interested in learning about how much the East deviates from our traditional western knowledge. This is why those other societies were often called “nonwestern cultures.”

For comparative cultural studies, the in-group (West) versus out-group (East) dichotomy worked well. This division was basic and straightforward. As I noted above, the approach was largely ethnocentric because the West was viewed as “we” (in-group) and the East was viewed as “they” (out-group).

These cross-cultural comparisons have been valid in many regards, indicating several cultural differences between Western and Eastern societies (Karandashev, 2021). Here are the five main distinctions:

1. Philosophical and Folk Worldviews

Western folk and scholarly worldviews are linear, logical, analytical, and dichotomous, and have a dualistic view of the world and mental life.

Western logical beliefs acknowledge the existence of binary oppositions, such as positive and negative human emotions. According to dualistic Western cultural philosophies, the mind and body are in dualistic relations, and the mind ­(rational) and the heart (emotional) are in a dichotomy with each other.

Eastern folk and scholarly worldviews are nonlinear, wholistic, dialectical, and have a monistic view of the world and mental life.

Eastern dialectical beliefs accept natural contradictions and complementarity of opposition, such as positive and negative emotions. According to monistic Eastern cultural philosophies, the mind and body are in monistic united relations, and the mind (rational) and heart (emotional) are not in dichotomy with each other but rather in wholistic relations.

See more about this in Western versus Eastern cultures and in Perception of a person in relationship contexts.

2. Perception of Social Relationships as Independent Versus Interdependent

Eastern and Western models of social relationships define how the self and others are related.

The individualistic view of Western cultures perceives social and relationship contexts as a free association of independent individuals. Western cultural norms suggest individualistic personhood and individualistic construals of the self and others. These cultural norms impose an independent model of self and culture. These cultural factors determine the person’s self-focused perception and emotional experience.

Eastern collectivistic cultures perceive social and relationship contexts as a strongly and intricately connected network of interdependent members. Eastern cultural norms suggest collectivistic personhood and relational construals of the self and others. These cultural norms impose an interdependent model of self and culture. Cultural factors determine a person’s other-focused perception and emotional experience.

See more about this in Perception of a person in relationship contexts.

3. Individualism Versus Collectivism in Society

The most well-known cultural difference between the West and the East is the distinction between individualistic Western societies and collectivistic Eastern ones. Individualism and collectivism describe how an individual and a group relate to each other in a society.

Western societies are considered to be independent, individualistic cultures. Individualism in a society is defined by cultural values such as personal liberty, initiative, autonomy, and self-reliance.

Eastern societies are considered to be interdependent, collectivistic cultures. The cultural values that go along with collectivism are kinship priority, family unity, in-group integrity, and loyalty to relationships.

See more in Western individualistic cultures and Eastern collectivistic cultures.

4. High-Context Versus Low-Context Cultural Styles of Communication

The concepts of high-context and low-context cultures differentiate the types of cultures that accentuate the importance of implicit versus explicit messages in people’s relationships and daily interactions.

In high-context Eastern cultures, people prefer to use messages that largely convey meanings and connotations via implicit nonverbal codes, the contexts, culturally implied forms of speech, expected patterns of behavior, and the contextual settings of a situation and social relations.

In low-context Western cultures, people prefer to use messages in which the meanings and connotations are primarily expressed via explicit verbal codes, direct words spoken or written, and overt facial and body expressions with evident meaning, like an open smile.

See more in Western low-context versus Eastern high-context interaction style.

5. High-Contact and Low-Contact Cultures

Western and Eastern cultures have certain differences in the cultural dimension of contact versus non-contact cultures. People in non-contact cultures keep their distance in communication and avoid tactile and olfactory sensory modes of interaction, while people in high-contact cultures communicate with a shorter interpersonal distance and higher engagement of tactile and olfactory sensory modes.

Societies from North America, Northern Europe, and Asia tend to be low-contact, whereas societies from Southern Europe, the Middle East, and South America tend to be high-contact cultures. So, we see that this division has a more complex configuration than just West versus East.

