Category Archives: Western cultures

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).

Individualism and Collectivism in Societies

Posted on by

Individualism and collectivism have been among the central concepts of cross-cultural research. The division between individualistic Western societies and collectivistic Eastern societies is probably the best-known cultural parameter distinguishing the West and East. At least, that is the most common framework that many researchers use when they study different cultures.

Let us take a closer look at what these parameters of individualism and collectivism are.

What Are Individualism and Collectivism in Societies?

Individualism and collectivism is among the earliest cultural constructs that social psychologists identified to characterize differences between Western and Eastern societies (e.g., Hofstede, 1980/1984; Hui & Triandis, 1986; Marsella et al., 1985; Triandis, 1995; see for review, Karandashev, 2021).

These constructs define the relations between an individual and a group in the structure of societal relations. The societal characteristics of individualism and collectivism describe the extent to which individuals in a society are integrated into groups. If most people in a society have individualistic or collectivistic value orientations, researchers call the society “individualistic” or “collectivistic.”

On the one hand, personal freedom, personal initiative, personal autonomy, and self-reliance are the cultural values linked with individualism in a society. On the other hand, family unity, family integrity, and family loyalty are the cultural values linked to collectivism. 

Individualistic cultures have norms and values that stress how important individual goals and personal freedom are for people’s functioning.

“People are supposed to look after themselves and their immediate family only”.

The values and norms of collectivistic cultures emphasize that the importance of group goals and relations with other shall be higher than individual goals.

“People belong to in-groups or collectivities which are supposed to look after them in exchange for loyalty”

(Hofstede & Bond, 1984, p. 419).

Individual Variation of Individualism and Collectivism in Societies

It is worthwhile to note that within a society (either individualistic or collectivistic), individuals can vary in these cultural value orientations. People can also be collectivistic and individualistic to varying degrees within different areas of their relationships. They can differ in the degree of individualism (or collectivism) in their relations with their kin, family members, neighbors, co-workers, or friends.

Therefore, I would suggest that cultural researchers be careful. They should not be too straight-forward and simplistic in attributing their observations of any individual to their individualism or collectivism, especially in any area of their relationships with others.

Individualism in Western Societies

The cultural values and norms in individualistic societies elevate personal independence, actions, autonomy, the primacy of personality uniqueness, self-realization, and individual initiative. The values and norms also emphasize the individual’s rights rather than duties, the high value of one’s independence rather than interdependence, and the priority of one’s self-interest with less concern for other people’s interests.

People in individualistic societies feel quite independent and autonomous in both in-group and out-group relationships. So, their attitudes and behaviors toward people from both their in-group and out-group are quite similar. 

The personal identity of an individual is recognized through the individual’s attributes. The ties between individuals are loose. In motivation, people subordinate the goals of collectivities to their personal goals. The United States, Canada, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Denmark represent the typical examples of individualistic societies. One can easily notice that these are largely Western countries (Hofstede, 1984; 2011; Hui & Triandis, 1986; Gelfand, et al., 2000; Kashima, et al., 1995; Triandis, 1995; see for review, Karandashev, 2021).

Collectivism in Eastern Societies

In collectivistic societies, cultural norms highly praise relational values that foster cooperation within an in-group and the harmony of interpersonal relationships. The norms encourage subordinating a person’s self-assertion. Cultural values and norms of collectivistic societies emphasize that people are the natural parts of strong, cohesive in-groups, such as extended families. An individual’s loyalty to a group and the need to protect the interests and well-being of others in their in-group as opposed to other groups are of high importance. So, group norms encourage people to take part in social activities that help and share with each other.

People in collectivistic societies are highly embedded in their in-group relationships. Such relations with family as unity, loyalty, and integrity are collectivistic beliefs. These are values and rules that emphasize people’s interpersonal bonds, a sense of interconnectedness, solidarity, duty to the group, obligations, in-group harmony, and awareness of the needs of others. These values and rules are called “collectivistic.”

People in collectivistic societies have different standards of behavior for the members of their in-groups and out-groups. They are collectivistic in their interactions with their in-group members (family, friends, etc.). Yet ,in their interactions with out-group members (strangers, people from other cultural groups), they are in-group biased. They strongly distinguish their attitudes and behavior towards those from their in-group versus their out-group.

