Cross-Cultural Analysis of Models of Romantic Love Among U.S. Residents,Russians,and Lithuanians

Abstract

Our goal was to detect and describe a common “core” structure of romantic love and to also discover and explain variations due to cultural or gender differences between three national cultures: the United States, Russia, and Lithuania. Our sample consisted of 262 American males, 362 American females, 166 Russian males, 130 females, 102 Lithuanian males, and 135 Lithuanian females—a total of 1,157 people. Our analysis was derived from (a) a 14-item questionnaire; (b) freelist responses to the question “What do you associate with romantic love?” and (c) interview and focus group data. The questionnaire was devised by employing well-known quotations about romantic love that cover a range of feelings and perceptions of love. Our results showed that there is no overall consensus but there was cross-cultural consensus on five variables: intrusive thinking, happiness; passion; altruism; and improve well-being of partner. In the freelist portion, we also found some significant similarities—particularly the desire to be together was ranked first across all three cultures. However key cultural differences were found. Friendship and comfort love were critical features of romantic love for the U.S. sample, but nonexistent for the Lithuanian and Russian samples. Conversely, the latter two samples saw love as “unreal,” “temporary,” and “a fairytale.” These cultural differences were explored through interviews and shown to serve as different cultural frames used to interpret similar emotional complexes. We suggest that the differences do not affect the evolutionary functions of romantic love and are adaptations to different types of social organizations. The etic-emic approach used in this cross-cultural research provides for a more nuanced, ethnographically sound, and cross-culturally valid description and analysis of the form and function of romantic love cross culturally than does either approach by itself.

Keywords

romantic love Russia Lithuania America frames cultural models

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bateson, G. ( 1958). Naven: A survey of the problems suggested by a composite picture of the culture of a New Guinea tribe drawn from three points of view . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. (Original work published 1936)

Bateson, G. ( 1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. New York, NY: Ballantine.

Brehm, S.S. ( 1988). Passionate love. In R. J. Sternberg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love. New Haven, CT. Yale University Press. pp. 232-263.

Cancian, F. ( 1986). The feminization of love. Signs , 11, 692-709.

de Munck, V.C. , & Korotayev, A. ( 1999). Sexual equality and romantic love: A reanalysis of Rosenblatt’s study on the function of romantic love. Cross-Cultural Research , 33, 265-277.

de Munck, V.C. , & Korotayev, A. ( 2007). Wife-husband intimacy and female status in cross-cultural perspective. Cross-Cultural Research, 41, 307-335.

Fehr, B. ( 1994). Prototype-based assessment of laypeople’s views of love. Personal Relationships, 1, 309-331.

Fehr, B. ( 2006). A Prototype Approach to Studying Love. In R. J. Sternberg & K. Weis (eds.), The new psychology of love (pp.225-248). New Haven: Yale University Press.

Fehr, B. , & Russell. ( 1991). The concept of love viewed from a prototype perspective . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 425-435.

10.

Garro. L. ( 2000). Remembering what one knows and the construction of the past: A comparison of cultural consensus theory and cultural schema theory . Ethos, 28, 275-319.

11.

Garro, L. ( 2002). Cultural meaning and Cross-cultural research: Explanations of illness. Anthropological Theory, 1, 20-32.

12.

Goffman, E. ( 1975). Frame analysis. Harmondsworth , UK: Penguin.

13.

Hendrick, C. , & Hendrick, S.S. (1986). A theory and method of love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 392-402.

14.

Jankowiak, W. ( 1995). Romantic Passion: a Universal Experience? New York: Columbia University Press.

15.

Jankowiak, W. ( 2008). Appendix: The Ethnographic Evidence for the universality of Love. In W. Jankowiak (Ed.). Intimacies: love + sex across cultures (pp.269-283). New York: Columbia University Press.

16.

Jankowiak W. & Fischer, E. ( 1992). A Cross-Cultural Perspective on Romantic Love . Ethnology, 31, 149-155.

17.

Lasch, C. ( 1979). The culture of narcissism: American life in an age of diminishing expectations. New York, NY: Norton.

18.

Lee, J.A. ( 1973). Colours of love: An exploration of the ways of loving . New York, NY: New Press .

19.

Lee, J.A. ( 1988). Love styles. In M. H. Barnes & R. J. Sternberg. The Psychology of love (pp.38-67). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

20.

Lindholm, C. ( 1995). Love as an experience of transcendence. In W. Jankowiak (Ed.), Romantic love: A universal experience? (pp. 57-71) New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

21.

Lindholm, C. ( 1998a). Love and structure. Theory, Culture & Society, 15, 243-263.

22.

Lindholm, C. ( 1998b). The future of love. In De Munck, V. Ed. Romantic Love and sexual behavior (pp. 17-32). Westport (CT). Praeger.

23.

Noller, P. ( 1996). What is this thing called love? Defining the love that supports marriage and family. Personal Relationships , 3(1), 97-115.

24.

Romney, K.A. , Weller, S.C. , & Batchelder, W.H. (1986). Culture as consensus. A theory of culture and informant accuracy. American Anthropologist , 88, 313-338.

25.

Romney, K.A. ( 1999). Culture consensus as a statistical model. Current Anthropology, 40, S103-S115.

26.

Spiro, M.E. ( 1987). Culture and human nature. Chicago, IL.: University of Chicago Press.

27.

Sternberg, R.J. ( 1988). The triangle of love. New York, NY : Basic.

28.

Sternberg, R.J. ( 2006). A duplex theory of love. In R. J. Sternberg & K. Weis (Eds.), The new psychology of love (pp. 184-199). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

29.

Swidler, A. ( 2001). Talk of love: How culture matters. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

30.

Tennov, D. ( 1969). Love and limerence. New York, NY: Day and Stein.