See more in Cultural proxemics and immediacy of interpersonal communication.

Personal Identity in Independent and Interdependent Cultures

Posted on by

The concept of interdependent and independent cultures tells us something about the internal structure of society and relationships between people, as well as how they are deemed in the mind and self of a person. These are personhood conceptions and construals of the self and others and how the self and others are related. People perceive themselves and others as interdependent or independent from each other based on their cultural values, norms, and people.

An interdependent model of culture and self characterizes Eastern societies, while an independent model of culture and self characterizes Western societies.

Western Analytical and Eastern Holistic Perception

Social perceptions of people in Eastern and Western cultures are more or less dependent on a specific context of perception. Different cultural factors can affect their perceptual and communicative processes through different cognitive mechanisms.

The perceptual processes of people in Western societies are analytical and independent of the context and details in which an object is located. People tend to see an object or a person by focusing on their salient features independently of their context.

The perceptual processes of people in Asian societies are holistic. Perceptiondepends on the full context and details in which an object is located. People tend to see an object or a person in the specific context of a situation, depending on the specifics of the situation and relations.

The social Perceptions that Are either Independent or Dependent on Context

Another study was conducted in accordance with the same idea of cultural differences in perception being interdependent or interdependent on the context (Masuda, Ellsworth, Mesquita, Leu, & Veerdonk, 2008). Researchers investigated the observers’ perceptions of emotional situations when they looked at a situation depicting a person surrounded by four other people. The European-American and Japanese participants rated the emotions of the central person, who appeared either happy, sad, or angry. The other four people, who surrounded the central person, displayed various emotions.

In such experimental situations, European-American participants estimated the emotion of the central person only by his or her facial expression. They did not take into account the emotions of other people around them. Such a characteristic of their assessment of the emotional experience of the central person is in accord with their perception of the central person independently of the context of the situation. They paid attention solely to a salient object—the central person.

In contrast to this, Japanese participants assessed the emotional experience of the central person, taking into account not only his or her facial expression but also the emotions of other people portrayed in the situation. Such a quality in their evaluation of the emotional experience of a central person corresponds with their perception, which is associated not only with the central person but also dependent on the context of the situation. They paid attention to the whole situation and the context in which the central person was.

In other experimental studies, participants assessed the emotions of a person in the context of a situation while researchers recorded the location where they looked using eye tracking. The results were similar. Americans focus mostly on the central person. In contrast to this, the Japanese and Taiwanese distributed their attention, looking not only at the central person but also at the other people in the situation.

The Western perception is independent of a situational context, and the Eastern perception is interdependent on a situational context

So, several studies demonstrated that people in Western cultures, with their perception independent of a situational context, consider the emotions of a person only from their own perspective, independent of the context. They perceive emotional experiences from an individual perspective.

People in Eastern cultures, with their perception interdependent on a situational context, perceive the emotions of a person depending on the contextual perspective and all those involved in the situation. They perceive emotional experiences from a relational perspective. In their judgment of emotions, all people who are present in a situation and their relations with each other are considered, whether they belong to the same group or are related to the person. (Masuda et al., 2008; Tsang & Wu, 2005).

Self-focused Versus Other-focused Perception and Emotions

Social perception, whether independent or interdependent on relationship contexts, is directly related to self-focused and other-focused perceptions and emotional experiences.

Studies found that individuals in Western cultures (i.e., European Americans, British people, and Germans) are characterized by prevalent self-focused perception along with corresponding emotional experiences. They are more likely than people from other cultures to experience socially disengaging emotions such as superiority, pride, anger, and frustration. They generally feel such emotional experiences as being friendly, guilty, ashamed, and connected with others less frequently and less intensely than people in Eastern cultures.

On the other hand, people in Eastern cultures (e.g., Japan, China, as well as Asian Americans) are characterized by the prevalent other-focused perception and associated emotional experiences. They tend to experience and express their emotions more frequently and intensely when they think of family members and other relationships compared to situations when they think of themselves.