A personal identity centers on one’s place and role in one’s group. Personal privacy is abridged. In motivation, people subordinate personal goals to the goals of their in-group. Collectivistic values highlight in-group beliefs rather than individual beliefs. The value of in-group views is higher than individual views. Collective responsibility to the in-group precedes individual pleasure in importance.

Independent Individualistic and Interdependent Collectivistic Cultures

Despite being a classical cultural concept distinguishing individualistic and collectivistic societies, individualism and collectivism turned out to be more complex and multifaceted than they appeared at first sight (see Karandashev, 2021).

Researchers use the concepts of interdependent and independent cultures to explain Western and Eastern social structures and relationships between people. The concepts are especially important in the contexts of the mind, emotions, and self of a person. Western societies are characterized by an independent model of culture and self. And Eastern societies are characterized by an interdependent model of culture and self (See more in another article).

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).

Western versus Eastern cultures

Posted on by

The division between societies of Western and Eastern cultures is widespread in world scholarship and is most typical in cultural and cross-cultural studies. Why is it that this division, though quite simplistic, has become so popular among researchers?

The Tendency Towards Dichotomous Cognition

One reason is just a gnoseological one, and it comes from the philosophy of cognition. This is a reflection of the scholars’ tendency toward simplicity. The use of dichotomous and binary thinking is very convenient and easy to understand. A dichotomous view of the world seems natural: black and white; good and bad; right and left; pleasant and unpleasant, etc.

It is especially convenient for scholars. Such a division is often a valid assumption. The dichotomous division of the world into the West and East, into Western and Eastern cultures, is reasonable and applicable for research.

Western Cultures versus Eastern Cultures

The first questions are: (1) what is Western culture and (2) what is Eastern culture.

Over the years, Western scholars have attributed Western culture to the United States of America, Canada, and some western European countries. On the other hand, they attributed Eastern culture to China and Japan. Why so?

Modern scholarship in history has traditionally been of western origin—the place where most well-known scholars have resided. According to this scientific tradition, Western cultures have their origins in the ancient Greek and Roman cultures.

All other societies would be called “non-western cultures.” Later in history, scholars discovered China and Japan and found that their cultures were substantially different in many regards. They were located to the east of the west, where explorers lived. So, they called them the Eastern cultures. Eastern cultures presumably have their origins in the ancient Confucian and Buddhist cultures.

Such a division was simple and easy. The West is “we” and “us”—relatively understandable for us, Westerners, while the East is “they” and “them”—unknown and not well understandable for us Westerners. The dichotomy of in-group (West) versus out-group (East) worked very well for comparison.

Moreover, this comparison has been valid in many respects. Scholars, in their research, have identified many cultural differences between Western and Eastern societies.

The Differences in Philosophical Views between Western and Eastern Cultures

Epistemology (the Philosophy of Cognition)

In Western societies, linear folk epistemology is prevalent and culturally dominant. Western culture is characterized by dichotomous thinking. Logical beliefs admit the opposition of binary things, such as human emotions, being either positive or negative.

In Eastern societies, dialectical folk epistemology is prevalent and culturally dominant. Eastern cultures tend to have a holistic worldview and naturally accept changes. Dialectical beliefs admit the complementarity of opposite emotions and contradictions as they are.

Dualistic Versus Monistic Views of the World and Mental Life

Western and Eastern societies differ in their views on the relationship between mind and body as well as on the relationship between the heart (emotional part) and the mind (the rational part) of mental life. Their cultural beliefs follow either dualistic (in Western cultures) or monistic (in Eastern cultures) models of mental life. Those models reflect the human experience of emotions.

Dualistic views are characteristic of Western culture. According to this view, the mind and body are in dualistic relationships, and the mind (rational) and the heart (emotional) are in a dichotomous relationship with each other. People can rely more on their reasoning (mind) or on their emotions (heart). People guided by their hearts are those guided by their emotions rather than their reasoning.

Eastern cultures are characterized by a monistic view. According to this view, the mind and body are in monistic and wholistic relations, and the mind (rational) and heart (emotional) are not dichotomous with each other. Eastern cultural beliefs integrate the rational and emotional parts of mental life.

(See Karandashev, 2021a for a more in-depth discussion of these distinctions.)

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).

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).

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.