They more frequently and intensely experience such socially engaging emotions as being friendly and connected with others, as well as feeling guilty and ashamed. On the other hand, they less frequently and less intensely experience such socially disengaging emotions as the feelings of being proud, superior, angry, or frustrated.

For example, Japanese tend to face situations associated with feelings of shame more frequently than Americans. On the other hand, Americans tend to encounter situations linked to anger more frequently than Japanese.

(For a review of all these studies, see Karandashev, 2021).

The Sexual Revolution in Sexual Equality

Posted on by

The liberalization of sexual morals due to the “sexual revolution” of the 1960s and 1970s was a key process that altered the idea of romantic love in the second part of the 20th century in North America and Europe (Karandashev, 2017). Increasing sexual equality between men and women was among the driving forces of the sexual revolution.

Moreover, some expressions concerning love began to refer tacitly to sexual desire and sex. For example, the expression “making love” started to mean “having sex.” And good sex was an important sign of love. For more about this, see another post titled “What is the Sexual Revolution?”).

Sexual Equality Between Men and Women

The “sexual revolution” of the 1960s and ’80s constructed sex as an autonomous domain of pleasure, for both men and women. The double sexual standards for men and women declined. Modern culture abandoned the old-fashioned hypocrisy of the past centuries, when male sexuality was viewed as carnal and female sexuality as maternal or romantic. 

It was accepted that erotic desire is natural for both male and female sexuality. In sex, women and men have equal rights to give and receive sensual pleasures. The studies of those years showed that gender differences between male and female sexual attitudes and behaviors steadily diminished (see for review, Karandashev, 2017).

Women and men had gradually become equal sexual partners in many regards.

In the 1960s and 1970s, sex became a private matter between two people. A new interest in sexuality evolved among both men and women. One of the factors that led to this was the change in women’s views on sex.

Previously, while she and her male partner may have “fun,” a woman could not achieve full sexual equality in sensual pleasure because of the fear of an unwanted pregnancy. Couples who enjoyed free premarital sex usually intended to marry. The woman’s question after sex was usually, “Will you marry me?” A woman felt more responsible because she would become the primary caregiver for a child.

The Invention of Modern Contraceptives Made the Sexual Revolution for Women Possible

The invention and growing popularity of modern contraceptives in the 1960s and 1970s caused the contraceptive revolution that, in turn, some may say, led to the so-called sexual revolution. The invention of modern, effective contraceptives substantially altered sexual attitudes and behavior.

Because women had access to effective contraception, they had better control over when they wanted to have children. The reduced risk of an unwanted pregnancy gave a woman an opportunity to separate her sexual activity from childbirth. This opportunity gave her more freedom to enjoy sex and love. Compared to former times when fear of pregnancy inhibited women’s sexual responsiveness, they had a better sense of freedom in sexual matters.

Liberal Attitudes toward Premarital Sex

The old myth that sex can only be enjoyed within marriage has been debunked. Premarital and promiscuous sex gained popularity. It was largely among lovers and good friends who were not married or who were not necessarily engaged to be married. Many premarital and extramarital partners had sex just to experience sensual pleasure. 

Women and men became more interested in sex and more equal than ever before. But good sex is not just physical sexual intercourse. It largely involves psychological intimacy and genuine interpersonal relationships. For example, sexual adequacy in a woman’s experience is greatly related to the quality of her intimate relationships.

In the 1970s and 1980s, these changes in sexual attitudes profoundly transformed people’s attitudes toward personal relationships and psychological intimacy.

The Freedom to Pursue One’s Own Heart and Sexual Equality

Men and women were able to find their own mates and marry when they were happy with the relationships. Attitudes toward premarital sex became more relaxed than before. Sex became a private subject between two people.

Compared to their predecessors, many men became more sensitive to women’s needs. They also felt less emotionally detached from women in relationships. Many women became more self-assured in their expression and less reliant on outdated cultural norms. New “revolutionary” sexual norms did not expect women to conceal their sexual pleasure anymore and did not view it as a private shame.

These new cultural norms not only permitted women to experience their sexuality but rather encouraged them to do so. For men, these changes also brought a new psychological horizon. They had the possibility of getting sex with a woman who, being equal, made her free choice to have sex with him. In their sex, they both had a free emotional exchange.

Cross-cultural Views of Sexual Equality

It should be noted that the “sexual revolution” did not “invent” sexual equality per se. It simply revolted against old-fashioned Western cultural norms.

Anthropological studies of different cultures have shown that sexual equality is an important factor that affects the cultural value of love. Researchers studied 75 social groups across many cultures around the world. They found that only in those societies that permit giving or not giving love freely and equally to both males and females and that accept premarital or extramarital sex as equally possible for both men and women, do people consider romantic love as a valuable basis for marriage (De Munck & Korotayev, 1999).

What Is the Sexual Revolution?

Posted on by

The word “sexual revolution” is commonly associated with rapid and substantial changes in cultural attitudes toward sex in the United States of America and many West- and North-European countries in the 1960s and 1970s. Later in the 1980s and 1990s, the culture of sexual freedom spread to other modernized Western countries. It was largely a youth movement for freedom of sex and love in those societies.

How has the “sexual revolution” changed the culture of eroticism?

How the Sexual Revolution Changed the Culture

The sexual revolution legitimized sex for its pleasurable and expressive qualities alone. Sex was considered more than just a sexual need of the body. Sexual intercourse for the purpose of pleasure rather than reproduction, without the commitment of a marital relationship, was acceptable. It was culturally acceptable to engage in recreational sex. Thus, sex became a sphere of sensual pleasure.

Sexual Fulfillment in Love

Men and women expected sex to be expressively and sensually pleasurable. The erotic aspect of sex increased its value for a person’s life and relationships. Sexual fulfillment became a condition of true love. The sexualization and erotization of love were the major tendencies of that cultural change. Love and sex finally joined together in the minds of men and women (after centuries of their separation in the cultural norms of old societies). Sex became a means of personal fulfillment and self-affirmation as well.

The pleasurable and expressive qualities of sex received their independent values. The division between sex and love started to grow. Sex became unbound, and romantic love and romantic intimacy turned out to be less important than sex to show love. Sexual expression no longer relied exclusively on romantic feelings. The gap between sex and love seems to be widening. 

The Sexual Revolution in Sexual Equality

The “sexual revolution” of the 1960s–1980s transformed sexual attitudes for both men and women. The double sexual standards for men and women were abandoned as a cultural hypocrisy of the past when male sexuality was viewed as carnal and female sexuality as maternal. It was accepted that female sexual longing is natural in the same way as male sexual yearning. Women received equal rights with men to give and receive sensual pleasures (see more in another post, “The sexual revolution in sexual equality”).

The studies of those years showed that differences between male and female sexual behaviors and attitudes steadily declined (see Karandashev, 2017 for a review).

Sex, Love, and Marriage

In the 1960s, marriage became widely popular in North America and Western Europe, with 95 percent of all people marrying. Men and women married younger, and divorce rates held steady at low levels.

In many modernized countries, love and sexual satisfaction became normative preconditions of marriage. Good sex demonstrated love. The pleasurable and expressive facets of sex were to show love in premarital relationships and marriages. Sexual fulfillment and companionship became the key concepts of an ideal marriage. Sexual dissatisfaction became a legitimate reason for divorce.

Cultural Acceptance of Homosexuality

Shifts in attitudes toward homosexual identity and subculture were another cultural change during the “sexual revolution” of the 1960s and 1970s. Modernized Western societies decriminalized and devictimized homosexuality and other sexual varieties. Psychiatrists abandoned considering homosexuality as an abnormality and began to view it as a form of sexual diversity.

“The homosexuals” walked forward as individuals with their own distinct psychological nature. Gays and lesbians wanted social inclusion and legitimation. The LGBT movement created a subculture that gave these people positive identities and ways of living.

Modernized Western societies indicated a cultural trend towards a more sexually pluralistic society. Discrimination based on sexual identity was also on the decline in society.

Advancements of the “Sexual Revolution”

All these transformations were landmarks of cultural advancements in sexual attitudes. These were the emerging culture of eroticism, the larger acceptance of human rights for sexual pleasure, the proliferation of pornography, the acceptance of sexual equality for men and women, the greater tolerance toward premarital and nonmarital sex, the substantial increase in cohabitation and rates of divorce, public receptivity to the “playboy” lifestyle, and expanded tolerance toward homosexuality.

All of these cultural trends occurred in the United States and in many Western-European and North-European countries, even though older people didn’t like them. These changes reflected long-term trends.

The Slow Cultural Evolution of the “Sexual Revolution”

The sexual revolt in favor of sexual rights, equality, and diversity happened. Yet, many people still lacked a sense of self and the autonomy required to maintain a sexually fulfilling relationship. Therefore, many men and women were still confused about their sexual rights, sexual roles, and gender identities.

The societies were still in the transitional stage towards a culture of relationships that engaged all these new cultural norms. The “sexual revolution” was mostly a young and rebellious movement protesting against the old-fashioned and rigid sexual attitudes of the past. It was a declaration of human rights for the free expression of sex and love in modernized and individualistic Western societies.

The sexual revolt happened. Yet people of other age groups remained relatively conservative in those societies for a while. They were not easily receptive to such a drastic transformation of cultural attitudes toward sex.

The “sexual revolution” of this kind continued as “sexual evolution” in the following decades, spreading to the minds of older generations as well.

The cultural evolution of sexual attitudes was slower in more traditional countries (Karandashev, 2017).

What Is Closeness in a Relationship? It Is Culturally Diverse.

Posted on by

Scholars and laypeople frequently refer to psychological closeness in interpersonal relationships as “intimacy.” It might be either physical or emotional proximity, or their combination. It can be bodily, sexual, physical, emotional, or intellectual. The understanding of intimacy is also culturally diverse.

Intimacy is not the same as sex or sexual intimacy. “Being intimate and close” does not necessarily mean being in a romantic relationship. To various people, intimacy and closeness can mean different things.

Experience of Interpersonal Closeness in Love

Interpersonal closeness is behaviorally evident in such indicators as partners’ sleeping privacy and proximity, the organization of their eating, spending leisure time together, the husband attending the birth of his child, and other qualities of their interactions (de Munck & Korotayev, 2007).

Partners experience closeness in subjective feelings such as openness to self-disclosure. They express closeness through the sharing of intimate thoughts, feelings, and experiences, interdependence, and emotional warmth (see Karandashev, 2019 for a detailed review).

Romantic and marital interactions are not necessarily intimate or close. Intimacy as closeness is the feelings which develop through time when we connect with someone, grow to care for them, and become more and more comfortable being with them. Cultural values and norms for closeness between husband and wife are related to women’s status in a society. Intimate relations imply relative equality and a friendly disposition toward another with whom we are in a relationship.

Western European and European American Values of Interpersonal Closeness

The feeling of interpersonal closeness assumes that the other person is different and unique, that a person has a sense of self, and that he or she is autonomous from others. Western, individualistic societies that place a high value on interdependence also place a high value on interpersonal closeness.

The value of closeness varies across cultures (see, for example, Karandashev, 2019).

Intimate closeness in relationships is a highly valued experience in current Western societies. Many men and women in Western individualistic societies (such as countries in Western Europe, the United States, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia) expect to establish emotional intimacy with their romantic partner and spouse. In their romantic and marital relationships, the higher degree of closeness is related to their higher physical, psychological, and relational well-being.

Western European and Euro-American research on romantic and marital relationships widely explores intimacy in the sense of a high degree of interpersonal closeness. C. Hendrick and S. Hendrick (1989), in their factor analysis of five love scales, identified closeness as one of the five major factors of love in their studies of American students.

The Value of Closeness in Eastern Cultures

On the other hand, traditional Eastern cultures may have different attitudes toward love and marital intimacy. Many collectivist and interdependent Eastern cultures place a lower normative value on romantic and marital intimacy.

In Eastern societies, the intimacy of heterosexual love has traditionally been less important. However, in those cultural contexts, conceptions of intimacy may be different (Karandashev, 2019).

Early cross-cultural studies revealed that American men and women have higher levels of intimacy in their love relationships than do Japanese people. East Asians have less intimacy in their marital relationships than Westerners (for a detailed review, see Karandashev, 2019). 

Interpersonal Closeness in Relationships Depends on Gender Equality

Gender roles and the status of women determine the norms of interpersonal intimacy in premarital and marital relationships. If a society values intimate relationships, then interpersonal relationships can develop beyond their “functional” requirements. For instance, the formation of intimate bonds between husband and wife is substantially less likely if the wife’s status is significantly lower than her husband’s (de Munck & Korotayev, 2007).

The extensive cross-cultural investigation conducted by de Munck and Korotayev (2007) has demonstrated several other interesting and important tendencies for public understanding.

  • Polygyny appears to stifle wife–husband intimacy in at least three ways: by increasing socialization for violence, lowering parental warmth levels, and lowering female kin power.
  • Large family sizes and dependence training may also restrain the development of wife–husband closeness.
  • When boys are socialized for aggressiveness, the development of close relations between wives and husbands within a given society is substantially less likely.

If, in a given culture, mothers expend a high level of maternal warmth toward their sons, then the development of intimate relations between wives and husbands is substantially more likely.

What Kind of Partners Do Men and Women Prefer to Love and Marry?

Posted on by

Would you marry someone who is beautiful or handsome, kind, smart, honest, dependable, and industrious, as well as having many other qualities you desire in a mate, but you are not in love with her or him?

What do men and women believe is important for love and marriage?

It seems natural and sounds like common sense that men and women have expectations of mutual interest in mating relationships. Everyone wants not only to love but also to be loved. Unrequited love is a bummer! This is why men and women, when in love with someone, are eager to guess whether they are loved by their beloved or not.

Love and Marriage in the Historical Past

It should be noted that during other historical periods and in other cultures, love played a small role, if any, in the selection of a marriage partner. Many romantic ideals of love and mutual attraction have been depicted in novels and paintings. For centuries, they have served as romantic inspirations for youngsters from wealthy and educated social classes. The reality of marriage was more practical for the majority of people across the world (see many examples in Karandashev, 2017).

The roles of mutual attraction and love have been different in traditional conservative cultures with arranged marriages and in modern liberal cultures with free marriage choices. Nevertheless, as studies have demonstrated throughout years of research, for young men and women, mutual attraction and love are among their main preferences. And the role of these motivators has been constantly increasing over the recent years of cultural evolution across many societies.

What Did the Early Studies of Mating Preferences Reveal?

In the United States, Canada, and many European countries of the 1950s and 1960s, young people substantially increased the value of love and mutual attraction in their marital choices. Many men and women in modern societies have begun to consider love as the basis for marriage. Several studies documented that evidence in their surveys. Nonetheless, for some people in many societies and social classes love was not a requirement for marriage and was far from these ideals (see for review, Karandashev, 2017).

A study of the 1980s administered across 33 nations in 37 cultural samples from many religious, ethnic, and cultural groups identified the personality traits and the qualities of physical attractiveness and resourcefulness that men and women in various societies preferred to find in potential mates (see in Buss, 1994; Buss et al., 1989).

In the 1990s, men and women in various societies around the world viewed mutual attraction and love as the most desirable qualities in their relationships with potential mates. Many men and women in the United States, as well as in many other contemporary industrialized societies, believed that love was the primary basis for marriage (Allgeier & Wiederman, 1991).

Cultural Evolution of the Value of Mutual Attraction in Love and Marriage

How has the value of love changed throughout modern societies and cultural generations? 

Several recent cultural and cross-cultural studies have shown that mutual attraction and love play stable and even increasing roles in mating and partnership in both traditional and modernized countries. Modern men and women commonly connect love and marriage in their dreams.

A historical comparative study of the geographically diverse samples in the USA, despite the modest sample size, demonstrated stability as well as cultural evolution of mating preferences throughout the 1939–1996 period in terms of the personality, physical, and social attributes of potential partners. Data also showed that mutual attraction and love remained and even increased their mating value during that 57-year period for both men and women. This increase in the cultural value of love and attraction for marriage among North American university students suggested that marriage was evolving to a companionate type (Buss et al., 2001).

Two other historical comparative studies analyzed the data of the 1980s and 2010s in Brazil (Souza et al., 2016) and India (Kamble et al., 2014). Researchers in both studies discovered that love and mutual attraction, kindness, and understanding (among other things) remained important in mate preferences over time. 

The results from India were especially noteworthy. It was evident that, despite the long tradition of arranged marriages, young people in India have always wanted love in their marriages. Those who are familiar with Hindi cinema know that Bollywood romantic movies have traditionally featured grandiloquent dialogue and all-important songs and dances of love. These melodramatic stories of love are full of elevated emotions and expressions and beautifully illustrate the dreams of mutual attraction and love among Indian people. The latter did not preclude understanding the practical value of arranged marriages (Dwyer, 2014).

Modern Studies of Preferences in Love and Marriage

Several studies of recent times have shown that love and mutual attraction remain the enduring motivations of men and women for mating, partnership, and marriage. The authors reported their research data obtained in such culturally diverse countries as Jordan (Khallad, 2005), India (Kamble et al., 2014), Brazil (Souza, Conroy-Beam, & Buss, 2016), and the United States of America (Buss et al., 2001).

Women and Men Who Are Physically Attractive in Different Cultures

Posted on by

People tend to love physically attractive women and men in interpersonal relationships. They are more likely to fall in love with those who are beautiful and have a physically attractive appearance. Interpersonal perception in a relationship is multisensory in its physical nature: not only visual but also auditory, tactile-kinesthetic, and olfactory.

Multisensory Perception in a Romantic Relationship

A lover admires a loved one’s physical traits as seen through multiple sensory impressions, including visual, auditory, tactile-kinesthetic, olfactory, and gustatory. Multisensory processes occur in the partner’s interaction and their interpersonal perception. These various sensory impressions are intricately intertwined (see for review, Karandashev et al., 2016, 2020).

Men and women not only look at their partners but also speak, listen, and smile. They stay in close proximity, dance with them, touch them, hug them, and are hugged, cuddling and kissing each other. Such dynamic, expressive behavior often affects attraction more than static facial appearance and body shape.

People’s attention to different modalities of physical appearance and expressive behavior in potential partners varies across cultures. Aside from visual preferences in judging another person, auditory, tactile, kinesthetic, and olfactory sensory modalities, as well as expressive behavior, all contribute to mating attraction. These preferences in a partner differ across cultures, particularly between traditional and modern societies (Karandashev et al., 2016; 2020).

Recent Cross-cultural Studies of Sensory Preferences in Different Countries

Studies in societies with varying social, economic, and cultural parameters (2740 participants from 10 cultural regions in six countries) revealed that general differences in sensory preferences in romantic attraction exist between societies of different degrees of modernization (Karandashev et al., 2016; 2020).

The main conclusions of those studies are:

“Biologically determined sensory parameters are more important in less modernized countries—with priorities of survival values, whereas socially determined sensory parameters are more important in more modernized countries—with priorities of self-expression values. This general tendency, however, is not always straight.”

(Karandashev et al., 2020)

How Do Traditional and Modernized Societies Differ?

Inglehart and his colleagues have proposed a modernization theory of society. The theory characterizes societies as having different degrees of modernization based on economic, social, and cultural characteristics (Inglehart, 1997; Inglehart & Baker, 2000; Inglehart & Welzel, 2005).

The theory of modernization presents an important framework to explain the cultural evolution across societies in historical perspective. Conventionally, we can distinguish traditional and modern cultures along the spectrum of modernization. Traditional societies’ cultural norms place a high priority on survival values, whereas modern societies’ cultural norms place a high value on self-expression values (see more, Karandashev, 2023 in press).

Cultural Values and Social Norms of Traditional Societies

In traditional (less modernized) societies, cultural values and social norms respect group cohesion, societal structure, and customary norms. They encourage collectivistic values. These societies are conservative. They discourage emancipation and individualistic self-expression.

Traditional (less modernized) societies are those in which the cultural values of Survival, greater Power distance, lower Individualism, lower Indulgence, and lower Emancipative values prevail.

Cultural Values and Social Norms of Modern Societies

In modern (more modernized) societies, cultural values and social norms are less conservative. They

  • are flexible and fluid, providing relative freedom to follow societal norms;
  • encourage individualistic values;
  • respect emancipation and individualism;
  • are open to diversity in self-expression.

Modern (or more modernized) societies are those in which the cultural values of Self-expression, lower Power Distance, high value of Individualism, Indulgence, and Emancipation prevail.

What Physical Characteristics Are Attractive in Traditional Cultures?

In less modernized countries, the sensory preferences in romantic attraction between partners are focused on the physical qualities of a mate: body shape, facial features, skin texture, and the quality of smell, which are stable biologically and vital for evolution. These sensory qualities have a higher value, indicating that mates are in good health.

For example, in Portugal and Russia, where the indices of Power Distance and Uncertainty Avoidance are high, people place a higher value on such traits of their romantic partners as body, skin, and smell, compared to the participants in countries where these indices are low, such as the US.

Participants from Jamaica and Russia, whose cultures are characterized by a low value of Egalitarianism and a high cultural value of Hierarchy, pay less attention to the eyes and voices of their mates (Karandashev et al., 2020).

What Physical Characteristics Are Attractive in Modern Cultures?

People in modern individualistic and egalitarian societies, on the other hand, care less about how physically attractive their partners are. For instance, they know how to mask or modify odors by taking showers and applying perfumes. They often know how to manipulate physical characteristics and appearances through deliberate deception.

In more modernized countries, the sensory preferences in the love attraction of partners are focused on such expressive behaviors as facial expressions, expressive behavior, dress, dance, etc. Body movement, dress, hair style, cosmetics, facial expression, and gestures are the qualities that are more adaptable and changeable due to cultural norms (Karandashev et al., 2020).

Participants in modern societies with the lower cultural value of Hierarchy and the higher cultural value of Egalitarianism—such as France and Portugal—pay more attention to the eyes and voice of a partner as the expressive vehicles of their partner’s personality.

In modern societies with a higher value of Egalitarianism and a lower cultural value of Hierarchy, such as France and Portugal, participants pay more attention to a partner’s eyes and voice since they serve as signals expressing their partner’s personality (Karandashev et al., 2020).

Men’s and Women’s Sensory Preferences Across Cultures

Many men’s and women’s preferences for physical characteristics in a partner are very similar, with only minor differences. Among those, such sensory qualities as perception of body shape, senses of smell and lips, facial expressiveness, smiling, and expressive speaking.

Men also rated the importance of their partner’s sensory impressions higher than women. Generally, when gender differences were statistically significant, men valued the importance of their romantic partner’s sensory qualities higher than women did (Karandashev et al., 2020).

This conclusion converges with the earlier findings, which showed that men have higher expectations of the qualities of female physical appeal than women do (see for review, Regan et al., 2000).

Here are other articles of interest on the topic: