A cross-cultural study - University of Johannesburg

An investigation of the

conceptualisation of romantic

love across South Africa:

A cross-cultural study

by

KETY PAVLOU

Thesis

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree

DOCTOR LITTERARUM ET PHILOSOPHIAE

in

PSYCHOLOGY

in the

FACULTY OF HUMANITIES

at the

UNIVERSITY OF JOHANNESBURG

Promotor: Dr. Hilton Rudnick

Co- Promotor: Professor Alban Burke

October 2009

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am deeply indebted to the following people:

My parents, family and friends for their love, support and encouragement.

My supervisor Dr Hilton Rudnick who has been a generous and supportive academic

mentor. His insights, guidance, encouragement, support and sense of humour have,

without question, made this a better study.

Professor Alban Burke, for his statistical input and big picture thinking.

Dr Deon de Bruin for his invaluable assistance with the data analysis.

The psychology honours (2008) field workers for their assistance in gathering data.

And the participants who filled out the questionnaires.

ii

SUMMARY

The purpose of this study was to add much needed information to the body of

knowledge as regards South African intimate relationships, by looking through the lens

of social and cross-cultural psychology. The study set out to investigate the different

and nuanced ways of loving and conceptualisations of romantic love across the four

broad cultural groups in South Africa. Although romantic love is by and large accepted

as a near universal experience, it is said to vary as a function of culture. Western /

individualistic and collectivistic romantic love was considered. South Africa‘s

multicultural rainbow nation seems to exhibit both individualistic as well as collectivistic

modes of loving amongst its four broad cultural groups, with Black and Indian/Asian

conceptualisations of romantic love seemingly being tied up in culture bound

collectivism, whereas White and Coloured conceptualisations of romantic love are

apparently tied up in culture bound individualism.

The study initially explored various theories of romantic love which have been

developed within the Western canon. These included 1) Freud‘s intrapsychic

foundations of love, 2) Fromm‘s humanistic and sociocultural view of love, 3)

attachment theory and its genetic, biological and interpersonal viewpoint of love, 4)

interdependence theory / social exchange theory and its emphasis on the economic

nature of an intimate relationship, 5) the components of passionate and companionate

love, 6) Sternberg‘s triangular theory of love and his social constructionist theory of love

stories, 7) evolution theory and its focus on explaining how romantic love, mate

selection and mate preferences is shaped by inherited biological and genetic make-up

and finally 8) Lee‘s six lovestyles. Special emphasis was given to Lee‘s colours of love

theory which consists of a typology of lovestyles. These were employed as the central

tenet to establish intersections, parallels and differences amongst the types of love.

Thereafter the study investigated the nebulous construct of culture through Hofstede‘s

five dimensions of culture. Differences between nation, ethnic groups and race were

clarified and South Africa‘s four primary cultural groups were explored. Finally the study

iii

reviewed the literature on how romantic love is conceptualised across culture with

specific emphasis on the central dimension of individualism and collectivism.

This study‘s primary focus was to: 1) establish the validity and reliability of the various

instruments used (Romantic Beliefs Scale, Relationship Questionnaire Scale, Love

Attitude Scale and the Auckland Individualism Collectivism Questionnaire) when applied

to the South African population; 2) the levels of endorsement of individualism and

collectivism in each of the four primary cultural groups (Black, White, Coloured and

Indian/Asian) in South Africa; 3) the differences and commonalities in the ways of loving

- love experiences, love as a basis for marriage, love as a basis for the maintenance of

marriage, romantic beliefs, attachment styles and lovestyles - that emerged as mediated

by culture in South Africa when comparing these four cultural groups; 4) the possible

gender differences in a) the overall South African sample, b) by gender and race, and c)

gender within race; 5) the influence of socioeconomic status on the ways of loving; and

6) the intersection between lovestyles and the ways of loving utilising the overall South

African sample.

Total romanticism in the Romantic Beliefs Scale; avoidance and anxiety in the

Relationship Questionnaire Scale; eros, ludus, storge, pragma, mania and agape in the

Love Attitude Scale; and individualism and collectivism in the Auckland Individualism

Collectivism Questionnaire were found to be reliable and factorially valid for the South

African population.

Unanticipated, homogeneous results across the four broad cultural groups in South

Africa were observed on both of the instruments that were employed to measure

individualism and collectivism (The Auckland Individualism Collectivism

Questionnaire and Hofstede‘s (1994b) Value Survey Model). The author suggested

three possible explanations. In addition, perhaps these unexpected results are

suggestive of the impact of globalisation and possibly these results will steer

researchers to reassess previous ways of categorising – culture, race, ethnic group and

iv

nation – and instead begin to consider categorising according to social class and

socioeconomic status.

Overall the four South African cultural groups are relatively similar across the love

measures. The three most fully endorsed lovestyles in all four cultural groups were eros,

agape and storge. The Black, White and Coloured groups endorsed eros as their

dominant lovestyle, followed by agape and thereafter storge for the White and Coloured

groups, and storge and thereafter agape for the Black group. The participants in the

Indian/Asian group endorse agape as their dominant lovestyle, followed by eros and

storge. The most significant differences, upon comparing cultural groups, appeared

firstly, in the importance of love as a basis for marriage where South African

Indian/Asian participants were significantly more likely to marry someone whom they did

not love, while White participants were significantly less likely to do so; and secondly, in

lovestyles where: 1) the Black participants were significantly more ludus than the White

participants, 2) the Indian/Asian participants were significantly more pragma than the

White participants, and 3) the White and Indian/Asian respondents were significantly

more agape than the Black respondents. Synthesised results and details of each of

these cultural groups are discussed in the thesis.

With regards to gender it was found that South African women were significantly more

likely to be in love than South African men while they are also marginally more likely to

be more romantic than their male counterparts. Upon examining the gender differences

in lovestyles it was established that men endorsed agape and ludus as their dominant

lovestyles, whereas women endorsed eros, storge and pragma as their dominant

lovestyles. South African men were found to be significantly more ludus than South

African women while South African women were significantly more storge than South

African men. Race by gender differences and gender within race differences are treated

in more detail in the thesis.

v

It was found that the higher the participants‘ socioeconomic status the more likely

they were to marry someone they loved. In addition, participants from the lower income

group were significantly more likely to employ a dismissing attachment style.

When investigating the intersection between lovestyles and the ways of loving utilising

the overall South African sample, interesting findings emerged. Individuals with an eros

lovestyle were the most likely to be in love at the time of the study. Individuals with a

ludus lovestyle were significantly less likely to be in love at the time of the study than

any other lovestyle. Individuals with an agape or eros lovestyle were significantly more

likely to marry someone whom they love than those with other lovestyles. The ludus

and pragma participants were significantly less likely to marry someone whom they love

when compared with participants with other dominant lovestyles. The researcher

observed no significant differences between the lovestyles and the importance of love

in the maintenance of marriage. The more romantic individuals were, the more eros

and agape they were and the less romantic an individual the more ludus they were.

Individuals with an agape lovestyle were significantly more likely to be romantic than

individuals with a storge lovestyle. In the South African sample it was observed that

individuals with the passionate eros lovestyle were significantly more likely to display a

secure attachment style and significantly less likely to experience a dismissing or

fearful attachment style. Individuals with a ludus lovestyle were significantly more likely

to possess a dismissing or fearful attachment style and were significantly less likely to

display a secure or preoccupied one. Individuals with a mania lovestyle were

significantly more likely to have a preoccupied or fearful attachment style and were

significantly less likely to adopt a secure or a dismissing attachment style.

In conclusion, it is argued that the study has not only arrived at significant findings but

also identified useful perspectives for future research.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 ...............................................................................................................................1

INTRODUCTION, RATIONALE AND RESEARCH AIMS ...........................................................1

1.1 IMPORTANCE OF THE TOPIC ......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 DEFINITION OF MAIN TERMS ......................................................................................................... 2

1.2.1 Love ..................................................................................................................................... 2 1.2.2 The South African socio-cultural context ............................................................................. 10

1.3 RESEARCH AIMS ...................................................................................................................... 12 1.4 CHAPTER OUTLINE .................................................................................................................... 14

CHAPTER 2 .............................................................................................................................15

PRINCIPLES AND THEORIES OF WESTERN LOVE ..............................................................15

2.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 15 2.2 FACTORS THAT NURTURE ATTRACTION, LIKING AND LOVING ........................................................... 19

2.2.1 Proximity ............................................................................................................................ 19 2.2.2 Similarity ............................................................................................................................ 20 2.2.3 Reciprocity: Mutual liking .................................................................................................... 22 2.2.4 Physical attractiveness ....................................................................................................... 22 2.2.5 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 24

2.3 FREUD‘S CONCEPTUALISATIONS OF LOVE .................................................................................... 26 2.3.1 Brief background ................................................................................................................ 26 2.3.2 Freud’s theories of love ...................................................................................................... 28 2.3.3 Relevant post-Freud psychoanalytic contributions ............................................................... 42 2.3.4 Criticisms ........................................................................................................................... 47 2.3.5 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 48

2.4 FROMM‘S THEORY ON THE ART OF LOVING ................................................................................... 51 2.4.1 Brief background ................................................................................................................ 51 2.4.2 Love versus isolation, alienation and separateness ............................................................. 52 2.4.3 Development of love ........................................................................................................... 54 2.4.4 Five types or objects of love ............................................................................................... 56 2.4.5 Love’s disintegration in Western Society ............................................................................. 57 2.4.6 Practice of love ................................................................................................................... 60 2.4.7 Criticisms of Fromm’s theory of love ................................................................................... 60 2.4.8 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 61

2.5 ATTACHMENT THEORY............................................................................................................... 64 2.5.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 64 2.5.2. Infant Attachment ........................................................................................................... 65 2.5.3. Adult Attachment ............................................................................................................ 73 2.5.4. Criticisms of attachment theory ....................................................................................... 87 2.5.5. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 90

2.6 INTERDEPENDENCE THEORY ...................................................................................................... 92 2.6.1 Interdependence theory or social exchange theory ............................................................. 92 2.6.2 Investment model ............................................................................................................... 94 2.6.3 Investment model extended ................................................................................................ 97 2.6.4 Equity theory ...................................................................................................................... 98 2.6.5 Criticisms ......................................................................................................................... 101 2.6.6 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 101

2.7 PASSIONATE AND COMPANIONATE LOVE ................................................................................... 103 2.8 TRIANGULAR THEORY OF LOVE AND LOVE STORIES ..................................................................... 105

2.8.1 Triangular theory of love ................................................................................................... 105 2.8.2 Love socially constructed .................................................................................................. 107

vii

2.8.3 Love as a story ................................................................................................................. 107 2.8.4 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 113

2.9 EVOLUTION AND LOVE ............................................................................................................. 115 2.9.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 115 2.9.2 Romantic love and evolution ............................................................................................. 118 2.9.3 Male and female mate preferences ................................................................................... 121 2.9.4 Criticisms of evolutionary psychology................................................................................ 129 2.9.5 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 132

2.10 LEE‘S LOVESTYLES ................................................................................................................. 134 2.10.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 134 2.10.2 The lovestyle typology .................................................................................................. 136 2.10.3 Lovestyle combinations................................................................................................. 141 2.10.4 Research and lovestyles ............................................................................................... 142 2.10.5 Conclusion on lovestyles .............................................................................................. 152

2.11 THE LOVE THEORIES‘ POINTS OF COMMONALITY AND AGREEMENT ................................................ 154 2.11.1 Intersections with eros .................................................................................................. 159 2.11.2 Intersections with ludus................................................................................................. 161 2.11.3 Intersections with storge ............................................................................................... 164 2.11.4 Intersections with mania ............................................................................................... 166 2.11.5 Intersections with pragma ............................................................................................. 168 2.11.6 Intersections with agape ............................................................................................... 170 2.11.7 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 172

2.12 CONCLUSIONS ON LOVE THEORIES ........................................................................................... 176

CHAPTER 3 ........................................................................................................................... 180

CULTURE ............................................................................................................................... 180

3.1. CULTURE ............................................................................................................................... 180 3.2. HOFSTEDE‘S FIVE DIMENSIONS OF CULTURE .............................................................................. 184

3.2.1 Individualism versus collectivism ...................................................................................... 185 3.2.2 Power distance ................................................................................................................. 190 3.2.3 Masculinity versus femininity ............................................................................................ 192 3.2.4 Uncertainty avoidance ...................................................................................................... 195 3.2.5 Long-term orientation versus short-term orientation .......................................................... 197 3.2.6 Summary of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions ...................................................................... 198 3.2.7 Criticism and limitations of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions ................................................ 201

3.3. NATION, ETHNIC GROUP AND RACE ........................................................................................... 202 3.4. SOUTH AFRICA‘S GROUPINGS .................................................................................................. 205

3.4.1. African cultural group .................................................................................................... 207 3.4.2. White cultural group ...................................................................................................... 210 3.4.3. Coloured cultural group................................................................................................. 211 3.4.4. Indian / Asian cultural group .......................................................................................... 213

3.5. THE IMPACT OF GLOBALISATION ON CULTURE ............................................................................. 215 3.5.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 215 3.5.2 Distinguishing factors of globalisation ............................................................................... 215 3.5.3 The cultural uniformity debate ........................................................................................... 216 3.5.4 Consequences of globalisation ......................................................................................... 218 3.5.5 Globalisation in South Africa ............................................................................................. 219 3.5.6 Conclusion as regards globalisation .................................................................................. 222

3.6. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 222

CHAPTER 4 ........................................................................................................................... 224

CULTURE AND ROMANTIC LOVE ....................................................................................... 224

4.1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 224 4.2. LOVE ACROSS THE INDIVIDUALISTIC AND COLLECTIVISTIC DIMENSION ............................................ 225

viii

4.3. ROMANTIC LOVE CROSS-CULTURAL RESEARCH FINDINGS ............................................................ 228 4.3.1. Love as a basis for marriage ......................................................................................... 229 4.3.2. Romantic beliefs and attitudes ...................................................................................... 235 4.3.3. Attachment patterns...................................................................................................... 238 4.3.4. Lovestyles .................................................................................................................... 240 4.3.5. Other ways of romantic love .......................................................................................... 246 4.3.6. Love and money ........................................................................................................... 248

4.4. IMPACT OF GLOBALISATION AND CULTURAL SHIFTS ON ROMANTIC LOVE......................................... 249 4.4.1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 249 4.4.2. Cultural shifts ................................................................................................................ 250 4.4.3. Globalisation and love research .................................................................................... 256

4.5. SOUTH AFRICAN LOVE............................................................................................................. 258 4.5.1. Love attitude and values ............................................................................................... 259 4.5.2. Love and marriage ........................................................................................................ 262 4.5.3. Marriage statistics in South Africa ................................................................................. 268

4.6. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 270

CHAPTER 5 ........................................................................................................................... 273

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................... 273

5.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 273 5.2 SAMPLE................................................................................................................................. 275 5.3 MEASUREMENT INSTRUMENTS ................................................................................................. 275

5.3.1 Biographical Questionnaire ............................................................................................... 275 5.3.2 Love as a basis for marriage ............................................................................................. 276 5.3.3 Romantic Beliefs Scale ..................................................................................................... 277 5.3.4 Relationship Scales Questionnaire ................................................................................... 278 5.3.5 Love Attitude Scale........................................................................................................... 281 5.3.6 Auckland Individualism Collectivism Questionnaire ........................................................... 282 5.3.7 Values Survey Module ...................................................................................................... 283 5.3.8 Bem Sex Role Inventory ................................................................................................... 284

5.4 RESEARCH METHOD................................................................................................................ 285 5.5 DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURES .................................................................................................. 286 5.6 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ...................................................................................................... 287 5.7 CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 287

CHAPTER 6 ........................................................................................................................... 289

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................................... 289

6.1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 289 6.2. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS ........................................................................................................ 289

6.2.1. Demographics .............................................................................................................. 289 6.2.2. Love experiences ......................................................................................................... 292 6.2.3. Love as a basis for marriage ......................................................................................... 294 6.2.4. Love as a basis for the maintenance of marriage .......................................................... 294 6.2.5. Romantic Beliefs Scale – romantic beliefs ..................................................................... 295 6.2.6. Relationship Style Questionnaire – attachment patterns ................................................ 296 6.2.7. Love Attitude Scale - lovestyles .................................................................................... 298 6.2.8. Auckland Individualism Collectivism Questionnaire ....................................................... 299 6.2.9. Hofstede’s Value Survey Model .................................................................................... 300

6.3. FACTOR ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................. 302 6.3.1. Romantic Beliefs Scale ................................................................................................. 302 6.3.2. Relationship Scale Questionnaire ................................................................................. 308 6.3.3. Love Attitude Scale ....................................................................................................... 311 6.3.4. Auckland Individualism Collectivism Questionnaire ....................................................... 318 6.3.5. Conclusion on factor analysis ....................................................................................... 324

ix

6.4. RELIABILITY OF INSTRUMENTS .................................................................................................. 325 6.4.1. Reliability of Romantic Beliefs Scale ............................................................................. 325 6.4.2. Reliability of Relationship Questionnaire Scale .............................................................. 325 6.4.3. Reliability of Love Attitude Scale ................................................................................... 326 6.4.4. Reliability of Auckland Individualism Collectivism Questionnaire .................................... 326 6.4.5. Conclusion on reliability of instruments ......................................................................... 327

6.5. INDIVIDUALISM COLLECTIVISM .................................................................................................. 328 6.5.1. Auckland Individualism and Collectivism Questionnaire by race .................................... 328 6.5.2. Auckland Individualism and Collectivism Questionnaire by gender ................................ 329 6.5.3. Auckland Individualism and Collectivism Questionnaire by race and gender interaction . 332 6.5.4. Conclusion on Auckland Individualism and Collectivism Questionnaire.......................... 336

6.6. LOVE RESULTS BY RACE, GENDER AND THE INTERSECTION BETWEEN RACE AND GENDER ................ 337 6.6.1. Love experiences by race and gender........................................................................... 337 6.6.2. Love as a basis for marriage by race and gender .......................................................... 343 6.6.3. Love as a basis for the maintenance of marriage by race and gender ........................... 351 6.6.4. Romantic beliefs by race and gender ............................................................................ 363 6.6.5. Attachment styles by race and gender .......................................................................... 367 6.6.6. Lovestyles by race and gender ..................................................................................... 374 6.6.7. Race and gender conclusion ......................................................................................... 398

6.7. LOVE RESULTS BY SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS .............................................................................. 404 6.7.1. Socioeconomic status and race .................................................................................... 404 6.7.2. Socioeconomic status and gender ................................................................................ 406 6.7.3. Socioeconomic status by race and gender .................................................................... 407 6.7.4. Socioeconomic status and love experiences ................................................................. 411 6.7.5. Socioeconomic status and love as a basis for marriage ................................................ 412 6.7.6. Socioeconomic status and love as a basis for the maintenance of marriage .................. 413 6.7.7 Socioeconomic status and romantic beliefs ....................................................................... 415 6.7.8. Socioeconomic status and attachment patterns ............................................................ 416 6.7.9. Socioeconomic status and lovestyles ............................................................................ 418 6.7.10 Socioeconomic status and love conclusion ................................................................... 420

6.8. RESULTS OF LOVE MEASURES AND LOVESTYLES ........................................................................ 421 6.8.1. Love experiences and lovestyles .................................................................................. 421 6.8.2. Love as a basis for marriage and lovestyles .................................................................. 422 6.8.3. Love as a basis for the maintenance of marriage and lovestyles ................................... 424 6.8.4. Romantic beliefs and lovestyles .................................................................................... 426 6.8.5. Attachment patterns x lovestyles ................................................................................... 432 6.8.6. Conclusion – love measures x lovestyles ...................................................................... 442

6.9. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................... 443 6.9.1. Descriptives .................................................................................................................. 443 6.9.2. Factor analysis and reliabilities ..................................................................................... 443 6.9.3. Auckland Individualism and Collectivism Questionnaire ................................................ 444 6.9.4. Hofstede’s Value Survey Model .................................................................................... 445 6.9.5. Love experiences ......................................................................................................... 445 6.9.6. Love as a basis for marriage ......................................................................................... 446 6.9.7. Love as a basis for the maintenance of marriage .......................................................... 447 6.9.8. Romantic beliefs ........................................................................................................... 448 6.9.9. Attachment Styles ......................................................................................................... 448 6.9.10. Lovestyles .................................................................................................................... 450 6.9.11. Love measures and lovestyles ...................................................................................... 451

CHAPTER 7 ........................................................................................................................... 454

SUMMARY CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 454

7.1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 454 7.2 CONCLUSION BASED ON THE REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ........................................................... 457

7.2.1 Validity and reliability of instruments ................................................................................. 457

x

7.2.2 Individualism-collectivism instruments............................................................................... 458 7.2.3. Love measures ............................................................................................................. 466

7.3 LIMITATIONS OF THE CURRENT STUDY ....................................................................................... 508 7.4 RECOMMENDATIONS – FUTURE RESEARCH ............................................................................... 510 7.5 CONTRIBUTION OF THE STUDY.................................................................................................. 511 7.6 CONCLUDING REMARKS ........................................................................................................... 512

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 513

APPENDIX A – FINAL QUESTIONNAIRE PACK .................................................................. 562

ANNEXURE B – PILOT QUESTIONNAIRE PACK................................................................. 580

xi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Attachment style, caregiving and sexual mating 75

Table 2.2 A process model of adult attachment formation 77

Table 2.3 Summary of Hazan and Shaver‘s (1987) study 81

Table 2.4 Hendrix‘s psychosocial stages and maladaptive strategies 87

Table 2.5 Sternberg‘s (2000) love stories 108-9

Table 2.6 Lee‘s lovestyle colour classification 135

Table 2.7 Lovestyles and personality correlates 145

Table 2.8 Lovestyles and gender 149

Table 2.9 Measures of love associated with the three major attachment styles 151

Table 2.10 Summary of models of love and their corresponding love types 157-8

Table 2.11 Possible intersections between types, patterns, strategies and styles

of love

174-5

Table 3.1 How problems of social life are solved by culture 183

Table 3.2 Value dimensions 184

Table 3.3 Individualism index (IVD) values for 50 countries and 3 regions 188

Table 3.4 Power distance Index (PDI) values for 50 countries and 3 regions 191-2

Table 3.5 Masculinity Index (MAS) values for 50 countries and 3 regions 193-4

Table 3.6 Uncertainty avoidance Index (UAI) values for 50 countries and 3

regions

196

Table 3.7 Long-term orientation Index (LTO) values for 23 countries 198

Table 3.8 Summary of values of Hofstede‘s cultural dimensions by country or

region

198-

200

Table 3.9 Top three and bottom three country values on Hofstede‘s cultural

dimensions

200

Table 3.10 South Africa‘s rank and values on Hofstede‘s cultural dimensions 201

Table 3.11 A schematic comparison of the Western and African views of the

person and worldviews

209

Table 4.1 Measure of ‗Love as a basis for marriage‘ correlated with Hofstede‘s

(1991) Individualism Index

231

xii

Table 4.2 Responses to ―If love has completely disappeared from a marriage I

think it is probably best for the couple to make a clean break and start

new lives‖

232

Table 4.3 Responses to ―In my opinion, the disappearance of love is not a

sufficient reason for ending a marriage and should not be viewed as

such‖

233

Table 4.4 Erikson‘s eight stages of development 254

Table 4.5 Average percentage age 50 and above per population group and

gender, 1995-1999

269

Table 6.1 Frequency distribution of age 290

Table 6.2 Frequency distribution of race 290

Table 6.3 Proportions of religious orientation 291

Table 6.4 Frequency distribution of social class growing up 291

Table 6.5 Frequency distribution of current social class 292

Table 6.6 Frequency distribution of answers to the question: What is your

current romantic relationship status?

293

Table 6.7 Frequency distribution of answers to the question: ―If you have been

in an intimate relationship in the past, how long was your longest

relationship?‖

294

Table 6.8 Frequency distribution of answers to the question: ―If love has

completely disappeared from a marriage, I think it is probably best for

the couple to make a clean break and start new lives‖.

295

Table 6.9 Frequency distribution of answers to the question: ―In my opinion, the

disappearance of love is not a sufficient reason for ending a marriage

and should not be viewed as such‖.

295

Table 6.10 Romantic belief descriptive statistics 295

Table 6.11 Frequency distribution of romantic beliefs 296

Table 6.12 Descriptive statistics of attachment patterns 296

Table 6.13 Frequency distribution of attachment patterns 298

Table 6.14 Descriptive statistics of lovestyles 298

Table 6.15 Frequency distribution of lovestyles 299

Table 6.16 Descriptive statistics of Individualism Collectivism dimensions 300

Table 6.17 Scores on the dimensions of the Value Survey Model 301

xiii

Table 6.18 Romantic Beliefs Scale correlation matrix (item) 303

Table 6.19 Romantic Beliefs Scale KMO and Bartlett's test (item) 303

Table 6.20 Romantic Beliefs Scale total variance explained (item) 305

Table 6.21 Romantic Beliefs Scale component matrix (item) 306

Table 6.22 Romantic Beliefs Scale total variance explained (factor) 307

Table 6.23 Romantic Beliefs Scale factor matrix (factor) 307

Table 6.24 Relationship Scale Questionnaire KMO and Bartlett's Test (item) 308

Table 6.25 Relationship Scale Questionnaire variance explained (item) 309

Table 6.26 Relationship Scale Questionnaire component matrix (item) 310

Table 6.27 Relationship Scale Questionnaire rotated component matrix (item) 311

Table 6.28 Relationship Scale Questionnaire total variance explained by varimax

rotated principal components (item)

311

Table 6.29 Love Attitude Questionnaire KMO and Bartlett‘s test (item) 312

Table 6.30 Love Attitude Scale total variance explained (item) 312

Table 6.31 Love Attitude Scale component matrix (item) 314

Table 6.32 Love Attitude Scale total variance explained by varimax rotated

principal components (item)

316

Table 6.33 Love Attitude Scale rotated component matrix (item) 317

Table 6.34 Auckland Individualism Collectivism Questionnaire KMO and

Bartlett‘s test (item)

318

Table 6.35 Auckland Individualism Collectivism Questionnaire total variance

explained (item)

319

Table 6.36 Auckland Individualism Collectivism Questionnaire component matrix

(item)

321

Table 6.37 Auckland Individualism Collectivism Questionnaire total variance

explained by varimax rotated principal components (item)

322

Table 6.38 Auckland Individualism Collectivism Questionnaire rotated component

matrix (item)

323

Table 6.39 Reliability of Romantic Beliefs Scale 325

Table 6.40 Reliability of Relationship Questionnaire Scale 326

Table 6.41 Reliability of Love Attitude Scale 327

Table 6.42 Reliability of Auckland Individualism Collectivism Questionnaire 328

Table 6.43 Individualism collectivism descriptives determined by race 329

Table 6.44 Individualism collectivism ANOVA determined by race 329

xiv

Table 6.45 Individualism collectivism descriptives determined by gender 330

Table 6.46 Individualism collectivism ANOVA determined by gender 330

Table 6.47 Individualism descriptives determined by gender and race 332

Table 6.48 Individualism Tests of Between-Subjects Effects determined by

gender and race

333

Table 6.49 Collectivism descriptives determined by gender and race 334

Table 6.50 Collectivism Tests of Between-Subjects Effects determined by gender

and race

335

Table 6.51 Crosstabulation by race and ―Are you currently in love with

someone?‖

337

Table 6.52 Chi-Square Test by race and ―Are you currently in love with

someone?‖

337

Table 6.53 Crosstabulation by gender and ―Are you currently in love with

someone?‖

338

Table 6.54 Chi-Square Test by gender and ―Are you currently in love with

someone?‖

338

Table 6.55 Crosstabulation by race, gender and ―Are you currently in love with

someone?‖

339

Table 6.56 Chi-square test by race, gender and ―Are you currently in love with

someone?‖

340

Table 6.57 Crosstabulation by gender within race and ―Are you currently in love

with someone?‖

341

Table 6.58 Chi-square test by gender within race and ―Are you currently in love

with someone?‖

342

Table 6.59 Crosstabulation by race and ―If a man or woman had all the other

qualities you desired, would you marry this person if you were not in

love with him or her?‖

344

Table 6.60 Chi-Square Test by race and ―If a man or woman had all the other



345

Table 6.61 Crosstabulation by gender and ―If a man or woman had all the other



346

xv

Table 6.62 Chi-Square Test by gender and ―If a man or woman had all the other



346

Table 6.63 Crosstabulations by race, gender and ―If a man or woman had all the

other qualities you desired, would you marry this person if you were

not in love with him or her?‖

347

Table 6.64 Chi-square test by race, gender and ―If a man or woman had all the



348

Table 6.65 Crosstabulations by gender within race and ―If a man or woman had

all the other qualities you desired, would you marry this person if you

were not in love with him or her?‖

349

Table 6.66 Chi-square test by gender within race and ―If a man or woman had all

the other qualities you desired, would you marry this person if you


350

Table 6.67 Crosstabulation by race and ―If love has completely disappeared from

a marriage, I think it is probably best for the couple to make a clean

break and start new lives‖.

352

Table 6.68 Chi-Square Test by race and ―If love has completely disappeared

from a marriage, I think it is probably best for the couple to make a

clean break and start new lives‖.

352

Table 6.69 Crosstabulation by race ―In my opinion, the disappearance of love is

not a sufficient reason for ending a marriage and should not be

viewed as such‖.

353

Table 6.70 Chi-Square Test by race ―In my opinion, the disappearance of love is

not a sufficient reason for ending a marriage and should not be

viewed as such‖.

353

Table 6.71 Crosstabulation by gender ―If love has completely disappeared from a

marriage, I think it is probably best for the couple to make a clean


354

Table 6.72 Chi-Square Test by gender ―If love has completely disappeared from

a marriage, I think it is probably best for the couple to make a clean


354

xvi

Table 6.73 Crosstabulation by gender ―In my opinion, the disappearance of love

is not a sufficient reason for ending a marriage and should not be

viewed as such‖

355

Table 6.74 Chi-Square Test by gender ―In my opinion, the disappearance of love

is not a sufficient reason for ending a marriage and should not be.

viewed as such‖

355

Table 6.75 Crosstabulations by race, gender and ―If love has completely

disappeared from a marriage, I think it is probably best for the couple

to make a clean break and start new lives‖.

356

Table 6.76 Chi-square test by race, gender and ―If love has completely


to make a clean break and start new lives‖.

357

Table 6.77 Crosstabulations by race, gender and ―In my opinion, the



357

Table 6.78 Chi-square test by race, gender and ―In my opinion, the



358

Table 6.79 Crosstabulations by gender within race and ―In my opinion, the



359

Table 6.80 Chi-square test by gender within race and ―In my opinion, the



360

Table 6.81 Crosstabulations by gender within race and ―In my opinion, the



361

Table 6.82 Chi-square test by gender within race and ―In my opinion, the



362

Table 6.83 Romantic Beliefs descriptives determined by race 363

Table 6.84 One-way ANOVA: Romantic Beliefs determined by race 364

Table 6.85 Romantic Beliefs descriptives determined by gender 364

Table 6.86 One-way ANOVA: Romantic Beliefs determined by gender 364

xvii

Table 6.87 Romantic beliefs descriptives determined by race and gender 365

Table 6.88 Romantic beliefs Tests of Between-Subjects Effects determined by

race and gender

366

Table 6.89 Crosstabulation by race and attachment style 368

Table 6.90 Chi-Square Test by race and attachment style 368

Table 6.91 Crosstabulation by gender and attachment style 369

Table 6.92 Chi-Square Test by gender and attachment style 369

Table 6.93 Crosstabulations by race, gender and attachment style 370

Table 6.94 Chi-square test by race, gender and attachment style 370

Table 6.95 Crosstabulations by gender within race and attachment style 371

Table 6.96 Chi-square test by gender within race and attachment style 373

Table 6.97 Lovestyles descriptives determined by race 377

Table 6.98 One-way ANOVA Lovestyles determined by race 378

Table 6.99 Multiple comparisons lovestyles determined by race (Tukey HSD) 378

Table 6.100 Lovestyles descriptives determined by gender 385

Table 6.101 One way ANOVA lovestyles determined by gender 386

Table 6.102 Eros lovestyle descriptives determined by race and gender 390

Table 6.103 Eros lovestyle Tests of Between-Subjects Effects determined by

gender and race

391

Table 6.104 Ludus lovestyle descriptives determined by race and gender 392

Table 6.105 Ludus lovestyle Tests of Between-Subjects Effects determined by

gender and race

392

Table 6.106 Storge lovestyle descriptives determined by race and gender 393

Table 6.107 Storge lovestyle Tests of Between-Subjects Effects determined by

race and gender

394

Table 6.108 Pragma lovestyle descriptives determined by race and gender 395

Table 6.109 Pragma lovestyle Tests of Between-Subjects Effects determined by

race and gender

395

Table 6.110 Mania lovestyle descriptives determined by race and gender 396

Table 6.111 Mania lovestyle Tests of Between-Subjects Effects determined by

race and gender

396

Table 6.112 Agape lovestyle descriptives determined by race and gender 397

Table 6.113 Agape lovestyle Tests of Between-Subjects Effects determined by

race and gender

398

xviii

Table 6.114 Summary of significant findings by race, gender, race by gender,

gender within race and race by gender interaction

402

Table 6.115 Crosstabulation by socioeconomic status and race 405

Table 6.116 Chi-Square Test by socioeconomic status and race 405

Table 6.117 Crosstabulation by socioeconomic status and gender 407

Table 6.118 Chi-Square Test by socioeconomic status and gender 407

Table 6.119 Crosstabulation by socioeconomic status and race by gender 408

Table 6.120 Chi-Square Test by socioeconomic status and race by gender 409

Table 6.121 Crosstabulation by socioeconomic status and gender within race 410

Table 6.122 Chi-Square Test by socioeconomic status and race 411

Table 6.123 Crosstabulation by socioeconomic status and ―Are you currently in

love with someone?‖

412

Table 6.124 Chi-Square Test by socioeconomic status and ―Are you currently in

love with someone?‖

412

Table 6.125 Crosstabulation by socioeconomic status and ―If a man or woman had

all the other qualities you desired, would you marry this person if you


413

Table 6.126 Chi-Square Test by socioeconomic status and ―If a man or woman

had all the other qualities you desired, would you marry this person if

you were not in love with him or her?‖

413

Table 6.127 Crosstabulation by socioeconomic status and ― If love has completely


to make a clean break and start new lives‖

414

Table 6.128 Chi-square Test by socioeconomic status and ―If love has completely


to make a clean break and start new lives‖

414

Table 6.129 Crosstabulation by socioeconomic status and ―In my opinion, the


and should not be viewed as such‖

415

Table 6.130 Chi-square Test by socioeconomic status and ―In my opinion, the


and should not be viewed as such‖

415

Table 6.131 Total romanticism descriptives determined by Socioeconomic status 416

xix

Table 6.132 One way ANOVA: Total romanticism determined by Socioeconomic

status

416

Table 6.133 Crosstabulation by socioeconomic status and attachment style 417

Table 6.134 Chi-square Test by Socioeconomic status and attachment style 417

Table 6.135 Crosstabulation by socioeconomic status and lovestyles 419

Table 6.136 Chi-square Test by socioeconomic status and lovestyles 419

Table 6.137 Crosstabulation by lovestyles and ―Are you currently in love with

someone?‖

421

Table 6.138 Chi-square Test by lovestyle and ―Are you currently in love with

someone?‖

422

Table 6.139 Crosstabulation by lovestyles and ―If a man or woman had all the



423

Table 6.140 Chi-square Test by lovestyle and ―If a man or woman had all the other



423

Table 6.141 Crosstabulation by lovestyles and ―If love has completely disappeared


clean break and start new lives‖

425

Table 6.142 Chi-square Test by lovestyle and ―If love has completely disappeared


clean break and start new lives‖

425

Table 6.143 Crosstabulation by lovestyles and ―In my opinion, the disappearance

of love is not a sufficient reason for ending a marriage and should not

be viewed as such‖

426

Table 6.144 Chi-square Test by lovestyle and ―In my opinion, the disappearance

of love is not a sufficient reason for ending a marriage and should not

be viewed as such‖

426

Table 6.145 Total romanticism descriptives as determined by lovestyles 427

Table 6.146 One-way ANOVA: Total romanticism as determined by lovestyles 427

Table 6.147 Multiple comparisons: Total romanticism as determined by lovestyles

(Tukey HSD)

427

Table 6.148 Correlations of romanticism and lovestyles 431

xx

Table 6.149 Lovestyle descriptives as determined by attachment style 433

Table 6.150 One-way ANOVA: Lovestyles as determined by attachment style 434

Table 6.151 Multiple comparisons: Lovestyles as determined by attachment style

(Tukey HSD)

435

xxi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Two-dimensional, four-category model of adult attachment 83

Figure 2.2 Rusbult‘s Investment Model 95

Figure 2.3 Commitment and relationship maintenance mechanisms 98

Figure 2.4 Sternberg‘s (1988) Triangular Model of Love 106

Figure 2.5 Lee‘s (1976) colour wheel 135

Figure 2.6 A tentative integrated model of romantic love (1) 156


Figure 3.1 Vertical, horizontal and oblique forms of cultural transmission and

acculturation

182

Figure 3.2 South African National Population Estimates, 2008 206


Figure 5.1 Two-dimensional: anxiety/self-model and avoidance/other-model;

four-category model of adult attachment.

280

Figure 6.1 Two-dimensional: anxiety/self-model and avoidance/other-model;

four-category model of adult attachment with excluded area

297

Figure: 6.2 Proportion of samples‘ dominant lovestyle 299

Figure 6.3 Romantic Beliefs Scale screeplot (item) 305

Figure 6.4 Romantic Beliefs Scale screeplot (factor) 307

Figure 6.5 Relationship Scale Questionnaire screeplot (item) 309

Figure 6.6 Love Attitude Scale screeplot (item) 314

Figure 6.7 Auckland Individualism Collectivism Questionnaire screeplot (item) 320

Figure 6.8 Means of individualism as determined by gender 331

Figure 6.9 Means of collectivism as determined by gender 331

Figure 6.10 Gender x race means of Individualism 333

Figure 6.11 Gender and race means of Collectivism 335

Figure 6.12 Race proportions of those who would and would not marry someone

they did not love

344

xxii

Figure 6.13 Proportion of males and females who would and would not marry

someone they did not love.

345

Figure 6.14 Means of total romanticism score as determined by gender and race. 366

Figure 6.15 Proportion of Black samples‘ predominant lovestyle 375

Figure 6.16 Proportion of White samples‘ predominant lovestyle 375

Figure 6.17 Proportion of Coloured samples‘ predominant lovestyle 375

Figure 6.18 Proportion of Indian/Asian samples‘ predominant lovestyle 375

Figure 6.19 Means of eros lovestyle as determined by race 381

Figure 6.20 Means of ludus lovestyle as determined by race 381

Figure 6.21 Means of storge lovestyle as determined by race 382

Figure 6.22 Means of pragma lovestyle as determined by race 382

Figure 6.23 Means of mania lovestyle as determined by race 383

Figure 6.24 Means of agape lovestyle as determined by race 383

Figure 6.25 Proportion of male samples‘ predominant lovestyle 384

Figure 6.26 Proportion of female samples‘ predominant lovestyle 384

Figure 6.27 Means of eros lovestyle as determined by gender 387

Figure 6.28 Means of ludus lovestyle as determined by gender 387

Figure 6.29 Means of storge lovestyle as determined by gender 388

Figure 6.30 Means of pragma lovestyle as determined by gender 388

Figure 6.31 Means of mania lovestyle as determined by gender 389

Figure 6.32 Means of agape lovestyle as determined by gender 389

Figure 6.33 Socioeconomic status as determined by race 406

Figure 6.34 Attachment style and socioeconomic status 418

Figure 6.35 Are you currently in love with someone by lovestyle 422

Figure 6.36 ―If a man or woman had all the other qualities you desired, would you

marry this person if you were not in love with him or her?‖ as

determined by lovestyle

424

Figure 6.37 Means of total romanticism as determined by lovestyles 429

Figure 6.38 Mean of eros lovestyle as determined by attachment style 439

Figure 6.39 Mean of ludus lovestyle as determined by attachment style 439

Figure 6.40 Mean of storge lovestyle as determined by attachment style 440

Figure 6.41 Mean of pragma lovestyle as determined by attachment style 440

Figure 6.42 Mean of mania lovestyle as determined by attachment style 441

Figure 6.43 Mean of agape lovestyle as determined by attachment style 441

1

CHAPTER 1

Introduction, Rationale and Research Aims

1.1 Importance of the topic

―Everything that lives, lives not alone nor for itself‖ (William Blake)

Harlow (1958, p. 673) states that ―love is a wondrous state, deep, tender, and

rewarding‖. Hendrix (1995) agrees and adds that human beings have an unconscious

and powerful yearning to be in a committed love partnership with another in order to feel

whole and fulfilled. People feel happy, alive and at peace with the world when they are

in love and connected with another (Hendrix, 1995). The lack of an intimate relationship

makes individuals feel disconnected, valueless, hopeless, powerless, immobilised and

estranged (Aronson, Wilson & Akert, 2005; Hendrix, 1995). It is this yearning for love

and connection with another that places intimate relationships at the core of human

experience and central to our being (Brehm, Miller, Perlman & Campbell, 2002; Freud,

1930; Hendrix, 1995; Myers, 2002). Berscheid and Reis (1998) assert that research

confirms that the primary reason individuals seek psychotherapy is because of

distressed relationships – mostly familial or marital. Researchers that study human

happiness have found that people consider close relationships of primary importance,

meaningful and essential to their mental and physical well being (Berscheid, 1999).

Studies reveal that love is a significant predictor of positive emotions, satisfaction and

happiness (Diener & Lucas, 2000; Myers, 2002). Therefore, by improving our

understanding of romantic relationships and love we create the potential for improving

relationship function and in turn the mental and physical well being of the individual.

Lampert, (1997, p. 8) says ―Love is one of the most intense, dramatic, powerful

experiences known to humans‖. Humans seem to have an innate need to seek and join

2

with a mate in love and connection. This seeking, joining and union is done in many

different and diverse ways.

Most researchers and theorists agree that romantic love is a near universal experience

(Buss, 2000; Freud, 1930; Jankowiak, 1995, Jankowiak & Fischer, 1992). Cho and

Cross (1995, p. 306) caution that although ―love and romance are thought to be

universal experiences……the ways that these experiences are framed and established

vary widely across cultures―. The way love is defined, experienced and the process of

finding and selecting a romantic partner differs around the world (Aronson et al., 2005).

Much research has been conducted recently in order to unravel the intricate complexity

of intimate relationships across cultures. These efforts have enriched our knowledge as

well as provided divergent perspectives across cultures on the nature, types and

function of love. Despite the ever mounting body of worldwide research, more research

is required on love and intimate relationships and particularly in Africa and South Africa

where there is a dearth of empirical knowledge.

Before proceeding with the body of the study it is important to briefly define the two

main concepts.

1.2 Definition of main terms

The two primary terms that will be defined are 1) love and 2) the socio-cultural context

in which South African‘s find themselves.

1.2.1 Love

―One word

Frees us of the weight and pain of life

That word is love.‖

(Sophocles)

3

Intimate relationships are characterised by a greater degree of knowledge, caring,

interdependence, mutuality, trust and commitment in relation to the beloved than when

compared to others (Brehm et al., 2002). Although not all of these characteristics are

required for intimacy to occur, the most satisfying, rewarding and meaningful

relationships do tend to have all these characteristics (Fletcher, Simpson & Thomas,

2000).

People create intimacy, belonging and connection with others in a variety of ways and

love spans a variety of relationships – parent/child, brother/sister, and friend/friend. It is,

therefore important to emphasise that this study will focus exclusively on adult romantic

relationships. In addition, there are various stages in a romantic love relationship. This

study is primarily concerned with the beginning stages of romantic love and the criteria

individuals across South African cultures use, to go about finding and selecting a love

partner.

Romantic love is passionate, powerful, intense and mysterious. Romantic love is also

―multidimensional or multicomponential‖ (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1989, p. 792) and this

makes it particularly difficult to define and measure. Haslam and Friske (1999) purport

that there are numerous types of intimate romantic relationships - they are complex and

come in infinite shapes and sizes. Hendrick (2004) agrees and says there are many

diverse forms of romantic love, aspects to romantic love and influences on romantic

love. Therefore numerous layers and dimensions exist in the complex dynamic of

interacting with the opposite sex on a romantic level. In addition, love is not

static…being true to its nebulous and complex nature, romantic love seems to evolve,

metamorphose and change within relationships and over time. Brown (2005) suggests

that the meanings of romantic love ideals are not consistent over time and argues that

romantic love ideals are mediated by ‗conditions of modernity‘ (e.g. individualism and

sexual stratification of society) and by religious, political and philosophical influences.

This ever changing nature of romantic love - within a relationship and sociologically -

adds to complexity of attempting to make love knowable. There are multiple theories,

conceptual models and principles that endeavour to make the intricate complexity of

4

romantic love known. However, thus far, there does not seem to be one overarching

theory or model that has incorporated all these various, diverse and sometimes

conflicting models, theories, concepts and understandings of love. Perhaps this is not

possible because love is, by its very nature, multifaceted and to gain a holistic

understanding of its character perhaps requires investigation using various lenses.

Theorists and researchers explain romantic love in different ways and focus on different

aspects of love…

Freud (1930), the father of psychoanalytic thought, said that the most intense, happy,

pleasurable and central human experience is love and loving. He cautioned that

although love and loving comes naturally to humans, achieving happy romantic love

was fraught with obstacles, for example: resolving the infantile psychosexual stages

(which include resolving the Oedipus complex), detaching from the old (parental) love

object, overcoming narcissistic love as well as developing tolerance for one‘s feelings of

love, hate and ambivalence.

Fromm (1956), a dialectical humanist, postulates that love is based: firstly, on one‘s

capacity to love and secondly, learning about the true nature of love and its mutually

interdependent components of: care, responsibility, respect, understanding and

knowledge. He says that ―to love someone is not just a strong feeling – it is a decision, it

is a judgment, it is a promise‖ (p. 51). Fromm (1956), like Freud, differentiates between

mature or healthy love and immature or neurotic development of love. Fromm (1956)

was one of the first to highlight the link between culture and love. He suggests that the

individualistic, Western capitalistic and consuming way of life may thwart the

development of intimacy, love relationships and mature love. He proposes that the

Western capitalistic culture and its individualism counterpart foster the development of

immature love by its excessive focus on acquisition and self interest.

Rubin (1970), a pioneering love researcher tells of love‘s intensity and its components

of attachment and caring for the beloved. Walster and Walster (1978) distinguished

5

between the intense and powerful passionate love and the steady companionate love.

Davis (1985) highlights the qualities that characterise love: trust, understanding, mutual

support, caring and passion.

Bowlby (1973, 1980, 1988), the founder of attachment theory, and Hazan and Shaver

(1987) suggest that the way adults love romantically is based on their early experiences

and primary attachment relationships with their caregivers. Early attachment theorists

suggested there were three primary attachment patterns that emerged from different

caregiving: secure, anxious-ambivalent and avoidant (Ainsworth, Blehar, Walters &

Wall, 1978; Hazan & Shaver, 1987); whereas contemporary attachment theorists

believe there are four core attachment patterns: secure, preoccupied, dismissing and

fearful (Bartholomew, 1990; Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994a, 1994b). Even so, they all

agree that, via internal working models set in childhood, each attachment pattern

determines how the individual will love romantically (Ainsworth et al., 1978;

Bartholomew, 1990; Bartholomew, Kwong & Hart, 2001; Bowlby, 1973, 1980, 1988;

Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994b; Hazan & Shaver, 1987, 1988).

Interdependence or social exchange theorists do not talk about love‘s intensity and

passion instead they explain romantic relationships in terms of interpersonal economics

- a balance sheet. They believe that people evaluate their interactions and relationships

according to perceived rewards, costs, outcomes and comparison levels (Kelley &

Thibaut, 1978) and that the quality of alternatives to relationships determines the

individual‘s commitment to the relationship which in turn determines the stability of the

relationship (Rusbult, 1980). Clark and Mills (1979) differentiated between exchange

relationships (based on interpersonal economics) and communal relationships (based

on altruistic motives). Clark (1984, 1986) and Mills and Clark (1994, 2001) suggested

that communal relationships generally govern long-term intimate romantic relationships

and are characterised by being responsive to the other‘s interests and needs.

Sternberg (1986, 1988) suggested that love consisted of three components: intimacy,

passion and decision / commitment. Later Sternberg with his colleague Beall postulated

6

that the nature of love was socially constructed - that love and the emotional experience

of love, is culturally and contextually defined, constructed and bound (Beall & Sternberg,

1995). Still later Sternberg (1995, 2000) refined his concept of love from being purely

socially constructed to the idea of love as a ―story‖ - that love is personally constructed

within the individual‘s cultural milieu. A post-modern view adds texture and further

understanding to Sternberg‘s stories of love. Post modern and social constructionist

theorists believe that memories, thoughts, notions and conceptions of love are birthed

through social exchange and are mediated through language (McNamee & Gergen,

1992). Thus implying that an individual‘s perception and experience of love - one‘s love

story - changes with a change in language and renews itself in dialogue (Anderson &

Goolishian, 1992; Hoffman, 1992).

Evolutionary psychologists like Buss (1988, 2000, 2003, 2004) believe that love is not

complex and mysterious but instead an evolutionary developed adaptive psychological

mechanism, strategy and talent that ensures the best possible mate selection. Buss

(2000) concedes that both genders rate love as the most important quality in selecting a

mate. But he goes on to say this is only because love is an indispensable and universal

cue for commitment - commitment of parental resources that aims to guarantee optimal

reproductive success of the couple‘s offspring. Mellen (1981) adds that most human

beings are born with a genetic capacity for attachment and love to ensure survival.

Jankowiak (1995, p. 4) describes romantic love as ―any intense attraction involving the

idealization of the other within an erotic context‖. He adds that romantic love has three

primary psychological processes: emotional attachment which includes the desire for

complete acceptance by the other; subjective idealisation and positive illusions; and

erotic stimulation - sexual attraction and physical intimacy. Levin (2000) suggests that

love is an abstract concept and that love means different things to different people. He

says that although researchers have not, as yet, settled on one definition for love, he

suggests that love can be ―conceptualized as an affect, an attitude, a behaviour, or a

judgment or a cognitive decision‖ (p. 119).

7

In sum, it may therefore be said that, love is broadly characterised by a combination of

behavioural, cognitive and emotional components, with different theorists and models

emphasising different aspects of those components.

The heady romantic love in the initial part of a potential love relationship, however, is

not all bliss and ecstasy; it also has its shadow side of desolation and devastation.

Freud (1930) suggest that the attainable love object can bring happiness and bliss but

that the unattainable love object can bring inconsolable pain and despair. He describes

love as: ―I am, of course, speaking of the way of life which makes love the centre of

everything, which looks for satisfaction in loving and being loved….we are never so

defenseless against suffering as when we love, never so helplessly unhappy as when

we have lost our love object or its love‖.

Perhaps it is because love has within its power to evoke extreme happiness and bliss

as well as extreme unhappiness and misery that it has had such a turbulent history. It is

evident that romantic love has existed for eons and across cultures: love poems from

ancient Egypt, love tales, poems and operas from ancient China, the Mahabharata of

ancient India, and the Hebrew ―Song of Solomon‖, to name a few (Shaver, Morgan &

Wu, 1996). However the perception, understanding and importance of romantic love

has changed over time. The ancient Greeks and their fellow Europeans believed that

being passionately attracted to another was a type of madness, an insanity and that it

was vulgar to love one‘s partner too passionately. Plato, the Greek philosopher,

believed that the purest form of love was platonic love, the non-sexual love of one man

for another man (Brehm et al., 2002; Coontz, 2005). In ancient China love was reserved

for illicit, socially disapproved relationships. Similarly France, 12th century, reserved the

purest form of love for adulterous relationships. During the same period, knights

devoted themselves, in a noble quest of unconsummated love, to a married aristocratic

lady (Brehm et al., 2002). In ancient India, love was seen as a disconcerting, antisocial

act and nowadays in India passionate love is often seen as a threat to family structure

(Coontz, 2005, 2007; Levine, Sato, Hashimoto & Verma, 1995; Sandhya, 2009). In the

Middle Ages marriage was an institution that served political and economic purposes

8

(Brehm et al., 2002). Sixteen century Christian church believed that loving one‘s other

half was only just better than ‗unmarried fornication‘ (Coontz, 2005). ―In most cultures of

the past, it was inconceivable that young people would choose their spouse on the

basis of an unpredictable feeling like love‖ (Coontz, 2005, p. 58).

After the Middle Ages people started to believe that although passionate love was

desirable it was generally damned and doomed (Brehm et al., 2002). It was only in the

seventeen and eighteen centuries that Europeans started to believe that romantic love

could end happily. Nonetheless even then, romantic love and passion for one‘s spouse

was not a widespread and acceptable notion – it was the exception rather than the rule

(Brehm et al., 2002). Love only started to become the basis for building enduring

relationships, in Western culture during the late 1800s (Coontz, 2005; Gergen &

Gergen, 1988). It was around this period in history that people started to believe that

love and romantic passion could lead to happiness and could be fulfilling and rewarding

(Brehm et al., 2002). Rebhun (1995) postulates that the change of love and marriage

through history was because of the change in the script of the role of the lover (love as

a provision for marriage and the suitability of actions as declarations of love), rather

than people not having the aptitude or preference for love. Today in the Western world,

the belief that people marry for love is widely accepted. Brehm et al. (2002) suggest that

economic prosperity and the tendency towards individualism has allowed for the

possibility of love as a basis for marriage. This assumption, that passionate and

romantic love is the basis for marriage, was not and still is not necessarily the rule in

non-Western cultures around the world (Xiaohe & Whyte, 1990).

Although cross-cultural researchers concur that romantic love is a near-universal

phenomenon they also highlight that the way love is understood, made sense of,

experienced and the expectations of romantic love differ widely across cultures. Thus,

the complexity and multidimensionality of love is further complicated by culture – love

varies as a function of culture (Landis & O‘Shea, 2000). Researchers have established

that in collectivistic societies, it is often the wishes of the family and group that play the

pivotal role in the choice of a long term partner whereas in individualistic societies

9

romantic love is the crucial factor in the choice of a long term partner (Dion & Dion,

1988, 1993b; Levine et al., 1995). Love in the Western view is ―seen as explosive,

romantic and illogical‖ (Goodwin, 1999, p. 61). In contrast, love in the African or Eastern

view is ―seen as a strong binding force that brings individuals together‖ (Goodwin, 1999,

p. 61).

Lee‘s (1976) conceptual model of love is not only a very prominent and rich approach to

the exploration of love it is also grounded in research – Western as well as cross-

cultural research. Lee (1976, 1988) explained the multidimensionality of love by using

the analogy of colours. Although he believed that the numbers of colours of love are as

many as the possible combinations and mixtures of different colour, he presented a

lovestyle typology which consists of six core lovestyles: eros, romantic, passionate love;

ludus, game-playing love; and storge, friendship love; mania, the possessive,

dependent love; pragma, logical, "shopping list" love; and agape, the all-giving, selfless

love (Lee, 1976).

Cho and Cross (1995) outline a number of excellent reasons as to why Lee‘s lovestyles

may serve as a valuable starting point for cross-cultural research on romantic love.

Firstly, not only is it able to integrate diverse theories of love but it is also describes

diverse love phenomena. Second, Hendrick and Hendrick (1986, 1990) developed and

validated the psychometric properties of the Love Attitude Scale (LAS) (Davis & Latty-

Mann, 1987). Third, several researchers have confirmed, developed and refined Lee

typology of love and researchers have also confirmed the LAS has been a valuable

scale in measuring love in various cultures ranging from American, Mexican, Brazilian,

British, Swiss, French, Portuguese, Russian, Japanese, Chinese, Angolan,

Mozambican and South African culture (Cho & Cross, 1995; Contreras, Hendrick &

Hendrick, 1996; Dion & Dion, 1993a; Goodwin & Findlay, 1997; Hendrick & Hendrick,

1986; Kanemasa, Taniguchi, Daibo & Ishimori, 2004; Murstein, Merighi & Vyse, 1991;

Neto, 1994, Neto et al., 2000; Pavlou, 2005; Rudnick, 1997; Sprecher et al., 1994;

Sprecher & Toro-Morn, 2002).

10

Not only is Lee‘s colours of love a valuable starting point for cross-cultural research on

romantic love but it also seems to encompass less extensive theories of love. Perhaps

Walster and Walster (1978) would see their passionate and companionate love in Lee‘s

eros and storge. Exchange theorist may recognise pragma as their conceptualisation of

love and Clark and Mills (1979) may identify agape as exemplifying their communal

love. Attachment theorists may see eros typifying a secure attachment, ludus an

avoidant or dismissing attachment pattern and mania as an anxious-ambivalent or

preoccupied attachment pattern. Lee‘s (1976) theory on the typology of love is therefore

fundamental to this study and will be explored in more detail in chapter two. Chapter two

of the study will also examine various other pertinent theories and principles of love in

order to locate and position romantic love and Lee‘s typology of love.

1.2.2 The South African socio-cultural context

South Africa is a melting pot of different and interfacing cultures. It is made up of diverse

African and international cultures and its four primary population groups are: Black,

White, Coloured, Indian / Asian. South Africa has a full range of religious sects and

while South Africa has eleven official languages, a much larger variety of languages are

spoken. Although Black Africans (the Nguni, Sotho-Tswana, Tsonga and Venda people)

make up the majority of the South African population they are not culturally, ethnically or

linguistically homogenous. Nonetheless, Black Africans have a great deal in common in

terms of history, background, culture and descent and the study will primarily focus on

an overall African perspective (Avis, Pauw & van der Spuy, 2000; Viljoen, 2002a;

Mwamwenda, 1999; Rudnick, 2002). Similarly the White (the English and Afrikaans

people), Indian/Asian and Coloured (mixed-race people) groupings in South Africa are

also not culturally, ethnically or linguistically homogenous, even so they too have

common grounding and for the purposes of this study they will be treated chiefly as

three broad and separate groups. Therefore, even though South Africa is a melting pot

of cultures where blurring of cultural boundaries is occurring due to acculturation, this

study aims to establish the heterogeneity between the four broad cultural groups

(African, White, Indian/Asian and Coloured) with regard to the conceptualisation of love

11

(Berry, Poortinga, Segall & Dasen, 1992; Matsumoto, 2000; Viljoen, 2002a, 2002b;

Segall, Dasen, Berry & Poortinga, 1999).

It is important to clarify that culture is an ever changing, nebulous and ‗fuzzy‘ concept

(Hofstede, 2002). This may be even more pertinent in South Africa where interfacing

diverse cultures are impacted on by acculturation, cultural leaking and blended world

views due to globalisation - thus possibly compromising cultural groups as distinct

entities. Although the study is not naive to these complexities the four broad cultural

groups (Black African, White, Indian/Asian and Coloured) are nonetheless a useful

starting point to investigating and distinguishing how each cultural group loves and if in

fact they love in culturally distinct ways. It is for these reasons and for reasons

discussed in the literature review under section 3.3 that race and culture is used

interchangeably and that race is used as a proxy measure for culture.

Jankowiak and Fisher (1992) claim that intimate, romantic love is virtually a global

phenomenon. However, as alluded to before, the way an individual experiences,

expresses, remembers and what one expects from love is mediated and a function of

culture (Levinger, 1994). Culture consists of behavioural products of others who have

come before and values, language and a way of life that will be followed by most in that

society (Segall et al., 1999). Thus culture shapes the person‘s views of the world as well

as their ideas and expressions of intimacy and love (Smith & Bond, 1998). Cross-

cultural researchers assert that love has an ethnic face and that love is mediated by

traditional beliefs, local conditions and outside influences (Cho & Cross, 1995; Goodwin,

1999; Jankowiak, 1995; Jankowiak & Fisher, 1992; Smith, 2001). This sentiment of

universality versus cultural distinct love was also recognised by Triandis (1994, p. 72)

"any theoretical construct of some generality in social psychology is likely to have both

etic [i.e., universal] and emic [i.e., culture-specific] aspects". It follows therefore, that in

order to gain a greater understanding of love, culture will need to be examined.

A highly influential and fruitful approach to the exploration of culture is Hofstede‘s (1980)

theoretical construction which delineates four dimensions of culture:

12

Individualism/Collectivism; Power Distance; Masculinity/Femininity; and Uncertainty

Avoidance. Hofstede and Bond‘s (1988) research yielded a fifth cultural dimension:

Long-term Orientation / Short-term Orientation. These five cultural dimensions are

useful as a conceptual framework. They will be outlined in greater detail in Chapter 3.

Researchers have found that the individualism versus collectivism dimension has

proved to be particularly useful in studying psychological phenomena.

Triandis (1995) defines individualism as ―a social pattern that consists of loosely linked

individuals who view themselves as independent of collectives; are primarily motivated

by their own, needs, rights and the contracts they have established with others; give

priority to their personal goals over the goals of others; and emphasize rational analyses

of the advantages and disadvantages to associating with others‖ (Triandis, 1995, p. 2).

Persons who hail from individualistic societies are concerned with the ‗I‘ and ‗me‘ and

consider themselves to be autonomous (Triandis, 1995). Collectivism, individualism‘s

polar opposite as a construct for representing culture, is defined by Triandis (1995) as

―a social pattern consisting of closely linked individuals who see themselves as part of

one or more collectives (family, co-workers, tribe, nation); are primarily motivated by the

norms of, and duties imposed by those collectives; willing to give priority to the goals of

these collectives over their own personal goals; and emphasize their connectedness to

members of these collectives‖ (Triandis, 1995, p. 2). Thus, in stark contrast to the

individualistic emphasis, which falls on ‗I‘ and ‗me‘; persons who hail from collectivistic

societies emphasise the ‗we‘: where duties and obligations to the group may override

personal goals and preferences.

1.3 Research Aims

Cross-cultural research in social psychology is scarce and the scarcity is especially

problematic in the area of romantic love. The aim of the proposed research study is to

add, through the lens of social and cross-cultural psychology, to the pool of South

African knowledge on intimate romantic relationships. Of the many aspects and stages

of love, this study aims to tease out and investigate the cross-cultural differences of the

13

initial stages of love and mate selection across the four major cultural groups (i.e.

African, White, Coloured and Indian/Asian). A prolific approach to cross-cultural

research and in romantic love research in psychology is the dimension of individualism -

collectivism (Goodwin, 1999; Hofstede, 1994a). Researchers suggest that the African

and Indian/Asian group will reflect collectivistic cultural values and beliefs and that the

White and possibly the Coloured group will reflect individualistic cultural values and

beliefs (Hofstede, 1980; Mkhize, 2004a; Mwamwenda, 1999; Triandis, 1995; Viljoen,

2002a).

Most cross-cultural research on romantic love utilises a student sample. Perhaps the

reason is because according to Erikson (1968) the developmental crisis‘ that arises

from the interaction between genetic development and social influence in adolescence

and young adulthood are identity and intimacy. This naturally leads to strong

preoccupation in interpersonal relationships. It is for this reason, that university students

from the four major ethnic groups will be compared to one another. In addition, this

student sample is by definition grappling with the initial stages of romantic love and

mate selection, which dovetails neatly with the objectives of this study. The research will

be done by utilising various love and cultural measures. These instruments, measures

and scales will be used to explore how love and romantic relationships are

conceptualised by young adults across the four South African cultural groups.

The central question of the proposed study is to explore the cross-cultural differences

between ways of loving across the four cultural groups. The study will seek to

investigate this by establishing the cross-cultural differences in 1) love experiences, 2)

love as a basis for marriage, 3) love as a basis for the maintenance of marriage, 4)

romantic beliefs, 5) attachment styles and 6) lovestyles. Gender differences, as a whole

and within cultures, across the six ways of loving will also be explored. The intersection

between these six ways of loving will be investigated using the overall South African

sample. In addition, the influence of socio-economic status on ways of loving will be

investigated. How the four South African cultural groups map to the individualism

collectivism continuum will be explored. Finally, the study aims to determine whether the

14

South African sample‘s ways of loving are comparable to international cross-cultural

research findings on ways of loving.

The significance of the study is threefold. Firstly, it will add to ‗how South Africans love

across cultures‘ research pool, a field thus far largely neglected by psychologists. This

will aid in closing the gaps that exist in current knowledge of South African loving.

Secondly, the study seeks to further the psychological understanding of South African

cross-cultural love nuances, needs and experiences. Thirdly, it may suggest avenues of

therapeutic intervention in couple counselling situations. This may be especially useful

for therapeutic implications in South African communities when considering the urgency

for intervention required to avert and manage the HIV / AIDS pandemic. In addition, if

selecting a mate is one of the most important decisions an individual makes then the

study may add to the understanding of the epidemic of failed marriages. Finally, the

results of the study may be compared to the results of the many similar international

studies, thus adding the South African voice of love to the international body of

knowledge.

1.4 Chapter outline

Having briefly outlined the two main concepts of the literature review, the study will now

explore these two concepts in greater detail. Chapter two will explore the existing

literature on Lee‘s lovestyles but in order to contextualise Lee‘s lovestyles, various

theories and principles on love will be surveyed. Thereafter, chapter three will probe

culture, South African culture, the four South African ethnic groups and the effects of

globalisation. Finally, chapter four will investigate the intersection between love and

culture. The research methodology will be outlined in chapter five. The results of the

study and the discussion of those results will be reported on in chapter six. Chapter

seven will conclude the study.

15

CHAPTER 2

Principles and Theories of Western Love

―Voi che sapete che cosa e amor

(Tell us you who know if this be love)‖

Cherubino in Mozart‘s Figaro

2.1 Introduction

Love has been the domain of authors, musicians, poets and philosophers until recently

when psychologists have attempted, via numerous models, to demystify the complexity

of romantic love relationships: the how, why and what happens when people love one

another. Love and the study of love, is wonderfully diverse – theorists, researchers and

scientists approach it from different theoretical perspectives, orientations and

epistemologies. Therefore the perspectives, central insights and empirical evidence

gleaned regarding the phenomenon of love are often vastly divergent because they

emphasise different processes, developmental paths, causal factors, components and

outcomes. Such diversity tends to produce an abundance of rich, multifaceted

information. Each key insight can be viewed, metaphorically, as a piece of the larger

puzzle. Therefore, instead of taking an ‗either - or‘ stance this study attempts to take an

inclusive one. And, as with completing a puzzle, the more pieces that are found to fit,

the clearer the picture of the overall puzzle becomes. In other words, the study aims to

gain a cumulative and expanded understanding of love as well as to identify the points

of agreement between these unique perspectives in the hope of illuminating more and

more parts of the romantic love puzzle.

In deciding how to structure and organise this chapter various possibilities emerged –

by making use of common factors, or epistemologically or perhaps chronologically. In

16

order to demonstrate the increasing complexity of the historical arc on the subject of

romantic love, it was decided to structure the love literature utilising a chronological

sequence. The researcher will therefore take a historical walk through the love literature

in the hope that through each key contributor‘s unique lens a part of the overall puzzle

of romantic love will be elucidated. The key puzzle pieces and their unique views on

romantic love that will be examined are: Freud‘s (1905, 1914, 1915) intrapsychic views

on love; Fromm‘s (1956) humanistic and sociocultural vision of love; the attachment

viewpoint (Bowlby, 1969; Ainsworth et al., 1978; Hazan & Shaver, 1987); an

interdependence / social exchange standpoint (Clark & Mills, 1979; Kelley & Thibaut,

1978; Mills & Clark, 1994, 2001; Rusbult, 1983); Sternberg‘s (1986, 1988, 2000) social

constructionist angle; the evolutionary perspective (Buss, 1988, 1999, 2003, 2004) and

finally Lee‘s (1976) typology of love – colours of love: lovestyles.

In the beginning of the 1900s the first person in the discipline of psychology who

attempted, via scattered writing over four decades, to explain the intrapsychic

foundations of love, was Freud (1905, 1914, 1915). Thereafter there was relatively little

research or theoretical development as regards love in the field of psychology until

Fromm (1956), who explained his theory of love in his book The Art of Loving. Fromm

(1956) explores a humanistic and sociocultural view of love. He outlines ideal or

mature love and indicates how society either allows for the development of mature love

or hinders it. Freud‘s (1905, 1914, 1915) and Fromm‘s (1956) conceptualisations of love

were both primarily based on observation or case studies rather than on empirical

evidence garnered from scientific research. This is not to say that their claims are

in/complete or in/correct – many have applauded and many have maligned both. Even

so, this does not mean that they did not provide powerful and useful insights for

understanding the puzzle of love.

From the late 1960s, attachment theory became an important theory through which to

understand love. Attachment theory, from a genetic, biological and interpersonal

viewpoint, highlighted how attachment patterns set in infancy are carried through to

romantic attachment in adulthood (Bowlby, 1969; Ainsworth et al., 1978; Hazan &

17

Shaver, 1987). These authors propose that infants are born with a genetic and

biological tendency to bond and attach with their caregivers. In addition, they claim that

parents are genetically and biologically prepared to respond, bond and care for their

infants. Attachment theorists also contend that the early interactions which an infant has

with caregivers create ‗internal working models‘ of relationships. These unconscious

models inform the child, and in time the adult, with respect to the level of support,

empathy and trustworthiness they can expect from significant others; which in turn

exerts a profound impact on what they expect from romantic love relationships (Hazan

& Shaver, 1987).

The late 1970s and the period into the early 1980s witnessed a number of different and

key theories developing concurrently to explain romantic love. Firstly, the

interdependent theory / social exchange theory (Clark & Mills, 1979; Kelley &

Thibaut, 1978; Mills & Clark, 1994, 2001; Rusbult, 1983) emphasised the economic

nature of an intimate relationship and theorised that human beings are interpersonal

accountants who calculate the profits and losses of interactions with their beloved.

Secondly, Lee (1976) did not focus on trying to explain how human beings come to love

romantically; instead he focused on types of love. He developed his prominent theory

on the colours of love typology – lovestyles in the latter part of the 1970s. Thirdly,

Walster and Walster (1978) examined the character and components of passionate

and companionate love.

During the late 1980s two primary theories emerged to explain love. Firstly, Sternberg

presented his triangular theory of love which focused on components of love that

when combined yield different types of love; he later introduced his social

constructionist theory of love stories (Sternberg, 1986, 1988, 1995, 2000). Secondly,

evolution theory (Buss, 1988, 1999, 2003, 2004) emerged and researched how

inherited biological and genetic make-up shapes and explains behaviour in romantic

relationships – for example, mate selection strategies, gender specific mate preferences

and patterns of childrearing.

18

Although Lee (1976) developed his colours of love typology in the 1970s, his theory is

not only a pivotal part of the study but has also yielded fruitful research on romantic love

cross-culturally; it will therefore comprise the last element of the literature review. In

conclusion, all the theories will be compared, contrasted and points of commonality and

agreement will be identified using Lee‘s (1976) lovestyles as the central piece of the

overall romantic love jigsaw.

It is important to clarify the stage of the romantic relationship lifecycle on which the

literature discussed will focus. According to Reis and Rusbult (2004) there are four

romantic relationship stages: 1) attraction and initiating relationships, 2) developing

relationships, 3) maintaining relationships and 4) deteriorating and dissolution of

relationships. The literature review, and indeed this study, is primarily concerned with

the first two stages.

Prior to beginning to identify the above central puzzle pieces it is important to

contextualise the theories of romantic love: this will be achieved by briefly outlining the

factors that are concerned with the first stage of the romantic relationship lifecycle:

factors that nurture attraction, liking and loving (Rubin, 1970).

19

2.2 Factors that nurture attraction, liking and loving

Rubin (1970), a pioneering love researcher, found qualitative differences between loving

and liking. He said that liking entailed assessing another person‘s level of likeability,

maturity, responsibility, and flexibility. Love, he said, is much more intense than liking

and is characterised by attachment to and caring about another person. A plethora of

research has been conducted since Rubin (1970) and it has yielded the primary factors

that nurture liking and loving: 1) proximity (Berscheid & Reis, 1998; Griffin & Sparks,

1990; Zajonc, 1968); 2) similarity (Berscheid & Reis, 1998; Byrne, 1997, Katz & Beach

2000); 3) mutual liking (Backman, 1990; Curtis & Miller, 1986; Kenny & Nasby, 1980;

Swann, Stein-Seroussi & McNulty, 1992) and 4) physical attractiveness (Berscheid &

Reis, 1998; Buss, 1998; Cunningham, 1986; Cunningham, Barbee & Pike, 1990;

Feingold, 1990; Regan & Berscheid, 1997).

2.2.1 Proximity

Researchers agree that proximity is one of the most powerful predictors of interpersonal

attraction (Griffin & Sparks, 1990; Myers, 2002; Zajonc, 1968). People are more likely to

become friends and or lovers the more they see and interact with one another

(Berscheid & Reis, 1998). This is also known as the propinquity effect (Aronson et al.,

2005). The vital element of interaction is how often people‘s paths cross – functional

distance (Myers, 2002). According to Zajonc (1968), even if one initially feels positive,

neutral or slightly negative towards a person, after one experiences frequent and

repetitive exposure to that person, one will usually rate him or her more positively. He

calls this the mere exposure effect. Research points to the fact that familiarity generates

fondness, liking and attraction (Griffin & Sparks, 1990; Zajonc, 1968).

Aronson et al. (2005) suggest that nowadays in the world of computer mediated

communication, functional distance and propinquity are defined by a person‘s computer

screen. According to Ben-Ze‘ev (2004) online relationships combine features and

20

elements of distant and close relationships which culminate in new and unique types of

romantic relationships. He describes the paradoxical nature of and opposing factors that

operate in online romantic relationships as: 1) detached attachment or ―detattachement‖

– emotional closeness, and physical distance and separation; 2) distance and

immediacy; 3) anonymity and self disclosure; 4) lean and rich communication; 5)

continuity and discontinuity and 6) marginal physical investment yet considerable

mental investment. He argues that it is these contradictions and the uncertainty they

create that make an online romantic relationship less stable and more intense.

According to him individuals in online romantic relationships attempt to enjoy the

benefits of both close and remote relationships while evading their defects and flaws;

thus reducing the price of social relationships. Cohen (2001) reports that although

marriage is only one indication of a successful online match, not even one percent of

online daters married.

2.2.2 Similarity

According to researchers, although proximity increases familiarity, which leads to liking,

more is needed to stimulate and grow a budding friendship or romantic relationship.

They present similarity as an answer. Aube and Koestner (1995) describe similarity as a

mutual fit between two persons‘ attitudes, beliefs, values, personality, background and /

or interests. It follows that if two people‘s opinions and personality characteristics are

similar they will like each other more. Research findings support this: the desire to

convert an acquaintance into a friend or a romantic relationship is awakened by

similarity (Berscheid & Reis, 1998; Byrne, 1997). Burleson (1994) reports that people

who are friends tend to share a similar interpersonal communication style and possess

similar levels of communication skills. Similarities in interests and experiences also fuel

a budding friendship (Kubitschek & Hallinan, 1998). Self-enhancement theory proposes

that people seek partners who view them as favourably as possible while self-

verification theory proposes that people seek relationship partners who view them as

they view themselves (Katz & Beach, 2000).

21

Similarity is important, not only because of a mutual fit between people, but also

because of the positive reinforcements they offer (Aronson et al., 2005; Michener,

DeLamater & Myers, 2004):

i) Individuals usually make negative inferences about someone who disagrees

with them on important issues whereas positive outcomes are usually

experienced when interacting with an individual who holds similar attitudes.

ii) An individual‘s own view of the world, characteristics and beliefs are

validated by someone who is similar to them and who holds similar views and

beliefs.

iii) An individual will like a person who shares similar attitudes because he / she

will expect the person to like them as a person as well.

Therefore the want to be liked, the need to be validated and the conclusions a person

reaches about a like-minded person all heighten the attractiveness of that like-minded

person.

Brehm et al. (2002) clarify that even when it seems that opposites attract, the situation

is not as it appears. According to them, similarities operate in subtle ways. Firstly, they

suggest that matching is a broad process and is dependent on individuals matching

different assets (beauty, youth, health, wealth, talent and fame) with others who

possess similar standing in the interpersonal market. Secondly, they contend that

discovering similarities, and uncovering perceived similarity and dissimilarity, takes time.

Thirdly, at times individuals appreciate dissimilarity in a partner if it is complementary to

the individual‘s actions and helps them in reaching their goals. These authors conclude

that perhaps it is dissimilarity that humans avoid rather than the attraction and

importance of similarity.

Overall it seems that birds of a feather flock together and that similarity is much more

rewarding than opposites because similar partners are not only more likely to

understand each other‘s needs and wants, but are also more likely to satisfy them.

22

2.2.3 Reciprocity: Mutual liking

Mutual liking stimulates and promotes a friendship or romantic relationship. It has been

found that there is a strong correlation between a person liking someone and the

perception that that person will like them in return (Backman, 1990). This self fulfilling

prophecy often results in reciprocal liking. In an experiment it was found that a person

will behave in more likable ways if they think they are liked (Curtis & Miller, 1986).

Another study demonstrated that a person‘s liking for another does predict the other‘s

liking in return (Kenny & Nasby, 1980). In other words, one‘s liking of another actually

increases the probability of reciprocated affection. This is particularly true for people

with a positive or moderate self-concept (Swann, Stein-Seroussi & McNulty, 1992).

2.2.4 Physical attractiveness

Myriad studies demonstrate consistently and pervasively that looks do matter. Although

both sexes are responsive to the attractiveness of the opposite sex, males value female

attractiveness more than vice versa (Feingold, 1990). Recent studies, however, report

that both sexes rank physical attractiveness as equally important and highly desirable

(Regan & Berscheid, 1997). Consistent with the biological explanation, research has

found that men, universally, prefer young, healthy, fertile women; while women,

particularly women who are less educated and who exercise less control over

conception and family size, prefer men on the basis of their material resources (Buss,

1998; Kasser & Sharma, 1999). This echoes the evolutionary stance which is discussed

in more depth later. Nonetheless, despite the fact that males and females place different

importance on a partner‘s physical attractiveness and material resources, research has

found that both sexes seek the same qualities in romantic partners: dependability;

emotional stability; warmth; kindness; a pleasant, amiable, agreeable personality and

being liked in return (Buss 2004; Sprecher, 1998).

23

There are shared standards of beauty and attractiveness both within and across

cultures (Cunningham, Roberts, Wu, Barbee & Druen, 1995). Women with large eyes, a

small nose and a small chin, prominent cheekbones and high eyebrows are rated as

attractive by men (Cunningham, 1986). Men from diverse cultures find women whose

waist is 30 percent smaller than their hips, the most attractive (Singh & Luis, 1995). Men

with large eyes, prominent cheekbones and a broad chin and a broad forehead are

rated as attractive by women (Cunningham et al., 1990). Langlios and Roggman (1990)

merged a number of individual facial photographs into a single composite facial image.

The composite face was rated as being more attractive than any of the individual

photographs. They extended the experiment and found that the more individual faces

that were merged and averaged, the more attractive the resulting composite face was

rated. It was found that the ‗averaging‘ of faces produces a face that is familiar,

symmetrical and typical. Cowley (1996) concurs with this finding and suggests that as

the symmetry of a face increases, so does its attractiveness.

Other researchers suggest that it is not only symmetry that is important, but that

familiarity may be a vital variable in explaining interpersonal attractiveness too

(Berscheid & Reis, 1998). Little and Perrett (2002) found support for this in their fairly

recent research. They established that individuals preferred faces which most

resembled their own and accorded higher ratings of attractiveness to a photograph of

their opposite-sex ‗clone‘. People exhibit a tendency to pair up with someone who

displays a similar level of physical attractiveness to them; this is known as matching

(Feingold, 1988).

Research reports that humans automatically adhere to the ―what is beautiful is good‖

stereotype and that they tend to ascribe desirable traits to beautiful people (Ashmore &

Longo, 1995). Beautiful people are perceived to be more likable, better people, well

adjusted, friendly, happier and more socially skilled (Eagly, Ashmore, Makhijani &

Longo, 1991; Etcoff, 1999). People from individualistic cultures tend to include traits

related to personal strength while those from collectivistic cultures tend to include

integrity and concern for others in their ―beautiful‖ stereotypes (Dion, Pak & Dion, 1990).

24

Researchers from the evolutionary perspective believe that every human being is an

evolutionary success because their ancestors not only survived until reproductive age

but also because the former have reproduced successfully. These researchers reason

that people rate symmetry as well as physical attractiveness positively because it is an

indicator of health and thus reproductive fitness (Mealey, Bridgstock & Townsend,

1999).

2.2.5 Conclusion

In the Western world love relationships are brought about by attraction between two

individuals. In sum, researchers have found that the determinants of attraction are

concerned with the circumstances and situation (proximity, frequent exposure),

individual attributes and evolutionary forces (physical attractiveness, similarity, and self-

concept) and the individual‘s behaviour (mutual liking, as well as conveying liking). It is

therefore important to report on the aspects of attraction and the factors that nurture

liking and loving: 1) proximity, 2) similarity, 3) mutual liking and 4) physical

attractiveness, as this deepens understanding of those factors which contribute to the

possibility and encouragement of love. It must be borne in mind that these factors may

not apply to non-Western cultures where attraction is not as important as it is in most

Western cultures. For example, in cultures where an arranged marriage is a common

method of initiating a marriage these factors may not be applicable and / or certain

factors may assume more importance, for example, similarity in terms of religion, caste,

social standing.

Although it was necessary to briefly review the factors that nurture attraction, liking and

loving, this study is less focused on the pragmatics of meeting a mate than the

mechanisms of the feelings of love for the beloved. In an attempt to analyse the

complexity of love, the how and why of loving romantically, and the types of romantic

love, the study will now consider the intrapsychic view of love; this will be followed by

25

discussions of a humanistic view; an attachment perspective; an interdependence /

social exchange view; passionate versus companionate love; the triangular theory of

love and its components as well as a social constructionist standpoint; an evolutionary

perspective; and finally the typology of the colours of love: lovestyles.

26

2.3 Freud‘s conceptualisations of love

2.3.1 Brief background

Sigsimund Scholomo Freud was born in 1856 in Freiberg, Moravia into a middleclass,

non-religious Jewish family and died during 1939 in England (Gomez, 1997; Meyer &

Viljoen, 2002; Miller, 1962). Apart from the first three years of his life and the last two,

he lived in Vienna (Miller, 1962). At the late age of 82 he immigrated, with his wife and

six children, to England because of the threat of World War II and more importantly of

Nazism (Meyer & Viljoen, 2002).

There was an age gap of twenty years between his parents; and his mother, Amalie,

was his father‘s third wife (Meyer & Viljoen, 2002). Although Freud had older half-

siblings from his father‘s previous marriages, he was the eldest of the eight children of

his parent‘s marriage (Gomez, 1997). He was the centre of attention in his family and

his family pinned their hopes of success and recognition in a predominantly Gentile

environment onto him (Gomez, 1997). Freud enjoyed a close and intimate relationship

with his mother but experienced his father as authoritarian, strict, cold and at times

hostile (Meyer & Viljoen, 2002). Freud grew up in a period when Austria was in political,

cultural and economic turmoil and transformation (Gomez, 1997).

After qualifying as a medical doctor in 1881, he practised for 45 years as a neurologist,

psychiatrist and psychoanalyst. In 1882 he became engaged to Martha Bernays and

finally, once he was able to financially support the two of them, they were married in

1986 (Miller, 1962). They had six children. Ten years after their marriage, Martha‘s

sister Minna, who had not married, moved in with the Freud family, where she remained

for most of her life. There is a long, ongoing debate concerning whether Freud and

Minna conducted an intimate relationship (Maciejewski, 2008). According to Gay (1988,

p. 16), "almost from the moment Freud took a passionate interest in Martha Bernays in

27

April 1882, he was drawn to her younger sister Minna, intelligent, lively, and caustic. He

wrote her intimate, amorous letters".

One of the most complex thinkers of this time, Freud revolutionised modern

understanding of human functioning. Yet his collected works are not seamless. Maddi

(1989) for example suggests: ―He wrote a great deal, changed his mind often, and left

many loose ends where he could not decide among theoretical alternatives‖ (p. 43). His

theory is subjectively based and is considered to be essentially a conflict model where

the individual is caught between forces between which he or she is required to find a

balance (Gomez, 1997; Maddi, 1989). Gabbard (2005) explains conflicts as powerful

unconscious forces that seek expression but are kept in check by constant monitoring

from opposing forces. Man is ontologically conceptualised by Freud as deterministic

and a system of biological drives and instincts. He postulates that instincts are

unchanging, inherent and common to all humans. He believes that an individual strives

to maximise instinctual gratification and pleasure, and minimise pain, punishment and

guilt. An individual‘s instincts are selfish but she or he is dependent on the group; since

society is inevitably in opposition to the individual‘s selfish instincts a conflict exists

between her or him and society (Corey, 2005; Gomez, 1997; Maddi, 1989; Meyer &

Viljoen, 2002).

Freud‘s epistemology is summarised as explaining:

a mental phenomenon as an outgrowth of conflict driven by the life (eros) and

death (thanatos) instinct;

that mental life consists of conscious and unconscious levels;

that the mind consists of the id (biological component: instincts and drives), the

ego (psychological component: mediates between the demands of the id, the

constraints of reality and the pressures of the superego) and the superego (social

component: internalisation of ideal parental and societal standards);

that ego-defense mechanisms operate unconsciously and deny, or distort, reality

in order to prevent the ego from being overwhelmed by easing the anxiety that is

28

produced by the conflict between the demands of the id, superego and society;

and

sexual development (Gomez, 1997; Maddi, 1989; Meyer & Viljoen, 2002).

Freud‘s later work does start to include the importance of relationship with others as

well as internal relationships (Gomez, 1997).

The methodology of Freud‘s theory is exemplified in the application of his theory via

the various modes and techniques he used in the analysis of the individual: the

neutrality of the analyst, free association, analysis and interpretation of resistance,

dream analysis and interpretation, analysis and interpretation of transference and

countertransference (Corey, 2005; Gomez, 1997; Meyer & Viljoen, 2002). Some argue

that while highly comprehensive and interpretive, the methodology of Freud‘s theory is

not considered empirical by contemporary standards.

2.3.2 Freud‘s theories of love

Although Freud developed and refined his many revolutionary and original concepts,

techniques and theories of psychoanalysis over a period of more than four decades; this

study will only briefly reflect on Freud‘s scattered writings concerning the subject of love.

Freud was reluctant about decoding the secrets of love and was even apologetic about

infringing on the territory of poets (Freud, 1910a). Even so, Freud attempted to make

sense of love by continually revisiting the subject in his writings and deliberating and

arguing various hypotheses (1905, 1910a, 1910b, 1912, 1913, 1914, 1915, 1923, 1930,

1931a, 1931b). Martin Bergmann (1987) in his book ‗The Anatomy of Loving‘ suggests

that Freud‘s musings on love may be organised into three primary theories of love: 1)

infantile origins of love, 2) love and narcissism and 3) enduring love and ambivalence.

Below, the author has utilised Bergmann‘s (1987) outline of three theories of love to

explain Freud‘s scattered writings on the subject.

29

2.3.2.1 Freud‘s first theory of love: Infantile origins of love

Freud‘s (1905) first theory of love was a derivative of his theory of infantile sexuality.

Freud postulated that sexuality begins in the years of infancy (1905). He argued that

infant sexuality is pregenital and begins in sexual zones like the mouth, lips and tongue

(oral stage) and the anal sphincter (anal stage). He believed that nursing not only

fulfilled the function of nourishment but that it was also pleasurable, and that this

pleasure persists into adulthood in the form of foreplay, for example, kissing and oral

sex.

Freud (1905) postulated that sexuality takes on a form in infancy that is different from

adult sexuality. For him infantile sexuality: 1) is bisexual (the infant is not concerned

about the love object‘s sex); 2) is polymorphously perverse (i.e. the child has a number

of pleasure zones e.g. oral, anal, etc); 3) is incestuous (i.e. the infant is attracted to the

first love object and is familially indifferent); and 4) that non genital sexual pleasure is

possible. Freud suggested that the infant is required biologically as well as culturally to

undergo a long, arduous and complicated journey to convert infantile sexuality into

normative adult sexuality. In contrast, he characterised normative adult sexuality as: 1)

heterosexual, 2) non-incestuous and added that 3) sexual pleasure is derived genitally.

Van Zyl (2009) contends that the individual undergoes a journey of cultural

appropriation, which is partially biologically driven, to convert infantile sexuality to adult

sexuality. This journey is difficult and fraught with stumbling blocks that can thwart the

conversion process of infantile sexuality to normative adult sexuality. Should this

conversion process fail, this limits the child‘s capacity to develop what Freud terms as

―happy love‖ in adulthood (Freud, 1905). Embedded in this conversion process is the

process of resolving, what Freud called, the psychosexual stages. Freud (1905)

suggested that if these stages are not resolved then this likewise limits the child‘s

capacity to develop ―happy love‖ in adulthood. Freud‘s (1905) five psychosexual stages

– 1) oral, 2) anal, 3) phallic, 4) latency and 5) genital – and the potential effects of a

developmental arrest at each stage are briefly described below:

30

Freud (1905) advocated the notion that infant sexuality started with the oral stage (0 to

18 months). The psychological conflict at this stage is: a) one of excessive pleasure

versus dependency – as these children may be overly dependent, needy and reliant

and may want to be over-nurtured and b) one of an urge to bite versus parental

restrictions – these children may be antagonistic, quarrelsome and verbally scornful.

The second stage of infantile sexuality is the anal stage (18 months to 3 years). It is

during this stage that the child derives pleasure from either expelling faeces or from

retaining faeces at will. Parents, through toilet training, attempt to instil the ability of self

control in the child, and this may result in many conflicts: a) children who are sloppy,

wasteful, extravagant and dirty have developed too little control while b) children who

are never messy, clean, compulsive, fastidious, overly rigid and neat have developed

too much control.

The third stage of infantile sexuality is the phallic stage (3-5 years). It is during this

stage that the child discovers his / her genitals and the fact that they can be a source of

pleasure. Freud asserted that this was also the stage of sexual awakening and that the

resulting desire is directed outward towards the parent of the opposite sex. Freud

(1925) suggests that the little boy child lusts after and wants to penetrate and possess

his mother with his penis. His father is perceived as a hindrance, a rival and competitor.

As a result the child experiences the conflicting feelings of both loving his father and

wanting to eliminate him. This is the essence of the Oedipal conflict: the child loves,

but is competing with, the parent of the same sex. The desire to eliminate or kill off the

father is projected onto the father and the child begins to fear his father‘s rivalrous

retaliation. The child experiences fear of castration or castration anxiety. In order to

avoid real castration the child decides to symbolically castrate himself: he gives up hope

of possessing his mother sexually and starts instead to identify with, rather than oppose,

his father. This is the beginning of the resolution of the Oedipal conflict and the phallic

psychosexual stage of development in a boy. Part of the resolution of the Oedipal

conflict is the forming of the superego by internalising the retaliatory father.

31

Although the female Oedipal conflict (and male Oedipal conflict) has attracted much

criticism (Stoller, 1976; Torok, 1970) and is deemed to be unconvincing it is important to

outline how Freud (1925) made sense of it. Although Freud acknowledges his

bewilderment and struggle to explain female development, he nonetheless attempts to

do so. Freud suggests that the girl initially takes her mother as her first love object but

subsequently when the girl realises she does not possess her own penis she blames

her mother for her lack and imagined loss of a penis, and she falls victim to penis envy.

As a result she turns to her father as her love object and for him to provide her with a

penis, but this is taboo: hence she makes do with an alternative – her wish for a child

from her father replaces her wish for a penis. According to Freud (1905, 1925), because

the female child feels that she has already lost the prize she has no strong incentive to

give up her desire for her father and internalise the prohibiting voice of the parent. Freud

(1925) suggested that this is why females possess a less developed and weaker

superego when compared with males. Freud does not manage to offer a plausible

explanation as to why the girl, having spurned the mother, turns back to identify with her

(Johnson, 2006). Freud (1931a) himself acknowledges that his theories on female

sexuality remain incomplete and argues that perhaps women by their very nature do not

allow for completion.

The resolution of the Oedipus complex occurs where the child assents to the concept of

the same sex parent, saying: ―eventually you will have your own pleasure if you give this

up for now……and if you model yourself on me and grow up to be like me…….then you

can get a mommy / daddy of your own‖ (Van Zyl, 2009). Freud (1905) warns that if the

same sex parent is not a strong enough rival (as may be the case when the parents are

in an unhappy marriage) then the child has no incentive to identify with the same sex

parent, and he or she may remain fixated in the Oedipus complex. An Oedipal fixation

may lead to neurotic illness or a predisposition to disorders in sexual development.

Contemporary psychoanalytic thinking differentiates Freud‘s explanation of the Oedipus

complex as the positive Oedipus complex and suggests the existence of the negative

Oedipus complex. The positive Oedipus complex is characterised by a libidinal longing

32

for the opposite sex parent and the wish to be rid of the same sex parent, whereas the

negative Oedipus complex is the libidinal longing for the same sex parent and the wish

to be rid of the opposite sex parent (Gabbard, 2005). A fixation on either the positive or

negative Oedipus complex may lead to difficulties in the individual‘s intimate adult

relationships (Gabbard, 2005). Although it was useful to briefly mention current views

and developments regarding the Oedipus complex in order to provide context, further

explanation is not relevant to this thesis.

The fourth stage of the child‘s psychosexual development is the latency stage (6 years

old to puberty), which is marked by sexuality receding into the background until puberty

when adult sexuality emerges. It is during the latency stage that the current which

carries both affection and direct sexual impulses is split into two. Affection remains

conscious while the direct sexual impulse is repressed. Freud (1912) avers that the

affectionate current is the older of the two currents; the drive to self preservation is its

basis and it is aimed at the primary infantile object choice – family members and

caregivers.

The final stage which lasts throughout an individual‘s adulthood is called the genital

stage and exists where the libido is focused on the genitals in a mature, intimate and

productive relationship. Freud (1905) believed that people only reached the genital

stage if there was successful resolution of the previous stages and that this too would

mark successful personality development, which was defined by the ability to be

productive and sustain loving relationships.

During the genital stage the repressed direct sexual impulse breaks from the connection

to the incestuous love object and is redirected toward a new non incestuous love object.

The newly selected love object must in some way bear a resemblance to the old love

object (e.g. the mother‘s smile or the colour of her eyes) but not to the extent that it

rouses guilt feelings associated with the incestuous Oedipal object. If conditions are

favourable, the current that was split in two at the latency stage (affection and direct

sexual impulses) once again converges and develops. That is, the individual is able to

33

focus all desire on a single new love object. Favourable conditions occur when a) the

degree of frustration in reality that will oppose and devalue the new object choice is not

too strong, and attachment to the old love object is moderate; and when b) the degree

of attraction and erotic investment assigned to infantile objects in childhood – the

pregenital impulses – are not too strong or too repressed (Freud, 1912).

If conditions are not favourable and the two split currents do not unite, a neurotic love

develops. Freud (1912) explains that if conditions are unfavourable, the libido turns

away from reality towards fantasy: obstacles in the form of fixations that inhibit the flow

of the current emerge. There are two types of fixation that are linked: a) new love

objects cannot be found because the person clings to and is unable to detach from the

parental prototype – the need to debase the sexual partner and continue to overvalue

the loved person (incestuous objects and its substitutes) with whom no sexual

relationship is possible; b) the individual remains fixated in earlier stages of

psychosexual development: oral, anal or phallic stages. When there are unfavourable

conditions and this inability to fuse the two currents occurs the individual is unable to

focus all desire on a single object: ―Where they love they do not desire and where they

desire they cannot love‖ (Freud, 1912, p. 183).

Freud (1910a, 1912) describes how some neurotic men and / or women have an

inflexible precondition for loving which is a consequence of a fixation on the mother. For

example, some men can only fall in love with 1) unavailable women (‗damaged-third‘ –

reflective of the Oedipal triangle): this same woman would be ignored and even treated

with disdain if she was available; or 2) promiscuous women whose fidelity and

dependability is doubtful – ‗love of whores‘ – the infant feels betrayed that mother

bestows sexual favours on father and tells himself [sic] that the difference between

mother and a whore is negligible; or 3) older, more mature women – maternal

surrogates; or 4) women for whom they feel scorn, disdain and contempt.

Once Freud discovered that sexuality begins in the years of infancy, he looked for love

in these years too. He believed that because the sexual desires of the infant are

34

directed to the mother, she becomes the child‘s first love and sexual object. During

adolescence the direct sexual impulse is redirected toward a new non incestuous love

object which resembles the old love object. The old love object acts as a ‗prototype of

love‘ and helps to prepare the individual for the choice of a new love object. Freud

describes falling in love as thus: the finding or discovering of the object is in fact a

refinding or rediscovering of it (Freud, 1905) and adds that falling in love is dependent

on an unconscious precondition. Later at a lecture in the United States, Freud (1910b,

p. 48) said: ―It is inevitable and perfectly normal that a child should take his parents as

the first object of his love. But his libido should not remain fixated to these first objects;

later on, it should merely take them as a model, and should make a gradual transition

from them on to extraneous people when the time for a final choice for an object

arrives‖.

If one compares Freud‘s first theory of love and contemporary researchers and theorists

of love, parallels emerge. Hendrix (1995), the father of Imago Relationship Therapy,

acknowledges and agrees with Freud‘s (1905) proposition that the original object is the

prototype for the new non-incestuous object; that the choice of partner is in fact a

‗refinding‘ of the original object. Hendrix (1995) suggests that the seemingly ―free‖

choice of partner is the product of the individual‘s unconscious positive and negative

traits and image of his / her parents, which he calls Imago. He believes that the Imago is

the individual‘s unconscious inner ―image of the significant other‖ (Hendrix, 1995, p.55),

which also seems to display some notional similarity with Bowlby‘s (1973, 1980, 1988)

internal working models. However, Bowlby (1973, 1980, 1988) does not conceptualise it

as an image or a ‗refinding‘ of the original object; instead, he suggests it is an

unconscious relational model that informs the individual of their worthiness of love and

care and the type and level of responsiveness and availability he or she can expect

from significant others. A notional analogy can be drawn between Freud (1910a) and

Walster and Walster‘s (1978) passionate love. Freud (1910a) concedes that passionate

love exists and that it exhibits, to a certain degree, a compulsive character – obsessive

and irrational. But, unlike Walster and Walster (1978), Freud (1930) suggests that

passionate romantic love for the new object is not entirely fulfilling and satisfying; that

35

romantic love is intrinsically a state of dissatisfaction because the adult love object is not

the original infant love object but merely the surrogate.

In sum, Freud‘s first theory of love focuses on two primary ideas. Firstly, Freud

suggested that the individual is required to undertake the difficult journey of cultural

appropriation through the resolution of the psychosexual stages in order to convert

infantile sexuality into normative adult sexuality. With the successful resolution of the

psychosexual stages and the successful conversion of infantile sexuality into normative

adult sexuality the individual develops the capacity to develop and experience ―happy

love‖ in adulthood (Freud, 1905). However, a failure in the resolving and conversion

process limits the individual‘s capacity to do so. Instead the individual is vulnerable to

developing various difficulties in the arena of intimate relationships in adulthood.

Secondly, Freud‘s first theory of love focuses on the ‗refinding‘ of the original object and

emphasises ―the unconscious dependency of the adult love choice on infantile

prototypes‖ (Bergmann, 1987, p. 180). Bergmann (1987) points out that Freud‘s

proposition that adult love is birthed in infancy is enduring. However, Bergmann (1987)

goes on to suggest that not only do humans seek to refind the original love object but

they also seek to find new objects in the hope of healing the wounds exacted by the

original love objects. It would seem that perhaps Freud, and indeed Hendrix, would

argue that humans seek to refind the original love object with the unconscious hope of

healing the original wounding inflicted by the initial love object of infancy. Although

Hendrix (1995) and Bowlby (1973, 1980, 1988) also recognise that strong unconscious

influences impact on romantic love they seem to adopt a somewhat more positive and

less deterministic view about the conceptualisation of love as compared to that of

Freud.

2.3.2.2 Freud‘s second theory of love: Love and narcissism

Freud (1914) reported that his experience in psychoanalytic investigation revealed that

some individuals do not have their parents as their love prototype but instead

themselves. Their object choice is therefore narcissistic because they are seeking

36

themselves as a love object. He explains that this comes about because the infant is

initially in a period of infant paradise; where he [sic] is ―His Majesty the Baby‖. The baby

feels omnipotent and all-powerful, and believes his needs will always be met. He

believes that his is the only sexual organ and he exists in a state of narcissistic self

sufficiency. At this point he has not experienced any narcissistic wounds: no discovery

of death, no imposed gender identity limitations, no experience of castration anxiety or

penis envy, no concept of how vulnerable to and dependent he / she is on mother‘s

love, no birth of siblings, no illnesses and no parental absences. Hence the infant‘s first

love object is himself; only after the infant moves from the narcissistic stage to the

object stage and realises that the object is a source of pleasure and satisfaction does

he start to love the primary caretaker. Freud (1914) clarifies that all humans therefore

have two original love objects: 1) the primary caretaker and 2) him/herself, and that as

adults individuals show preference for one or the other. Freud‘s (1905) first theory of

love focuses on the primary caregiver as the original love object (love of other) while his

second theory of love focuses on the self as the original love object (narcissistic love).

In Freud‘s second theory of love he added that not only did the incestuous fixation

threaten love (as in his first theory of love) but so too did the narcissistic one. The

incestuous fixation he called anaclitic (attachment) love where the love object is the

primary caretaker; the second he termed narcissistic love where the primary love object

is the infant him/herself (Freud, 1914).

Freud (1914, p. 47) outlined the categorisation of the ways in which the love object may

be chosen as follows:

A person may love:

i. According to the narcissistic type:

a. What he himself is (actually himself);

b. What he once was;

c. What he would like to be;

d. Someone who was once part of himself.

37

ii. According to the anaclitic type:

a. The woman who tends.

b. The man who protects;

and those substitutes which succeed them one after the other.

A brief explanation of the narcissistic model of love is now furnished:

a. ―what he himself is‖: the love object is merely the image in the mirror; the love object

resembles the person himself;

b. ―what he once was‖: the person loves the other as he himself was; e.g. how some

parents love their offspring narcissistically; the young mirroring what the old were

and the old loving the mirroring;

c. ―what he would like to be‖: According to Freud (1914) there are three stages in

narcissistic libido development: a) the child/self/ego is the receiver of the entire

libido; b) the libido moves from the self to the ego ideal as the child realises his own

limitations; c) at the stage of the ego ideal the child directs his love to what he

aspires to be and stops loving himself. When the ego ideal is replaced by the love

object, that is, when the ego ideal is projected onto the love object, the person loves

the love object that displays the excellence that he never had;

d. ―someone who was once part of himself‖: the person loves what he repressed in

himself. ―I love you because you are as narcissistic as I was before I had to repress

my narcissism or I love you because you are as narcissistic as I never dared to be‖

(Bergmann, 1987, p. 170).

Freud (1914) asserts that the satisfaction and aim of the narcissistic object choice is to

be loved because this increases self esteem / ―self regard‖. Loving the other

(transferring libido to the beloved), on the other hand, lowers ―self regard‖ – the

narcissistic lover is humble because he or she feels a longing for, deprivation of and

dependence on the beloved. A fortunate lover is one who possesses the beloved, is

loved and has his / her love returned. Freud (1914) explains this by arguing that

individuals experience a tension between their ego and their ego ideal. The individual

projects his / her ego ideal onto the beloved or the narcissistic idealised object choice

38

when they fall in love. This projection relieves the tension between their ego and their

ego ideal. When that love is reciprocated by the beloved or narcissistic idealised object

choice it evokes feelings of bliss and ecstasy – it is as if the self is loved by the ego

ideal. In other words the individual falls in love when a narcissistic libido is being

transformed into an object libido. It is also at this point that a person is relieved of the

burden of excessive self-involvement and is freed from envy and jealousy which result

in feelings of bliss: this state lasts providing their love is returned.

In sum, Freud‘s second theory of love emphasises an alternative type of love from the

love of the other (anaclitic or attachment love), which he characterises as love of the

self (narcissistic love). When this individual falls in love intrapsychically his / her

narcissistic love is converted into the love of the other by the projection of the ego ideal.

Bergmann (1987) postulates that although love absorbs an individual‘s narcissistic

surplus, the flow between the object libido and narcissistic libido is not as uncomplicated

as Freud suggested. Current theorists challenge Freud‘s deterministic first two theories

of love and conceptualise the child as not only being much more related to his / her

primary love object but also suggest that through constant interaction and identifications

with the primary love objects, cultural influences, and object relations the child creates

his / her world continually (Bergmann, 1987; Gabbard, 2005).

2.3.2.3 Freud‘s third theory of love

In his third theory of love Freud (1915) grapples to find a solution as to how the sexual

drive becomes love. He engages the reader in his inner conflict by initially saying that

―one is naturally unwilling to conceive of love as being a kind of special component-

instinct of sexuality‖. He continues by saying that ―we should prefer to regard loving as

the expression of the whole sexual current of feeling‖ but then goes on to assert that

that this too does not resolve the difficulties as to how the sexual drive becomes love

(Freud, 1915, p. 76). He continues by pointing out that loving encompasses three

opposites: 1) loving as opposed to hating; 2) loving as opposed to being loved; and 3)

loving and hating as opposed to indifference.

39

Freud (1915) explains how the loving-hating antithesis comes about. Initially the infant

derives pleasure from directing the ego instincts to itself – narcissism with an autoerotic

potentiality for satisfaction. At this point the ego loves itself only and is indifferent to the

outside world. The ego introjects those parts of itself that are a source of pleasure into

itself and projects those parts of the self that are painful into the external world. When

the infant moves from the narcissistic stage to the object stage it follows the same

pattern. When the object is a source of pleasure the individual strives to bring the object

close and incorporate it into the ego, saying that he / she loves that object. Conversely,

when the object is a source of pain the individual strives to increase the distance

between the object and the ego and communicates that he / she hates that object. At

some point the developing infant realises that objects exist outside of the self. These

objects are loved because they give pleasure but these objects can also be hated

because the infant realises that he / she is powerless and at the mercy of these external

objects. According to Freud (1915) love and hate therefore are not instincts but instead

it is the total ego that loves its objects. In other words he reformulates love from being

an instinct to being situated in the ego sphere of emotion. He concludes by clarifying

that ―love constantly manifests itself as ‗ambivalent‘, that is accompanied by feelings of

love and hate against the same object‖ (Freud, 1915, p. 82).

Freud (1915) explicates that love is not transformed to hate. Instead when, in adult

relationships, love seems to turn to hate the person is regressing from the genital to

pregenital position and the relationship has not been given up. ―Only when the genital

organisation is established does love become the antithesis of hate‖ (Freud, 1915, p.

82). Only when the individual reaches the genital organisation is he / she able to

separate feelings of love and hate and tolerate feelings of love, hate and the resulting

feeling of ambivalence. One of Freud‘s students, Karl Abraham (1925), expands on and

further clarifies the capacity to love. He asserts that the capacity to love is only possible

if the genital stage is reached successfully. That is, the individual was able to overcome

a) his own narcissism (oral stage) and absorb the qualities of enterprise and energy; b)

his own bisexuality (anal stage) and absorb the qualities of perseverance and life-

40

enhancing constructive energy; and c) his hostility and fear of the opposite sex (phallic

stage) and absorb the freedom from hostility towards the mate, instead developing the

ability to direct that productive hostility outward to those who block his / her progress.

He concludes that the individual who has successfully reached the genital stage does

not deny his instincts but instead has them under control.

In sum, Freud‘s (1915) third theory of love emphasises that only when the genital level

of libidinal development has been reached has the individual, through the process of

maturation, developed the capacity to experience an enduring relationship free from a

too-destructive ambivalence.

2.3.2.4 Freud‘s later contributions

Freud (1931b) utilises the psychoanalytic libido theory to outline three primary

psychological types: 1) the erotic, 2) the narcissistic and 3) the obsessional. All three

types are normal but all three can yield to neurosis if there is a conflict between: 1) the

superego, ego and id; 2) heterosexual and homosexual impulses and 3) aggression and

libido. The erotic types are predominantly preoccupied with being loved and are at risk

of loving anyone who loves them. They are dependent and fear losing love. The

narcissistic types are predominantly preoccupied with self preservation and as a result

prefer loving to being loved. They are independent and charming and those who have

lost their own narcissism tend to pursue the narcissistic type. The obsessional types

are predominantly preoccupied with fear of their conscience and generally remain loyal

and in love for a long time. They are internally dependent and are highly self reliant. In

reality a human being is not distinctly one of the three types but is often a mixture of the

three.

Freud (1931a) observed that sexual passion cannot be integrated into the milieu of a

lasting and stable relationship: Either the full capacity for sexual pleasure must be

sacrificed or the stability and permanence of a relationship must be sacrificed. He

believed that sublimated or ―aim-inhibited‖ and ―aim-deflected‖ strivings were more

41

reliable for building an enduring relationship than sexual instincts and strivings that are

uninhibited. Walster and Walster (1978) repeats Freud‘s (1931a) assertion in that

passionate love is difficult to sustain indefinitely; the longer the relationship lasts the

more likely it is to metamorphose into companionate love which is a calmer and more

stable love.

2.3.2.5 Conclusion as regards Freud‘s contributions

From Freud‘s continual and scattered writings on the subject of love, three broad

theories (Bergmann, 1987) can be delineated. In his first theory of love he postulates

that in order for an individual to possess the capacity for ―happy love‖ in adulthood it is

necessary for the person to have successfully resolved the psychosexual stages: on

successfully converting infantile sexuality into normative adult sexuality the individual

develops the capacity to develop ―happy love‖ in adulthood (Freud, 1905). In addition he

suggests that the individual‘s adult love object choice is unconsciously dependent on

the original love object or infantile prototypes and that the individual seeks to refind the

original love object in the new non-incestuous love object. His first theory of love

highlights love of the other (anaclitic or attachment love), whereas his second theory of

love highlights love of the self (narcissistic love) (Freud, 1914). Freud (1914) proposes

that as adults individuals show preference for either love of the other (anaclitic or

attachment love) or love of the self (narcissistic love). When an individual who shows a

preference for love of the self falls in love, Freud (1914) theorises that the individual‘s

narcissistic love is, by the projection of the ego ideal, converted into the love of the

other. In Freud‘s (1915) third theory of love he emphasises that only when the genital

level of libidinal development has been reached via the process of maturation does the

individual develop the capacity to conduct an enduring relationship free from a too-

destructive ambivalence. Finally, in later writings Freud (1931b) proposed three key

psychological love types: erotic, narcissistic and obsessional.

42

2.3.3 Relevant post-Freud psychoanalytic contributions

2.3.3.1. Love explained via structural (superego, ego and id) apparatuses

Waelder (1930) was the first psychoanalyst to outline love via the structural point of

view by using the concept of the superego, ego and id psychic apparatuses. He

believed that the capacity to love was determined by the ego and its capacity to

integrate harmoniously the ―wishes of the id, the demands of the repetition compulsion,

the demands of the superego and the claims of reality. The love object chosen must be

sexually gratifying, connected unconsciously to love objects in the person‘s past,

sufficiently admired to meet the approval of the superego and appropriate in meeting

the demands of reality‖ (Bergmann, 1987, p. 235). Altman (1977) adds that it is the ego

1) that allows love to last; 2) that synthesises the oral, anal and phallic stages and

brings together the sexual and tender / affectionate current in the genital stage of

development; 3) that has the capacity to tolerate the frustrations inevitable in a

relationship and bear the differences between the individual and his / her partner. He

goes on to aver that the superego too plays the important role; it is the superego that

provides the capacity for compassion and remorse. It is also the superego that enables

an individual to continue loving the other even when there is a lack of satisfaction.

2.3.3.2. Love‘s tasks, prerequisites and intrapsychic processes and stages

Bergmann (1980, 1987) comments that falling in love is a complex process. For him

there are five tasks that the ego needs to accomplish; five intrapsychic process and

stages that need to be achieved and four prerequisites that need to be in place in order

for the five intrapsychic process and stages to occur. He outlines the five tasks the ego

is required to accomplish as:

o Task 1 – reality testing: assess the actual qualities of the new love object and

appraise the future potential of the relationship;

o Task 2 – the love objects of the individual‘s childhood are integrated;

43

o Task 3 – counteract the voice of the superego that threatens to convert the new love

object into the old incestuous love object;

o Task 4 – counteract the id‘s wish to refind the exact replica of the old love object;

o Task 5 – counteract the pressure of the destructive repetition compulsion to choose

the new love object, modelled on the pain-evoking qualities of the original love

object, as well as counteract eliciting the original love object‘s pain-evoking qualities,

even when the new object is in fact different. ―Love can only be experienced when

the refinding process works unconsciously and is sanctioned by ego and superego‖

(Bergmann, 1987, p. 236).

He goes on to explain that the intrapsychic processes and stages that occur when an

individual loves are: 1) refinding a new love object that resembles the original love

object; 2) unconsciously recalling the earlier symbiotic stage; 3) dissolving to some

extent one‘s separateness and including the new love object within the boundaries of

the expanding self; 4) some degree of transference of idealisation of the self or the

original love object onto the new love object and 5) the hope that the new love object

will heal the old wounds and disappointments inflicted by the original love object.

Bergmann (1987) also emphasises that these are complex processes that often have

opposing forces. Firstly, the refound new love object must be as similar as possible to

the original love object (without evoking the incest taboo) but also has to be different

from the original love object in that he / she will heal the wounding inflicted by the

original love objects. Secondly, researchers have discovered that the dynamics of love

actually comprise a struggle between the longing for oneness on the one hand; versus

the fear of merger on the other hand. In other words humans experience two opposing

forces: one that drives the individual to merge with the other or undo the boundary that

separates the self from other; versus the other which impels a person to individuate and

remain separate. This recognises Freud‘s (1914) stance that feelings of ambivalence

are inherently part of love.

According to Bergmann (1987) in order for one to fall in love and undergo the above

intrapsychic processes and stages a number of prerequisites have to be in place: 1) to

44

experience a vague feeling that something is missing and a vague sense of

dissatisfaction; 2) to exhibit enough disinvestment and separation from the original love

objects and one‘s previous adult love object; 3) to have psychic space for the new love

object; 4) to experience a feeling of familiarity, similarity and feeling that both partners

are extrasensorily understood and supported by the other – they have a strong sense of

being one. Bergmann (1987) believes this is the first stage of a relationship – becoming

one. For him the second stage starts when the couple once again becomes two. This

happens because the individual starts to recognise differences between the self and the

other and the beloved‘s imperfections are detected. This evokes uncertainty, doubt and

old fears. It is at this stage that the relationship is vulnerable to ending. However, if the

partners are able to successfully negotiate the transition from being one to being two

and are able to compromise and take the other‘s separate needs into account this

marks the onset of a calmer and more durable love relationship.

2.3.3.3. Types of love

Bergmann (1987) claims the way human beings love is dependent on the individual‘s

level of intrapsychic maturity. He lists fifteen types of love:

1. Infatuation – is seen as a desperate but ultimately failed attempt to transfer the

libidinal energy from the old incestuous object to the new non-incestuous object.

This type of love is marked by an unexpected and violent beginning and end and

afflicts those who can only experience love as long as the love object is reluctant to

respond.

2. Love and the proximity of death – Freud (1913) alludes to the task of love as

being responsible to reconcile us with our ever pending death. Bergmann (1987)

suggests that the proximity of death enhances love.

3. Triangular love – some people experience the precondition of loving that stipulates

that they can only love when there is a third person; when they are in a triangle.

Psychoanalysts interpret this as a continued fixation within the oedipal triangle.

4. Conflictual love – these individuals have not been able to integrate the different

aspects of the childhood love objects and can only love a person uniquely but not

45

exclusively: they can only love when they love more than one person

simultaneously.

5. Loveless sexuality – these individuals experience intense sexual experiences with

the other without feeling love for them. Bergmann (1987) has found in his clinical

experience that these individuals feel entitled to have sexual experiences but do not

feel entitled to feel love for the person they are having intercourse with nor do they

feel entitled to be loved by the person with whom they are having a sexual

encounter. Arlow (1980) explains the Don Juan as the perpetual seducer who

reflects a complex biographical history based on a phallic-narcissistic fixation and a

counter-phobic attitude towards women. There is identification with a promiscuous

mother and a nursemaid who abandoned him. At first the Don Juan is romantically

intoxicated with the idealised woman whom he unconsciously believes to be a

phallic woman. After sexual intercourse she falls from her pedestal because she is

no different from any other woman: she is seen as castrated and therefore has to be

discarded. ―The disappointed child ‗masters‘ his disappointment by becoming a

disappointing lover‖ (Bergmann, 1987, p. 243).

6. Masochistic and sadistic love – these individuals love in the service of suffering.

Masochistic love exists when a person believes he / she is insignificant and

sacrifices his/her self, needs and life for the magnificent partner.

7. Hermaphroditic love – psychoanalytic thought postulates that all humans wish to

be both sexes and that some people who have not resolved this wish sufficiently

regard hermaphroditic love as a solution. This is evident when an individual falls in

love with a person who represents their feminine or masculine part.

8. Pygmalion love – these individuals can only love a person whom they have taught,

moulded and created. This love is vulnerable if the beloved starts to seek

individuality and equality.

9. Narcissistic love – these individuals love what they would like to be; they love a

person who is like them or who is like who they used to be, who they wish they could

have been and or who constituted part of themselves. When performance

expectations are thwarted this love is vulnerable to the individual‘s narcissistic rage.

46

10. Primary and anaclitic love – these individuals are fixated at the infantile stage of

need gratification and dependency; they expect all their needs to be gratified without

having to reciprocate; they wish to be taken care of by and remain dependent on the

other.

11. Addicts of love – these individuals are fixated at the oral stage: they need love in

the same way as others need food and drugs; being loved is their primary focus but

their capacity to love is limited; they usually consider their beloved to be ungratifying

but are unable to free themselves from the frustrating partner. As a result they are

unhappy and angry.

12. Transference love – individuals who are in analysis normally experience this love

as a by-product of the unfolding relationship with an analyst,

13. Aim-inhibited love – individuals who love in this way repress, censor or experience

the sexual component as absent.

14. Sublimated love – individuals direct their passion away from a real person to a

more abstract aim, e.g. a monk who loves God.

15. Ideal love – the beloved and the lover are idealised by each other and although

symbiotic feelings of merger, oneness and bliss are experienced the partners retain

independent self-boundaries. In ideal love, the relationship is free from hate, envy

and intentions to humiliate and is instead based on compatible interests and a

constant sense that both partners feel understood, valued and loved by the other.

The beloved is experienced as the only one and unique, but not to the extent that

disappointment is inevitable. Positive libidinal energy has been successfully

transferred from the original incestuous love object onto the new love object.

However, this transfer does not include the need to repeat earlier disappointment in

order to resolve that wounding. The ideal love partner symbolically represents the

significant infant love objects and is able to satisfy one‘s adult needs and unfilled

childhood wishes. The partners are sufficiently similar and experience mutual

identification but nonetheless do not give up their sense of self for the beloved. In an

ideal love relationship, love for the other holds self-love in check. Sexual intercourse

is passionate and gratifying; it is free from aggression during foreplay; and it is

coupled with feelings of tenderness and regard for the beloved. Bergmann (1987, p.

47

278) observes: ―What is surprising, therefore, is not that it often falls short of the

ideal, but that in spite of these numerous checks and balances, many lovers

succeed in transforming falling in love into an approximation of ideal love‖.

2.3.4 Criticisms

Although Freud‘s theories have been hotly debated they have nonetheless exerted a

profound impact on Western thought, with many theorists using Freud‘s theory as the

foundation from which they build their own theories (e.g. Erikson) and with clinicians

making use of his theories (e.g. the unconscious) and techniques (e.g. free association,

analysis of resistance and dream interpretation) in an ongoing process to understand

and help their patients. Some of the main criticisms of Freud‘s theory have been that,

firstly, it is primarily of historical value and does not apply to the contemporary

personality theories. Nonetheless, others would fervently argue that the psychosexual

stages are as relevant today as then. Secondly, that psychoanalysis cannot be fairly

evaluated on its scientific merits. Thirdly, that his theory is constructed in terms of his

patients, a group of educated, wealthy, verbal women, and therefore cannot be applied

universally. Fourthly, that he holds a pessimistic and negative view of human nature.

Fifthly, that he views women as inferior to men. Finally, that his theory is pansexual –

Freud sees sex everywhere (Larsen & Buss, 2002; Meyer & Viljoen, 2002). According to

Van Zyl (2009), this is not true: instead she says that he perceives sex everywhere in

pathology – the central theme in Freud‘s sexual theory is the answer to his question,

―what is connected to the idea of psychopathology?‖ Johnson (2006) agrees,

contending that Freud never became a ‗pansexualist‘ but instead extended the concept

of what is sexual beyond its usual scope. Johnson (2006) adds that Freud has also

been criticised for his ideas as being too reductive and abstruse. Even though there are

numerous criticisms aimed at Freud‘s theory it still remains an important part of

psychology that informs many aspects of the discipline. It has also become part of

Western culture and his concepts are part of everyday language (e.g. Freudian slip,

penis envy, castration anxiety) in many parts of the world.

48

2.3.5 Conclusion

Freud (1905) provides a very comprehensive explanation of how a developmental arrest

during any of a person‘s five psychosexual stages can hinder an individual‘s

development of the capacity for ―happy love‖ in adulthood. An exploration of Freud‘s first

theory of love provides important insights into and possible explanations of what may go

wrong at each stage and how this can manifest in an individual‘s romantic life. Although

lacking empirical support his theory nonetheless raises important possible answers and

understandings when considering treatment for those who manifest with neurotic love in

adult romantic relationships.

One of Freud‘s (1905) major contributions to the understanding of romantic love is the

concept of ‗refinding‘ the original love object; that human beings unconsciously use

infantile prototypes for their adult romantic object choice. As Bergmann (1987) has

remarked, perhaps it is not only the original parental love objects that influence an

individual‘s eventual choice of the beloved. Possibly it is the integration of the mother,

father and any other caregivers that constitutes this prototype. This may be especially

pertinent in South Africa where many children have not only their parent/s, but also a

childminder and day-care minders; or where in African culture it is relatively common to

make use of multiple caregivers and to move the child from mother, to maternal

grandmother, to paternal grandmother, to father; or where in African and Indian culture

there is an extended family whose members live together and share the raising of the

children – the child experiences multiple caregivers rather than one primary caregiver.

Perhaps it is the successful integration of all these caregivers that will allow for ―happy

love‖. Minuchin (2002) points out that although multiple mothering is common in certain

cultures, the availability of multiple attachment figures could be either reassuring or

confusing for a child, depending on the circumstances. Therefore in the reassuring

cases this could lead to ―happy love‖ but in the confusing cases perhaps not. In

addition, the original love object does not only provide pleasurable experiences but at

times causes pain. Perhaps for some individuals their response to primary caregivers

who cause pain is to choose a love object that is different from the said primary

49

caregivers. Freud (1930) may argue that this would not be the case; instead he would

suggest that a child would chose a similar love object to the primary caregiver in order

to repeat the experience in the hope of mastering it – repetition compulsion. Finally,

even if adult love is birthed in infancy, perhaps individuals, via ongoing experiences with

other objects in their lives, may conceive of the possibility of a new love object and

therefore seek the new love object in the hope that the beloved will no longer re-wound

but that instead the beloved will help heal the wounds that were exacted by the old

objects.

Freud (1914) illuminates how for some, it is narcissistic love, not anaclitic love, that

dominates so that instead of refinding the primary love object, the individual seeks to

refind himself / herself in the beloved by projecting his ego ideal onto the beloved.

Freud‘s (1915) explanation of the inherent, seemingly paradoxical, characteristic of

ambivalence in love assists in understanding why love struggles to last in relationships;

explains the relationship between love, hate and ambivalence for the beloved; and

indicates how maturity leads to enduring relationships that are free from a not too

destructive ambivalence.

Bowlby (1958), the father of attachment theory, argues in support of anaclitic love rather

than narcissistic love. Bowlby (1958) asserts that, contrary to Freud‘s principal

formulations, it is evident from Freud‘s earlier writings that he believed that infants were

not exclusively autoerotic and that the infant takes the persons who feed, care, protect,

stroke, kiss and rock him – ‗teaching the child to love‘ – as his earliest and strongest

love objects. Bowlby (1958) outlines how Freud suggests that the relationships with

these love objects (primarily the mother / primary caregiver) are not only unique and

unparalleled but also the model, for both sexes, for all later love relations. Bowlby

(1958) argues that towards the end of Freud‘s life the central importance of the infant‘s

tie to his or her mother was wholly appreciated by him and that ―Freud was not only

moving away from the theory of secondary drive but developing the notion that

component instincts built into man‘s nature during the course of evolution underlie this

first and unique love relationship‖ (p. 428).

50

Bergmann (1987) and other psychoanalytic thinkers also add to the understanding of

love by exploring love via the structural topographic model (id, ego and superego); the

ego tasks; the intrapsychic processes and stages; and types of love. The study will later

reveal how Freud‘s (1914, 1931) explanation of narcissistic love, preconditions for love

and his libidinal types, as well as Bergmann‘s (1987) types of love, are similar to other

theories and typologies.

The above discussion demonstrates that the lens of the psychoanalytic approach to

love can illuminate the quest for understanding love. This lens focuses on the

intrapsychic and intrapersonal, and explains how an individual‘s unconscious biological

drives and instincts are in conflict with societal expectations and therefore constantly

need to be monitored and balanced. Freud‘s work on love remains foundational in

assisting clinicians and researchers in their search to make love knowable.

Freud‘s work anticipates the work of Fromm (1956), who was strongly influenced by the

former‘s work. Fromm‘s (1956) ideal, humanistic and sociobiological view of love

provides an alternative lens in the understanding of love.

51

2.4 Fromm‘s theory on the art of loving

2.4.1 Brief background

Erich Fromm (1900-1980) was born into an Orthodox Jewish family in Frankfurt,

Germany (Maddi, 1989; Viljoen, 2002c). He was an only child and experienced his

father as distant and his mother as overprotective (Funk, 1982). His family life was

fraught with discord and tension. His father was described as being ‗over-anxious and

moody‘ and his mother ‗depression-prone‘. His father was a wine merchant and a

businessman. Fromm grew up in a family where there was a strong focus on spiritual

values as well as on the often paradoxical aim of attainment of material success.

Fromm was instructed by two rabbis from the ages of 13 – 27 years old, as regards an

intensive study of the Talmud. Davis (2003) postulates that Fromm was attracted to

strong and powerful older women.

Although he had no medical training he studied psychology, sociology and philosophy at

the University of Heidelberg. At the age of 22 after he obtained his doctorate in

sociology, he began studying psychoanalysis at the Berlin Psychoanalytic Institute

(Maddi, 1989; Viljoen, 2002c). He met Frieda Reichmann, his first analyst, who was

later to become the first of his three wives (Burston, 1991, Hall, Lindzey, Loehlin &

Manosevitz, 1985). At the age of 33 he immigrated to America; he worked in private

practice in New York and lectured at various universities in both America and Mexico

(Maddi, 1989; Viljoen, 2002c). Although Fromm may seem like a largely forgotten figure

today, his accessible writing style reached large professional and lay audiences, which

ensured his success as an author then as well as now (Burston, 1991; Frie, 2003).

Fromm‘s socio-psychoanalytic approach was influenced by Darwin, Karl Marx‘s social

and philosophical writings as well as by Freud‘s psychoanalytical theoretical positions.

He attempted to adapt and synthesise these theoretical positions to Western capitalistic

society (Tuebingen, 2002; Viljoen, 2002c). Maddi (1989) postulates that Fromm‘s theory

is predominantly a fulfilment model with an emphasis on perfection. Ontologically he

52

described his view of the person as sociobiological: he believed that people have both

an animal nature and a human one but that it is an individual‘s core tendency to attempt

to fulfil one‘s human nature (Maddi, 1989; Viljoen, 2002c). Epistemologically he

postulates that humans are born with certain potentialities and, depending on the

prevailing social order, those potentialities are either cultivated and encouraged – which

leads to freedom – or mired and discouraged, which leads to a defensive way of life or

what he terms conformity (Fromm, 1942). The methodology and application of

Fromm‘s theory seem to be limited.

Fromm‘s belief that humans strive for and can achieve perfection and his emphasis on

the expression of the highest form of living via freedom, productiveness, individuality

and lack of defense explain his perfect fulfilment model. The ―main theme of his theory

is people‘s struggle to retain their worth and freedom in spite of society‘s pressure to

conform, which threatens to alienate and isolate them‖ (Viljoen, 2002c, p. 168). In his

later writings, in The Art of Loving, he presents a solution to this universal human feeling

of isolation, alienation and separateness in the form of mature love (Fromm, 1956).

2.4.2 Love versus isolation, alienation and separateness

Fromm (1956) suggests that although people are starved for love it eludes them

because they hold two essentially misguided assumptions and premises on which they

base love:

o Instead of focusing on loving and on one‘s capacity to love most people focus on

being loved; on how to be lovable.

o There is nothing to learn about love. It is easy to love but the difficulty is to find the

right person to love or be loved by.

According to Fromm (1956) man has an awareness of his helplessness in the face of

his aloneness and separateness. This evokes much anxiety, shame and guilt. He

believes that man‘s greatest need and his eternal quest is to resolve ―how to overcome

separateness, how to achieve union, how to transcend one‘s own individual life and find

53

―at-onement‖ (Fromm, 1956, p. 16). Fromm (1956) suggests that humans adopt several

paths in an attempt to achieve ―at-onement‖. The path an individual adopts, he says, is

dependent on his / her degree of individuation.

Fromm (1956) postulates that human beings try to escape this separateness via various

means:

a. Orgiastic states. He describes these states as displaying an auto-induced

trancelike quality and argues that humans use sexual orgasm, alcohol or

drugs in an attempt to escape the separateness. He avers that this escape is

achieved in the short term but that once the orgiastic experience is over the

individual feels even more separate, which drives him or her to take their

chosen remedy with increasing frequency and intensity. He criticises this

attempt at union as temporary and episodic.

b. Conformity. He suggests that the union of conformity is a state where the

individual self disappears and is replaced with a sense of belonging to the

culture or group via the union with it, with its beliefs, practices and customs

as well as its safety in the routine of work and pleasure. He criticises this

―herd conformity‖ solution to the problem of separateness as not one of

―oneness‖ but instead of one of ―sameness‖ and standardisation. He deduces

that it is therefore only pseudo-unity.

c. Creative activity. He remarks: ―the creating person unites himself with his

material, which represents the world outside of himself…..man unites himself

with the world in the process of creation‖ (Fromm, 1956, p. 21-22). He

criticises this attempt at union as not being interpersonal.

He concludes the ―full answer lies in the achievement of interpersonal union, of fusion

with another person in love‖ and that this ―desire for interpersonal fusion is the most

powerful striving in man‖ (Fromm, 1956, p. 22). This search for union, fusion and one-

ment can be destructive as is the case when people dominate each other (sadism and

masochism), or positive as in the case of mature love.

54

He clarifies that mature love is not about receiving but instead about giving and that

giving is distinguished by the mutually interdependent components of care,

responsibility, respect, understanding and knowledge. There is a marked

distinction between this type of love and narcissism. For Fromm only a mature and

productive individual, who has given up narcissistic dreams of omniscience and

omnipotence and who, through inner strength, has achieved humility, separateness and

integrity of one‘s self; is capable of this type of love. He clarifies what giving love entails:

―This does not necessarily mean that he sacrifices his life for the other – but that he

gives him of that which is alive in him; he gives him of his joy, of his interest, of his

understanding, of his knowledge, of his humour, of his sadness – of all expressions and

manifestations of that which is alive in him. In thus giving of his life, he enriches the

other person, he enhances that other‘s sense of aliveness by enhancing his own sense

of aliveness‖ (Fromm, 1956, p. 27).

2.4.3 Development of love

Fromm (1956) suggests that the ability to love is birthed from one‘s experience with

what he calls the ideal or archetype of motherly and fatherly love. He suggests that

ideal motherly love is unconditional, passive, and that it need not and cannot be

controlled, deserved, produced or acquired. The only requirement of the child is ―to be‖

in order to receive motherly love. Motherly love encompasses the principle of feeling

secure in life and its function is to teach the child how to receive and expect

unconditional love. Ideal fatherly love on the other hand is conditional, has to be

deserved and can be acquired. It encompasses the principles of law and order,

authority, travel, adventure and its function is to teach the child how to be in the world.

Fatherly love says: ―I love you because you fulfil my expectations, because you do your

duty, because you are like me‖ (Fromm, 1956, p. 41). It is through this love that the child

gains the fatherly qualities of discipline, independence and the ability to master his / her

own life. Fromm (1956) postulates that mother-centred love is what the child needs

initially for security – physically and psychically. Thereafter, when the child confronts the

world at around the age of six he needs his father‘s love for guidance and authority. For

55

Fromm mental health and achievement of maturity occur when an individual has

developed the ability to become his own mother and father, when he is able to

synthesise and internalise both types of parental love.

According to Fromm (1956) neurosis may result when either the motherly or fatherly

principle fails to develop or if the roles of the mother and father become confused. He

cites two examples of possible causes of neurosis:

a. A loving but domineering or overindulgent mother and a weak and

uninterested father may result in an individual who is dependent, feels

helpless, needs to be protected and taken care of and who may seek

‗mothers‘ in all those he / she meets. This person lacks the father centred

qualities of discipline, independence and the ability to master his / her own

life. This individual seems to display similarities with Freud‘s (1931b) erotic

libidinal type who is primarily preoccupied with being loved. This individual is

also recognised in Bergmann‘s (1987) primary and anaclitic type of love –

they are dependent on the other, they wish to be taken care of and they

expect all their needs to be gratified without having to reciprocate.

b. A cold, unresponsive and domineering mother may result in an individual who

is similar to that described in (a) or the individual may develop only the father

centred qualities of discipline, independence and the ability to master his / her

own life. This person may conduct his / her life strictly according to the

principles of authority and law and order and will lack the ability to receive or

expect unconditional love. The said individual is also reflective of Freud‘s

(1931b) obsessional libidinal type who is mainly preoccupied with fear of their

conscience – they are internally dependent and are highly self reliant.

Fromm (1956) further postulates that should the individual develop the one sided

mother centred attachment the neurosis may likely manifest itself as depression,

alcoholism, hysteria, an inability to assert oneself and an inability to cope realistically

with life and the challenges it brings. On the other hand, should the individual develop

the one sided father centred attachment the neurosis may well be manifested as

obsessional neurosis.

56

2.4.4 Five types or objects of love

Fromm (1956) outlines five types or objects of love:

1. Brotherly love: is love between equals; it lacks exclusiveness and is universal; it

is based on the experience that we are all one; and it is the love that underpins

all types of love.

2. Motherly love: as described above is unconditional love, whose function is to

create security (physically and psychically) in the child, the ability to receive and

expect unconditional love as well as the ability to separate from the mother.

3. Erotic love: is exclusive; it is the craving to fuse and unite intensely and

completely with one other person; it is an act of will, a decision and a

commitment that guarantees the continuation of love

4. Self-love: ―respect for one‘s own integrity and uniqueness, love for and

understanding of one‘s own self, cannot be separated from respect, love and

understanding for another individual. The love for my own self is inseparably

connected with the love for any other being‖ (Fromm, 1956, p. 53). He goes on to

say that selfishness or narcissism and self love are opposites; that selfish people

are not able to love anyone else because they are unable to love themselves.

5. Love of God: has as many different qualities and aspects as that of the love of

man and depending on the level of maturity a person has reached, so too will

that reflect in how he loves God. According to Fromm (1956, p. 70) the same

developmental love trajectory applies to love of God: ―from the beginning of the

love for God as the helpless attachment to a mother Goddess, through the

obedient attachment to a fatherly God, to a mature stage where God ceases to

be an outside power, where man has incorporated the principles of love and

justice into himself, where he has become one with God, and eventually, to a

point where he speaks of God only in a poetic, symbolic sense‖.

57

2.4.5 Love‘s disintegration in Western Society

―Fromm (1956) was one of the first to draw a link between culture, particularly social

and economic, and love. He argued that culture has a direct influence on an individual‘s

outlook and relationship styles‖ (Le, 2005, p. 543-544). Fromm (1956, p. 72) suggests

that ―(i)f love is a capacity of the mature, productive character, it follows that the

capacity to love in an individual living in any given culture depends on the influence this

culture has on the character of the average person‖. He argues that the orientations of

‗having‘ and ‗being‘ or immature and mature love are cultivated and fostered by culture.

In immature love one sees others as a utility to satisfy the needs of the self, whereas in

mature love one sees, appreciates and cares for others as they are.

Fromm (1956, 1976) paints a bleak picture as regards mature love in contemporary

Western society. He considers that current Western culture and its counterpart

individualism with its excessive focus on self-interests, thwarts healthy, loving

interpersonal relationships. According to Fromm (1956), current Western culture is a

capitalistic society which centres on exchanging, bartering, consuming and ingesting

commodities, destinations, food, drinks, knowledge, books, movies, arts, culture,

spirituality and even people. He declares that as a result of contemporary Western

culture, most modern men and women are not capable of mature love but instead have

transformed themselves into a commodity, an investment, a ‗personality package‘. He

maintains they trade their value with others who are also trading their own ‗personality

package‘ in the hope of a profitable, favourable and fair exchange (Fromm, 1956). The

couple then function as a team under obligations and courtesy with respect to how each

should treat the other. He describes the individuals of these ‗personality package‘

couples who function as solid performing employees ―‗reasonably independent‘, co-

operative, tolerant, and at the same time ambitious and aggressive‖ (Fromm, 1956, p.

75); while although the relationship runs smoothly the two individuals essentially remain

strangers. He proposes that as a result individuals in present-day Western society are

rarely able to achieve mature love. He suggests that this is owing to various reasons:

58

infantile relatedness to parental figures, lack of love between parental figures and forms

of irrational love or pseudo love.

Fromm (1956) postulates that when individuals remain attached to the parental figure

they remain in a pattern of infantile relatedness: this type of relatedness impacts

negatively on their ability to engage in mature love in their adult relationships. He calls

these neurotic disturbances of love. In an adult male the infantile attachment to

mother can manifest in two ways: a) these men seek to return to mother‘s protecting,

warm and caring arms; they seek to be loved rather than to love and although they can

be affectionate and charming their relationships remain superficial and irresponsible;

and b) these men seek to return to mother‘s engulfing, all-receiving and destructive, all-

destroying womb, since they are not separate, free and independent from mother; they

degrade all other women and they seek to love but can only do so in a superficial sexual

way. As mentioned previously these individuals may be compared to Freud‘s (1931b)

erotic libidinal type as well as Bergmann‘s (1987) primary and anaclitic love type. This

also seems to resonate with Freud‘s (1910a, 1912) first theory of love – when in

unfavourable conditions the affectionate and sexual current do not merge in the genital

stage, some neurotic men and / or women possess an inflexible precondition for loving,

which is a consequence of a fixation on the mother. One of these preconditions for

loving Freud (1910a, 1912) describes as follows: men can only love women for whom

they feel scorn and contempt, while another is ‗love of whores‘. Similarly we may draw a

likeness between Fromm‘s (1956) description of these individuals and Bergmann‘s

(1987) individuals who engage in the type of love he called loveless sexuality – these

individuals experience intense sexuality with the other without feeling love for them.

In an adult male the infantile attachment to father because of mother‘s coldness and

aloofness can manifest as the adult male seeking approval and praise from a father

figure. This male does not view his relationship with a woman as significant and he

remains distant, aloof and remote in such a relationship; his fatherly concern for the

woman masks his feelings of minor disdain for her. There appears, once again, to be

some similarity between these individuals and Freud‘s (1910a, 1912) preconditions for

59

loving women for whom these individuals feel scorn and contempt as well as

Bergmann‘s (1987) loveless sexuality love type. In addition there seem to be some

parallels between these individuals described by Fromm (1956) and Freud‘s (1931b)

narcissistic libidinal type. The latter type is primarily concerned with self preservation

and independence and therefore tends to engage in loving rather than being loved.

Fromm (1956) adds that another neurotic disturbance of love occurs when parents do

not love each other yet relate with remoteness and politeness towards one another;

this will result in the female child becoming remote and withdrawing into her own

internal world of daydreams and fantasy. He asserts that she continues this way of

being and relating in her adult love relationships. The psychoanalytic understanding of

the impact on the sexual development of the child when his or her parental figures do

not love each other or are in an unhappy marriage is different from Fromm‘s (1956)

understanding. Freud (1905, 1910a) believes that when the parents do not love each

other or when they are unhappily married then the child has no incentive to identify with

the same sex parent so that he or she may remain fixated in the Oedipus complex,

which may lead to an inflexible precondition for loving, for example, some neurotic men

can only love unavailable women. Bergmann (1987) interprets this as a continued

fixation within the oedipal triangle and reflects this tendency in his triangular love type –

these individuals can only love when there is a third person; when in a triangle.

Fromm (1956) suggests that other common forms of irrational love or pseudo love are:

1) the ‗great love‘ or idolatrous love – this person has not developed a strong sense of

self and identity and projects all his goodness and power onto the idolised loved one, in

doing so losing himself in the loved one; and 2) sentimental love – this individual

cannot experience love in reality; with a real person, in a here-and-now relationship.

They can only experience love a) in fantasy through romantic movies, novels and love

songs or b) in retrospect, creating love when thinking about past relationships or by

fantasising about future love. Bergmann‘s (1987) masochistic and sadistic love – the

lover believes they are insignificant and sacrifices him / her self, needs and life for the

magnificent / idealised partner – resembles Fromm‘s (1956) idolatrous love.

60

2.4.6 Practice of love

According to Fromm (1956), in order to practise the art of loving an individual needs to

practise discipline, concentration (including living fully in the here-and-now; in the

present), patience, while finally one has to be immersed in and has to make the art of

loving something of supreme importance and concern in one‘s life. He outlines the

qualities that one needs to acquire in order to develop the ability to love:

o See people and things as they are – objectively – by overcoming one‘s

narcissism and self centredness (which is formed by one‘s desires and fears)

and through the development of humility, objectivity and reason.

o Faith, in oneself, in one‘s own love, in one‘s ability to reliably produce love in

others as well as faith in the potentialities of others.

o Courage is part of faith. It is the ability to take a risk to be loved and to love; to do

so whilst not knowing if this could end in pain and disappointment. ―To love

means to commit oneself without guarantee, to give oneself completely in the

hope that our love will produce love in the loved person‖ (Fromm, 1956, p.105).

o Activity. To be actively concerned with and responsive to the loved one; with

intensity, vitality, alertness and awareness. To be alive, present and active.

2.4.7 Criticisms of Fromm‘s theory of love

Fromm exercised a profound influence on American intellectual life in the 1940s and

1950s through his bestselling books: Escape from Freedom, The Sane Society, and

The Art of Loving. Since the 1960s, however, he has fallen out of favour amongst both

academics and intellectuals who have criticised him as a simplistic populariser and his

work as eclectic and superficial (McLaughlin, 1992). Researchers have critiqued

Fromm‘s theories contending that they are not scientific and that there is limited

empirical evidence or data supporting his theories (Davies, 2003, Viljoen, 2002c).

Burston (1991) adds that Fromm‘s fall from academic grace was the result of personal

61

conflicts, Freudian factional politics, and the numerous unchallenged misconceptions

and distortions of his work.

Frie (2003) describes how, when asked, as a doctoral student at Cambridge University,

by his supervisor Anthony Giddens at their first meeting what he hoped to study, he

replied that he had a strong interest in the work of Erich Fromm. His supervisor‘s

response was: "Erich Fromm? Why would you want to work on something that woolly?"

(Frie, 2003, p. 13). The implication was that Fromm lacked sufficient academic rigour

and analytic reasoning. Frie (2003, p.13) continues: ―In any case, no serious academic

could ever hope, or would ever aspire, to sell his or her writings on such a large scale.

Best-sellers were the death knell of a true academic‖. McLaughlin (1992) echoes this in

remarking that this is frequently the fate of intellectuals who write for a popular audience

and cross disciplinary boundaries.

Although Fromm‘s work has received much criticism his theory nonetheless stimulates

thinking and seems to have considerable applied value for many people. His book still

sells well and he is very popular with the lay public all over the world. Frie (2003)

records a clinical example: A client sought treatment to gain insight and skills into

emotionally connecting with others. A friend of the client recommended The Art of

Loving to her and she reported having found the book particularly enriching and

inspiring. Frie (2003) goes so far as to say that his interest in training as a

psychoanalyst was initially sparked by Fromm.

2.4.8 Conclusion

Fromm‘s (1942, 1956) writing seems to strike a responsive chord with people and

appears to encourage the individual to aspire to the creation of a more humane society.

Fromm apparently challenges the individual to think beyond the boundaries of any one

discipline and consistently motivates human beings to evolve a newer human society,

pointing out the consequences of not doing so. He does so in the realm of love too – he

challenges one to consider the difference between loving and being loved as well as to

62

learn about love, especially to learn about mature love and its components of care,

responsibility, respect, understanding and knowledge. Maddi (1989) proposes that

Fromm is a perfection theorist because of his belief that it is within an individual‘s power

to achieve perfection which will ultimately provide meaningful fulfilment. It is not only

Fromm‘s encouragement and striving for the ideal mature love that is consistent with his

being a perfection theorist; but also the exercises he outlines in his ‗Practice to love‘ that

he suggests will assist the individual in becoming capable of loving.

Fromm charts the different types of love as well as the difference between a healthy and

a neurotic development of love. He confronts and challenges the individual to explore

the lack of mature love and resulting existential crisis created by the individualistic,

Western capitalistic and consumerist way of life. He also challenges the individual to

confront neurotic love and ‗personality package‘ love. Perhaps the interdependence

theory (Clark & Mills, 1979; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Mills & Clark, 1994, 2001; Rusbult,

1983) and Lee‘s (1976) practical lovestyle, pragma, echo Fromm‘s view of the

‗personality package‘ – this is discussed in more detail later in the literature review. In

addition, Fromm‘s (1956) explanations of the possible threats to the development of

healthy or mature love, rest in infantile attachments to mother and or father as well as

on societal influences. Fromm‘s parental explanations seem to correspond with

attachment theory‘s relational stance: that early infant interactions with primary

caregivers set in place ―internal working models‖ which shape adult intimate and

romantic relationships (Bowlby, 1973, 1980, 1988). Perhaps it could also be said that in

this regard there is some overlap between Fromm (1956) and Freud (1905), since both

theorised that early childhood parental experiences influence one‘s capacity for

developing mature love or ―happy love‖ respectively.

In sum, Fromm‘s humanistic view of love adds another lens through which the

understanding of love has been refined and enhanced. The lens considers parental

influences and strongly emphasises how the sociocultural elements of society shape

and impact on one‘s capacity to love.

63

Attachment theory is the next lens through which the study attempts to understand the

complexity of romantic love. Further pieces of the puzzle become evident. Attachment

theory, unlike Freud‘s theory, is not based on instincts and drives, it is not intrapsychic

and it is not a conflict model; and unlike Fromm‘s theory it does not hinge on societal

influences, nor on striving for the ideal, and it is not a perfection fulfilment model;

instead, attachment theory is interpersonal and a harmonious model (Smith, 2006).

Nonetheless attachment theory rehearses some of Freud‘s views in that an adult‘s love

choice is deterministic, unconscious and rooted in infantile experiences. And as

discussed above it also echoes to some extent Fromm‘s views that love is determined

by an individual‘s early experiences with the parental figures.

64

2.5 Attachment theory

―…there is a strong causal relationship between an individual‘s experiences with his

parents and his later capacity to make affectionate bonds....‖

(John Bowlby)

2.5.1. Introduction

The father of attachment theory, John Bowlby, a British psychoanalyst (1907-1990),

created his initial ideas of attachment theory while working for the World Health

Organization, advising on the mental health of homeless children (Bowlby, 1969;

Bretherton, 1991, 1992; Sadock & Sadock, 2003). He utilised concepts from many

disciplines: ethnology, cybernetics, psychoanalysis, evolutionary psychology,

information processing and developmental psychology. Attachment theory grew out of

John Bowlby (1969, 1973, 1980) and Mary Ainsworth‘s (Ainsworth et al., 1978)

groundbreaking work regarding the ways in which infants form bonds with their primary

caregivers.

Bowlby focused on the attachment relationship with the mother and on how that

relationship meets the needs of the infant for continuity, warmth, protection, nurturance,

satisfaction and support (Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1980). He (1969, 1973) maintained that

healthy development is dependent on normal attachment in infancy. Thus attachment

theory roots the quality of adult interactions and relationships in the quality of the infant–

caregiver attachment behaviour (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1980,

1988). ―Attachment behaviour is held to characterise human beings from the cradle to

the grave‖ (Bowlby, 1979, p. 129). Inherent in this statement is the assumption that the

attachment behaviour developed as an infant, in relation to the individual‘s primary

caregiver, will be consistent with the attachment behaviour displayed as an adult in

relation to his / her significant adult relationships (Zeifman & Hazan, 1997). Accordingly,

prior to exploring adult attachment, it is first necessary to investigate infant attachment.

65

2.5.2. Infant Attachment

The degree to which a child can rely on the caregiver to be a source of consistent

security is crucial to the quality of a child‘s attachment relationship. The caregiver‘s

ability to accurately reflect back and respond to the infant‘s emotional state is

associated with secure attachment (Birnbaum, 2003). An infant‘s attachment to his or

her primary caregiver develops gradually during the former‘s first years of life (Zeifman

& Hazan, 1997). Ainsworth and her colleagues advocate four phases of development as

regards child-caregiver attachment (Ainsworth et al., 1978, p. 23 - 28; Zeifman & Hazan,

1997, p. 183):

2.5.2.1. Phases of infant attachment

Phase 1: Pre-attachment phase – the newly born infant seeks and accepts comfort

indiscriminately.

Phase 2: Attachment-in-the-making – the 3-4 month old infant preferentially

directs signals towards familiar adults, particularly the primary caregiver.

Phase 3: Clear-cut-attachment – the 6-7 month old infant behaves toward

strangers with increased caution; the infant fears and actively

resists/protests separations from primary caregivers.

Phase 4: Goal-corrected partnership – increased cognitive and representational

capacities marked by a decreased interest in the infant‘s primary

caregivers, and increased interest in exploratory activities and peer

contact, make separations from the caregiver more tolerable.

2.5.2.2. Stages of responses to separation

Bowlby observed that infants experience intense and enduring distress if separated

from their primary caregivers for a long period of time, for example, during

hospitalisation (Bowlby, 1969, 1973, 1980). An infant or child‘s reaction to such

66

separation or loss has been found to be universal, predictable and characterised by

three sequential stages (Bowlby, 1969; Zeifman & Hazan, 1997):

Stage 1: Protest – the infant / child obsessively searches for the absent caregiver,

displays disrupted sleeping and eating, cries inconsolably and resists

others‘ offers of comfort.

Stage 2: Despair – the infant / child goes through a period of passivity, lethargy

and depressed mood.

Stage 3: Detachment – on reunion with the primary caregiver the infant / child

ignores and avoids contact with the caregiver.

2.5.2.3. Components of attachment behaviour

Attachment behaviour is ―any form of behaviour that results in a person attaining or

retaining proximity to some other differentiated and preferred individual usually

conceived as stronger and/or wiser‖ (Bowlby, 1973, p. 292). Bowlby (1973) suggests

that attachment behaviour can be understood as evolutionary adaptiveness which

functions to protect infants from danger by keeping them close to the caregiver. The

infant turns to the attachment figure as a safe haven, for support, protection,

reassurance and comfort. In the absence of danger the child can explore the

environment while using the attachment figure as a secure base (Bowlby, 1988; Weiss,

1991). The third defining and distinguishing feature of attachment relationships is

proximity seeking and maintenance. The fourth and final defining and distinguishing

feature of attachment relationships occurs when the child is distressed and resists

separations, manifesting a separation protest (Shaver & Hazan, 1993; Weiss, 1991;

Zeifman & Hazan, 1997).

67

2.5.2.4. Styles of infant attachment

Mary Ainsworth (Ainsworth et al., 1978) attributes the quality of the attachment to the

attachment figure‘s responsiveness as a safe haven and their reliability as a secure

base. She adds that this in turn is responsible for setting the threshold of the attachment

system‘s activation – secure or insecure (Shaver & Hazan, 1993). Being loved,

accepted, cared for and consistently welcomed cultivates feelings of security which

consequently result in secure attachment (Chisholm, 1995). The feeling of security

gives the child the confidence to explore his or her physical and social worlds. This

exploration functions to increase psychological distance from the caregiver. When the

optimum level of psychological distance is reached the child becomes anxious which

drives him / her to seek physical proximity and symbiotic closeness with the caregiver. A

positive response from the consistently available caregiver yields feelings of safety and

security in the child. This motivates the child toward further exploration and the

sequence of events is repeated. Chisholm (1995) considers that when the sequence of

events is repeated often enough during development, the child develops a secure

attachment and is said to hold positive expectations about self and others. These

children are regarded as possessing positive working models of self and other.

When the sequence of events in developing secure attachments is not followed and

frequently disrupted, the child tends to experience feelings of anger, fear or grief and is

left feeling insecure because he or she cannot depend and rely on his caregivers and

on his world. These children develop an insecure attachment, with negative

expectations about self and others (Chisholm, 1995). Caregivers whose infants are

insecurely attached were shown to be inconsistent, less attentive, less responsive, less

in tune with and less engaged with their infants (Wenar & Kerig, 2000).

The 20 minute ‗Strange Situation‘ was developed by Ainsworth and her associates to

assess the individual differences in infants‘ security and quality of attachment by

observing the latters‘ reaction when separated from their caregiver. Their findings from

two naturalistic studies clarified three distinct patterns of attachment, one secure and

68

two insecure: avoidant attachment style and anxious-ambivalent attachment style

(Ainsworth et al., 1978).

1) Infants who were distressed by separation but showed little anxiety and stoically

endured the separation were securely attached. These infants seem to trust that the

caregiver was reachable and accessible to them; that the caregiver would come back

and provide uninterrupted care. On the caregiver‘s return these infants are reported to

be happy and they seek close proximity to and comfort from the caregiver.

Ainsworth describes the primary caretaker of securely attached infants as responding

sensitively and consistently to the infants‘ signals and communications (Ainsworth et al.,

1978; Wenar & Kerig, 2000). As May (2005) adds, not only are the caregivers of the

securely attached infants more responsive and affectionate but they also provide more

stimulation. These caregivers accept and encourage the child‘s individual capabilities

and understand the emotional and psychological needs of the latter (May 2005).

Ainsworth avers that securely attached infants show more positive affect and less fear.

These infants also enjoy an advantage in various aspects of social, emotional and

cognitive development (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Peluso, Peluso, White & Kern, 2004).

According to Ainsworth, by the age of 24 months, 66% of the population is securely

attached (Ainsworth et al., 1978). In more recent studies, however, Wenar and Kerig

(2000) postulate that only 55% of the normative population displays a secure

attachment.

2) Infants who seemed unperturbed by separation from their primary caregiver were

found to be avoidantly attached. These infants presented with a low need for physical

contact from the caregiver while, on reunion, they seem remote, aloof and detached

(Ainsworth et al., 1978; Chisholm, 1995). It has been postulated that these infants, like

all others, have a desire to be close to their caregiver but learn to curb this need and

use disconnection or avoidance as a defence (Bowlby, 1980; Peluso et al., 2004).

Wallin (2007) suggests that in a sense these children seem to have given up because

their previous overtures for comfort and care have been rebuffed. Researchers have

69

found that even though avoidantly attached children seem to be unaffected by their

caregiver‘s departure, they, like their securely attached counterparts, experience

elevated heart rates during separations, while post experiment their cortisol levels are

higher than those of their securely attached counterparts (Spangler & Grossmann,

1993; Sroufe & Walters, 1977).

Researchers describe primary caregivers of anxious/avoidantly attached infants as

emotionally distant, rejecting, rigid, aversive to physical contact and compulsive. In

addition these caregivers were more likely to exhibit anger and irritability more

frequently towards their infants (Ainsworth et al. 1978; Peluso et al., 2004; Wallin,

2007). Twenty percent of the population is anxious/avoidantly attached, according to

Ainsworth (Ainsworth et al., 1978). In more recent studies Wenar and Kerig (2000)

confirm that 20% of the normative population displays this attachment pattern.

3) Infants who are preoccupied with their caregivers and who become immediately and

intensely agitated and distressed when separated from their primary caregiver are

anxious/ambivalently attached (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Wallin, 2007). On the

caregiver‘s return these infants behave ambivalently: that is, they display anger as well

as a desire to be close to the caregiver (Ainsworth et al., 1978). The internal conflict

within the infant regarding the perceived physical and emotional availability of the

primary caregiver is reflected in this attachment response (Peluso et al., 2004).

Researchers describe primary caregivers of anxious/ambivalently attached infants as

unpredictable, occasionally available, subtly discouraging of infant autonomy; although

they are not physically or verbally rejecting, like the parents of the avoidantly attached

infant, they are insensitively responsive to their infant‘s signals for comfort (Wallin,

2007; Wenar & Kerig, 2000). Fourteen percent of the population is anxious/ambivalently

attached, according to Ainsworth (Ainsworth et al., 1978). More recent studies suggest

that only 10% of the normative population displays this attachment pattern (Wenar &

Kerig, 2000).

70

4) Recently some attachment theorists have postulated that there is a fourth attachment

classification: disorganised-disorientated attachment (Main, 1995; Peluso et al.,

2004). These infants exhibited an inconsistent, disorganised or disorientated attachment

response to separation from their primary caregiver (Bartholomew et al., 2001; Peluso

et al., 2004). In the presence of their caregiver, these infants seem to be dazed,

aimless, fearful and ambivalent (Wenar & Kerig, 2000). Wallin (2007) asserts that the

child‘s interaction with a caregiver who is frightening, frightened and/or dissociated, a

source of danger and the supposed safe haven does not feel safe, instead it is

confusing and overwhelming for the child.

Researchers describe primary caregivers of disorganised-disorientated infants as

inconsistent and as tending to use confusing cues during caregiving (Wenar & Kerig,

2000). These children stem from families that are burdened with for example poverty,

substance abuse, psychiatric illness (Wallin, 2007). Wenar and Kerig (2000) argue that

15% of the normative population displays this attachment pattern.

Fox (1995) suggests that individual differences in temperament may account for a

significant portion of the variance in ‗Strange Situation‘ and thus in attachment style,

therefore implying that attachment style is determined by the interaction between: 1) the

infant‘s temperament, 2) the caregiver‘s behaviour towards the infant, and 3) the

relationship that develops between the infant and the primary caregiver. According to

Wallin (2007), Ainsworth et al. (1978) discovered that it is the quality of the

communication between the infant mother dyad, rather than genetics or temperament,

that is the most important predictor of attachment style. Schore (2002) and Siegel

(1999), prominent researchers who have undertaken work linking neuroscience and

psychotherapy, support Ainsworth et al.‘s (1978) claim. Both researchers suggest that

healthy neural brain development and healthy psychological development hinges on the

attuned responsiveness of the caregiver and is shaped by positive interpersonal

experiences. They consider that maternal responsiveness and attunement has a

profound impact on the developing brain and that through patterns of neuronal firing

synaptic connections are established. In other words the infant‘s experience of a

71

mother‘s responsiveness or lack thereof becomes neurologically mapped, which

determines the nature of the brain‘s structure and functioning. Siegel (1999, p. 26)

clarifies this process by observing: ―neurons that fire together wire together‖.

Matsumoto and Juang (2004) point out that although in the United States a secure

attachment is seen as the ideal pattern of attachment, in other cultures research shows

that this may not be the case. They cite the example of how German parents perceive

‗securely‘ attached children as ‗spoilt‘ and instead regard avoidant attachment as the

ideal because they prize and encourage early independence. Van IJzendoorn and Sagi

(1999) confirm, in a meta-analysis of 14 attachment studies cross-culturally (Africa,

China, Israel and Japan), that although attachment between infants and their primary

caregivers is a universal phenomenon, in different cultures there are specific attachment

behaviours that are indicative of secure or insecure attachment.

(Bowlby, 1973, 1980, 1988) explains that infant attachment styles are carried from

infancy into and throughout adulthood via internal working models. These are discussed

in greater detail in the following section.

2.5.2.5. Internal working models

Based on early experiences and primary attachment relationships, internal working

models about the self, close others and the self in relation to others are schematised by

the infant (Bowlby, 1973, 1980, 1988). For Chisholm (1995) attachment theory holds

that most children have developed their individual internal working models by the age of

seven. These models are internalised in the shape of mental images, perceptual biases,

expectations of relationships and unconscious organised beliefs (Chisholm, 1995;

Zeifman & Hazan, 1997).

An individual‘s sense of worthiness of love and care and the expectations of the

availability and responsiveness of others, are informed by this unconscious framework

or schema which shapes social perception, behaviour and interpretation of subsequent

72

interactions. As a result, this framework exerts a powerful influence on future significant

relationships across the individual‘s life span (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Bowlby, 1969,

1973; Peluso et al., 2004; Wallin, 2007; Zeifman & Hazan, 1997). Although some argue

that a change in an individual‘s working model is possible and even predominant

(Lewis, Feiring & Rosenthal, 2000; Weinfeld, Sroufe & Egeland, 2000), others suggest

that it is only possible for some people to alter under certain circumstances, for

example, significant stressful life events or changes in life circumstances (Hamilton,

2000; Waters, Merrick, Treboux, Crowell & Albersheim, 2000); still others question

whether changes are sustainable long-term and if they represent a lasting

reorganisation of attachment patterns and behaviours (Davila & Cobb, 2004); and

finally, yet others suggest that change is improbable (Bartholomew et al., 2001; Shaver

& Hazan, 1993).

The internal working models and consequent expectations that become entrenched in

infancy remain relatively unchanged into adulthood, especially when driven by largely

automatic cognitive processes that tend to be self fulfilling (Shaver & Hazan, 1993). The

development of secure adult attachment relationships is facilitated by a secure internal

working model. On the other hand, insecure models will tend to direct the person to

recreate insecure adult attachment relationships (Bartholomew et al., 2001).

―Attachment patterns are seen to reflect complex patterns of social interaction,

emotional regulating and cognitive processing that emerge over the course of

development and tend to become self-perpetuating through adulthood‖ (Bartholomew et

al., 2001, p. 206).

Fonagy and his colleagues suggest that attachment patterns and internal working

models are reflected in one‘s capacity for mentalisation, which in turn is linked with the

capacity for reflective function (Fonagy, 1998; Fonagy, Steele & Steele, 1991; Fonagy &

Target, 2006). Mentalisation is the capacity to make one‘s own and others behaviour

understandable and meaningful by not only observing behaviour but also having insight

into the underlying mental states of the beliefs, desires, thoughts and feelings that

motivate the behaviour. In Fonagy‘s (1998) view the capacity to mentalise is determined

73

by the caregiver‘s capacity to mentalise and be attuned to the infant‘s internal world and

subjective mental state; the child then is able to internalise this representation to form a

core psychological self. In other words, a secure child is able to learn how to deal with

negative feelings because his / her mother is able to handle her own negative feelings

whereas the insecure mother is not able to handle her own negative feelings and is

either dismissive or overreacts, thus creating distorted attachment patterns in her child

(Gabbard, 2005; Wallin, 2007). Schore (2002) and Siegel (1999) theorise that an

individual‘s attachment, the internal working model and the capacity for mentalisation

are not only based on relational connection but also on neural connections. In other

words, the way in which an individual attaches impacts on the physical structure of the

brain in an attachment matrix; in order to change that individual‘s attachment style /

matrix, internal working model, capacity for mentalisation and capacity for reflective

function new neural connections need to be established.

2.5.3. Adult Attachment

An individual‘s attachment system is a fundamental part of his / her behaviour from

‗cradle to grave‘ (Bowlby, 1979). This implies that the attachment system which one

forms with one‘s primary caregiver operates throughout one‘s life. Bowlby (1980, p. 41)

declares that the way ―an individual‘s attachment behaviour becomes organised within

his personality….[determines] the pattern of affectional bonds he makes during his life‖.

Fox (1995) challenges this by arguing that there is no stability of attachment style

across age and that early-formed working models of attachments may alter depending

on environmental changes (i.e. positively or negatively). Van IJzendoorn (1995) seems

to argue for a middle ground: ―it has been empirically shown that, under certain

conditions, attachment patterns remain stable or at least predictable, even across the

first 18 years of life‖ (p. 1). This is supported by Fraley (2002) who asserts that internal

working models developed during infancy are reasonably stable. The relationship

between infant attachment styles and consequent adult attachment styles was

investigated by Hazan and Shaver (1987). They found evidence of continuity of

attachment style over an individual‘s life. In later research, according to Shaver and

74

Hazan (1993) a number of longitudinal studies agree that approximately 80 percent

stability exists in attachment style and mental models over several years in

economically stable samples. This is confirmed by Main (1995) in a longitudinal study

from infancy to 19 years old where participants exposed to trauma were removed from

the sample.

2.5.3.1. Infant versus adult attachment

Essentially the same question is asked by both the infant and the adult (Hazan &

Shaver, 1994). The infant asks, ―Can I depend on my caregiver to be responsive to my

needs consistently?‖ while the adult asks: ―Can I trust my partner to be available and

responsive to my needs?‖. Both dyads need assurance and attention in similar ways.

The irreplaceable quality of the infant and caregiver relationship is experienced in the

same way by the two partners in a romantic partnership.

In adulthood, the attachment system functions to maintain romantic

partnerships much as, earlier in life, it maintained ties to caretakers.

Just like infants, adults are primed to select one special figure, and to

develop enduring emotional ties to that person. Adults who have fallen

in love and entered a romantic relationship will not easily leave their

partners, even if their relationships are less than ideal (Morgan &

Shaver, 1999, p. 111).

Hazan and Shaver (1987) reported on similarities between childhood and adult

attachment dynamics. An attachment bond is characterised by: a desire for close

proximity to the attachment figure, a sense of security derived from contact with the said

figure and distress or protest when threatened with loss or separation from this figure

(Weiss, 1982). Long-term sexual or romantic partners typically serve as primary

attachment figures for one another. Doherty and Feeney (2004) confirmed the

similarities between adult and childhood attachment relationships in a large scale study

(n = 812). They found the four functions served by attached committed romantic

75

relationships were: proximity seeking, a safe haven, separation protest and a

secure base. Weiss (1982) also noted fundamental differences between adult and

childhood attachment relationships. The primary caregiver is the attachment figure, and

childhood attachments are complementary. In contrast, in adult attachment the

attachment figure is a peer and often a sexual partner, and adult attachments are

reciprocal (Berscheid, 1988; Shaver & Hazan, 1993; Shaver, Hazan & Bradshaw,

1988).

According to Shaver and Hazan (1993), a prototypical adult attachment is characterised

by the integration of three behavioural systems: attachment, caregiving and sexual

mating. Shaver and Hazan (1988) maintain that because an individual‘s attachment

style is developed in childhood, it could influence the development of caregiving and

sexual mating behaviours. They specify in Table 2.1 how this could be manifested:

Table 2.1 Attachment style, caregiving and sexual mating

Attachment Style Caregiving Sexual mating

Secure Comfortably gives and receives

care.

Strives for mutual intimacy and

pleasure.

Avoidant Unable or unwilling to give or

receive care.

Maintains emotional distance,

may be promiscuous.

Anxious /

Ambivalent

Gives care in self sacrificing,

compulsive way. Dissatisfied with

received care.

Attempts to satisfy needs for

security and love through sexual

contact.

Derived from Shaver and Hazan (1988).

2.5.3.2. Phases of adult attachment

There are compelling similarities between the four phases of infant attachment

(discussed previously) and the four phases of adult romantic attachment (Zeifman &

Hazan, 1997):

76

Phase 1: Pre-attachment phase – attraction and flirting.

Phase 2: Attachment-in-the-making – falling in love.

Phase 3: Clear-cut-attachment – loving.

Phase 4: Goal-corrected partnership – life as usual.

2.5.3.3. Process of adult attachment

It is argued in attachment theory that close proximity and close physical contact is part

of the repertoire that humans use to form attachment. This is evident in the infant-

mother dyad where they spend considerable time being physically connected and in

mutual gazing. Adult attachment theory proposes that the same process is used by

adults to foster enduring emotional bonds between adults. Romantic infatuation seems

to facilitate this process by eliciting a similar desire for close physical proximity. As

mentioned previously the infant goes through phases of attachment over time: 1) Pre-

attachment phase; 2) Attachment-in-the-making; 3) Clear-cut attachment; and 4) Goal-

corrected partnership. Zeifman and Hazan (1997) propose that adults also undergo a

process of attachment formation that in essence emulates the process of infant

attachment formation. They write that the first two phases of attachment formation

represent non-attachment while the second two constitute attachment. They specify

how this process of adult attachment formation takes place by utilising various markers

across the four phases, for example, how the individual‘s physical contact, eye contact

and voice quality change over the four progressive attachment processes. Below, in

Table 2.2, is the model of adult attachment formation derived from Zeifman and Hazan

(1997).

77

Table 2.2 A process model of adult attachment formation

Phase Non-attached Attached

Pre-attachment Attachment-in-

the-making

Clear-cut

attachment

Goal-corrected

partnership

Attachment

component*

Proximity

seeking

Safe haven Separation

distress

Secure base

Physical

contact

Incidental /

―accidental‖

Frequent,

prolonged,

arousing,

‗parental‘

Frequent, less

prolonged,

comforting

Less frequent,

deliberate,

context-specific

Eye contact ―Stolen‖

glances,

intermittent

gazing

Frequent,

protracted

mutual gazing

Frequent, less

protracted

mutual gazing

Less frequent,

context-specific

mutual gazing

Conversational

content

Emotionally

neutral,

superficial, self

enhancing

Care-eliciting,

emotional

disclosure

Less emotional

care-eliciting,

more mundane

Predominantly

mundane

Voice quality Animated,

higher pitched,

emotionally

aroused

Hushed tones,

whispers,

soothing

Context-specific

soothing, more

normal tones

and pitch

Predominantly

normal

Eating/sleeping Normal Decreased Near-normal Normal

Mental

representation

of other

Generalised

―template,

expectations‖

Under

construction

Beginning to

stabilise

Well-established,

easy conjured-up

Neurochemistry

/ hormones

Pheromonal

cues, PEA

PEA, oxytocin PEA, oxytocin,

opioids

Oxytocin, opioids

Reactions to

termination

None, minor

disappointment

Lethargy, mild

depression

Anxiety,

disruption of

activities

Extreme anxiety,

pervasive

physical and

psychological

disorganisation

78

*Entries in this row represent the component of attachment that is added during each phase,

such as all four components are present by the final phase.

Derived from Zeifman and Hazan (1997).

Morgan and Shaver (1999) suggest that falling in love is experienced by most people as

an ―automatic and largely uncontrollable process‖ and, once in love, individuals will

adopt an attachment system that they describe as being non rational and as having an

evolutionary basis designed to maintain social ties. They explain that in Western

cultures commitment to a relationship occurs after a couple start to feel attachment-

related feelings for one another.

2.5.3.4. Attachment and romantic love

Hazan and Shaver (1987) were the first to link Bowlby‘s (1973) and Ainsworth‘s (1978),

attachment-theory approach to romantic relationships. They conducted a ―Love Quiz‖ on

undergraduates, 620 men and 108 women, via a local newspaper. The undergraduates

were required to 1) choose one of the three paragraphs that best described their

feelings in close relationships; 2) respond to 12 questions concerning their most

important love relationship and 3) respond to questions concerning their view on

romantic love and aspects of their childhood (Feeney, Noller & Roberts, 2000; Hazan &

Shaver, 1987). Hazan and Shaver‘s (1987) research not only established three parallel

relationship styles of adult romantic attachment when compared to childhood

attachment, but the percentage breakdown of the three adult attachment styles: secure

(56%), anxious-avoidant (23-25%) and anxious-ambivalent (19-20%), also

corresponded to those in childhood attachment. Therefore, these findings reinforced the

premise that attachment styles remain constant over the individual‘s life span.

A secure relationship style is characterised by the ability to cultivate and develop

satisfying friendships and relationships with ease. These individuals tend to enjoy high

levels of self esteem and are generally positive and self assured in their interactions

79

with others (Feeney & Noller, 1990). These secure adults believe in lasting and

enduring genuine love, partners enjoy and are comfortable with being close to one

another and they are confident that their partner will be reliable and responsive (Gross,

2003). According to Chisholm (1995), they describe their romantic relationships as

trusting and close, with relatively little to no jealously and no fear of intimacy. A

longitudinal study involving 144 dating couples found that secure attachment styles

were associated with interdependence, commitment, trust, and satisfaction in a

romantic relationship (Simpson, 1990). These adults are characterised by being able,

not only to give and receive care comfortably and appropriately, but also to respond to

cues from their partner as to when and how care should be given (Shaver & Hazan,

1988; Simpson, Rholes & Nelligan, 1992). Secure adults experienced longer, on

average ten years, and more committed romantic relationships when compared to

insecure adults (Hazan & Shaver, 1987).

Those exhibiting an insecure attachment style, describe their romantic relationships

as being characterised by extreme sexual attraction, fear of intimacy, jealousy,

obsession and emotional peaks and valleys (Chisholm, 1995). The adult who has an

avoidant relationship style is doubtful about the existence of lasting and enduring

romantic love, finds it difficult to trust others, is suspicious of the motives of others, is

afraid of making commitments and is afraid of depending on others because they

anticipate being disappointed, being abandoned or being separated (Gross, 2003,

Simpson, 1990). These adults feel uncomfortable with closeness, avoid intimacy, expect

their partners to be unresponsive to their needs and, when stressed or anxious, retreat

from seeking or giving support (Feeney & Noller, 1990; Gross, 2003). According to

Shaver and Hazan (1988), this reluctance to provide or receive support and care may

result in a casual and or promiscuous approach to sex. Feeney, Noller & Patty (1993)

found empirical support for this – the avoidantly attached adult endorses a more casual

approach to sex than other attachment styles. Simpson (1990) reports that avoidant

men experienced considerably less anguish after the break-up of a romantic

relationship than others. Perhaps this may be the case because, by having multiple

partners and spreading their investment, they defend themselves against emotional

80

reliance on one partner, thereby protecting themselves from being hurt by possible

partner abandonment. The adult who has an ambivalent relationship style falls in love

easily and often, but seldom finds what he or she would describe as true love; they may

become overly dependent on and demanding of their partners and friends; they have a

strong desire for commitment; they display high levels of neediness and require

constant reassurance and attention (Feeney & Noller, 1990; Hazan & Shaver, 1987;

Gross, 2003). According to Shaver and Hazan (1988), multiple partners often satisfy the

ambivalently attached adult‘s intense security and intimacy needs as well as assist them

to defend against the abandonment they so fear. Bogaert and Sadava (2002) found

empirical support for this. They reported on a large scale American study of community

men and women, ages 19 to 35 years old, in which anxiously attached women showed

high levels of infidelity. Simpson (1990) established, in a longitudinal study involving 144

dating couples, that anxious or avoidant attachment styles were associated with less

interdependence, commitment, trust, and satisfaction as well as less frequent positive

emotions and more frequent negative emotions in the relationship than secure

attachment styles. Romantic relationships of insecure ambivalent adults lasted

approximately five years while those of insecure avoidant adults lasted six years (Hazan

& Shaver, 1987).

81

Table 2.3 Summary of Hazan and Shaver‟s (1987) study

Secure Avoidant Anxious-Ambivalent

Major themes of

self-report

description

Comfort with intimacy

and dependence;

lack of anxiety about

relationships

Discomfort with

closeness; difficulty

in depending on

others

Desire for extreme

closeness; anxieties

about abandonment

and lack of love

Attachment

history

Relationship with and

between parents

described as warm

Mothers described as

cold and rejecting

Fathers described as

unfair

Working models Easy to know; few

self-doubts; others

well-intentioned; love

seen as lasting

Love seen rarely as

lasting; love loses its

intensity

Self-doubts;

misunderstood; real

love seen as rare,

others less willing to

commit

Love experiences Happiness, trust,

friendship

Fear of intimacy, low

acceptance of

partners

Preoccupation; strong

sexual attraction;

emotional volatility

Derived from Feeney et al. (2000).

Feeney et al. (2000) claim that although Hazan and Shaver‘s (1987) original measure

was intuitively appealing, it has been criticised as evidencing limited reliability. Fox

(1995) argues that adults‘ recall of their childhood is not necessarily accurate because it

is influenced by multiple factors that impact on the report‘s description and coherence.

Personal memories are reconstructed according to a person‘s current psychological

state and their personal theories and beliefs about developmental processes, which

points to the possibility of questionable reliability (Fox, 1995; Pervin & John, 1997).

Britton and Fuendeling (2005) conducted fairly recent research on independent and

conjoint contributions concerning recollections of parental bonds and dimensions of

romantic attachments; they reported finding partial support. Allen, Stein, Fonagy, Fultz

and Target (2005) declare that although there have been substantial advances in self-

report assessments, there is room for further improvement.

82

Nevertheless Hazan and Shaver‘s work inspired many researchers to replicate and

expand on their studies, and these researchers all report basically similar findings with

regard to the secure/insecure adult romantic attachment style differences in beliefs,

values and expectations about love (Collins & Read, 1990; Feeney & Noller, 1990;

Kirkpatrick & Hazan, 1994; Shaver & Hazan, 1993).

Building on previous attachment work, Bartholomew (1990) conceptualised and

proposed the potential range of adult attachment types into four prototypical attachment

patterns, namely: 1) secure, 2) preoccupied, 3) fearful and 4) dismissing. She used the

junction of two underlying dimensions: self-model and other-model. The self-model

dimension is characterised by 1) positive self-model = worthy, 2) and negative self-

model = unworthy). The other-model dimension is characterised by an individual‘s

hypothetical others: 1) positive other-model = responsive, and 2) negative other-model

= unresponsive. The four prototypical attachment patterns are derived from the

combination of the self- and other-models: 1) a positive self-model and a positive other-

model = a secure attachment pattern; 2) a negative self-model and a positive other-

model = a preoccupied attachment pattern; a negative self-model and a negative other-

model = a fearful attachment pattern; and 4) a positive self-model and a negative other-

model = a dismissing attachment pattern. Below, Bartholomew‘s (1990)

conceptualisation of four-category model of adult attachment is presented in Figure 2.1:

83

Figure 2.1 Two-dimensional, four-category model of adult attachment

Derived and adapted from Bartholomew (1990); Bartholomew et al. (2001); Brehm et al.

(2002); Brennan, Clark and Shaver (1998); Griffin and Bartholomew (1994b).

Bartholomew (1990) explains and describes the four adult attachments as:

1) Individuals who are securely attached are comfortable with intimacy and

independence in close relationships. They are confident and are able to resolve conflict

constructively. They possess an ability to form and maintain close intimate bonds with

others without losing a sense of self and have an internalised sense of self worth

(Bartholomew et al., 2001; Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994b). Chappell and Davis (1998)

use 282 heterosexual American students to establish if a hypothetical partner‘s

attachment style would be influential in partner choice. They found that secure partners

elicited less negative and more positive responses when compared to preoccupied,

dismissive or fearful partners. Secure partners were followed by preoccupied partners

Positive Self

model

Negative Other model

Negative Self

model

Positive Other model

SECURE

FEARFUL DISMISSING

PREOCCUPIED

84

who elicited more positive responses than dismissive or fearful partners. Chappell and

Davis (1998) also reported that all respondents preferred a secure romantic partner to

any other.

2) Individuals who operate in terms of a preoccupied attachment style have a deep-

seated sense of unworthiness. They seek validation of their precarious self-worth

through extreme closeness and over investment in personal relationships, which leaves

them susceptible to acute anguish when their intimacy needs are not met (Bartholomew

et al., 2001; Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994b). They are dependent, preoccupied and

focused on actively seeking to have their attachment needs fulfilled: as a result their

interpersonal style can be experienced by the other as overly needy, intrusive and

demanding (Bartholomew et al., 2001).

3) Individuals with a dismissing attachment style shun and avoid intimacy with others

because of pessimistic expectations. They stress the importance of independence and

are compulsively self-reliant. They downplay, devalue and deny the importance of

relationships and the impact of negative attachment experiences in order to defensively

refute the value of close relationships. This strategy allows them to maintain a high

sense of self-worth (Bartholomew et al., 2001; Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994b). Feeney

(2004) reported findings that confirmed the dismissing attachment style: adults with

such an attachment style were found to be associated with weaker attachment to

romantic partners. Feeney (2004) also reported, as expected, that these individuals

were independent and tended to focus on work-related achievements rather than

emotional factors.

4) Individuals who display a fearful attachment style experience high attachment

anxiety and are highly dependent on others for the validation of their low self-worth

(Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994b). Paradoxically, to circumvent the pain of potential or

expected loss or rejection, they avoid intimacy and closeness (Bartholomew et al.,

2001; Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994b). As a result they struggle to make their needs

85

known within the relationship and their interpersonal style is one of passivity

(Bartholomew et al., 2001).

Responses to the four-category model of adult attachment show strong gender

differences. Brennan, Shaver and Tobey (1991) found that more males than females

were dismissing avoidants and more females than males were fearful avoidants.

Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) found that more men were more likely to endorse a

dismissing attachment pattern, while women were more likely to endorse a preoccupied

attachment pattern. According to Hazan and Shaver (1994) gender specific parental

sex-role socialisation practices may account for these gender differences.

Bartholomew‘s (1990) two dimensional, four-category adult attachment model can be

integrated with other models of adult romantic attachment (Griffin & Bartholomew,

1994a, 1994b) and has received much subsequent empirical support (Brennan et al.,

1998; Carver, 1997; Feeney, 1999). This research has, however, been predominantly

undertaken in Western cultures and it is therefore unclear whether this attachment is

universal. Having said this, some researchers have indeed reported that the key

developmental processes of attachment are universal (Van IJzendoorn & Sagi, 1999).

In a collaborative research study across 62 cultural regions using over 17 800

participants, Schmitt et al. (2004) found some evidence for the validity for the Model for

Self and Other dimensions within most cultures. However, the four adult romantic

attachment types did not emerge in precisely the same way across all 62 cultural

regions. As expected, Schmitt et al. (2004) established that in 79% of the cultural

regions secure attachment was the highest rated form of romantic adult attachment.

When one compares Hazan and Shaver‘s (1987) original three adult attachment styles

with Bartholomew‘s (1990) four attachment patterns, it is apparent that they concur fairly

closely: secure with secure, ambivalent with preoccupied and avoidant with dismissing.

Consequent research supports Bartholomew‘s (1990) four prototype groups (Brennan et

al., 1998; Feeney & Noller, 1996; Feeney, Noller & Hanrahan, 1994; Griffin &

Bartholomew, 1994b). Research yields the finding that few individuals show a purely

86

prototypical attachment pattern. Bartholomew et al. (2001) take a more expanded view

on attachment and assert that most individuals display a complex attachment profile

across attachment patterns, with individuals employing primary, secondary and even

tertiary attachment strategies. Others suggest that individual differences in adult

attachment should not be conceptualised as types or groups but rather should be

understood in terms of dimensions (Fraley & Waller, 1998).

Attachment theory has not only been utilised extensively in research; it has also been

applied in individual psychotherapy (Wallin, 2007) as well as in couples counselling

(Hendrix, 1995). Of particular importance to this study is Hendrix‘s (1995) application.

Hendrix (1995) developed his contemporary imago relationship theory and intervention

by incorporating a number of theories. He draws heavily on Freud‘s theory of refinding

the original love object, on attachment theory and on six of Erikson‘s (1968) eight

psychosexual stages. Hendrix (1995), like Freud (1905), postulates that partner

selection is unconscious and based on the image or imago of an individual‘s parents.

He contends that individuals choose partners that are similar to their parents in hope of

healing the original wounding inflicted by the parents, and suggests that individuals

select mates who carry wounds from the same developmental stage that they do, but

who have adapted that wounding using the opposite coping strategy. Hendrix (1995)

utilises the attachment styles as a framework to explain maladaptive behaviours that

individuals adopt in intimate relationships: 1) maximising, which he likens to a

preoccupied attachment style and 2) minimising, which he likens to an avoidant /

dismissing attachment style. These maladaptive behaviours, according to Hendrix

(1995), are adopted in response to woundings and developmental arrests which

individuals acquired during their six developmental / psychosocial stages: attachment,

exploration, identity, competence, concern and intimacy. Table 2.4 summarises

Hendrix‘s (1995) developmental stages and the two opposing maladaptive strategies

that are adopted. Hendrix (1995) explains that if an individual‘s primary wounding is at

the attachment psychosocial stage and the person has adopted the maladaptive pattern

of the minimiser – which is ‗The avoider‘ at this psychosocial stage – this person will

select a partner who is a maximiser, which is ‗The clinger‘ at this psychosocial stage.

87

Table 2.4 Hendrix‟s psychosocial stages and maladaptive strategies

Psychosocial stage Minimiser (rigid boundaries) Maximiser (diffused boundaries)

Attachment The avoider The clinger

Exploration The isolator The pursuer

Identity The controller The diffuser

Competence The competitor The compromiser

Concern The loner The caretaker

Intimacy The rebel The conformist

Derived and adapted from Hendrix (1995).

Although Hendrix‘s (1995) theory and imago relationship therapy has not, as yet,

yielded empirical results it, nonetheless, has proven to be a popular and seemingly

useful relationship intervention.

Even though attachment theory has generated clinical applications as well as a

considerable amount of research that has increased the understanding of the central

tenets of the theory, it has also attracted a number of criticisms.

2.5.4. Criticisms of attachment theory

Takahashi (2005) challenges two attachment theory assumptions: the mother as a key

figure and the continuity of internal working models. He argues that an infant has a

number of significant others and therefore that the ‗monotropy‘ model proposed by

Bowlby (1969, 1973) is not necessarily applicable. He adds that an adult also has

multiple significant others. According to Takahashi (2005) research shows that healthy

adults have at least three significant, ‗inner circle‘ others and on average at least six

significant, ‗middle or outer circle‘ others. Van IJzendoorn (2005) in some respects

supports this sentiment by declaring that attachment style is born out of an attachment

system that includes the mother, father, older siblings, grandparents and other

significant members of the family.

88

The second attachment theory assumption with which Takahashi (2005) contends is

that concerning the continuity and discontinuity of internal working models. He observes

that research about the continuity and discontinuity of internal working models has

generated mixed results. A healing experience which shifts and alters the child's

insecure internal working model takes place with nurturing, gentle, soothing, non-

controlling, non-provocative and non-intrusive narratives told by parents (May, 2005).

For Wallin (2007) research has shown that current experiences, positive (e.g. a therapy)

or negative (e.g. trauma), establish new neural connections which can reshape the

physical structure of the brain in adults as well as children. As Siegel (1999) reports,

some individuals are ‗earned secure‘ adults. They are adults who have experienced

childhoods that are usually associated with insecure attachment patterns but are able to

conduct emotionally significant relationships with others. The debate over the continuity

and discontinuity of internal working models is theoretically and empirically incomplete

according to Takahashi (2005). Overall it seems that internal working models are stable;

however, when a significant positive or negative experience occurs the individual‘s

internal working model may change to ‗earned secure‘ or insecure respectively.

Thompson (2005) agrees with Takahashi (2005) and criticises attachment theory as an

all-inclusive interpretation of early sociopersonality development – as being both too

narrow and too hegemonistic. The four critical characteristics of close relationships

according to Takahashi (2005, p. 60) are: ―1) a personal framework consists of multiple

social figures; 2) the framework has a hierarchical structure usually with regard to a

focal figure; 3) there are inter-individual differences in the framework, and 4) the frame

work is stable, but can change with a person‘s circumstances‖. He proposes the need to

look beyond the mother-child dyad in order to understand the complexity of close adult

relationships. Takahashi (2005) recommends that an extension of attachment theory

into life span developmental theory which describes close relationships may be useful.

An international panel of experts surveyed the development of items for a new measure

of attachment. They argue that that the way adult attachment should be conceptualised

89

and researched in the future needs to be reviewed and rethought because according to

them there are five attachment domains: secure attachment, dismissing attachment,

preoccupied attachment, positive nonattachment, and negative nonattachment (Allen et

al., 2005).

Blasi and Bjorklund (2003) maintain that besides attachment theory, the influence of

evolutionary ideas on developmental psychological theory and research has been weak.

Research carried out seems, nonetheless, to support attachment theory. Hazan and

Zeifman (1999) found results that are consistent with: 1) Bowlby's (1979) claim that

attachment styles continue from the ‗cradle to the grave‘ and 2) Ainsworth‘s et al. (1978)

claim that the three attachment styles of secure, avoidant and ambivalent have direct

counterparts in adulthood: secure, avoidant (fearful/dismissing) and ambivalent

(preoccupied) attachment styles (Bartholomew et al., 2001; Hazan and Shaver, 1987;

Main, 1995). Hazan and Zeifman (1999) established that the foundation of attachment

is: 1) the desire to maintain proximity, 2) distress upon separation, and 3) the reliance

on the attachment figure as a safe haven and secure base. They further state that

attachment is applicable to adults, children and infants. Finally, many studies conducted

are highly suggestive of and tend to strongly support the attachment theory, even

though adult attachment research results are mostly correlational, for which reason one

should note that it is precarious to infer causation (Hazan & Shaver, 1994).

One of the main criticisms of attachment theory is that it has been slow to impact on

clinical application, theory and practice (Peluso et al., 2004). Slade (1999) concurs and

adds that the present-day practice of therapy with an attachment theory basis is in its

early stages and requires further development. According to some researchers,

however, clinicians have recently taken up the challenge to test the uses of attachment

theory (Birnbaum, 2003; Gabbard, 2005; Main, 1995; Schore; 2002; Siegel, 1999;

Wallin, 2007; Wampler, Shi, Nelson & Kimball, 2003).

90

2.5.5. Conclusion

From the above criticisms it can be asserted that attachment is complex and

multifaceted. Nonetheless, based on the review of the existing attachment literature,

attachment theory still provides one of the most beneficial frameworks for understanding

adult love relationships. In sum, attachment theory has shown how one‘s ability to love

romantically is steeped in the interpersonal realm. It indicates how an infant‘s ability to

attach, trust, mentalise and love is based on the quality of care, communication,

emotional responsiveness and attunement he / she receives from his / her primary

caregiver (Ainsworth et al. 1978; Chrisholm, 1995; Fonagy, 1998; Peluso et al., 2004;

Schore, 2002; Siegel, 1999). Based on these early experiences and primary attachment

relationships, the infant develops relatively stable unconscious internal working models

about the self and others (Bowlby, 1973, 1980, 1988). These internal working models

are not only relationally mapped but also neurologically mapped (Schore, 2002; Siegel,

1999). As a result these internal working models inform not only how the infant will

attach but also how the child, adolescent and the adult will function in terms of

attachment – the secure infant will grow up to be a secure child, adolescent and adult

and the insecure infant will grow up to be an insecure child, adolescent and adult.

Researchers have confirmed that individuals love in different ways depending on their

attachment styles (Bartholomew et al., 2001; Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994b; Hazan &

Shaver, 1987). Secure adults are able to form close bonds with others, they feel happy

in a love relationship and they trust and feel close to those they are romantically

involved with. Dismissing adults tend to be highly independent, experience difficulty

forming close bonds with and depending on their romantic partner and tend to be

promiscuous. Preoccupied adults are dependent, yearn for extreme closeness, fear

being abandoned by their lover and may also have multiple partners. Fearful adults are

passive and struggle to make their needs known, they are highly dependent on their

beloved but avoid closeness. Wallin (2007, p. 96) suggests that the ―complexity of a

whole person can never be adequately captured by a single descriptor‖. He continues

by pointing out that all individuals have ‗multiple states of mind‘ and, depending on the

mind and the context which brings forth that mind, different attachment styles will be

91

adopted by the individual. Nonetheless he reports that in his clinical practice he has

found his first impressions of the patient‘s predominant attachment style to be accurate

and particularly useful.

Attachment theorists conceptualise romantic love as an attachment process, while

attachment theory illustrates that the lens of the interpersonal approach to love can

bring into focus yet another piece of the romantic love puzzle. The subsequent piece in

the chronological quest to make love knowable is the interdependence theory which is

also known as the social exchange theory. According to this theory, human beings are

interpersonal accountants who calculate the profits and losses of their interactions with

others, including the beloved, in terms of interpersonal economics – a balance sheet. It

is the cognitive and economic view of romantic love that the interdependence theory

seeks to illuminate.

92

2.6 Interdependence theory

―Love is often nothing but a favourable exchange between

two people who get the most of what they can expect,

considering their value on the personality market.‖

(Fromm, 1956)

2.6.1 Interdependence theory or social exchange theory

According to the interdependence theory people assess whether to initiate, form and

maintain relationships on the basis of reciprocity in costs and rewards. Proponents say

that people are driven to maximise rewards and minimise costs. The interdependence

theory or the social exchange theory is characterised by four central concepts: reward,

cost, outcome and comparison level. According to Kelley and Thibaut (1978) the social

exchange theory maintains that people evaluate their interactions and relationships

according to perceived rewards received from the relationship, perceived costs incurred

by the relationship, the perceived relationship they deserve and the likelihood that they

could enjoy a better relationship with another.

Perceived rewards are characterised by the positive, pleasurable and gratifying aspects

of the relationship that reinforce and maintain it, for example, gain in knowledge,

enhanced self-esteem, fulfilment of emotional needs and sexual gratification. Perceived

costs are characterised by the undesirable experiences and negative aspects of the

relationship, for example, physical or mental effort, embarrassment and anxiety (Kelley

& Thibaut, 1978). In a study undertaken by Bui, Peplau & Hill (1996), they confirmed

that the combination of rewards and costs accounted for a significant proportion of the

variance in satisfaction. Interestingly Gottman and Levenson (1992) found that rewards

and costs did not necessarily carry equal value. They report that for a partner to remain

satisfied with a relationship the reward-to-cost ratio needs to be at least 5:1. They

suggested that undesirable experiences and exchanges in relationship were more

influential than comparable desirable experiences and exchanges.

93

According to the social exchange theory, by subtracting the anticipated costs incurred

from the anticipated rewards received people calculate the outcomes of their

interactions and relationships (outcomes = rewards – costs). The withdrawal from

initiating a new relationship and the likely dissolution of an existing relationship is

predicted when there is a negative outcome. The initiation or maintenance of the

relationship is predicted by a positive outcome. When each partner starts to impact on

the degree to which their partner‘s outcomes are achieved, mutual dependence has

developed in the dyad (Le & Agnew, 2003). According to Le and Agnew (2003),

dependence and reliance on a partner for the fulfilment of a relationship and the

subjective experience of that dependence constitutes commitment. Commitment is

strengthened by being in a satisfying relationship but weakened by possible alternatives

to that relationship (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978).

According to Kelley and Thibaut (1978), established relationship outcomes may be

evaluated by means of the individual‘s 1) comparison level and 2) comparison level for

alternatives. An individual‘s comparison level is ascertained by the expectation of the

costs, rewards and outcomes based on the average of that person‘s past relationship

experiences. Consequently relationships whose outcomes are more than a person‘s

comparison level are deemed satisfying while those less than this level are not

(outcomes – comparison level = satisfaction or dissatisfaction). The expectation of the

outcomes an individual would receive in an alternative relationship is ascertained by

comparison level for alternatives (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). The comparison level for

alternatives is the lowest level of outcome an individual will accept in a relationship. In

other words, even if an individual is satisfied with their current relationship, they are

likely to leave that relationship if other relationships promise higher rewards. The

converse is also true: even if an individual is dissatisfied with their current relationship,

they are not likely to leave that relationship if other relationships promise lower rewards.

Van Dam (2005) suggests an additional perspective: Kelley and Thibaut's (1978)

interdependence or social exchange theory holds that satisfaction and dependence are

the two structural factors that typify interdependence in a relationship. Satisfaction in a

94

relationship is determined by the rewards and costs of a relationship. Dependence

refers to the extent to which the needs that are satisfied in a particular relationship

cannot be satisfied elsewhere, and is therefore related to the perceived quality of

alternatives (Van Dam, 2005).

2.6.2 Investment model

Using the theoretical foundation of the interdependence theory, Rusbult (1980)

conceptualised the Investment Model. She postulated that over and above rewards,

costs, outcomes, comparison levels and comparison level for alternatives, an

individual‘s level of investment in long-term relationship needs to be taken into account

as well (Rusbult, 1983). According to Rusbult (1983) investments can take the form of

physical or psychological investments. The Investment Model proposes that a strong

factor in the processes which encourage the maintenance of relationships is

commitment. The model identifies three elements that determine a person‘s

commitment to a relationship: 1) satisfaction with the relationship which is deduced in

terms of rewards, costs and subjective comparison level, 2) level of investment in the

relationship or investment size, and 3) quality of alternatives to the relationship. High

levels of satisfaction, high levels of investment and low quality of alternatives are the

characteristics of a committed and stable relationship (Rusbult, 1983). A diagrammatical

representation of Rusbult‘s (1983) Investment Model follows in figure 2.2:

95

Figure 2.2 Rusbult‟s Investment Model

Derived from Rusbult (1983).

The utility and robustness of the Investment Model has been confirmed by numerous

empirical studies (Bui et al., 1996; Cox, Wexler, Rusbult & Gaines, 1997; Le & Agnew,

2003; Rusbult, 1983).

Rusbult (1983) undertook a longitudinal study over an academic year with 34 students

who completed a relationship questionnaire every 17 days. The study yielded support

for the investment model she proposed. She reported that commitment tended to

increase over time for both genders, with increases in satisfaction and investment and

decreases in the perceived quality of alternatives. Respondents also reported that

although increases in rewards increased satisfaction over time, it was only later in the

relationship that changes in costs impacted on satisfaction. She argues that this is

because of the tendency for humans to idealise their partner and for the partner to

present themselves in the best possible light in the initial stages of the relationship.

Rewards

Costs

Comparison

Level

Satisfaction with

relationship

Quality of alternatives

to relationships

Level of investment in

relationship

Commitment to

relationship

Stability of

relationship

96

When testing Rusbult's Investment Model of relationship commitment and stability Bui et

al. (1996) confirmed that a significant proportion of the variance in satisfaction was

accounted for by the combination of rewards and costs. In addition they found that a

significant proportion of the variance in commitment was accounted for by the

combination of satisfaction, investments, and quality of alternatives. They also claim

that Rusbult's Investment Model can successfully predict relationship duration over a

fifteen-year period. Two explanatory expansions to Rusbult‘s Investment Model were

suggested by Bui et al. (1996). Firstly they proposed that rewards may not only be

indirectly linked to commitment via satisfaction but rather may be directly linked to

commitment. Secondly, that ―the quality of alternatives to a current relationship

experienced by one partner may be related to the other partner‘s level of commitment‖

(p.1253).

The Investment Model has demonstrated generalisability (Cox et al., 1997).

Researchers declare that The Investment Model is able to 1) predict commitment

across many types of romantic relationship; 2) explain feelings of commitment and

account for decisions to continue or dissolve a relationship; 3) account for commitment

processes cross-culturally and 4) predict non-romantic commitment, including friendship

commitment, job commitment and turnover.

Truman-Schram, Cann, Calhoun and Vanwallendael (2000) established that the

Investment Model variables of objective investment size, subjective investment size,

quality of perceived alternatives, and the Liking scale accounted for 32% of the variance

in commitment. In addition they found that lack of commitment was a significant

predictor of relationship break-up.

Le and Agnew (2003) indicated that in a meta–analysis of Rusbult‘s Investment Model

much stronger correlations were found between commitment investments and

alternatives. They reported that commitment satisfaction with alternatives to, and

investments in a relationship, were significantly correlated to commitment and

accounted for almost two–thirds of the variance in commitment (Le & Agnew, 2003). Le

97

and Agnew (2003) suggest that the Investment Model may be expanded into a more

comprehensive model of commitment by examining the possible indirect effects of

temperament factors on commitment.

2.6.3 Investment model extended

Rusbult, Olsen, Davis and Hannon (2001) extended Rusbult‘s (1983) Investment Model

by adding an additional process to the original model. They believe that once a strong

level of commitment is established there are three behavioural and three cognitive

maintenance mechanisms that assist in sustaining long-term, well-functioning

relationships. In their view high levels of satisfaction, poor perceived alternatives and a

large investment size are characteristic of strongly committed relationships. As a result

couples in these relationships have a strong motivation to ensure their relationship

continues and they do so by performing maintenance acts. These maintenance acts

can vary from the trivial and inconvenient, to those that involve considerable cost as

regards immediate self interest. Because they are orientated towards long-term

outcomes couples endure the costs of maintenance acts. They realise that it is in their

long-term interest to develop patterns of reciprocal pro-relationship behaviours and

cognitions to ensure the well-being of their relationship (Rusbult et al., 2001).

Rusbult et al. (2001) describe the characteristics of the three behavioural and three

cognitive maintenance mechanisms as follows. The three behavioural maintenance

mechanisms that ensure the well being of the dyad are accommodation, willingness to

sacrifice, and forgiveness. Accommodation exists when the individual refrains from

responding and retaliating to the partner‘s destructive provocation. The individual

demonstrates a willingness to sacrifice their own interests, desires and needs for the

good of the relationship and engages instead in behaviours that are valued by the

partner. Forgiveness is evident when the individual finds a way of forgiving an act of

betrayal by the partner. The three cognitive maintenance mechanisms that ensure

the well being of the dyad are interdependence, positive illusion and derogation of

alternatives. Interdependence is characterised by relational instead of self based

98

thought, for example, us, we, our, rather than I, me, mine. Positive illusion is

characterised by minimising the beloved‘s faults and maximising their virtues and

strengths. Derogation of alternatives is characterised by exhibiting cognitive distortions

about tempting alternative partners. A diagrammatical representation of Rusbult et al.‘s

(2001) commitment and relationship maintenance mechanisms follows in figure 2.3:

Figure 2.3 Commitment and relationship maintenance mechanisms

Derived from Rusbult et al. (2001, p. 97).

2.6.4 Equity theory

Although the social exchange theory is supported by a great number of empirical

findings (Bui et al., 1996; Le & Agnew, 2003), it has also been critiqued for ignoring the

belief in fairness or equity (Walster, Walster & Berscheid, 1978). Walster et al. (1978)

point out that followers of the equity theory believe people strive to equalise the

outcomes between the individuals in the relationship, rather than being out to maximise

their rewards and minimise their costs. They argue that if an individual is receiving more

than they ought to in a relationship, they will feel uncomfortable and will eventually feel

guilty because equity is such a potent social norm.

Satisfaction

level

Investment

Size

Quality of

alternatives

Behavioural Maintenance Mechanisms:

accommodation; willingness to

sacrifice; forgiveness

Commitment

level Cognitive Maintenance Mechanisms:

interdependence, positive illusion

and derogation of alternatives

Couple‟s

well-being

99

Walster et al. (1978) established that when individuals are indebted to others or when

others are indebted to them there are feelings of discomfort and distress. When others

are indebted to them, individuals experience distress, anger and frustration. When

individuals are indebted to others they experience feelings of distress, obligation and

fear of an inability to settle the debt timeously. Consequently when the outcome of the

rewards and costs is comparatively equal for both partners, relationships are more

secure and fulfilling (Buunk & Dijkstra, 2000).

Different strategies are utilised to maintain equity in different types of relationships: the

equity notion operates differently in long-term versus short-term relationships. ‗Tit-for-

tat‘ types of exchanges are used by acquaintances and strangers to maintain short-term

equity. Clark and Mills (1979) differentiated between exchange relationships (based on

interpersonal economics) and communal relationships (based on altruistic motives).

Researchers have discovered that exchange relationships normally govern short-term

relationships and are characterised by a need for an equal ratio of costs and rewards.

Those in intimate, equitable friendships or romantic relationships are unconcerned with

short-term equity and do not feel they have to trade similar benefits (Clark, 1984, 1986;

Mills & Clark, 1994, 2001). Researchers have also found that communal relationships

generally govern long-term relationships and these are characterised by the primary

concern of being responsive to the other‘s needs (Clark, 1984, 1986; Mills & Clark,

1994, 2001). Rusbult et al. (2001) postulate that a sense of trust grows between a dyad

when the two individuals observe each other sacrificing self-interest and being

responsive to the other‘s needs; this in turn is reflective of the partner‘s level of

commitment.

In close relationships when each partner has the same high degree of motivation to be

responsive to the other partner‘s needs, these relationships are generally considered to

be strong mutual communal relationships. There are different levels of such

relationships. In the Western world the cultural norm is that close romantic partners

have a stronger mutual communal relationship when compared to any other relationship

100

(e.g. sibling and best friend) (Mills & Clark, 2001). Thus the partner‘s needs are more

than likely to take precedence over the needs of the other individuals with whom weaker

communal relationships exist. Mills and Clark (2001) warn that not all intimate romantic

relationships are strong mutual relationships and that some of these relationships may

function according to an exchange basis. They add that this exchange base type of

relationship does not foster happiness and security for the members of the relationship

and only by undergoing the very difficult process of changing the relationship to the

communal rule, will maintenance and enhancement of a close romantic relationship be

achieved (Mills & Clark, 2001). Mills and Clark (2001) consider that from a cross-cultural

point of view, a feeling of obligation born out of cultural norms may provide the impetus

for behaving communally in arranged marriages.

The strength of a romantic communal relationship depends on three central factors: 1)

both partners share an equally strong concern for the interests and needs of the other

partner; 2) both partners share an equally strong motivation to benefit the other partner

when the other has a need; and 3) whether each partner has the ability to follow through

on that motivation (Mills & Clark, 2001). The continual motivation of both partners to

follow the communal rule and their ability to do so determines the continued life and

strength of a mutual romantic communal relationship (Mills & Clark, 2001).

Fehr (1988) adds that trust and caring are the two most vital components of love and

that each endorses and sustains the other: ―trust that one‘s partner is concerned about

one‘s welfare promotes caring for the needs of one‘s partner. Caring for the partner‘s

needs promotes the partner‘s trust that one is concerned about the partner‘s welfare‖

(Mills & Clark, 2001, p.24). In other words trust and caring continually feed and reinforce

one another, creating a safe symbiotic connection, and thereby ensuring the

maintenance and enhancement of the intimate romantic relationship.

101

2.6.5 Criticisms

There is little doubt that exchanges of resources in the form of rewards, costs,

outcomes and comparison levels play a central role in the initiating, developing and

maintaining of an intimate relationship. Yet, exchange theories seem somewhat

reductionistic and leave much unexplained: 1) they neglect to explain the more

emotional aspects of romantic relationships; 2) they negate the existing sexual

inequalities and the impact of these on the final outcome; and 3) sexual inequalities

result in unequal exchanges anyway, thus rendering interpersonal exchanges

unimportant (Goodwin, 1999). ―Thus, while exchange theories provide a useful heuristic

for future theory generations, such theories must be more firmly located within the

socio-cultural conditions in which a couple operates in order to provide useful insights

into relationship behaviours‖ (Goodwin, 1999, p. 82).

In addition, exchange theories seem to neglect the unconscious elements that drive

how individuals love and on which the intrapsychic perspective focuses. Attachment

theorists argue that love is not a decision and that commitment in romantic relationships

is not entirely explainable by cognitive models (Morgan & Shaver, 1999). They

acknowledge the importance and perspective of economically derived models and

theories of commitment but add that couples come together and stay together in part

because of the relatively primitive, non-rational and powerful binding force of an

attachment system (Hendrix, 1995; Morgan & Shaver, 1999).

2.6.6 Conclusion

Interdependence theorists emphasise the economic nature of the relationship between

people and between romantic partners. They call attention to the cognitive component

of love and describe how human beings are interpersonal accountants who calculate

and evaluate the profits and losses of interactions, outcomes and comparison levels

with their beloved (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). They believe that people aim to maximise

their rewards and minimise their costs. It is important to note that there seem to be a

102

number of similarities between the interdependence theory and Fromm‘s (1956) claim

that in Western society individuals trade their ‗personality package‘ with others in the

hope of the best possible and most profitable exchange.

The investment model adds that the quality of alternatives to relationships determines

the individual‘s commitment to the relationship, which in turn determines the stability of

the relationship (Rusbult, 1980). Later its proponents add that behavioural and cognitive

mechanisms help to maintain committed relationships (Rusbult et al., 2001). Walster et

al. (1978) proposed the equity theory which is characterised by the belief that

individuals, instead of trying to maximise rewards and minimise costs, rather endeavour

to equalise the outcomes between the individuals in the relationship. Two types of

relationships were theorised by Clark and Mills (1979): exchange relationships (based

on interpersonal economics) and communal relationships (based on altruistic motives).

Communal relationships are characterised by being responsive to the other‘s interests

and needs; these relationships generally govern long-term intimate romantic

relationships (Clark, 1984, 1986; Mills & Clark, 1994, 2001).

Although this approach seems to lack the irrational, unconscious and emotional

component of love, much empirical evidence has been found for the economic piece of

the puzzle of love. It seems to add a very valuable and strong cognitive and decision

making component to the conundrum. Interdependence theory and its adjuncts provide

a fundamental and essential perspective on the function which interpersonal economics

fulfils in the initiating, developing and maintaining of an intimate romantic relationship.

This adds to our cumulative understanding of the variegated nature of love.

Continuing along the chronological sequence of how love can be known, the study now

moves from the interpersonal economics approach, to differentiating between two types

of love: passionate and companionate.

103

2.7 Passionate and Companionate love

―My heart flutters hastily,

When I think of my love for you;

It lets me not act sensibly.‖

(Lichtheim, 1976, p. 184)

A state of intense physiological arousal and an intense longing for the other are the

characteristics of passionate love (Walster & Walster, 1978; Regan, 1998). The

partners experience a powerful fascination for one another, they express passionate

love physically and the relationship expectation is one of physical exclusivity (Myers,

2002). The partners experience psychological union and closeness with the other as

well as fulfilment, delight and ecstasy when their love is reciprocated (Aronson et al.,

2005; Michener et al., 2004). Hatfield and Rapson (1996) suggest that individuals the

world over experience the headiness of passionate love and that, ―throughout the

modern world, people turn out to be surprisingly similar in the way they experience

passionate love‖ (p. 88). In the view of Berscheid and Walster (1974) passionate love

consists of three components: cognitive, emotional and behavioural. The cognitive

component is characterised by an idealisation and intrusive preoccupation with the

beloved as well as a strong desire to know the beloved. The emotional component is

characterised by a desire for union, sexual attraction, physiological arousal, positive and

negative feelings and longing for reciprocity. The behavioural component is

characterised by actions to maintain physical closeness, actions to determine the

beloved's feelings, actions in service to the beloved and studying the beloved. As

Walster and Walster (1978) write, romantic passion and its influences of fantasy,

novelty and arousal are difficult to sustain indefinitely; hence over time romantic

passionate love tends to diminish.

The longer the relationship lasts the calmer the volatile emotions of passionate love

become (Sprecher & Regan 1998). This could lead to companionate love which is

characterised by feelings of closeness, intimacy and affection towards the beloved who

is deeply entwined in the lover‘s life (Walster & Walster, 1978). It is a love that is based

104

on a concern for the other‘s welfare; a rich and committed friendship; common interests

and activities, mutual respect and mutual affection. This love is more stable and

sustainable than romantic passionate love.

Hendrick and Hendrick (1993) report that many couples value both types of love:

passionate and companionate love. According to them, almost half of the young adults

that are in relationship reported that their romantic partner was also their closest friend.

Brehm et al. (2002) propose that the distinction between passionate and companionate

love is not clear cut and that there is some overlap. They conclude that it is passionate

love that leads American couples to marry and that it is companionate love which

underlies marriages that are happy and enduring. Noller (1996, p. 101) suggests that a

―combination of passionate and companionate love is likely to be related to the love that

supports marriage and family‖. In addition it seems that both passionate love and

companionate love endorse the research into mutual liking and reciprocal affection.

Passionate and companionate love offer a broad and useful starting point in describing

types of romantic love. However, this seems to neglect the intricacy of how culture

influences and mediates love. Passionate and companionate love are not initially likely

to be present in an arranged marriage. Having said that, both these types of love have

the potential to develop in arranged marriages but unlike the Western world, passionate

and / or companionate love would not usually be the basis of an arranged marriage.

The notion of passionate and companionate love anticipates Sternberg‘s (1986, 1988)

three-component based triangular theory of love, and his eight types of love that are

born out of these components. In his later conceptualisations of romantic love Sternberg

presents, firstly, a social constructionist perspective (Beall & Sternberg, 1995) and

secondly, his love story theory (Sternberg, 1995, 2000). In the chronological journey of

uncovering divergent understandings of love this piece of the romantic love puzzle

highlights types of love and the influences of society and culture on the meanings

individuals accord to romantic love.

105

2.8 Triangular theory of love and Love stories

―When my grandmother got arthritis, she couldn‘t bend over and paint her toenails

anymore. So my grandfather does it for her all the time,

even when his hands got arthritis too.

That‘s love.‖

(A four year old)

2.8.1 Triangular theory of love

Sternberg‘s (1986, 1988) original model of love is known as the triangular theory of

love: he presented it in an attempt ―to explain and characterise a variety of love-related

phenomena‖ (Sternberg, 1986, p. 134). He formulated the model in terms of three

ingredients: intimacy, passion and decision.

Sternberg (1986, 1988) characterises intimacy as: the strength of the bond that holds

two people together and the closeness they feel for one another. It also includes

communication, support and sharing as well as feelings of warmth and understanding.

The primary features of passion are romance, sexuality and physical attraction, arousal

and desire. Decision / commitment is based on a cognitive process of deciding in the

short-term that one loves one‘s partner and in the long-term, deciding to maintain that

love and remain with the partner (Sternberg, 1986, 1988). He uses a descriptive and

explanatory framework to explain how these three components combined to form

different types of love. He postulates that love can be based on one, on a combination

of any two, or on all three of these three ingredients. According to Sternberg (1986,

1988) there are eight types of love that are born out of the various combinations of

intimacy, passion and commitment: 1) liking, 2) romantic love, 3) companionate love, 4)

consummate love, 5) infatuation, 6) fatuous love, 7) empty love and 8) non love. Ideal

love or consummate love is difficult to achieve and occurs when all three corners of the

triangle are balanced and equally strong (Sternberg, 1988). Below is a diagrammatic

106

representation of Sternberg‘s triangle model of love and an explanation of the eight love

types.

Figure 2.4 Sternberg‟s (1988) Triangular Model of Love

INTIMACY

PASSION COMMITMENT

8. Non Love

1. Liking = intimacy (true friendship without passion or long-term

commitment)

3. Companionate love = intimacy + commitment (long-term committed

friendship e.g. marriage

where passion has faded)

2. Romantic love = intimacy + passion

(lovers physically and emotionally attracted to one another but without

commitment)

7. Empty love = commitment

(decision to love another without

intimacy or

passion)

5. Infatuation = passion

(passionate, obsessive love at first sight without

intimacy or

commitment)

6. Fatuous love = passion + commitment

(commitment based on passion but without time

for intimacy to develop – a shallow relationship e.g.

whirlwind courtship)

4. Consummate love = intimacy + commitment + passion

(complete love consisting of all three equally balanced ingredients

– this ideal is difficult to obtain)

107

Derived from Sternberg‘s (1988) Triangular Model of Love.

The usefulness and validity of Sternberg‘s (1986, 1988) triangular theory of love has not

been determined, given the dearth of research into it. In addition, researchers have

challenged the clearly defined types of love that the theory postulates, averring instead

that love in reality may not fall into such distinct categories. They have also questioned

the centrality of intimacy as a construct (Brehm et al., 2002). Sternberg himself was not

entirely satisfied with his initial theory of love.

2.8.2 Love socially constructed

Over time, Sternberg and a co-researcher revised his theory of love – they focused on

the socially constructed nature of love (Beall & Sternberg, 1995). Beall and

Sternberg (1995) postulated that love is non-universal. Instead they declared that love

and the emotional experience of love, is culturally and contextually defined, constructed

and bound. Beall and Sternberg (1995) suggested that, in order to understand the

concept of love in culture, during a period of time, one needs ―information about a) the

beloved; b) the feelings that are believed to accompany love; c) the thoughts that are

believed to accompany love and d) the actions or relations between the lover and the

beloved‖ (p. 426). It was at about the same time that Sternberg (1995) began to

consider the concept of love as a story and went so far as to propose this as a meta-

theory of love.

2.8.3 Love as a story

Sternberg (1995, 2000) refined his concept of love from being purely socially

constructed to the idea of love as a „story‟ - that is personally constructed within that

individual‘s cultural milieu. Gergen and Gergen (1988) concur: ―when a man and a

woman privately whisper sweet nothings, a whole society is feeding them their lines.

How they behave and even how they feel depend, in part, on a host of myths they

108

learned from their society – modified by each partner‘s experiences‖ (p. 48). Sternberg

(2000, p. 52) maintains that ―the love between two people follows a story [and] if we

want to understand love, we have to understand the stories that dictate our beliefs and

expectations of love‖. As Sternberg (1995) indicates, a person‘s narratives and stories

are shaped by many elements: their personal history; attachment style; observations of

the interactions between the individual‘s parents; childhood, adolescent and adult

interactions with his / her parents, siblings and friends; and personality traits. He adds

that the conception and construction of individual‘s love stories are also influenced and

shaped by depictions of romance and love in movies, television and books (Sternberg,

2000). After in-depth research Sternberg (2000) found that a person‘s love story is

revealed in the way a person describes love, whom they seek as romantic partners as

well as courses and outcomes of the intimate relationship. An individual‘s

presuppositions of what love should be and how it should work are intrinsic to their love

story. Although Sternberg (2000) acknowledges that there are an infinite number of love

stories, from his research he identified at least twenty-five common stories (Table 2.5)

which people used to describe love. ―Find your love story‖ outlines and describes the

twelve most common ones (Sternberg, 2000, p. 55-58):

Table 2.5 Sternberg‟s (2000) love stories

Story 1 Sacrifice story ―I believe sacrifice is a key part of true love‖

Story 2 Police story

(officer; suspect)

―I believe that you need to keep a close eye on

your partner‖ or ―My partner needs to know

everything that I do‖

Story 3 Travel story ―I believe that beginning a relationship is like

starting a new journey that promises to be both

exciting and challenging‖

Story 4 Pornography story

(object; subject)

―It is very important to be able to gratify all my

partner‘s sexual desires and whims‖ or ―I can never

be happy with a partner who is not very

adventurous in his or her sex life‖

Story 5 Horror story ―I find it exciting when I feel my partner is

109

(terroriser; victim) somewhat frightened of me‖ or ―I tend to end up

with people who frighten me‖

Story 6 Recovery story

(co-dependent;

person in recovery)

‖I often find myself helping people get their life back

in order" or "I need someone to help me recover

from my painful past"

Story 7 Garden story ―I believe any relationship that is left unattended

will not survive‖

Story 8 Business story "I believe close relationships are like good

partnerships"

Story 9 Fantasy story ―I do believe that there is someone out there for me

who is my perfect match‖

Story 10 War story ―I think it is more interesting to argue than to

compromise‖

Story 11 Humour story ―I think taking a relationship too seriously can spoil

it‖

Story 12 Collection story ―I like dating different partners simultaneously;

each partner should fit a particular need‖

Additional stories mentioned are (Sternberg, 2000, p. 54):

Autocratic government story ―I think it is more efficient if one person takes control

of the important decisions in a relationship‖

Art story ―Physical attractiveness is the most essential

characteristic I look for in a partner‖

Science fiction story ―I often find myself attracted to individuals who have

unusual and strange characteristics‖

Theatre story ―I think my relationships are like plays" or "I often find

myself attracted to partners who play different roles"

It was established that the most popular stories were: the travel story, the gardening

story and the humour story. The most unpopular were: the horror story, the collectibles

110

story and the autocratic government story. He reported that the gender differences in

story preference were as follows: men prefer the art, collectibles, pornography and

sacrifice stories while women prefer the travel story (Sternberg, 2000).

Although relationship success is not guaranteed in any one love story there are some

stories that were reported to forecast more disaster than others: business, collectibles,

government, horror, mystery, police, recovery, science fiction and theatre stories

(Sternberg, 2000). People with different stories of what love is about, have different

modes of loving. Therefore, according to Sternberg (2000) relationships work best when

a romantic couple‘s individual love stories match; they are said to be compatible and

have compatible expectations (Sternberg, 1995, 2000). In addition, when there are

complementary roles in a single or amalgamated, unified story the love stories are said

to be well-matched (Sternberg, 2000). A couple‘s love stories not only contain important

clues as to how their relationship is faring currently but such narratives can also predict

how the relationship will fare in the future (Leonard, 1995). According to Leonard (1995)

the seven crucial cues to the current state and predicted future success or failure of a

relationship are:

i) Marital disappointment and disillusionment: a husband's disillusionment is

the single best predictor of impending break-up.

ii) Fondness: These individuals via positive language tend to minimise the bad

times and emphasise the good; therefore fondness is a relationship

protective factor.

iii) Negativity: Negativity functions in the opposite way to fondness. These

individuals, via criticism and negative language, tend to emphasise the bad

times and forget the good times.

iv) Expansiveness versus withdrawal: A positive cue exists when a couple likes

to talk about their relationship. Those who do not do so are often in a

troubled relationship.

111

v) We-ness or separateness: It bodes well when a couple uses positive

relationship terms like "we" and "us" in their love stories and portrays their

goals and decisions as mutual.

vi) Chaos: It does not bode well when a couple portrays their love stories as

being chaotic, full of unexpected problems and hardships.

vii) Glorifying the struggle: It bodes well when a couple accords positive meaning

to the relationship, glorifies the tough times and are optimistic that being

together still outranks the struggles.

According to Leonard (1995) peoples‘ narrative and relationship stories are not static;

instead, based on their current emotions, dialogue and circumstances their relationship

stories are constantly changing and evolving. He suggests that this constant evolution

of the individual‘s love story impacts on how a person will treat their spouse in the

future. In addition, current narratives provide clues to how an individual looks to the

future, either with regret or with high hopes, with regards to their love relationship

(Leonard, 1995).

―People actively participate in defining the kinds of love they have … and to a large

extent they create the same kinds of stories again and again, and repeat the same

patterns of love‖ (Sternberg, 1995, p. 545). This echoes the premise of Bowlby‘s (1969,

1973) attachment theory‘s internal working models, which are reflective of the

individuals‘ sense of worthiness as regards love and care and the expectations of the

availability and responsiveness of others. Bowlby believed that fairly accurate and

stable individual cognitive representations or internal working models are developed via

repeated experiences between the infant and the mother. These internal working

models exert a powerful influence on subsequent attachment relationships across the

life span and in particular in adult romantic attachment relationships (Ainsworth et al.,

1978; Bowlby, 1969, 1973; Hazan & Shaver 1987; Peluso et al., 2004; Zeifman &

Hazan, 1997). The repetition of stories can also be understood via Freud‘s (1930)

explanation in terms of repetition compulsion where an individual refinds new love

112

objects that are similar to the old love objects and attempts to heal the wounding

inflicted by the original love objects by unconsciously evoking similar circumstances.

However, Sternberg (2000) is not entirely deterministic: he also believes each individual

is the author of their own love stories. He asserts that each individual has the power and

ability to rewrite their story into a healthier, more promising love story, should they

choose. Social constructionists and in particular supporters of narrative theory agree

with Sternberg‘s (2000) assertion that through language a person is able to rewrite their

love story. They claim that a healing experience which shifts and changes the child's

insecure internal working model is possible through nurturing, gentle, soothing, non-

controlling, non-provocative and non-intrusive narratives told by the child‘s parents.

Memories, thoughts, notions and conceptions are birthed through social exchange and

are mediated through language, according to social constructionists (McNamee &

Gergen, 1992). Thus, in order to change one‘s love story, one needs to change one‘s

language. Truths are merely stories about the world that people tell themselves and

others (Hoffman, 1992). Therefore, language serves to limit people‘s constructions of

the world, themselves and love (McNamee & Gergen, 1992). If knowledge is socially

constructed, then it can be said that knowledge changes and renews itself in dialogue

(Anderson & Goolishian, 1992; Hoffman, 1992). Meanings are created, experienced and

changed by individuals in conversation with one another (Anderson & Goolishian,

1992). Through this process of dialogically constructed understanding ―the space for

continuing new narrative with new history and – thus new future – remains open‖

(Anderson & Goolishian, 1992, p. 33). Conversations with others create space for the

‗yet-unsaid‘ love possibilities and narratives which give birth to new possible love

realities, agency, narrative and thus to new meanings which are experienced as change

in the individual and his or her social organisation (Anderson & Goolishian, 1992).

Sternberg, Hajjot and Barnes (2001) undertook a factor analytic study on American

students which confirmed representative theoretical and empirical findings regarding

love as a story. They reported seven love story components reflecting: 1) inequality-

113

manipulation, e.g. horror, war, science fiction, mystery; 2) equity-cooperation, e.g.

travel, garden, democracy; 3) strategy planning, e.g. business, cookbook; 4) the past,

e.g. history; 5) idealisation, e.g. fantasy; 6) performance for one‘s partner, e.g.

pornography; and 7) subordination, e.g. police officer, suspect.

Jackson, Chen, Guo and Gao (2006) also undertook a factor analytic study on

American dating (n= 61) and married couples (n= 81) as well as Chinese dating (n= 46)

and married (n= 94) couples. They reported four love story components that were

common to both cultures: 1) objectification-threat; 2) devotion-caring; 3) pragmatism;

and 4) pornography. They also found two culturally unique love story components for

each culture: American – 1) war and 2) fairy tale; and Chinese – 1) current tending and

2) incomprehensibility of lover. They concluded that although there were subtle cultural

differences and unique cultural metaphors there was some overlap between the

Chinese and American views of love.

2.8.4 Conclusion

Although Sternberg‘s (1986, 1988) triangular theory of love delineates clearly defined

and limited types of love, and even though there is little empirical research it

nonetheless provides a somewhat useful framework for addressing different types of

love. Intuitively Sternberg‘s (2000) love story theory seems to make much sense.

Furthermore, the limited research that has been conducted seems to support the love

story view.

The importance of Sternberg‘s (1986, 1988, 1995, 2000) work is its introduction of the

fact that love is impacted on: not only by internal factors, for example, the unconscious,

intrapsychic forces as Freud claims; not only by interpersonal forces as postulated by

attachment theory; not only by economic forces that attempt to maximise profits while

minimising costs as in the exchange theories; not only by biological and genetic forces

for survival and reproduction as claimed by the evolutionary perspective; but also by

societal forces. Valuable about including this perspective on love is the standpoint that

114

society influences and shapes our experience and understanding of love. Possibly this

work serves as one of the links between love and culture – both love and culture are a

story constructed via language and strongly influenced by society. Sternberg‘s (1986,

1988, 1995, 2000) work therefore adds an additional piece to the puzzle of love.

There appears to be some degree of similarity between Sternberg‘s love story theory

and Fromm‘s (1956) work – both are concerned with society‘s impact and influence on

the individual‘s way and ability to love. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, concerns

itself with explicating romantic love via genetic and biologically developed adaptive

psychological mechanisms. The study now moves onto a detailed exploration of the

evolutionary theory puzzle piece.

115

2.9 Evolution and love

―Men seek to propagate widely, whereas

Women seek to propagate wisely.‖

(Robert Hinde)

2.9.1 Introduction

Since the 1990s evolutionary psychology has become an important development in the

field of psychology (Hendrick & Hendrick, 2000). A serious advocate of evolutionary

psychology, David Buss, goes so far as to propose evolutionary psychology as the new

meta-theory for the psychological sciences (Buss, 1995). Kenrick and Trost (1997)

concur, arguing that evolutionary psychology has the potential to clarify and integrate all

areas of relationship research; that it is able to elucidate other areas of psychology as

well as connect various scientific disciplines. Boyer and Heckhausen (2000, p. 924)

add: ―The most exciting aspect of evolutionary psychology is that it promises a

framework to integrate evidence and explanations from biology, anthropology,

psychology and other behavioural sciences in a unified description of human

behaviour‖.

According to evolutionists all human beings are a successful creation from a long line of

ancestors who managed to achieve two crucial evolutionary tasks successfully: 1)

surviving till reproductive age and 2) reproducing (Larsen & Buss, 2002). Through the

evolution and adaptations of their ancestors humans have succeeded in existing. Each

human being carries the genes for adaptive mechanisms that directed their forefathers

towards survival and reproduction (Larsen & Buss, 2002). ―Evolution refers to the

change over time in organic (living) structure‖ (Buss, 2004, p. 3).

This success is at the heart of Darwin‘s theory of natural selection. According to Buss

(2004) Darwin argued that natural selection refers to some inherited variations leading

to better reproductive achievement than other less successful inherited variations. He

116

explains that over millions of years of evolution, the hostile forces of nature have forced

human beings through natural selection – which functioned to produce in human beings

adaptations (evolved solutions and strategies) – to solve problems so as to survive and

perpetuate the human species through reproduction. A failure to develop the

appropriate characteristics and adaptive strategies to the ever changing environment,

results in the failure to survive (Buss, 2003).

One of the problems that human beings have been required to solve is that of mate

selection. All over the world individuals do not display an equal desire for all members of

the opposite sex; they favour some members of the opposite sex and rebuff others

(Buss, 2003). In terms of this, Darwin formulated his second evolutionary theory: that

regarding sexual selection. Sexual selection centres on the evolution of characteristics

that developed to ensure mating success (Buss, 2004). According to Darwin sexual

selection is initiated via two routes: 1) intrasexual competition and 2) intersexual

selection (Buss, 2004). Intrasexual competition occurs when members of the same

sex compete and the victor, as a result of winning, enjoys more sexual access to the

opposite sex. Intersexual selection occurs when an individual of one sex is

preferentially chosen as a mate because they possess specific qualities that are valued

by members of the opposite sex. Research has determined that women tend to value

men with economic resources, education, and/or position, while men tend to value

physical attractiveness and youth (Buss, 1989). Buss (2004) believes that preferential

mate selection is nature‘s way of ensuring the most optimal mating combination for the

two individuals involved. Reproductive success in producing healthy offspring who in

turn have their own healthy offspring is the result of this optimum combination.

Therefore according to evolutionary theorists gene replication in the form of offspring

can be said to be the nucleus of the evolutionary game (Kenrick & Trost, 1997). Kenrick

and Trost (1997) point out that offspring can be produced directly or indirectly. Directly,

by personally reproducing and passing one‘s own genes on to the future generations

and indirectly by helping and contributing to the survival and reproduction of relatives

who share copies of one‘s own genes (Kenrick & Trost, 1997). Gene replication in the

117

form of offspring requires different investments from males and females. The female‘s

reproductive investment is at least nine months while the male‘s can be as short as a

few minutes. In order to replicate their genes to the maximum, the genders evolved

differing strategies. Women evolved the desire for men who are committed, who

possess resources and who are motivated to commit those resources to the female and

her offspring – enabling women to ‗propagate wisely‘. Universally, men evolved a more

powerful desire for sexual variety – enabling them to ‗propagate widely‘ (Buss &

Schmitt, 1993).

The differential parental investment theory was proposed by Trivers (1972): it

suggests that 1) the gender with the higher initial investment in the offspring is more

selective about choosing mates when compared to the gender with the lower initial

investment while 2) the gender with the lower initial investment in the offspring will be

more competitive as regards sexual access to the more highly invested gender. Human

females make a higher obligatory parental investment: a woman invests in a nine month

pregnancy and thereafter nurses and raises the child until it is able to reproduce;

whereas a man need only invest the time taken for the sexual act. Kenrick and Trost

(1997) suggest that on average, human beings tend to form long-term pair-bonds and in

the case of long-term mating or marriage, both mothers and fathers invest a great deal

in their children. According to Kenrick and Trost (1997), although the primary adaptive

function of romantic love is sexual reproduction and teaming up together to care for the

children, the secondary adaptive gains are social support, mutual sharing and

protection. Research confirms the differential parental investment theory: in long-term

mating and marriage, both men and women are highly discriminating and selective

when choosing a partner (Kenrick, Groth, Trost & Sadalla, 1993).

Not all children benefit from two parents who exercise positive parental investment and

long-term mating strategies. Chisholm (1996) claims that the child‘s parent‘s sexual

strategy and the quality and quantity of investment from both parents impacts on the

child‘s attachment pattern. An avoidant attachment pattern suggests the child‘s

adaptation to the parents‘ unwillingness to invest heavily in the child, for example, the

118

parent pursues a short term mating strategy. An anxious/ambivalent attachment pattern

suggests the child‘s adaptation to the parents‘ inability to invest heavily in the child, for

example, when the parent is exhausted, hungry, fearful, preoccupied or irritable.

Evolutionary theorists believe it is love that will encourage both parents to exercise

positive parental investment.

In sum, men and women have, through eons, depended on one another for protection,

survival and reproduction. The evolutionary perspective contends that love was evolved

to facilitate and ensure survival and reproduction (Buss, 2000).

2.9.2 Romantic love and evolution

Parents genetically pass on to their children the ―talent to love and to be loved, as well

as the need to seek love‖ (Lampert, 1997, p.12). Although human beings are unique in

their variations of love, their ―predisposition for love is very widespread, that the great

majority of women and men are born with a genetic capacity and need for forming

durable attachments of an emotional character‖ (Mellen, 1981, p. 139). Mellen (1981)

makes use of the evolutionary explanation for this human genetic capacity to love: early

human ancestors created a greater chance for their helpless offspring to survive by

developing an emotional bond between breeding pairs of males and females. The

parent‘s ability to protect the helpless infant against predators and to provide the infant

with high levels of nurturance is characteristic of this enhanced or differential survival

rate. Mellen (1981) believes that the foundation of the evolution of love is this primitive

emotional bonding.

Lampert (1997) adds to the above discussion by saying that sexual love and parental

love are the two primary loves that humans experience. According to her, sexual love

performs the adaptive function that brings children into the world while parental love

carries out the adaptive function that nurtures and rears children. Lampert (1997)

asserts that individuals choose to reproduce with someone with whom the prospect of

successful procreation is the highest. ―Love is the tool that assists us to correctly select

119

a mate, to calibrate and gently adjust the process of sexual selection‖ (Lampert, 1997,

p.12). In other words, sexual love is a tool which has evolved to guide an individual‘s

selection of a mate. There are two judgment mechanisms that guide an individual to 1)

fall in love with a person who is optimally genetically similar to themselves and 2) not fall

in love with a person who is too similar to themselves, for example family members

(Lampert, 1997). For Lampert (1997) research confirms that the more optimal the

genetic similarity between a couple, the higher the fertility rates, the healthier the

children, the more harmonious and stable the relationship and the higher the marital

satisfaction. Research conducted by Rushton (1988) revealed that couples who were in

a sexual relationship were genetically more similar to each other than random couples.

Human beings unconsciously detect optimal genetic similarity in the other and are

sexually attracted to that person (Rushton, 1988).

Buss (2000) concurs with the above, stating that the most important decision for all

human beings is the choice of mate. In a cross-cultural study that involved more than

10 000 participants over 37 cultures Buss (2000) reports that both genders rated love as

the single most important quality in selecting a mate. He explains that love overrides

rationality; instead it is blind, irrational and if ‗a love for you and no other‘ cannot be

helped or chosen then commitment will not falter or waver in difficult times or when

someone more desirable comes along. Love is the emotion that bonds partners and

holds them together.

Buss (1988) conceptualises love as ‗love acts‘. These ‗love acts‘ are products of

evolution by natural selection. ‗Love acts‘ transpire chiefly between mating pairs and kin

relationships and exist in order to ensure reproductive success (Buss, 1988). Buss

(1998) clarifies that ‗love acts‘ are an evolutionary adaptation and that as a result

particular goals are observed in courtship and mating. These goals occur in a

chronological order: 1) attract a mate – which includes resource displays by both male

and females; 2) retain a mate – which includes relative relationship exclusivity and

commitment or marriage; 3) reproduce with the mate – which includes sexual relations

and reproduction and 4) invest parentally in the resulting offspring – which includes

120

resource sharing and parental investment (Buss, 1998). Buss (1998) argues that the

human species has reproduced because these ‗love acts‘ have been adopted as the

evolutionary tasks and responsibilities of procreation. Buss (2003), in more recent work,

suggests that our mating is strategic and designed to solve specific problems for

successful mating. He outlines four processes – two of which are similar to his ‗love

acts‘ goals – that humans use as a sexual strategy for successful mating: 1) selecting a

mate; 2) attracting a mate; 3) keeping a mate and 4) replacing a mate (Buss, 2003).

Because women incur immense costs through sex, pregnancy, childbirth and child

rearing, they are faced with the adaptive problem of choosing a mate who possesses

the required resources as well as the motivation to commit those resources to her and

her offspring (Buss, 2003). One of the most important cues universally for this

commitment is love (Buss, 2003). Buss (2003) found that for both sexes acts of

commitment are regarded as central to love. Acts of commitment encompass

monogamy, fidelity, talk of marriage and children, channelling of resources (economic,

genetic, emotional and sexual) to the partner, channelling of time, kindness, sincerity

and channelling of energy and effort to the partner‘s needs at the expense of fulfilling

one‘s own needs. As Buss (2003) concludes, it is not surprising therefore that women

the world over place a premium on love and commitment.

Once love has bound a couple it needs to be protected. For men and women rivals

threaten love and commitment. Buss (2000) suggests that human beings have had to

evolve the dangerous emotion of jealousy to protect these fragile bonds of love.

Jealousy is not only a way of knowing just how committed the other is to the

relationship; it is also an evolutionary response to alert the partner to real threats by real

rivals which may possibly result in the loss of the partner via infidelity (Buss 2000).

Although worldwide for both genders love is the most important criterion in selecting a

mate, there are other common attributes that both sexes find desirable while there are

also definite differences in mate preferences for males and females.

121

2.9.3 Male and female mate preferences

Both men and women value, desire and are attracted to partners who are agreeable,

dependable, mature, intelligent, educated, honest, trustworthy, kind, healthy, sociable,

family orientated and faithful (Buss, 1994, 2004; Kenrick & Trost, 1997). Although both

men and women typically value and prefer the above attributes, both sexes throughout

evolutionary history have faced different adaptive problems and reproductive constraints

(Buss & Schmitt, 1993). As a result there are gender differences in the factors which

men and women find attractive. Securing a mate who is able and willing to invest

resources in themselves and their offspring has been the primary reproductive

constraint for women. The number of reproductively valuable and fertile women they

can successfully inseminate has been the primary reproductive constraint for men (Buss

& Schmitt, 1993).

Because men and women make different contributions to their offspring, their criteria for

partner selection differ (Buss, 2004; Kenrick & Trost, 1997). During the period of

pregnancy and nursing, women contribute their bodies. Therefore women who are

fertile, physically attractive and young and healthy (indicating good reproductive fitness)

are expected to be valued by and attractive to men. As Buss (2004) points out, research

has revealed that the components of female mate preferences are as follows: good

economic resources, good financial prospects, high social status, men older than

themselves, ambition, industriousness, dependability, stability, athletic prowess, good

health, love, commitment and a willingness to invest in children. Buss (2000) claims that

this preference does not diminish even if the female gains personal access to financial

resources and achieves high socioeconomic status.

Men‘s genes and their indirect resources such as food, money, protection and lodging

are their primary contributions to their offspring. Consequently, men who have

genetically superior potential, are ambitious, industrious and display good earning

capacity (indicating the ability to provide the resources that the mother and the children

will need) are expected to be valued by and attractive to women. According to Buss

122

(2004), research has confirmed that the components of male mate preferences consist

of: youth, health, evolved standards of beauty, body fat, waist-to-hip ratio, physically

attractive mates and sexually loyalty. On an evolutionary basis the attributes of youth

and physical appearance in a potential female mate have been linked with increased

reproductive capacity; consequently males place a premium on these attributes (Buss,

1989). In addition, males place a premium on sexual loyalty and faithfulness as a

measure which aims to ensure the maximum certainty as regards paternity. Kenrick and

Trost (1997) consider that these preferred male and female criteria are found to be

common across diverse cultures. According to Buss (2004), research confirms that

male and female mate preferences impact on mating behaviour.

Eagly and Wood (1999), however, do not agree with Buss‘s (2004) evolutionary

interpretation of male and female mate preferences. They examined origins of sex

differences in human behaviour across 37 countries by considering 1) evolved

dispositions that differ for males and females, and 2) the differing gender placement in

the social structure. They found support for the differing gender placement in the social

structural account but not for evolved dispositions as regards sex differences in mate

preferences. They report that the tendency for either sex to choose mates according to

the so-called sex-selection criteria of evolutionary psychology decreased as gender

equality increased. Van Leeuwen (2002) concur and claim that their findings confirm

that since women are now part of the labour force, extramarital affairs entered into by

young women marginally exceed the number reported by men. Consequently this points

to the frequency of extramarital affairs as less dependent on evolutionary selection of

sex-specific motivations than on sheer opportunity and changing gender-role norms.

Accordingly, sex differences in mate selection criteria are more likely the result of the

historically and socially constructed sexual division of labour than attributable to the

claims of evolutionary psychologists that sex differences in mate selection criteria are

‗hard-wired' in all humans by evolution.

As equality is achieved between the sexes, both sexes begin to judge potential mates

using a more generically human criterion such as love, dependability and a pleasing

123

personality (Eagly & Wood, 1999). Buss (1994, 2004), confirms this in his cross-cultural

investigation of mate preference: on average both sexes ranked love, dependability,

emotional stability, and a pleasant personality as the four most important qualities in a

potential partner. Modest gender differences materialise only in the fifth ranking

attribute.

Critics of evolutionary psychology identify contrary to its forecast that wealthy men will

enjoy increased access to more females, thus producing more children; wealthy men in

post-industrial societies do not engender more children than poor men (Kanazawa,

2003). Kanazawa (2003) nonetheless found that evolutionary psychology can explain

human behaviour in contemporary societies: while wealthy men do not produce more

children, they nevertheless have more sexual partners and copulate more frequently

than poor men and should therefore achieve, in a sense, greater reproductive success

according to evolutionary principles.

In order to interrogate the mate preferences of the genders, the study investigated and

made findings on 1) personal advertisements, 2) age preferences, 3) physical

attractiveness, 4) rival strategies, and 5) sexual strategies.

2.9.3.1 Personal advertisements

Research into personal advertisements supports the evolutionary stance: men are

attracted to pretty, young, fertile women while women are attracted to men with financial

resources. Baize and Schroeder (1995) report that in personal advertisements males

show a higher response rate to women who say they are young and physically attractive

whereas females show a higher response rate to men who claim good financial status.

These findings were confirmed in Poland: men who offered good economic resources,

men who were older and had higher levels of education, all received more responses to

their personal advertisements than men who did not possess these qualities (Pawlowski

& Koziel, 2002). McGraw (2002) reports that women who live in densely populated,

124

expensive cities have higher resource requirements and therefore have adapted to this

new, hostile, urban environment by making greater demands for resources in a mate in

their personal advertisements. The preferential mate selection theory ensures the most

optimal mating combination for the two individuals involved. Confirming this theory,

Buss (1989) established that women, who are professionally and economically

successful, value income and education even more in a potential long-term mate. As

mentioned previously, though, a decade after Buss (1989) reported on these results,

Eagly and Wood (1999) report contradictory results in their analyses of 37 countries.

They found that as gender equality increases so mate preferences change: women‘s

preference for older, financially able men decreased, as did men‘s preferences for

younger, domestically skilled women.

2.9.3.2 Age preferences

Universally, women tend to marry older men and men marry women who are on

average three years younger than themselves. Second and third marriages show that

men marry women who are on average five and eight years younger than themselves

respectively (Buss, 1989).

2.9.3.3 Physical attractiveness

Studies reveal that women who are physically attractive, when compared to women who

are not as attractive, tend to marry men with higher incomes and higher occupational

status (Buss, 2004). Women invest time and energy in enhancing their physical

appearance in response to males‘ preference for attractiveness. Several studies confirm

that character traits in a potential husband, such as loyalty, kindness and dependability,

are more strongly emphasised by women than physical attractiveness (Buss, 2004;

Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Scheib, 2005).

125

2.9.3.4 Rival strategies

Rival strategies and tactics used by women aim to degrade their rivals by, for example,

calling the rival promiscuous and commenting negatively on their physical appearance.

These tactics and comments contravene the long-term partner preferences a man holds

dear and render the rival less attractive to men (Buss & Dedden, 1990).

Kenrick and Trost (1997) note the deceptive mating strategies used by both sexes to

deceive the competitor and the potential partners. Both genders deceive others in terms

of characteristics that are valued by the opposite sex. Women enhance their physical

appearance while men exaggerate their resources or dominance. Finally, these authors

claim that women use passive deceptive techniques whereas men employ active

deceptive techniques.

When in a relationship the criteria for rivalry change: research shows that universally

men are more concerned when there is a threat of their partner engaging in sexual

infidelity (linked to uncertainty regarding paternity) whereas women are more concerned

when there is a threat of their partner engaging in emotional infidelity (linked to higher

likelihood of loss of love, commitment and resources) (Buss, 2000).

2.9.3.5 Sexual strategies

Buss (2003) advocates that sexual strategies represent adaptive and evolved solutions

and strategies to mating problems. Buss and Schmitt (1993) investigated the gender

differences between short and long-term sexual strategies and found that men were

more orientated towards short-term strategies when compared to women, while women

were more orientated towards long-term strategies. Although men have developed the

sexual strategy of propagating widely, sexual encounters require two people: therefore

the number of sexual encounters must be the same for both sexes. This led

evolutionary psychologists to deduce the universality of infidelity: they postulate that

men engage in sexual infidelity to maximise their chances of bearing children whereas

126

women engage in infidelity for emotional reasons, for example, to benefit from mate

insurance – a back up replacement in case of the possible loss of her regular partner

(Buss, 2000; Fisher, 2000).

Therefore it would seem that both males and females adopt long or short term sexual

strategies depending on the reproductive benefits versus the reproductive costs (Buss &

Schmitt, 1993; Fisher 2000; Kirkpatrick, 1999). Two major sexual strategies are the

―domestic bliss strategy‖ and the ―he-man strategy‖ (Lampert, 1997). A long-term mating

strategy which involves the female encouraging greater devotion, assistance, protection

and greater parental investment from the male is known as the ―domestic bliss

strategy‖. A short-term mating strategy which is adopted by both sexes in order to avoid

fear of desertion in females and paternal uncertainty in males is known as the ―he-man

strategy‖. In a short-term mating strategy she seeks the best sperm (best genetic

material) whereas he does not bother with paternity because his investment is merely

the sperm with no other parental obligation. David Buss (2000) adds the ―sexy sons‖

dimension to this short-term strategy used by women. The ―sexy sons strategy‖ is a

short-term mating strategy used by women who engage in sexual relations with a sexy

man so that women bear sexy sons who in turn gain ultimate reproductive success by

attracting an above average number of women. Buss (2000) remarks that some women

adopt both the ―domestic bliss strategy‖ and the ―sexy sons strategy‖. Research shows

that these women marry a devoted and resourceful man and then conduct an

extramarital affair with a sexy man. According to research, these women furthermore

tend to have sexual intercourse during their ovulation, thus increasing the chances of

conception and ensuring superior genetic material from the sexy man. Similarly Lampert

(1997) observes that many men also adopt a dual strategy. Men will invest, commit and

devote themselves to their families, thus conforming to the long-term ―domestic bliss

strategy‖, and simultaneously seek short-term clandestine extramarital satisfaction in

order to satisfy their strategy for sexual variety. She clarifies that the dominant strategy

in humans for both sexes is the former strategy: the ―domestic bliss strategy‖.

127

Perhaps attachment theory would disagree with the evolutionary explanation of sexual

strategies being merely an adaptive mechanism to reproduction. Instead, its proponents

may argue that the sexual strategy an individual would adopt would be dependent on

their attachment style. A secure attachment style would tend to endorse the long-term

―domestic bliss strategy‖ when compared to the insecurely attached, whereas the

insecurely attached would tend to endorse the short term ―he-man strategy‖ and ―sexy

sons strategy‖ when compared to the securely attached. Schmitt et al. (2004)

investigated 17 804 participants from 62 cultural regions and established that individuals

who used a dismissing romantic attachment style were most closely associated with

short-term mating practices.

Fisher (1998, 2000) offers a biologically driven evolutionary answer to sexual strategies.

She proposed that humans exhibit three emotion-motivation systems for mating

reproduction and parenting: 1) sex drive / lust, 2) romantic attraction / love and 3) male-

female attachment. Each unique system is associated with different reproductive

behaviours. She explains that although these systems are linked they can operate

independently too – including neural independence. She hypothesised that over many

years these systems evolved to operate independently so that human beings developed

‗human mating flexibility‘. According to Fisher (1998, 2000) this adaptation ensures that

humans command a range of human mating and reproductive strategies from which

they can draw simultaneously: serial or sustained monogamy or ―domestic bliss

strategy‖ as well as clandestine romance and/ or "extra-pair" copulations / ―he-man

strategy‖ / ―sexy sons strategy‖.

Fisher (1998, 2000) theorised that each unique emotion-motivation system has evolved

independently to solve different reproductive challenges. Each emotion-motivation

system possesses its unique constellation of brain and neural circuits, neurotransmitters

and or hormones, and behavioural correlates (Fisher, 1998, 2000; Fisher, Aron,

Mashek, Li & Brown, 2002). Firstly, the sex drive is generally associated with estrogens

and androgens and it evolved to motivate humans to seek sexual gratification through a

range of sexual partners. Secondly, the attraction system or romantic love is associated

128

mostly with high levels of the catecholamines, dopamine and norepinephrine, and low

levels of the indoleamine and serotonin, in the brain. This emotion-motivated system

evolved to facilitate preferred mate selection and to pursue specific mates. Finally, the

attachment system is primarily associated with neuropeptides, oxytocin and vasopressin

and evolved to encourage humans to sustain relationships long enough to ensure

survival of offspring. Bartels and Zeki (2000, 2004) support Fisher (1998, 2000) and

Fisher et al.‘s (2002) hypotheses to some extent. Bartels and Zeki (2000, 2004)

compared the neural correlates of maternal and romantic love using functional magnetic

resonance imaging (fMRI) to measure brain activity. They found that areas that were

abundant in oxytocin and vasopressin receptors were activated by both attachment

types: some regions were common to both types of attachment; while others were

specific to maternal attachment and romantic attachment respectively. They conclude:

―human attachment employs a push–pull mechanism that overcomes social distance by

deactivating networks used for critical social assessment and negative emotions, while

it bonds individuals through the involvement of the reward circuitry, explaining the power

of love to motivate and exhilarate‖ (Bartels & Zeki, 2004, p. 1155).

Another sexual strategy was described by Simpson and Gangestad (1992) who found

that sociosexuality is linked to mate selection. Individuals with a restricted sociosexual

orientation seek and prefer romantic partners who demonstrate exclusivity and

investment, whereas individuals with an unrestricted sociosexual orientation seek and

prefer romantic partners who are physically and socially attractive. If the above findings

are compared, there seems to be a correlation between sociosexual orientation and

sexual strategies. On the one hand long-term sexual strategies, the ―domestic bliss

strategy‖ and restricted sociosexual orientation seem to be similar while on the other

hand short-term sexual strategies, the ―he-man strategy‖ and unrestricted sociosexual

orientation appear to be similar.

Hazan and Diamond (2000) question the assumptions, methodology and interpretation

of evolutionary studies. They contend that the samples used to support the evolutionary

stance are young adults who are asked to identify qualities that they consider to be

129

important in eventual mate selection. They argue that although evolutionary

psychologists propose that physical attractiveness is valued by men and resources are

valued by women, this, however, does not correspond strongly to actual mate selection.

Understanding, kindness and intelligence are the highest ranking qualities for both

sexes – these attributes are more reflective of what is desirable in attachment figures.

Evolutionary psychologists would argue that love and therefore attachment is an

adaptive mechanism that was evolved to ensure survival and reproduction (Buss, 2000;

Mellen, 1981).

To conclude, as regards trying to distinguish the differences between genders

concerning mate preferences Blasi and Bjorklund (2003) contend that, instead of

choosing an ‗either / or‘ argument, possibly an inclusive argument would be more

fruitful. They argue that decades of empirical studies have indisputably shown that

humans are not blank slates at birth but that their perception, cognition and social and

emotional behaviour are constrained by biological influences. These authors stress that

there is substantial plasticity in human development and that human nature is complexly

refracted by the many layers of circumstance and cultural inheritance through which it

passes.

2.9.4 Criticisms of evolutionary psychology

The application of evolutionary psychology to explain human behaviour in the social and

behavioural sciences has been met with spirited resistance on the one hand and

strongly defended on the other (Blasi & Bjorklund, 2003; Caporael, 2001). Evolutionary

psychology is fervently presented by its proponents as the metatheory which will

encompass and integrate all the subdisciplines of psychology (Boyer & Heckhausen,

2000; Buss, 2004; Buss, 1995; Kenrick, 1995; Kenrick & Trost, 1997). Kirkpatrick (1999,

p. 257) highlights the point that ―evolutionary psychology is inherently interdisciplinary.

This is perhaps both its greatest strength and its greatest practical challenge‖.

Panksepp and Panksepp (2000) contend that ―modern evolutionary psychology is

currently pursuing a rash course of over-interpretation of the human condition, simply

130

because the inclusive-fitness idea is so tremendously compelling‖. Caporael (2001)

concurs with Panksepp and Panksepp (2000) and argues that although evolutionary

psychology generally holds promise for the study of the human mind and behaviour, the

inclusive fitness theory is too narrow to function as a unifying theoretical role. Freese

and Powell (2001) confess that they are ―interested in the application of evolutionary

reasoning to sociological problems, but simultaneously they are much more agnostic

and sceptical about how important Darwinian approaches will eventually prove for

sociology‖ (p. 1776).

For McNally (2003), critics of evolutionary psychology fall into two groups: the

creationists and the scientists. The creationists, he says, deny the facts of evolution and

are not taken seriously by reputable biologists. The scientists, he says, question

whether the evolutionary framework provides much in the way of testable hypotheses

about human psychology – their objections being scientific as well as political.

Four of the most common charges against evolutionary psychology are: genetic

determinism, panadaptationism, post-hoc and unfalsifiable hypotheses, and proximate

explanations. Kurzban (2002) argues against these charges, as indicated below:

He defends against the first charge of genetic determinism by explaining that from

the evolutionary point of view, humans are not genetically determined but rather are

designed to develop, adapt, learn and behave in ways that are dependent on

environmental influences, thus suggesting flexibility in humans rather than

determinism.

His defence against the second charge of panadaptationism is that evolutionary

psychologists do not believe that everything must be explained in reference to its

adaptive features in an evolutionary environment. He points out that the evolutionary

process not only produces adaptations but also by-products of adaptations and

random effects.

He defends against the third charge of post-hoc and unfalsifiable hypotheses by

emphasising that evolutionary psychologists generate testable hypotheses by

utilising limited knowledge about the past. ―To claim that an evolutionary hypothesis

131

is unfalsifiable is to claim that there is no evidence that one could gather to support

or refute the hypothesis, which is simply not true‖ (Kurzban 2002, p. 100). Others

disagree with Kurzban (2002). According to Grace (2001) an example of a valid

criticism is Rose's (2000) strong reservation concerning the legitimacy of

evolutionary psychology's scientific assumptions: ―For those conscious that scholars

of prehistory work with highly fragmentary evidence, from shards of bones, fossils

and very occasionally entire bodies ... the belief that late twentieth-century people

can know the human psychological architecture of our early ancestors with any

degree of certainty and accuracy is difficult to take seriously‖ (p. 141).

Kurzban concedes and agrees with the fourth charge of proximate explanations

but reframes it as a virtue by emphasising that evolutionary psychologists favour a

more comprehensive explanation of behaviour and thus provide clarification at both

the proximate and the ultimate levels.

According to Larsen and Buss (2002), at this point evolutionary psychology faces a

number of crucial limitations. Firstly, evolutionary scientists are forced to make

inferences about the past because no precise knowledge exists about past

environments and past selection criteria. Secondly, evolutionary scientists have only

just started gaining a relatively superficial understanding of the nature, details and

design features of evolved psychological mechanisms (e.g. understanding how jealousy

manifests). Thirdly, ancestral conditions are vastly different from modern conditions;

thus what was adaptive in the past may not be adaptive in the present. Fourthly,

evolutionary psychologists seem to easily come up with diverse and opposing

evolutionary hypotheses for the same phenomenon. Instead, it is critical that they

render their hypotheses in a suitably precise manner so that empirical predictions and

data have to be used to evaluate, support or negate a hypothesis. Finally, evolutionary

hypotheses can be vague and untestable, therefore unfalsifiable. Caporael (2001)

suggests that ―the future of evolutionary psychology requires problem centred,

interdisciplinary research, both to solve problems within the discipline and to negotiate

the boundaries of practice where subject and object and science and society are

unavoidably intertwined‖ (p. 622).

132

Evolutionary psychology seems to negate the higher order human goals and purposes

evident in Maslow‘s hierarchy of needs triangle – needs such as self actualisation.

Nowadays human beings love in many ways and in many combinations: some couples

elect not to have children, while others are homosexual and do not reproduce, thus

making the evolutionary model not globally generalisable. Kenrick and Trost (1997)

argue that it is still too premature to claim that homosexuality is genetically maladaptive.

2.9.5 Conclusion

Evolutionary psychology has seen enormous growth over the last fifteen years or so.

Researchers argue that if evolutionary psychology is ignored, it will prevent

psychologists from appreciating any potential insights and gains the field has to offer

(Blasi & Bjorklund, 2003; Kurzban, 2002). Harris and Pashler (1995) agree that although

evolutionary thinking contributions are important, that evolutionary psychology cannot

transform the field of psychology but instead merely informs it. In other words it is just

another lens through which to gain a broader understanding of the human being; a

useful set of theoretical tools to help in the understanding of love, mating and

procreating.

If evolutionary psychologists are to be believed, love is not mystical, complex,

mysterious or unknowable (Buss, 1988, 2000, 2003, 2004; Lampert, 1997; Mellen,

1981). Instead evolutionary psychologists believe that love is purely an evolutionarily

developed biological and psychological mechanism and strategy which ensures the best

possible mate selection that aims to guarantee optimal reproductive success. They

believe it is through the lubrication of the adaptive function of love that procreation,

which is said to be the heart of the evolutionary game, is achieved. Accordingly,

evolutionary psychology may challenge humans‘ idealistic view of love and soul mates.

Perhaps it would be prudent to listen to Graziano‘s (1995) advice and to ―listen to David

Buss‘s evolutionary music for some time before we try to dance to it‖ (p. 43).

Nonetheless, evolutionary psychology provides yet another viewpoint that can be used

133

to gain insight into and understanding of the complex subject of love and intimate

relationships. And, as previously stated, adherence to one explanation does not

necessarily negate another: instead it adds another piece to the overall puzzle of love.

The final and central puzzle piece in quest to understand love is the typology of Lee‘s

colours of love; this is explored next.

134

2.10 Lee‘s Lovestyles

―There is hardly any activity, any enterprise,

which is started with such tremendous hopes and expectations

and yet which fails so regularly as love.‖

(Erich Fromm)

2.10.1 Introduction

A Canadian sociologist, John Alan Lee (1988, p. 42), believes that there are ―several

ideologies of loving‖. He utilised existing fictional literature, historical observers who did

not adopt a fictional approach (e.g. Plato and Castiglione) and extensive interviews to

develop a unique and multidimensional theoretical typology of love. The participants in

the interviews were Canadian and English subjects who were asked, via the ―Love Story

Card Sort‖ instrument, about their experiences of love (Lee, 1988). Lee (1976, 1988)

classified and categorised his love data by means of complex reduction techniques to

construct his six lovestyles which he presented as his ―Colours of love theory‖.

Lee (1976, 1988) explains love via the analogy of colours. Although Lee‘s (1976)

lovestyle typology isolates six core lovestyles, Lee (1976) believes that the numbers of

colours of love are as many as the possible combinations and mixtures of different

colour pantones. His colour wheel, represented in Table 2.6 and diagrammatically in

Figure 2.5, contains three primary and three secondary features. The three primary

lovestyles are labelled as: Eros, the romantic, passionate love, Ludus, the game-

playing love, and Storge, the friendship love (Lee, 1976). In Lee‘s view (1976) the

secondary lovestyles or colours were born out of a blending of each pair of these

primary lovestyles. Lee (1988) says that the new blended or secondary lovestyles will

gain qualities that the original two colours or lovestyles did not possess and lose

qualities that the two original colours or lovestyles did have. The secondary lovestyles –

Mania, Pragma and Agape – occur as a result of blending the primary lovestyles.

Mania, the possessive, dependent love stems from the blending of Eros and Ludus.

135

The blending of Ludus and Storge results in Pragma, logical, "shopping list" love. The

all-giving, selfless love of Agape results from the blending of Storge and Eros (Lee,

1976). Lee‘s (1976) colour wheel is representative of the six lovestyles and their

corresponding colours:

Table 2.6 Lee‟s lovestyle colour classification

Classification Lovestyle Names Blends Colour Analogy

Primary Eros red

Ludus blue

Storge yellow

Secondary Mania ludic eros violet

Pragma storgic ludic green

Agape storgic eros orange

Figure 2.5 Lee‟s (1976) colour wheel

Derived from Lee‘s (1976) ‗Colours of Love‘.

PRAGMA

AGAPE

MANIA

EROS

LUDUS

STORGE

136

Lee (1976, 1988) states that just as one colour is not superior to another, so too is one

lovestyle not superior to another lovestyle. Hendrick (2004) concurs that lovestyles are

merely individual preferences and neither right nor wrong. Lee (1988) maintains that

most people display different degrees of all of the lovestyles but generally an individual

will follow a predominant lovestyle. He also says that at any given time an individual

may have two different preferences in lovestyle. According to Lee (1976), an individual

may, over the course of their life, even change their predominant lovestyle. Mallandain

and Davies (1994) suggest that lovestyles refer to types of relationships rather than

types of people. They explain that in one relationship the individual may exhibit the

ludus lovestyle while in another the same individual may exhibit mainly the eros

lovestyle. Having said this, Lee (1976) advocates that within enduring relationships an

individual‘s lovestyle is comparatively stable.

2.10.2 The lovestyle typology

Lee‘s (1976) six core lovestyles will be examined in more detail below.

2.10.2.1 Primary lovestyle: Eros

―If two people who have been strangers, as all of us are,

suddenly let the wall between them break down,

and feel close, feel one, this moment of oneness is one

of the most exhilarating, most exciting experiences in life.‖

(Fromm, 1956)

A sudden and potent attraction to the physical appearance of the partner is what

primarily characterises the eros lovestyle (Lee, 1976). Erotic lovers realise that they

desire a very specific and rare physical type of person. It is because of this that they

describe experiencing instant recognition and ‗love at first sight‘, when they do meet

137

their ideal beloved (Lee, 1976). For Lee (1976) when this happens the erotic lover

becomes intensely excited and will experience an urgent desire to be sexually and

emotionally intimate with the beloved in order to establish whether the beloved is the

authentic ideal or only an illusion. According to Lee (1976, p. 15) ‖physical attraction

serves as the driving force toward psychological rapport in erotic love‖. In an attempt to

achieve a close and intimate relationship with the beloved, the erotic lover will want to

see and or speak to the beloved daily and will express open, intense and passionate

feelings toward the beloved (Lee, 1976). Lee (1976) found that the erotic lover struggles

to tolerate long periods of separation from their beloved because they rely on physical

expression throughout the relationship. Although the erotic lover is passionate about the

beloved, love does not make them blind; they are aware of the beloved‘s strengths and

weaknesses (Lee, 1976).

Erotic lovers describe having experienced a happy childhood. They possess the ability

to risk, display strong ego strength, are self confident, self assured, social and stable

with high self esteem (Lee, 1976). Not only is the ideal rare but once the beloved is

found, the eros lovestyle demands of both partners ―rapid disclosure of self, early sexual

experience, honesty of emotion and intensity of feelings‖; consequently eros is a tough

lovestyle with high expectations (Lee, 1976, p. 37). Lee (1988) reports that although

some erotic lovers maintain the purely intense passionate lovestyle of eros, usually the

eros lovestyle will adjust to accommodate a fusion of eros and storge, resulting in a

more tranquil companionship type of lovestyle.

2.10.2.2 Primary lovestyle: Ludus

On the opposite continuum of the erotic lover we find the ludic lover who is aware of

beauty but holds to no beloved ideal (Lee, 1988). The ludic lover understands love as a

playful noncommittal game and he / she plays the love game according to rules and

strategies which include detachment, sweet talk, wit, bashfulness and gallantry (Lee,

1976, 1988). The primary aim of the ludic lover is to play, have fun and enjoy the game,

not merely to bed the partner (Lee, 1976). They do not demand nor expect exclusivity

138

from their partners and nor do they guarantee exclusivity; instead they are often

pluralistic and play the game of love with several partners simultaneously (Lee, 1976).

Lee (1988) asserts that some ludic lovers play the love game openly, informing the

partner of other partners while others play the game of love with deception, feigning

loyalty and commitment.

The game requires ludic lovers to be socially confident, self assured, charming and

‗creative listeners‘ Lee (1976, 1988). However, contradictory to the erotic lover, the

psychological composition of the ludic lover‘s confidence and self assurance is not

necessarily based on strong ego strength because he does not risk bearing his

weaknesses or becoming dependent (Lee, 1976). Instead, the ludic lover, by playing

and avoiding or controlling intensity of feeling, circumvents the risk of love, not bearing

his weaknesses or becoming dependent (Lee, 1976). Lee (1976) reports the ludic lovers

describe experiencing an average childhood and although they cope successfully with

adult life, they are often frustrated in accomplishing their goals. Although according to

Lee (1976) most individuals at some point in their lives will be a ludic lover, only a

minority of the population maintain it as their dominant lovestyle. While most individuals

who do maintain the ludus lovestyle as their dominant lovestyle are male, there are

female ludic lovers too (Lee, 1976).

2.10.2.3 Primary lovestyle: Storge

When a slow developing friendship grows naturally over time through the mutual

enjoyment of shared interests and activities and it matures into a committed love, it is

known as the storge (pronounced stor-gay) lovestyle (Lee, 1976). Lee (1976) describes

this love as ‗unexciting‘ and ‗uneventful‘ and although storgic love is not a passionate,

intense and dramatic love it has the advantage of being a calm, companionate,

comfortable love with a built up reserve of stability (Lee, 1976). Because the pace and

purpose of storgic love differs a good deal from the other lovestyles, Lee (1976) advises

that storgic lovers should be with lovers who are also storgic in order to circumvent

difficulties. Storgic lovers are able to endure and tolerate long periods of separations

139

from their beloved because there is minimum or no anxiety, impulsiveness and urgency

in the slow-burning, hardy, storgic love (Lee, 1976). Contrary to erotic lovers, storgic

lovers do not consciously choose a beloved nor do they expect an ideal physical type of

their beloved (Lee, 1976, 1988). Both storgic and erotic love are interdependent love:

the erotic interdependence is intimate and candid, whereas the storgic interdependence

is mediated by shared interests and activities (Lee, 1976).

Storgic lovers describe having enjoyed happy and secure childhoods, close

relationships with their siblings and often report coming from large families (Lee, 1976).

Storgic lovers, according to Lee (1976), are self-assured and express their ego strength

as ―a patient and generous trust in the basic decency of people‖ (p. 81). Lee (1976)

says that even though storgic lovers are reserved and uncomfortable with displays of

emotion, they are not devoid of emotion: ―the storgic lover believes that true love is a

deep feeling of respect, concern, compassion and solicitude‖ (p. 79).

2.10.2.4 Secondary lovestyle: Mania – eros and ludus blend

Obsessive, insatiable and intense emotional involvement, often with a beloved that they

do not even like, is characteristic of the manic lovestyle (Lee, 1976, 1988). Unlike the

erotic lover, the manic lover does not possess the self confidence to decide on their

ideal type of beloved and therefore the passionate, intimate union of the eros lovestyle,

for which they yearn, remains elusive (Lee, 1976). Similar to the ludic lover, the manic

lover believes almost anyone will do; however, unlike the ludic lover, the manic lover is

unable to be detached and let go (Lee, 1976). Deep feelings of insufficiency,

incompleteness haunt the manic lover. As a result they depend a great deal on the

beloved for their self-worth and often end up choosing an unsuitable partner onto whom

they project the qualities they believe they lack in themselves (Lee, 1976, 1988).

Because they are doubtful of their own desirability and lovability, they become intensely

and possessively preoccupied with the beloved (Lee 1976). Therefore it is not surprising

that manic lovers struggle to endure or tolerate even short periods of separations from

their beloved (Lee, 1976).

140

Manic lovers describe unhappy childhoods, having no close friends; being on poor

terms with their parents, or having none at all; living alone and being dissatisfied and

discontented with their jobs and their lives as adults (Lee, 1976, 1988). As a result of

this discontentment, loneliness and low self-esteem, the manic lover displays a

desperate need to be in love (Lee, 1976, 1988). Mania is difficult to sustain and

predictably has an unhappy ending. Although the manic lover takes months or even

years to recover, they report that the manic love experience had benefited them in some

way (Lee, 1976). Lee (1988) asserts that although mania is inclined to be the first

lovestyle of young people, most people learn, after one or two experiences of mania,

that another lovestyle is preferable. However, those who continue to suffer from low

self-esteem and loneliness sometimes become addicted to the ‗anguish of mania‘ and

thus repeat the pattern of obsessive love again and again (Lee, 1976, p. 111).

2.10.2.5 Secondary lovestyle: Pragma – ludus and storge blend

A pragmatic, logical, practical, common sense outlook to love is what characterises the

pragma lovestyle (Lee, 1976, 1988). Similar to erotic lovers, pragmatic lovers have a

clear sense of their ideal type of beloved. However, unlike the erotic lover the pragma

lover‘s ideal beloved is defined by a careful, deliberate and calculated ‗shopping list‘ of

social and personal criteria. He / she does this to ensure compatibility and a workable

marriage partner who fits neatly into the pragma lover‘s social milieu (Lee, 1976). The

pragma lover is not devoid of feeling, but rather, does not rely on feelings to choose his

beloved; instead the pragmatic lover consciously sorts and deliberately weighs each

potential candidate‘s present assets, future potential and family background for the

position of the beloved (Lee, 1976). Similar to the ludic lover, the pragma lover is

detached, calculated, controlled and deliberate in the weighing of beloved alternatives

but unlike the ludic lover the pragma lover does so with the aim of finding the ideal

beloved and being in a committed, compatible and satisfying relationship (Lee, 1976).

His / her seeking to resolve differences through commitment and common interests is

analogous to the storgic lover lovestyle (Lee, 1976). According to Lee (1976), pragma

141

relationships are the most enduring of all lovestyles because of the deliberate weighing

of ‗odds‘ when choosing the beloved.

2.10.2.6 Secondary lovestyle: Agape – eros and storge blend

An altruistic, dutiful, giving and selfless approach to love characterises the agape

lovestyle (Lee, 1976, 1988). Since agapic love is indicative of will rather than emotion;

head rather than heart; the agapic lover is able to be deeply compassionate and,

regardless of benefits or difficulties, is able to give the gift of love without any

expectation of reciprocity (Lee, 1976). According to Lee (1976, 1988), agape is the

rarest lovestyle and because of the agapic duty to love even in the absence of loving

feelings, he questions whether humans are in fact capable of this type of love. Since the

agapic lover controls emotions and ensures that reason and obligation rule above

desire and emotion he/she may appear to be similar to the ludic lover. However, the

intentions of each do not coincide: where the ludic lover controls emotional investment

to avoid commitment, the agapic lover does so in order to commit (Lee, 1976). Agapic

love is portrayed by Lee (1976) as a non-sexual love so that sexual gratification is

perceived as self-sacrifice. Agape, being a blend of eros and storge, gains its intensity

and power from eros and neighbourliness and sexual reticence from storge (Lee, 1976).

The new and unique agapic quality that is birthed from this blending ―is the idea of love

as a commanded obligation‖ (Lee, 1976, p.164).

2.10.3 Lovestyle combinations

The different lovestyles portray how someone loves (Lee, 1976). When considering the

pairing of two individual‘s lovestyles, Lee (1976) indicated that as with the blending of

two colours, the couple‘s lovestyles should match in order to blend compatibly (Lee,

1976; Rudnick, 1997). Lee‘s (1988) ‗rule of proximity‘ maintains that the closer the

lovestyles are on the colour wheel, the more similar their definitions of love; the more

mutual the love and thus the more compatible. Lee (1988), however, cautions the

142

reader, noting that mutual, satisfying love does not necessarily mean lasting or

satisfying love.

Although couples with the same lovestyle are very compatible, in time this couple may

find the relationship too agreeable and thus boring (Lee, 1976, 1988). Even though

pragma and storge lovestyles are next to each other on the colour wheel, they do not

hold mutual definitions of love; however, they have enough in common to experience a

fulfilling and rewarding relationship. There are, however, exceptions to the proximity rule

(Lee, 1976). According to Lee (1976), although mania and ludus are next to each on the

colour wheel because of their opposing definitions of love, they will never reach mutual

love. The manic partner strives to create dependency and closeness while the ludic

partner aims to create independence and distance (Lee, 1976). Having said that,

research shows these two lovestyles have an interesting but rather unhappy ‗fatal

attraction‘ for one another. The nature of the ludus lover compels him to create

difficulties and distance in love and because of the nature of the manic lover, the more

difficult the love, the more intensely they love. The ludic lover is simultaneously

overwhelmed by the manic lover‘s intensity and also flattered by the manic lover‘s

zealous devotion. Therefore each serves the other‘s needs in some way, it seems.

2.10.4 Research and lovestyles

Lasswell and Lasswell (1976) were the first to attempt to measure Lee‘s lovestyles.

They did so by developing a 50-item true-false questionnaire and although they did not

report any of the detail of the data analyses, they found that each of the six lovestyles

were distinguishable from each other (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986; Lee, 1988). Studies

carried out thereafter suggested that either Lee‘s theory was to a degree incorrect or

that the measuring instruments used, such as the Lasswell and Lasswell (1976)

instrument, were not measuring the theory correctly (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986).

Because of the inconsistencies in the findings and because they perceived Lee‘s (1976)

Colours of Love theory to be an all encompassing theory of love, Hendrick and Hendrick

143

(1986) were inspired to develop an instrument that would measure the lovestyles

correctly. They started with the Lasswells‘ scale and built on it: it underwent significant

revision and refinement until they developed the Love Attitude Scale (LAS). When they

tested the LAS instrument they found Lee‘s Colours of Love theory to be viable and that

the six lovestyles were factorially distinct. The LAS consists of seven items per lovestyle

with 42 items in total and a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree (1)

to strongly agree (5) (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986). Much worldwide research has been

conducted using the LAS and it has produced various interesting findings in the realm of

life stages, personality and relationship satisfaction. It has also elucidated gender and

cultural differences.

2.10.4.1 Lovestyles and family life stages

The differences in the endorsement of lovestyles over four family life stages, were

researched by Montgomery and Sorell (1997). Comparing single people and married

people, they found single people held the stronger manic and ludic attitudes and the

weakest agapic attitudes. Only in the single group, did they find that the ludus lovestyle

was not associated with low relationship satisfaction. This may be the case if both

partners have adopted the ludic lovestyle but it seems unlikely that there would be high

relationship satisfaction if the one partner was ludic and the other was erotic. More often

than not individuals who were low on pragmatic attitudes and higher erotic, agapic and

storgic attitudes were married couples with children. These authors established that

erotic and agapic attitudes correlated positively with relationship satisfaction which is

reflective of previous findings (Hendrick, Hendrick & Adler, 1988; Montgomery & Sorell,

1997). Although they differ in intimate behaviours and relationship beliefs, men and

women are similar in their love attitudes across life stages – both sexes endorse

romance, passion (eros), friendship (storge) and self-giving (agape) love attitudes

across adulthood (Montgomery & Sorell, 1997).

144

2.10.4.2 Lovestyles and personality

Much fascinating research has been undertaken into the link between lovestyles and

personality aspects. Researchers have found that self-esteem has been positively

related to eros and negatively to mania, storge and agape (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986;

Mallandain & Davies, 1994). Cho and Cross‘s (1995) cross-cultural research, on a

Taiwanese sample, replicated these findings to some extent. They established that

Romantic and Considerate Love (i.e. a combination of eros and agape), Friendship

Love (i.e. a combination of eros and storge) and Calculated Love (i.e. a combination of

pragma and ludus) were positively correlated with self esteem.

Mallandain and Davies (1994) reported that emotionality was negatively correlated

with eros and positively correlated with mania and ludus. Self-disclosure was positively

related to and eros negatively related to ludus (Miller, Berg & Archer, 1983) while

sensation seeking was positively related to ludus (Richardson, Medvin & Hammock,

1988).

White (2003) reported that there were interesting correlations between lovestyles and

the major five personality variables. Neuroticism was positively related to ludus and

mania and negatively related to eros and storge. Extroversion was positively related to

eros and storge. Agreeableness was positively related to eros and negatively related to

ludus. Conscientiousness was positively related to eros, storge and pragma and

negatively related to ludus. Openness was negatively related to pragma, while agape

was not related to any personality factors.

The above findings and Rudnick‘s (1997) lovestyle and personality correlates are

summarised in Table 2.7 below.

145

Table 2.7 Lovestyles and personality correlates

Style Personality Characteristic

Eros High self-esteem, extroversion, self-disclosing, agreeableness,

conscientiousness; low on emotionality, neuroticism

Ludus High sensation seeking, extroversion, emotionality, impulsivity, neuroticism; low

on self-disclosing, agreeableness, conscientiousness

Storge Low self-esteem, neuroticism; high extroversion, conscientiousness

Mania Low self-esteem; high neuroticism; emotionality, impulsivity

Pragma Low sensation seeking, openness; high conscientiousness

Agape Low self-esteem

A study done by White, Hendrick and Hendrick (2004) with regards to gender,

personality variables and lovestyles, established similar but more layered and detailed

findings. Neuroticism was positively correlated with manic females, ludic men and

agapic females, but negatively correlated with storgic, agapic and erotic males.

Extraversion was positively correlated with eros. Agreeableness was positively

correlated with erotic males yet negatively correlated with ludic males.

Conscientiousness was positively correlated with storgic and agape males, erotic,

storgic and pragmatic males and females but negatively correlated with ludic males and

females. Openness was negatively correlated with pragmatic and ludic males. Previous

studies (Fehr & Broughton, 2001; Lester & Philbrick; 1988; Middleton as cited in White

et al., 2004; Woll, 1989) support these findings.

2.10.4.3 Lovestyles and relationship satisfaction

Davis and Latty-Mann (1987) attempted to uncover the relationship between the six

aspects of relationship quality (viability, intimacy, care, passion, satisfaction and

conflict/ambivalence) and Lee‘s (1976) six lovestyles. Individuals reported that eros and

agape were positively related to relationship quality whereas ludus was negatively

related.

146

A study by Hendrick et al. (1988) supported Davis and Latty-Mann‘s (1987) findings.

They established that both genders felt more satisfied in their relationship the more eros

they were but the less satisfied the more ludus they were. They also found that the less

satisfied women felt in their relationship, the more manic they were. Finally they

discovered "couples who remained together were more erotic, less ludic, more

disclosing, higher in self-esteem, higher in commitment, higher in investment, and

higher in relationship satisfaction than were the couples breaking up" (Hendrick et al.,

1988, p. 986).

Sokolski and Hendrick (1999) in a more recent study confirmed the above findings and

add their own: eros, storge and agape were positively associated with relationship

satisfaction while ludus was negatively associated with satisfaction. In addition they

established support for Lee‘s (1976) theory that a higher degree of mutual love will exist

between the more similar lovestyles. Finally they reported that marital partners

evidenced strong similarity on most of the lovestyles; especially eros, ludus, storge and

pragma.

In a cross-cultural study carried out by Contreras et al. (1996), utilising Anglo American

and Mexican American couples, the respondents alleged that eros or ―passionate love

was the most consistent predictor of marital satisfaction‖ (p. 412). A study undertaken

with 54 White South African couples found that the more eros and agape a partner was,

and the less ludus a partner was, the more satisfying the relationship (Rudnick, 1997).

In addition, Rudnick (1997) reported that similar types of lovestyles reported a more

satisfying relationship.

In sum, relationship satisfaction research, when comparing lovestyles, suggests that

when partners display similar types of lovestyles and when the individual was more

eros, agape or storge and less ludus, relationship satisfaction was more likely.

147

2.10.4.4 Lovestyles and gender

Interesting and fairly consistent findings have emerged from studies that correlate

lovestyles and gender. Women were found to be more storge, pragma and mania

orientated than men whereas men were found to be more ludus or game-playing than

women (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986; Morrow, Clark & Brock, 1995; Yancy & Berglass,

1991). Similar findings were reported by Dion and Dion (1993a): women are more

storge and pragma in their style of loving and less permissive or ludic than men. These

gender dissimilarities correspond with the evolutionary claim regarding mate selection:

men are more permissive and aim to disperse their sexual investment but women are

more selective and aim to concentrate their sexual investment (Buss & Schmitt, 1993).

Fairly recent research by Hendrick, Hendrick and Dicke (1998) indicated that women

endorse erotic love more than men while men endorse agapic love more than women.

This too may be reflective of the evolutionary perspective: women look for her partner‘s

level of commitment to her and her offspring via the cue of love; and men believe

themselves to be agapic because instead of giving into the evolutionary desire to enjoy

sexual variety, they sacrifice that and show commitment to one partner by making sure

that reason and obligation rule over desire and emotion. Even though Mallandain and

Davies (1994), unlike Hendrick and Hendrick (1986), did not discover any correlation

between women and pragma and mania they did confirm that females were higher than

males in storge and added that they were lower than males on agape. Females were

found to be more erotic, pragmatic and storgic as well as less ludic and agapic than

males (Rotenberg & Korol, 1995). A recent study undertaken by Lacey, Reifman, Scott,

Harris and Fitzpatrick (2004) confirmed similar findings: not only were men more ludic

than women but women also endorsed erotic and pragmatic attitudes more than men.

Cross-culture studies involving Angolan, Brazilian, Cape Verde, Macao, Mozambican,

Portuguese, Swiss and American respondents replicate the finding that men were

overall significantly higher than females on ludus and agape (Murstein et al., 1991;

Neto, 1994). Cho and Cross (1995) in contrast discovered in their Taiwanese study that

148

men and women did not differ in the endorsement of the six lovestyles. They suggest

that this anomaly may perhaps be attributed to contemporary Taiwanese women

gaining equal status in intimate relationships and being therefore able to freely express

and act on their beliefs about love and marriage. This argument seems flawed because

in highly individualistic cultures where high levels of equality between the sexes exist,

gender differences in lovestyles still emerge. Perhaps the adapted lovestyle instrument

did not measure Taiwanese lovestyles in the same way as in an American sample. In

addition, the use of a small sample size (46 men and 50 women) suggests that one

should consider these findings as tentative and exploratory.

Anglo American and Mexican American (traditional and bicultural) couples participated

in a study conducted by Contreras et al. (1996). They found that the couples were

similar in passionate love (eros), friendship love (storge), and altruistic love (agape) with

only modest love and sexual attitude differences between the couples.

Sprecher et al. (1994) employed 1667 (male = 695 and female = 972) American,

Russian and Japanese students in their cross-cultural study on love. As with other

studies, men across all three cultures recorded a significantly higher score on agape

than women. Ludus, pragma and mania lovestyles were significant in the gender-by-

culture interaction. The researchers found that American women were more pragmatic

and manic than American men while American men were more ludic than American

women. Unpredictably, it was discovered that neither the Russian nor the Japanese

men were more ludic than their female counterparts. Russian women were found to be

more manic than Russian men and surprisingly, Japanese men were more manic than

Japanese women. Sprecher and Toro-Morn (2002) in a study comparing American (230

male and 456 female) and Chinese (352 male and 343 female) students established

that the only significant gender differences were in the American sample. American

women recorded significantly higher scores on eros while American men reported

significantly higher agapic and ludic scores.

149

A study undertaken with 275 (138 male and 130 female) black South African university

students by Pavlou (2005) found that African men were significantly more agapic than

African women whereas African women were significantly more erotic and manic than

African men. Surprisingly, males who were deemed to be higher on the collectivistic

culture continuum showed a significant association with eros and pragma.

Neto (2007) found interesting collectivistic versus individualistic gender differences in a

study using 562 English, Portuguese (both individualistic cultures) and Indian

(collectivistic) students. He reported no gender differences in eros. Overall, men were

found to be more ludic than women. Indian and Portuguese men were more ludic than

their respective female peers. British women scored surprisingly high on ludus. This

may possibly be the case because they enjoy greater gender equality. Men were found

to be more agapic than women. Indian men were more storgic than their Indian female

peers as well as both British and Portuguese genders. Indian women were more manic

than their Indian male peers as well as both British and Portuguese men and women.

The above findings on lovestyle and gender preference endorsements are summarised

in Table 2.8 below.

Table 2.8 Lovestyles and gender

Style Gender

Male endorsements Female endorsements

Eros + ++++

Ludus ++++++++

Storge + ++++

Mania + +++++

Pragma + ++++

Agape ++++++++

The summarised findings above show that generally men are more ludic and agapic

than women whereas women are more erotic, storgic, manic and pragma than men.

This suggests that romantic love is experienced and perceived differently by males and

150

females but that, at the same time, some unusual gender differences seem to be

reflective of culture specific beliefs, values and gender role differentiation. Neto et al.

(2000) contended, and supported with research, that the lovestyle factors which involve

strong personal feelings, for example, eros, mania and agape, were largely free of

cultural influences while the lovestyle factors that involve strict rules and regulations and

low affect, for example, ludus, storge and pragma, were dependent on cultural

influences. This is, however, not fully supported by some of the research findings

discussed above (Cho & Cross, 1995; Contreras et al., 1996).

2.10.4.5 Lovestyles and culture

The intersection between the research on lovestyles and culture is discussed in detail in

Chapter 4: Love and culture.

2.10.4.6 Lovestyles correlations with other theories

The endorsement of eros and agape was associated with higher levels of Rusbult‘s

(1983) rewards, satisfaction, investments and commitment and lower levels of cost and

poorer quality of alternatives. An endorsement of ludus demonstrated an opposite

association as regards Rusbult‘s (1983) variables (Morrow et al., 1995).

Hendrick and Hendrick (1989) found that of the six lovestyles only eros and agape were

positively correlated with secure attachment style (trusting and stable). Eros and agape

were also negatively correlated with avoidant attachment style (detached and

unresponsive). The opposite pattern was produced for ludus: negatively correlated with

secure attachment style and positively correlated with avoidant attachment style. They

also discovered that pragma was positively related to avoidant attachment style, while

mania was positively related to ambivalent attachment style (anxious and uncertain).

Williams and Schill (1994) supported the above to some degree when they found that

ludic women‘s attachment style was either anxious-ambivalent or avoidant.

151

Hendrick and Hendrick (1989) considered the relationship between lovestyles and

Sternberg's (1986; 1988) triangular model of love. They report that eros, agape and

mania were positively correlated with intimacy, passion and commitment. Storge was

positively correlated with intimacy. On the other hand, ludus was negatively correlated

with all three components.

In a meta study Feeney (1999) evaluated the findings of various studies and reported

the following summary: 1) eros, agape, secure attachment and high levels of

Sternberg‘s intimacy, commitment and passion are associated; 2) ludus, avoidant

attachment and low levels of Sternberg‘s intimacy, commitment and passion are

associated; and 3) mania, anxious-ambivalent attachment and low levels of Sternberg‘s

intimacy, commitment and passion are associated. Feeney (1999) summarised these

findings from various studies that related attachment perspectives to other measures of

love in Table 2.9 below:

Table 2.9 Measures of love associated with the three major attachment styles

Measure Secure Avoidant Anxious-Ambivalent

Lee‟s

Lovestyles

Eros (passionate love),

agape (selfless love)

Ludus (game-playing

love)

Mania (possessive love)

Sternberg‟s

Components

of Love

High on intimacy,

passion and

commitment

Low on intimacy,

passion and

commitment

Low on intimacy, passion

and commitment

Higher-order

factors

High on self confidence

(high on self-esteem

and lack of self-

conscious anxiety with

partners); low on

avoidance of intimacy;

low on neurotic love

High on avoidance of

intimacy (high on

ludus and low on

eros, agape and

loving); low on self

confidence; low on

neurotic love

High on neurotic love

(high on preoccupation,

dependence and

idealisation);low on

circumspect love

(friendship, pragma); low

on self confidence; low on

avoidance of intimacy

152

Derived from Feeney (1999).

In a recent study, Fricker (2006) used 312 adults in order to establish the relationship

between lovestyles, attachment styles and infidelity. She found that high scores on

avoidance were associated with high ludus, and low eros and agape levels. Anxious

attachment was positively correlated with mania. In addition she determined that an

avoidant attachment style and a ludus lovestyle were the most likely to engage in

extradyadic behaviour while the least likely to do so were those with the eros lovestyle.

These correlations between the attachment pattern and lovestyles confirmed the results

from previous studies (Feeney, 1999).

2.10.5 Conclusion on lovestyles

More than thirty years later, Lee‘s (1976) encompassing, multidimensional and

theoretically rich theory on love still inspires ongoing research. Research into

developing an instrument that would help establish the viability of the Colours of Love

theory and indeed whether the six central lovestyles were significantly distinctive and

relevant was initially undertaken (Lasswell & Lasswell, 1976; Hendrick & Hendrick,

1986). Once this was established, much research was conducted in an attempt to

uncover the relationship between lovestyles and various aspects of the human being:

family life stages (Hendrick et al., 1988; Montgomery & Sorell, 1997); personality

(Cho & Cross, 1995; Fehr & Broughton, 2001; Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986; Lester &

Philbrick; 1988; Mallandain & Davies, 1994; Middleton as cited in White et al., 2004;

Miller et al., 1983; Richardson et al., 1988; White, 2003; White et al., 2004; Woll, 1989);

relationship satisfaction (Contreras et al., 1996; Davis & Latty-Mann, 1987; Hendrick

et al., 1988; Rudnick, 1997; Sokolski & Hendrick, 1999); and gender (Dion & Dion,

1993a; Cho & Cross, 1995; Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986; Hendrick et al., 1998; Lacey et

al., 2004; Mallandain & Davies, 1994; Morrow et al., 1995; Murstein et al., 1991; Neto,

1994; Rotenberg & Korol, 1995; Yancy & Berglass, 1991).

153

A flurry of cross-cultural research aimed at discovering how humans love universally

and culturally seems to be the order of the day at present; those studies will, however,

be discussed in the culture and love chapter of the study.

Finally, in order to gain a more complete jigsaw of the puzzle of love and how it

manifests in the human condition, researchers have attempted to discover the possible

commonalities and interrelationships between the various models and theories of love:

Rusbult‘s (1983) social exchange theory (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1989; Morrow et al.,

1995), attachment styles (Feeney, 1999; Hendrick & Hendrick, 1989; Williams & Schill,

1994) and Sternberg's (1986; 1988) triangular model of love (Feeney, 1999; Hendrick &

Hendrick, 1989).

Given all the data and knowledge gained from the review of the literature on love, it

seems possible not only to locate the separate love puzzle pieces into the beginnings of

a structure but also to tease out the intersections that appear to exist between the

various theories, models and types of love.

154

2.11 The love theories‘ points of commonality and agreement

By applying the nature, nurture and societal argument to the love theories and models

one could possibly arrange the separate love puzzle pieces as follows:

The evolutionary perspective focuses on the nature argument: how inherited genetic

and adaptive biological mechanisms explain love, attachment and behaviour in romantic

relationships – for example, mate selection, male and female mate preferences,

patterns of childrearing and sexual strategies. Similarly the biological stance argues in

the same direction. Adherents suggest that sexual strategies are governed by a

constellation of brain and neural circuits, neurotransmitters and or hormones, and

behavioural correlates (Fisher, 1998, 2000; Fisher et al., 2002).

In the intrapsychic view, Freud, who overlaps with the evolutionary perspective

somewhat, focuses on a nature argument at times – autoerotic, instincts and drives –

and at other times on the nurture argument – the lover holds his primary caregiver as

the prototype for all future love relationships (‗refinding‘). Freud‘s latter argument can be

seen to correspond somewhat with the interpersonal view of attachment theory.

Attachment theory also seems to evidence some similarity with the evolutionary and

biological perspective, in that proponents believe that infants are born with a genetic

and biological tendency to bond and attach with their caregivers and that the caregivers

have a genetic tendency to care for the infant. Therefore, attachment argues the nature

perspective on the one hand while on the other hand it also strongly endorses the

nurture argument. Adherents contend that early interpersonal interactions between an

infant and his / her primary caregivers create unconscious ‗internal working models‘ that

inform the infant, and later the adult, about the level of support, responsiveness and

availability they can expect from significant others

From a humanistic perspective Fromm (1956), like Freud and attachment theory,

argues for the nurture argument – in that the ideal archetypal motherly and fatherly love

155

can result in the capacity for mature love whereas the lack, or failure of the motherly or

fatherly principle to develop, can result in neurotic love. He also argues that it is not only

the parental caregivers impact on the individual‘s capacity to love but also the society

and culture in which the individual grows up. Therefore Fromm argues from the nurture

and societal point of view. Sternberg‘s (2000) love story theory also argues that love is

socially and individually constructed and therefore resembles Fromm‘s societal

argument.

The interdependence theory does not root its argument in nature (biology, genetics,

drives and instincts), nurture, or society but rather in the interpersonal economics

between adults – it focuses on a cognitive process of mate selection.

The lovestyles typology also does not argue from the perspective of nature, nurture or

society: instead it focuses on types of love. Similarly, Sternberg‘s (1986, 1988)

triangular theory of love delineates eight types of love as does Walster and Walster

(1978) in their two types of love – passionate and companionate love. The above

theories through their unique lenses also all suggest different love types or strategies.

One of the valuable aspects of tackling the love literature using a pluralist approach is

that different schools of thought, often reflecting various differences as well as

similarities, can provide access to diverse ways of thinking about the human experience

of romantic love. Perhaps a useful way of beginning to structure the above love puzzle

pieces into an explanatory model of romantic love is to do so by integrating the

epistemologies and theories that explain how individuals come to love (intrapsychic;

humanistic and sociocultural; interpersonal, cognitive, social construction, and genetic

and biological) (Figure 2.6).

156

Figure 2.6: A tentative integrated model of romantic love

Although this model implicitly suggests that the six puzzle pieces explain the

trajectory of how an individual comes to love romantically, it is possible that for each

individual, depending on their nature and their experiences of nurture, the six puzzle

pieces are weighted differently by size and influence.

Each of the six explanatory puzzle pieces implies that, depending on an individual‘s

intrapsychic experiences, their sociocultural experiences, their interpersonal

experiences, their socially constructed story around romantic love and their cognitions

157

about romantic love, she or he will develop a specific mode, type or strategy of loving

romantically. These are summarised in Table 2.10.

Table 2.10 Summary of models of love and their corresponding love types

Epistemology Theorist / theory Love types or strategies

Intrapsychic

Freud (1905, 1914,

1915, 1931b)

o First theory of love: ―happy love‖ or neurotic

love – anaclitic model of love

o Second theory of love: narcissistic model of

love

o Third theory of love: free from too-

destructive ambivalence

o Later contributions: erotic, narcissistic,

obsessional psychological type

Bergmann (1987) o Infatuation, love and the proximity of death,

triangular love, conflictual love, loveless

sexuality, masochistic and sadistic love,

hermaphroditic love, pygmalion love,

narcissistic love, primary and anaclitic love,

addicts of love, transference love, aim-

inhibited love, sublimated love, ideal love

Humanistic and

sociocultural

Fromm (1956) o Mature love, immature or neurotic love

(infantile relatedness), irrational or pseudo

love (idolatrous love, sentimental love),

erotic love, self love

Interpersonal Attachment theory o Secure, preoccupied, dismissing, fearful

Cognitive Interdependent

theory

o Rewards, costs, outcomes and alternatives

o Long-term communal exchanges versus

short-term exchange relationships

o Cognitive and behavioural maintenance

mechanisms

158

Epistemology Theorist / theory Love types or strategies

Social construction Sternberg‘s (2000)

Love stories

o Sacrifice story, Police story (officer;

suspect), Travel story, Pornography story

(object; subject), Horror story (terroriser;

victim), Recovery story (co-dependent;

person in recovery), Garden story, Business

story, Fantasy story, War story, Humour

story, Collection story

Genetic and

biological

Evolutionary theory o Long-term strategies: ―domestic bliss

strategy‖

o Short-term strategies: ―he-man strategy‖ or

―sexy-sons strategy‖

o Simultaneous strategies: combining long

term and short term strategies

Types of love Walster and Waster

(1978)

o Passionate, companionate love

Sternberg‘s (1986,

1988) Triangular

theory of love

o Liking, romantic love, companionate love,

consummate love, infatuation, fatuous love,

empty love, non love

Lee‘s (1976)

typology of love:

lovestyles

o Eros, ludus, storge, mania, pragma, agape

Because Lee‘s (1976) lovestyles has proven to be a fruitful and productive way of

measuring love types empirically, it will be used as the departure point or central

puzzle piece, in an attempt to deduce similarities in the love types, patterns,

strategies and styles outlined in the review of the literature on love. His typology of

love also transcends most of the major schools of thought and accommodates the

different modes of loving described in each.

159

2.11.1 Intersections with eros

The erotic lover‘s instant recognition of the very specific and rare physical type of their

ideal beloved perhaps echoes Freud‘s (1905, 1910b, 1931b) hypothesis of refinding

the original love object – the unconscious precondition of finding a new non

incestuous object that resembles or is a prototype of the original love object.

According to Freud (1905), if conditions are favourable the individual is able to focus

all desire on a single new love object and ―happy love‖ develops. This seems to be

reflective of the eros lovestyle as these individuals are able to develop ―happy love‖

and focus all their desire on the beloved. When looking at Freud‘s (1915) third theory

of love, which suggests that the capacity to love develops when one has, through the

maturation process, developed the capacity to conduct an enduring relationship free

from a too-destructive ambivalence, it may be said that the eros lovestyle is capable

of this type of love because eros lovers are aware of and able to tolerate their

beloved‘s strengths and weaknesses. Finally, Lee (1976), and Sprecher and Regan

(1998) repeat Freud (1931b) and say that as regards most passionate, erotic lovers,

ongoing sexual passion cannot be integrated into the milieu of a lasting and stable

relationship and that a more tranquil companionship type of love will emerge over

time; that sexual instincts and strivings will need to be sublimated or ―aim-inhibited‖

and ―aim-deflected‖ in order to build a more reliable and enduring relationship. When

comparing eros to the psychoanalyst Bergmann‘s (1987) types of love, eros seems to

fit reasonably well with his ideal love.

The eros lovestyle seems to display a close association with Fromm‘s erotic love

which he characterises as exclusive, with the desire to fuse and unite intensely and

completely with one other person in an act of will, by making a decision and a

commitment that guarantees the continuation of love (Fromm, 1956). The eros

lovestyle, which is a lovestyle with high expectations, also seems to bear some

degree of likeness to Fromm‘s (1956) mature love which is characterised by mutually

interdependent giving together with components of care, responsibility, respect,

understanding and knowledge.

160

Lee‘s (1976) description of the erotic lover‘s childhood and their behaviour as adults

displays strong similarities with the secure attachment style which is described as a

striving for mutual intimacy and closeness as well as being comfortable with giving

and receiving care consistently and reliably (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Bartholomew,

1990; Bartholomew et al., 2001; Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994b; Hazan & Shaver,

1987, Shaver & Hazan, 1988).

On the surface it seems that the erotic lovestyle exhibits few parallels to the

interdependence theory in that the erotic lover searches for an ideal beloved and no

matter what the rewards, costs, outcomes or alternatives are, this is and remains the

ideal (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). However, the erotic individual may have an

unconscious cognitive list of rewards and costs that he / she holds in mind which

assists him / her to choose the ideal beloved. From the perspective of Rusbult‘s

(1980) investment model and Rusbult et al.‘s (2001) extended investment model, it

may be reasonable to assume that the erotic lover would be strongly committed to

their relationship and would therefore engage in the behavioural and cognitive

maintenance mechanisms to ensure the longevity of their relationship. It would seem

that the erotic lover‘s relationship would usually be a long-term one and that it would

therefore be governed by communal exchanges that are characterised by being

responsive to the beloved‘s needs (Clark, 1984, 1986; Mills & Clark, 1994, 2001).

The eros lovestyle‘s powerful physical and emotional attraction for the ideal beloved

seems to reflect Walster and Walster‘s (1978) passionate love of intense longing and

physiological arousal as regards the beloved. Furthermore, similar to Lee‘s (1976)

observation of eros‘s passion adjusting to a calmer companionship type of love over

time, so too did Sprecher and Regan (1998) find that passionate love often leads to

the calmer companionate love over time.

If one considers Sternberg‘s (1986, 1988) original triangular theory of love the eros

lovestyle seems to reflect Sternberg‘s ideal love or consummate love which exists

when all three components (intimacy, passion and commitment) of the love triangle

are balanced and equally strong. None of Sternberg‘s (2000) love stories seem to

make a solid match with eros. Having said this, Sternberg‘s love stories are unlimited

161

and it could be argued that a possible story for the eros individual is ―Love at first

sight‖.

When considering the evolutionary theory it would seem that the erotic lover would

more than likely adopt the ―domestic bliss strategy‖ which is characteristic of a long-

term mating strategy. In such a strategy both men and women are highly

discriminating and selective when choosing a partner: the female encourages greater

devotion, assistance, protection while the male devotes greater parental investment

than in short-term sexual strategies (Kenrick et al., 1993; Lampert, 1997). In addition,

evolutionary theorists may argue that eros is a mechanism used by evolution to

encourage procreation.

2.11.2 Intersections with ludus

Freud (1905) may suggest that the game playing ludic lover is not capable of ―happy

love‖ because he is unable to focus all desire on a single new love object. Instead

Freud (1910a) may map the ludus lovestyle to his neurotic love. According to Freud

(1910a) neurotic love develops when the two currents (affection and direct sexual

impulses) do not unite due to unfavourable conditions: a) attachment to the old love

object is strong and / or b) the pregenital impulses are too strong or too repressed

(Freud, 1912). As a result the individual is unable to focus all desire on a single

object: ―Where they love they do not desire and where they desire they cannot love‖

(Freud, 1912, p. 183). In addition, because it is taboo to conduct a sexual relationship

with the overvalued, loved person whom they continue to love, they develop the need

to debase the sexual partner who is available. Lee‘s (1976) portrayal of the ludic lover

seems to display some similarities with Freud‘s (1931b) narcissistic type. Freud‘s

depicts the narcissistic type as charming and largely preoccupied with self

preservation and therefore as one who prefers loving to being loved. The ludic lover

may correspond closely to Arlow‘s (1980) Don Juan who is a perpetual seducer and

also to ―The disappointed child [who] ‗masters‘ his disappointment by becoming a

disappointing lover‖ (Bergmann, 1987, p. 243). When comparing ludus to the

psychoanalyst Bergmann‘s (1987) types of love, ludus seems to fit well with his

162

loveless sexuality type, who experiences intense sexuality with the other without

feeling love for them, and could also be said to fit relatively well with his conflictual

love type, who can only love a person uniquely but not exclusively.

The ludus lovestyle seems to sound a similar tone to Fromm‘s (1956) idea that

human beings try to temporarily escape the universal human feeling of separateness

via orgiastic states, for example, sexual orgasm. Fromm (1956) may also suggest

that the male ludic lover is stuck in infantile relatedness to the: 1) mother because

according to Fromm (1956) these men degrade all other women and they seek to

love but can only do so in a superficial sexual manner; or 2) father because, as

Fromm (1956) has it, these men do not view their relationships with a woman as

significant and instead these men remain distant, aloof and remote in the relationship;

these men present with a fatherly concern for the woman which masks their feelings

of minor disdain for her. Finally, Fromm (1956) proposes that the ludic lover lacks self

love because selfish people are not able to love anyone else because they are unable

to love themselves.

Lee‘s (1976) description of the ludic lover‘s childhood and their behaviour as adults in

intimate romantic relationships reflects strong similarities with the dismissing /

avoidant attachment style. The avoidantly attached or dismissing adult is said to

maintain emotional distance, is afraid of making commitments and of depending on

others, is unable or unwilling to give and receive care and may engage in

promiscuous behaviour (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Bartholomew, 1990; Bartholomew et

al., 2001; Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994b; Hazan & Shaver, 1987, Shaver & Hazan,

1988). Fricker (2006) recently confirmed a positive correlation between ludus and

avoidant attachment style (Fricker, 2006).

The ludus lovestyle seems to correspond somewhat with the interdependence theory

if the ludic lover plays the love game openly, that is, by informing the partner of other

partners so that the rewards, costs, outcomes or alternatives are fair to all parties in

the love game. If, however, the ludic lover feigns loyalty and commitment, he may

maximise his rewards in the short term but once the other parties discover his game

of deception, the costs, outcomes and alternatives would not usually operate in his

163

favour (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). The ludic lover is not strongly committed to the love

relationship because he / she is not likely to be interested in a long-term relationship.

Therefore from the perspective of Rusbult‘s (1980) investment model and the Rusbult

et al. (2001) extended investment model, it may be reasonable to assume that the

ludus lover would consequently not engage in the behavioural and cognitive

maintenance mechanisms. The ludus lover, it may be assumed, would be engaged in

exchange relationships because he / she seems to be more interested in short-term

relationships that are characterised by an equal ratio of costs to rewards (Clark, 1984,

1986; Mills & Clark, 1994, 2001). Or perhaps the ludus individual operates within the

investment model but using much shorter time frames and as new prospects emerge

old investments are replaced.

Unlike the eros lovestyle the ludic lovestyle does not seem to correspond with Walster

and Walster‘s (1978) intense passionate love nor their calmer companionship love;

instead love is a game that needs to be played.

The ludus lovestyle‘s closest counterpart in Sternberg‘s (1986, 1988) original

triangular theory of love seems to be infatuation love which is characterised by

passion, only with no intimacy or commitment. The ludus lovestyle appears closely

related to the collection story: ―I like dating different partners simultaneously; each

partner should fit a particular need‖ in Sternberg‘s (2000) later love story theory.

When considering the evolutionary theory it would seem that the ludic lover would

more than likely adopt the ―he-man strategy‖ which is characteristic of a short-term

mating strategy in order to avoid fear of desertion in females and paternal uncertainty

in males (Lampert, 1997). Seemingly, the female ludic lover is just as likely to adopt

the ―sexy son‘s strategy‖ which is characteristic of a short-term mating strategy with

sexy men so that they bear sexy sons who in turn gain ultimate reproductive success

by attracting an above average number of women (Buss, 2000). Research has found

that men are more likely to endorse ludus as a lovestyle than women. This would tie

in with the evolutionary stance that men evolve the reproductive adaptation of

attempting to inseminate as many women as possible whereas women evolve the

164

reproductive adaptation of attempting to secure a mate that is willing to invest in her

and her offspring (Buss & Schmitt, 1993).

2.11.3 Intersections with storge

If one applies Freud‘s (1905) first theory of love it would seem that the storge lover is

able to focus all desire on a single new love and is therefore also capable of ―happy

love‖. When considering Freud‘s (1915) third theory of love, the storge lovestyle may

be likened to some extent to what Freud (1915) suggested when he argued that the

individual has developed the capacity to enjoy an enduring relationship free from a

too-destructive ambivalence. If one compares storge love to the psychoanalyst

Bergmann‘s (1987) types of love, it does not exhibit as good a fit as eros to

Bergmann‘s Ideal love, but nonetheless displays some overlap with it.

The storge lovestyle seems to bear some likeness to Fromm‘s (1956) mature love

which is not about receiving but instead about giving out of self love. Giving is

mutually interdependent and comprises components of care, responsibility, respect,

understanding and knowledge. The storge lovestyle also appears to resemble some

characteristics of Fromm‘s (1956) erotic love in that, like eros, it is exclusive and is an

act of will, a decision and a commitment that guarantees the continuation of love. But

unlike eros, it lacks the want to fuse and unite intensely and completely with the

beloved (Fromm, 1956).

Lee‘s (1976) description of the storgic lover‘s childhood, their sense of self and their

behaviour as adults displays strong similarities with the secure attachment style,

characterised by a trust in others, a striving for mutual intimacy and closeness as well

as being comfortable with giving and receiving care consistently and reliably

(Ainsworth et al., 1978; Bartholomew, 1990; Bartholomew et al., 2001; Griffin &

Bartholomew, 1994b; Hazan & Shaver, 1987, Shaver & Hazan, 1988).

The storgic lovestyle seems to be in harmony with the social exchange theory in that

the storgic lover normally does not have an ideal beloved. According to Lee (1976)

165

the storgic lover does not consciously choose the beloved, so it appears that they

would not, at least consciously, weigh up the rewards, costs, outcomes of or

alternatives to the beloved and even if they did, their exchanges would more than

likely not resemble the tit-for-tat type of exchanges (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). Others

may argue that because the storge lover is not blinded by passionate love and

because they take their time to decide on the beloved, they are more rational in their

decision. One could then deduce that they are the type of lover that would weigh up

the rewards and costs carefully. From the perspective of Rusbult‘s (1980) investment

model and the Rusbult et al. (2001) extended investment model, it may be reasonable

to assume that the storge lover would be strongly committed to their relationship and

would therefore engage in the behavioural and cognitive maintenance mechanisms to

ensure relationship longevity. It would appear that the storge lover‘s relationship

would usually constitute a long-term relationship and would therefore more than likely

be responsive to the beloved‘s needs – communal exchanges (Clark, 1984, 1986;

Mills & Clark, 1994, 2001).

Unlike the erotic lover, storgic friendship lovers do not seem to go through the initial

period of Walster and Walster‘s (1978) passionate love: instead they seem to start

and remain at the calmer companionship type of love which is characterised by

friendship and common interests.

Taking Sternberg‘s (1986, 1988) original triangular theory of love into account, the

storgic lovestyle seems to map relatively well with Sternberg‘s (1988) companionate

love which is characterised by a long-term committed friendship.

When considering the evolutionary theory it would seem that the storgic lover would

more than likely adopt the long-term mating strategy of ―domestic bliss‖ which is

characterised by both mothers and fathers investing a great deal in their children and

therefore in their relationship (Kenrick et al., 1993; Lampert, 1997).

166

2.11.4 Intersections with mania

Lee (1976) describes in the manic lover a perpetuation and intensification of the

intrinsic state of dissatisfaction in loving. Freud (1930) argued that the intrinsic state

of dissatisfaction in loving is due to the fact that the adult love object is not the original

love object but merely the surrogate. This may explain the manic lover‘s

dissatisfaction. When one compares the manic lovestyle to Freud‘s (1914) narcissistic

model of love it could be said that that the manic lover‘s beloved is ―what he himself

would like to be‖: the ego ideal is projected onto the love object; the person loves the

love object that encompasses the excellence that he never had. Lee‘s (1976)

portrayal of the manic lovestyle also seems to display some similarities with Freud‘s

(1931b) erotic type. Freud depicts the erotic type as dependent: a person who fears

losing love, who is preoccupied with being loved and is at risk of loving anyone who

loves them. A comparison of the manic lovestyle to the psychoanalyst Bergmann‘s

(1987) types of love, indicates that mania seems to contain elements of four of

Bergmann‘s love types:

o Masochistic and sadistic love – which is loving in the service of suffering, belief

that he / she is insignificant and he sacrifices all for the magnificent partner.

o Narcissistic love – these individuals love what they would like to be or who they

wish they could have been.

o Primary and anaclitic love – they are dependent and they expect all their needs to

be taken care of and gratified without having to reciprocate.

o Addicts of love – they focus on being loved, however their capacity to love is

limited; at the same time they feel resentful and frustrated by a partner they view

as being ungratifying.

It would appear that Fromm (1956) would not describe the mania lovestyle as mature

love. Instead he might describe it as a neurotic disturbance of love in so far as the

male mania lover is stuck in infantile relatedness to the mother because these men

seek to return to mother‘s protecting, warm and caring arms; they seek to be loved

rather than to love and although they can be affectionate and charming their

relationships remain superficial and irresponsible. Fromm (1956) may perhaps

167

suggest that the mania lover lacks self love because selfish people are not able to

love anyone else because they are unable to love themselves. Finally Fromm (1956)

may suggest that the mania lover suffers from irrational love or pseudo love of

idolatrous love which is characteristic of an individual who has not developed a strong

sense of self and identity and projects all his goodness and power onto the idolised

loved one, in so doing losing himself in the loved one.

Lee‘s (1976) description of the manic lover‘s childhood and their behaviour as adults

displays strong similarities with the preoccupied / ambivalent insecure attachment

style. The preoccupied / ambivalent insecure attachment style is characterised by a

deep seated sense of unworthiness, falling in love often and easily; being dependent,

needy and demanding; being vulnerable and uncertain about relationships; and giving

care in a self sacrificing and compulsive manner while being dissatisfied with the care

they receive from the beloved (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Bartholomew, 1990;

Bartholomew et al., 2001; Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994b; Hazan & Shaver, 1987,

Shaver & Hazan, 1988; Gross, 2003). Ficker (2006) recently reported that anxious

attachment was positively correlated with mania.

In terms of the interdependence theory, the manic lover, it seems, will struggle to

aptly weigh up the rewards, costs, outcomes of or alternatives to the beloved because

of their tendency to project qualities onto the beloved that they feel they themselves

lack – qualities that the beloved does not necessarily possess. In addition, once the

weighing up has been completed there is a sense that they will struggle to take the

appropriate action as a result of the outcomes because of their lack of self

confidence, self worth and self esteem (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). From the perspective

of Rusbult‘s (1980) investment model and the Rusbult et al. (2001) extended

investment model, the manic lover would be strongly but insecurely committed to their

relationship and would therefore possibly over engage in the behavioural and

cognitive maintenance mechanisms in the hope of ensuring that they are not

abandoned. Applying the equity theory to this dynamic possibly indicates that this

may leave the partner feeling uncomfortable and guilty about the unequal size of

investment (Walster et al., 1978). It would seem that the manic lover‘s relationship

would usually be governed by communal exchanges that are characterised by being

168

responsive to the beloved‘s needs but more than likely at the expense of their own

needs (Clark, 1984, 1986; Mills & Clark, 1994, 2001).

Like the erotic lover, obsessive manic lovers seem to go through the initial period of

Walster and Walster‘s (1978) passionate love; however, they do not seem to be able

to convert this passionate love to the calmer companionship type of love and because

of their feelings of insecurity and lack of self worth they remain intensely preoccupied

with the beloved.

Although the manic lover yearns for commitment and intimacy they seem unable to

achieve it. Therefore when one considers Sternberg‘s (1986, 1988) original triangular

theory of love the manic lovestyle seems to map relatively well onto Sternberg‘s

(1988) infatuation love which is characterised by passionate, obsessive at first sight

without intimacy or commitment. In Sternberg‘s (2000) later theory of love stories, it

seems there is some overlap between the mania lovestyle and the sacrifice story: ―I

believe sacrifice is a key part of true love‖; the police story: ―I believe that you need to

keep a close eye on your partner‖ or ―My partner needs to know everything that I do‖;

and the co-dependency story: ―I need someone to help me recover from my painful

past‖.

In terms of the evolutionary theory it would seem that the manic lover would more

than likely prefer to adopt the long-term mating strategy of ―domestic bliss‖ but

appears unable to succeed in retaining the partner because of his / her maladaptive

behaviour. Therefore his / her love strategy may by default lie more along the lines of

a short-term strategy (Lampert, 1997). Perhaps, the mania‘s possessive attributes

assist in helping to realise the evolutionary need to procreate.

2.11.5 Intersections with pragma

If one compares the pragma lovestyle to Freud‘s (1914) second theory of love – the

narcissistic model of love – it could be said that to some extent the pragma lover‘s

beloved is ―what he himself is‖: the love object is merely the image in the mirror; the

169

love object resembles the person who loves them. Lee‘s (1976) portrayal of the

pragma lovestyle also appears to display some similarities with Freud‘s (1931b)

narcissistic types in that they are predominantly preoccupied with self preservation. A

contrast of the pragma lovestyle to the psychoanalyst Bergmann‘s (1987) types of

love seems not to yield any comparative matches.

The pragma lovestyle seems to display a close likeness to Fromm‘s (1956)

‗personality package‘ where the individual, like most modern Western men and

women, is not capable of mature love. Instead they transform themselves into a

commodity, an investment, a ‗personality package‘, and they, in the hope of a

profitable, favourable and fair exchange, trade their value with others who are also

trading their own ‗personality package‘. The pragma lovestyle also apparently

evidences some characteristics of Fromm‘s (1956) erotic love in that, like eros and

storge, it is exclusive and is an act of will, a decision and a commitment. But unlike

eros, it lacks the want to fuse and unite intensely and completely with the beloved

(Fromm, 1956).

Lee‘s (1976) description of the pragma lover‘s behaviour as an adult, once the

beloved is chosen, displays similarities with the secure attachment style. The secure

attachment style is characterised by a trust in others, a striving for mutual intimacy

and closeness as well as being comfortable with giving and receiving care

consistently and reliably (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Bartholomew, 1990; Bartholomew et

al., 2001; Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994b; Hazan & Shaver, 1987, Shaver & Hazan,

1988). However, the way the pragma lover goes about choosing the beloved is

perhaps not entirely in line with the securely attached individual; instead they seem to

exhibit some avoidant or dismissing characteristics. Hendrick and Hendrick (1989)

confirmed this in their study when they found the pragma lovestyle was positively

correlated with the avoidant attachment style.

The pragma lovestyle seems to be in very strong synchronisation with the

interdependence and social exchange theory in that pragma lovers consciously and

deliberately weigh up the rewards, costs, outcomes of or alternatives to the beloved in

order to make a calculated decision as to whether the beloved is indeed the perfect

170

match (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). From the perspective of Rusbult‘s (1980) investment

model and the Rusbult et al. (2001) extended investment model, the pragma lover

would be committed to their relationship once he / she has made their decision and

would therefore engage in the behavioural and cognitive maintenance mechanisms to

ensure a committed and satisfying relationship. It would appear that because of the

high levels of commitment once this choice of beloved is made, the pragma lover

would usually be governed by a communal relationship (Clark, 1984, 1986; Mills &

Clark, 1994, 2001).

Unlike the erotic lover, the logical and practical pragma lover does not seem to go

through the initial period of Walster and Walster‘s (1978) passionate love; instead,

like the storgic lover, they are more likely to over time develop and remain at the

calmer companionship type of love.

In terms of Sternberg‘s (1986, 1988) original triangular theory of love it could be said

that perhaps the pragma lovestyle initially maps relatively well onto Sternberg‘s

(1988) empty love which is characterised by a decision to love one another without

intimacy and passion. In Sternberg‘s (2000) later theory of love stories, it appears

there is some overlap between the pragma lovestyle and the business story: ―I

believe close relationships are like good partnerships‖.

When considering the evolutionary theory it would appear that the pragma lover

would more than likely adopt the long-term mating strategy – ―domestic bliss strategy‖

– which is characterised by both genders being highly discriminating and selective

when choosing a partner, with both partners being devoted and committed to the

relationship (Kenrick et al., 1993; Lampert, 1997).

2.11.6 Intersections with agape

According to Freud (1915), when the individual is able to separate feelings of love

and hate and therefore tolerates feelings of love, hate and the resulting feeling of

ambivalence then the individual has developed the capacity to enjoy an enduring

171

relationship free from a too-destructive ambivalence; it may be said that the agape

lovestyle is somewhat reflective of this type of love. Lee‘s (1976) portrayal of the

agapic lover partly seems to resemble Freud‘s (1931b) obsessional type. Freud

depicts the obsessional type as mostly preoccupied with their conscience and adds

that they generally remain loyal and in love for a long time. In terms of comparing

agape with the psychoanalyst Bergmann‘s (1987) types of love, agape seems to fit

relatively well with his aim-inhibited love where the individual will repress, censor or

experience the sexual component as absent.

The agape lovestyle seems to display a strong resemblance to Fromm‘s (1956) rare

mature love which is not about receiving but instead about giving from a position of

self love. According to Fromm (1956), giving is mutually interdependent and has

elements of care, responsibility, respect, understanding and knowledge. He describes

the individual who is capable of mature love as one giving up narcissistic dreams of

omniscience and omnipotence and as a person having achieved humility,

separateness and integrity of one‘s self. Apparently the agape lovestyle also displays

certain characteristics of Fromm‘s erotic love in that, like eros and storge, it is

exclusive and is an act of will, a decision and a commitment that guarantees the

continuation of love. But unlike eros, it lacks the passion of Fromm‘s (1956) erotic

love.

Lee‘s (1976) description of the agape lover‘s behaviour as an adult evidences some

similarities with the secure attachment style which is characterised by a trust in

others, a striving for mutual intimacy and closeness as well as being comfortable with

giving but not necessarily receiving care consistently and reliably (Ainsworth et al.,

1978; Bartholomew, 1990; Bartholomew et al., 2001; Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994b;

Hazan & Shaver, 1987; Shaver & Hazan, 1988). It would seem that the agapic lover

would be comfortable with giving care but it is unclear if they would also be

comfortable with receiving care.

The agape lover does not seem to reflect the social exchange theory. Agape lovers

are not concerned with what is fair; they do not bother themselves with an ideal

beloved nor with the weighing up of rewards, costs, outcomes of or alternatives to the

172

beloved. Instead they focus on providing rewards for the other without calculating

costs, outcomes or alternatives (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978). From the perspective of

Rusbult‘s (1980) investment model and the Rusbult et al. (2001) extended investment

model, the agape lover would be very committed to their relationship and would

therefore engage in the behavioural and cognitive maintenance mechanisms with no

expectation of reciprocity. When applying the equity theory to this dynamic it is

possible that the agape individual‘s tendency to give with no expectations may leave

the partner feeling uncomfortable and guilty about the unequal investment size

(Walster et al., 1978). It would appear that because of the high levels of commitment

it is reasonable to assume that the agape lover would be governed by a communal

relationship (Clark, 1984, 1986; Mills & Clark, 1994, 2001).

Unlike most of the previous lovestyles the selfless, devoted and altruistic agape

lovestyle does not seem to correspond with Walster and Walster‘s (1978) passionate

love nor their calmer companionship love; instead love is an obligation and a duty.

In terms of Sternberg‘s (1986, 1988) original triangular theory of love the passionately

selfless and dutiful agape lovestyle does not seem to reflect any of the eight love

types. In Sternberg‘s (2000) later theory of love stories, it seems there is some

overlap between the agape lovestyle and the sacrifice story: ―I believe sacrifice is a

key part of true love‖, however, agape has a stronger serving component rather than

a sacrificing component.

As regards the evolutionary theory it would appear that the agape lover would only

want to adopt the long-term mating strategy of ―domestic bliss‖ (Lampert, 1997).

2.11.7 Conclusion

The possible intersections between types, patterns, strategies and styles of love are

summarised below in Table 2.11.

173

Lee (1976) argued that individuals contain all the lovestyles within them but that a

person will generally exhibit a dominant one. Perhaps by considering the

commonalities and correlations between epistemologies, theories and models of love,

we as researchers and clinicians can gain cumulative knowledge and a greater

understanding of what love is. However, depending on each researcher‘s and

clinician‘s background and preferences, perhaps, as is the case with an individual‘s

lovestyle, different puzzle pieces – epistemologies, theories and models – will

dominate and be favoured as preferred explanations for the nebulous construct of

love.

174

Table 2.11: Possible intersections between types, patterns, strategies and styles of love

Eros Ludus Storge Mania Pragma Agape

Intrapsychic: Freud‘s three theories of love

o ―Happy love‖ o Free from too-


o Ideal love

o Neurotic love o Unresolved

Oedipal complex

o Narcissistic psychological type

o Loveless sexuality type

o Conflictual love type

o ―Happy love‖ o Free from too-


o Partly ideal love

o Neurotic love o Unresolved

Oedipal complex

o Narcissistic model of love

o Erotic psychological type

o Masochistic and sadistic love

o Narcissistic love

o Primary and anaclitic love

o Addicts of love

o Partly narcissistic model of love

o Narcissistic psychological type

o Free from too-destructive ambivalence

o Obsessional psychological type

o Aim-inhibited love

Humanistic/ sociocultural:

Fromm‘s theory of love

o Mature love Erotic love

o Act of will, decision and commitment

o Orgiastic state o Infantile

relatedness to mother and / or father – neurotic disturbance of love

o Lacks self love

o Mature love o Act of will,

decision and commitment

o Infantile relatedness to mother – neurotic disturbance of love

o Lacks self love o irrational love /

idolatrous love

o Immature love - ‗personality package‘

o Act of will, decision and commitment

o Mature love o Act of will,

decision and commitment

Interpersonal: Attachment theory

o Secure attachment pattern

o Avoidant / dismissing attachment pattern


o Ambivalent/ preoccupied attachment pattern

o Avoidant / dismissing attachment pattern


175

Eros Ludus Storge Mania Pragma Agape

Cognitive:

Interdependence theory

o Engages in cognitive and behavioural maintenance mechanisms

o Long-term communal exchanges

o Does not engage in cognitive and behavioural maintenance mechanisms

o Short-term exchange relationships



o May over-engage in the behavioural and cognitive maintenance mechanisms leaving partner feeling uncomfortable, guilty about the unequal investment size

o Communal exchanges at the expense of own needs

o Consciously, deliberately weighs up rewards, costs, outcomes and alternatives

o Once beloved is chosen he/she engages in cognitive and behavioural maintenance mechanisms




Social Construction: Love story

— o Collection story — o Sacrifice story o Police o Co-dependency

story

o Business story o Sacrifice story

Genetic, Biological:

Evolutionary theory

o Long-term ―domestic bliss strategy‖

o Men adopt a short-term ―he-man strategy‖

o Females adopt a short-term ―sexy-son‘s strategy‖


o Default to short-term sexual strategy



Type of love:

Passionate and companionate

o Passionate love that develops into companionate love too

— o Companionate love

o Passionate love struggles to be converted into companionate love

o Partly companionate love

—

Type of love:

Triangular theory

o Ideal or consummate love

o Infatuation love Companionate love o Infatuation love o Empty love —

176

2.12 Conclusions on love theories

Harlow‘s (1958) claim that psychologists not only appeared to be uninterested in the

origin and development of love but were also unaware of its very existence, is no

longer true. Instead, the above chronological literature review on romantic love shows

enormous diversity and depth. Although love cannot be fully captured and controlled

in knowledge, the different epistemologies, orientations and perspectives that were

investigated nevertheless provide rich and unique understandings of the overall

puzzle of love. Each piece assists in building, demystifying and illuminating more and

more parts of the overall conundrum of romantic love. This has not only allowed for

the gaining of cumulative and expanded understanding of love, but also the possible

identification of points of intersections and agreement between these unique,

different, and at times, contradictory perspectives.

Although there is as yet no complete understanding of love, the diverse puzzle pieces

that were considered, provided powerful and useful insights in this respect. Initially,

the study briefly outlined the factors that nurture attraction, liking and loving in the

initial stages of the romantic relationship lifecycle. The first puzzle piece that the study

examined comprised Freud‘s (1905, 1914, 1915) intrapsychic foundations. Thereafter

the researcher investigated Fromm‘s (1956) humanistic and sociocultural view of

love, which provided the second puzzle piece. This was followed by the third – an

exploration into the genetic / biological and interpersonal perspective of attachment

theory and how attachment patterns set in infancy are carried through to romantic

attachment in adulthood (Bowlby, 1969; Ainsworth et al., 1978; Hazan & Shaver,

1987). After that the economic nature of romantic love was considered utilising the

interdependent theory / social exchange theory, investment model and equity theory

(Clark & Mills, 1979; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Mills & Clark, 1994, 2001; Rusbult,

1983). This provided the fourth piece. Thereafter the fifth piece, Walster and Walster‘s

(1978) character and components of passionate and companionate love, was

investigated. This was followed by the sixth: Sternberg‘s (1986, 1988, 1995, 2000)

work on the components of love in the triangular theory of love and the different types

of love they yield when combined, as well as his later work – social constructionist

theory of love stories. The seventh factor to be examined was the evolution theory

177

(Buss, 1988, 1999, 2003, 2004) and how inherited biological and genetic make-up

shapes and explains behaviour in romantic relationships.

The final and central piece was Lee‘s (1976) colours of love typology – lovestyles.

Lee‘s multidimensional typology of love is fundamental to this study because it has

proved to be a productive and useful way of understanding and researching love not

only in the Western world but also cross-culturally. In addition, by utilising Lee‘s

(1976) lovestyles as the central puzzle piece, it has been useful in considering where

the other puzzle pieces in the study of romantic love intersect; it has assisted in

identifying, comparing, and contrasting points of commonality and agreement. This

has allowed for an even more expanded understanding of and further illumination as

regards the nature and puzzle of love.

After considering all the puzzle pieces of love and the intersections between their love

types and the tentative explanatory model of romantic love in Figure 2.6, perhaps the

model could be conceivably expanded into one as depicted in Figure 2.7. This model

illustrates that although there are a number of relevant explanations that inform the

individual‘s romantic love type, pattern, strategy or style, perhaps these overlapping

explanations suggest, over the span of one‘s development, a specific mode of loving.

178

Figure 2.7 A tentative integrated model of romantic love with a central puzzle piece

depicting types, patterns, strategies and styles of love

In the 1990s Borrello and Thompson (1990) suggested that over the last 30 years or

so, scholars worldwide had enriched the understanding of love by attempting to

develop definitions and theories of love. Twenty more years have passed and

researchers have attempted to test the various theories of love by conducting a range

of studies that combined these theories and interrogated and compared

commonalities, differences and correlations between the theories as the above

179

literature review revealed. These central theories, conceptual models, principles and

research findings described above provided various lenses through which to consider

and illuminate the complex, elusive and intricate phenomenon of intimate

relationships and romantic love. Having said that, it seems that that perhaps there will

always be an element of mystery and the ethereal when it comes to the subject of

romantic love and intimate relationships – perhaps there are still missing puzzle

pieces and maybe the overall puzzle will not ever be completed. Hendrick and

Hendrick (1989, p. 793) adds an additional complexity: ―love is … unruly … it means

different things to different people in different relationships at different points in time‖.

Therefore not only is love nebulous, multidimensional and multifaceted, it alters over

time, in different circumstances, amongst different people. An individual‘s

conceptualisation of romantic love is not independent of their cultural context. In

response to this, researchers have been striving to investigate and interrogate the

intersection between two constructs that are both nebulous and ‗fuzzy‘ – love and

culture – in an attempt to illuminate another factor in romantic love: how love is

influenced and shaped across cultures. Prior to exploring the intersection between

love and culture it is necessary to investigate the construct of culture.

The following chapter aims to firstly, define the nature of culture and the factors that

impact on culture: enculturation and acculturation; secondly, to examine the five

cultural values and dimensions outlined by Hofstede (1980, 1991, 2002):

individualism versus collectivism, large versus small power distance, masculinity

versus femininity, and strong versus weak uncertainty avoidance, and Hofstede and

Bond‘s (1988) fifth cultural dimension: long-term orientation versus short-term

orientation; and thirdly, to explore South Africa‘s broad cultural groupings: Black,

White, Coloured and Indian/Asian South Africans. Finally, before concluding the

chapter, the effects of globalisation on culture will be probed.

180

CHAPTER 3

Culture

3.1. Culture

Culture, like love, possesses an ethereal quality: it cannot be touched, seen or heard;

instead it is inferred from the behavioural products of prior generations. Mkhize

(2004a) suggests that it is through culture that ―people make sense of the world and

themselves‖ (p. 34). Culture is a ‗fuzzy‘ and nebulous construct that is constantly

changing it is difficult to define. According to Ruiz (2004, p. 526) ―culture is defined as

a set of meanings, values, everyday practices, behavioral norms, and beliefs used by

members of a particular group in society as a way of conceptualizing their unique views

of the world, as well as when interacting with their environments‖. From an

anthropological view the ―term culture refers to the customary ways of thinking and

behaving of a particular population or society‖ (Ember, Ember & Peregrine, 2002, p.

5). Culture may be viewed as consisting of values, ―language, nonverbal expressions,

social relationships, manifestations of emotions, religious beliefs and practices, and

socioeconomic ideologies‖ and a way of life that will be followed by most in that

society (Ruiz, 2004, p. 526; Segall et al., 1999).

According to Segall et al. (1999), culture is knowledge that is passed on from

generation to generation, through parents, education and mass media. This process

of cultural transmission from generation to generation is referred to as enculturation.

Through enculturation an individual is socialised into and learns the cultural norms,

values and socially appropriate ways of behaving in the society that one is born into

(Matsumoto, 2000; Segall et al., 1999). These, as well as beliefs, direct behaviour by

providing a framework for interpreting social situations and by prescribing acceptable

behaviour. Thus culture imposes a framework that filters and influences one‘s

interpretation of events (Matsumoto, 2000; Mwamwenda, 1999), implying that in a

181

social or interpersonal situation, different people from various cultures will hold

different views and may ascribe varying attributions to the causes of others‘

behaviour.

Culture and cultural transmission is not a static or homogeneous entity: cultural

norms, values and beliefs are constantly changing, adapting and being modified as

time passes. Both internal influences (enculturation) and external ones (acculturation)

impact on a culture (Matsumoto, 2000; Segall et al., 1999). Acculturation is complex

and multifaceted. Direct and continuous contact with a different culture may result in

individual changes in identification, attitudes, values and behavioural norms, causing

acculturation (Matsumoto, 2000; Segall et al., 1999). Although South Africa has

always been a melting pot of cultures where cultural leaking has occurred, following

the democratic South African 1994 elections, African, Indian, Coloured and Asian

people have been empowered politically, educationally, economically and

geographically. The demolition of apartheid has given way to many more

opportunities of contact between diverse cultures. This contact may induce change in

the original cultural patterns of either or all groups (Matsumoto, 2000; Segall et al.,

1999). Recently, researchers have emphasised that acculturation is an intricate

process and that the adoption of new cultural values and norms may either replace

the original cultural values, customs and norms or cause them to be adopted in

concurrent maintenance with the original ones (Berry et al., 1992; Segall et al., 1999).

Below, as illustrated in Figure 3.1 Berry et al. (1992) outline the three forms of cultural

transmission: vertical, horizontal and oblique; while enculturation and socialisation

constitute the two processes of cultural transmission. According to Berry et al. (1992)

vertical transmission is cultural transmission from parents to their children in the form

of values, skills, beliefs and motives; and it is also the only form of biological

transmission. Horizontal cultural transmission consists of learning from peers on a

day-to-day basis. Oblique cultural transmission represents learning from other adults

and institutions, for example, schools. These three forms of cultural transmission can

take place in the individual‘s own culture or in another / secondary culture. Should an

individual come into contact with another / secondary culture the cultural transmission

is termed acculturation transmission.

182

Figure 3.1. Vertical, horizontal and oblique forms of cultural transmission and

acculturation

Derived from (Berry & Cavalli-Sforza as cited in Berry et al., 1992)

Hofstede (1994a, p.5) defines culture as ―the collective programming of the mind

which distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another‖.

Hofstede (2002) states that 1) all human beings are alike in so far as they are all

biologically of the same species; 2) all humans are unique due to individual biological

DNA; and 3) all humans are social beings and are taught how to survive a social

world. According to Hofstede (2002, p. 34) ―there are an infinite number of ways to

form a culture, and no culture is objectively better or worse, superior or inferior, to

another‖. Nowadays there are distinctive cultures on different continents, in countries

and even sections of countries (Hofstede, 2002). Hofstede (2002) declares that

Oblique transmission

From other adults

General enculturation

Specific socialisation

Oblique transmission

From other adults

General enculturation

Specific socialisation

Horizontal transmission

General enculturation from peers

Specific socialisation from peers

Individual psychological

outcomes

Culture „A‟ (own culture)

culture transmission

Culture „B‟ (contact culture)

acculturation transmission

Horizontal transmission

General enculturation from peers

Specific socialisation from peers

Vertical transmission

General enculturation from parents

Specific socialisation from parents (child rearing)

183

culture is the result of the people of a region, country, continent adapting to the

conditions of life and that although each culture is distinct they all deal with the same

five basic problems of social life: identity, hierarchy, gender, truth and virtue. He

conceptualises these five problems and the way in which, when a group of people try

to resolve these issues, various dimensions of culture result (Table 3.1):

Table 3.1: How problems of social life are solved by culture

Problems of social life Description of basic problem Dimension of culture

Identity Relationship between individual and

group

Individualism versus

Collectivism

Hierarchy The degree of inequality between

the people that is assumed to be a

natural state of affairs

Power Distance

Gender Gender roles and the control of

aggression

Masculinity versus

Femininity

Truth How people in a culture cope with

the unpredictable and ambiguous

Uncertainty Avoidance

versus

Uncertainty Tolerance

Virtue Choice between present and future

virtue

Long-term Orientation

versus

Short-term Orientation

Derived from (Hofstede, 2002).

He postulates that the manner in which a group of people resolve the above five

issues or problems, is known as culture. Hofstede (2002) claims that the five issues of

culture evidence the corresponding five cultural values and dimensions that he places

on a continuum from one extreme to another (Table 3.2).

184

Table 3.2: Value dimensions

Dimension One extreme Other extreme

Identity Collectivism Individualism

Hierarchy Large Power Distance Small Power Distance

Gender Femininity Masculinity

Truth Strong Uncertainty Avoidance Weak Uncertainty Avoidance

Virtue Long-term Orientation Short-term Orientation

Derived from (Hofstede, 2002, p. 40).

Like Hofstede (1980), Schwartz (1997), Trompenaars (1993), Friske (1992) and

Douglas (1970, 1982) also studied aspects of cultural relations, values and

dimensions. Goodwin (1999) notes that although these researchers have broadened

our understanding with their individual distinctions, there is, however, considerable

overlap between the cultural factors presented by each researcher. This study will

draw predominantly on Hofstede‘s dimensions.

3.2. Hofstede‘s five dimensions of culture

A highly influential and fruitful approach to the exploration of culture is Hofstede‘s

(1980) theoretical construction. Hofstede delineated four, largely independent,

dimensions of cultural variation stemming from research into more than 117 000

employees in 66 countries (Hofstede, 1980, 1983). Hofstede termed the four

dimensions of culture as: individualism versus collectivism; large versus small

power distance; masculinity versus femininity; and strong versus weak

uncertainty avoidance. Hofstede and Bond‘s (1988) research yielded a fifth cultural

dimension: long-term orientation versus short-term orientation. These five

dimensions of culture not only provide a structure for the rather nebulous construct of

culture but also furnish cross-cultural researchers with a theoretical framework within

which to operationalise culture in order to make cross-cultural comparisons. Different

disciplines have made use of Hofstede‘s cultural dimensions differently; in psychology

185

individualism-collectivism and power distance have been employed most frequently

(Goodwin, 1999).

3.2.1 Individualism versus collectivism

Of Hofstede‘s five cultural dimensions, as just mentioned, individualism-collectivism

has attracted the most research in the discipline of psychology (Goodwin, 1999;

Hofstede, 1994a). This cultural dimension has to do with the relationship between the

individual and the group and is reflected in the way people live together; in other

words in societal contexts (Goodwin, 1999; Hofstede, 1980; Hofstede, 1994a). Initially

individualism and collectivism were conceptualised as representing opposing poles of

one cultural dimension (Goodwin, 1999; Hofstede, 1980; Hofstede, 1994a; Triandis,

1995). However, recent research suggests that cultures can be characterised by their

degrees of individualism and collectivism, thus implying a continuum rather than

opposing poles (Barrett, 2000; Segall et al., 1999).

Triandis (1995) defines individualism as ―a social pattern that consists of loosely

linked individuals who view themselves as independent of collectives; are primarily

motivated by their own, needs, rights and the contracts they have established with

others; give priority to their personal goals over the goals of others; and emphasize

rational analyses of the advantages and disadvantages to associating with others‖

(Triandis, 1995, p. 2). Persons who hail from individualistic societies are concerned

with the ‗I‘ and ‗me‘ and consider themselves to be autonomous (Triandis, 1995).

Therefore individualistic societies expect individuals to look after themselves and their

immediate nuclear family; ties outside of this immediate nuclear family are relatively

fluid. They ―are keen to detach themselves from family, community and religion: they

change their friends and marital partners readily, while ‗rational‘ principles and norms

form the basis of interaction‖ (Goodwin, 1999, p. 24).

Collectivism, individualism‘s polar opposite as a construct for representing culture, is

defined by Triandis (1995) as ―a social pattern consisting of closely linked individuals

who see themselves as part of one or more collectives (family, co-workers, tribe,

186

nation); are primarily motivated by the norms of, and duties imposed by those

collectives; willing to give priority to the goals of these collectives over their own

personal goals; and emphasize their connectedness to members of these collectives‖

(Triandis, 1995, p. 2). Therefore people who are born into collectivistic societies are

integrated into strong, cohesive in-groups (often extended families which include

uncles, aunts and grandparents) who provide protection and support in exchange for

unquestioning loyalty. Thus, in stark contrast to the individualistic emphasis, which

falls on ‗I‘ and ‗me‘; persons who hail from collectivistic societies emphasise the ‗we‘:

where duties and obligations to the group may override personal goals and

preferences.

The individualism and collectivism dimensions are conceptualised at a cultural level;

the proposed corresponding personality dimensions at the psychological level are

idiocentrism and allocentrism respectively (Kim, Triandis, Kagitcibasi, Choi & Yoon,

1994). Different cultures define the ‗self‘ differently (Barrett, 2000). Individualistic

cultures promote an independent view of the self and describe its individuals as

―egocentric, separate, autonomous, idiocentric and self contained‖ (Kim et al., 1994,

p. 2). However, collectivistic cultures promote an interdependent view of the self and

describe its individuals as ―sociocentric, holistic, collective, allocentric, ensembled,

constitutive, contextualist and relational‖ (Kim et al., 1994, p. 2-3).

Research has shown that the constructs of individualism and collectivism present an

objective assessment of cultural variations in social behaviours, beliefs, attitudes and

perceptions (Matsumoto, 2000; Segall et al., 1999; Smith & Bond, 1998). From the

individualism index (IDV) values, recorded in Table (3.3) below, it was found that

developed and Western countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia, New

Zealand and many of the Western European countries were situated high on the

individualism dimension whereas less developed and some Eastern countries such as

India and other countries in Asia, Latin America and Africa were located high on the

collectivism dimension; with Japan occupying a middle position on this dimension

(Hofstede, 1991).

187

Less than 40% of countries investigated fall above 50 on the individualism index. It

could therefore be said that, globally, collectivism is the rule while individualism is the

exception. The United States records a score of 91 and is shown to be the most

individualistic society. The individualistic mindset is clearly reflected in the ―American

dream‖ which is a strong component of the American psyche. The foundation of the

―American dream‖ is a belief that everyone, regardless of their status, has an equal

opportunity to create a better quality of life and a higher standard of living than their

parents had; that success and wealth is within anyone‘s reach should they want it

enough. The lowest individualistic score and the highest collectivistic score is

reported in Guatemala (6). This society regards the collectivistic principles and values

of integrating individuals into interdependent cohesive in-groups highly. South Africa

records a score of 65 and is ranked sixteenth, and therefore holds high to moderate

individualistic values. It would be expected that, being an African country, South

Africa would score higher on the collectivistic continuum. It may be postulated that

because this data was collected during the apartheid regime from a working

population that was more representative of the White South African population the

figures may be skewed to reflect a more Western orientation.

188

Table 3.3 Individualism index (IVD) values for 50 countries and 3 regions

Score

Rank

Country / Region IDV

Score

Score

Rank

Country / Region IDV

Score

1 USA 91 28 Turkey 37

2 Australia 90 29 Uruguay 36

3 Great Britain 89 30 Greece 35

4/5 Canada 80 31 Philippines 32

4/5 Netherlands 80 32 Mexico 30

6 New Zealand 79 33/35 East Africa 27

7 Italy 76 33/35 Yugoslavia 27

8 Belgium 75 33/35 Portugal 27

9 Denmark 74 36 Malaysia 26

10/11 Sweden 71 37 Hong Kong 25

10/11 France 71 38 Chile 23

12 Ireland (Republic of) 70 39/41 West Africa 20

13 Norway 69 39/41 Singapore 20

14 Switzerland 68 39/41 Thailand 20

15 Germany F.R. 67 42 Salvador 19

16 South Africa 65 43 South Korea 18

17 Finland 63 44 Taiwan 17

18 Austria 55 45 Peru 16

19 Israel 54 46 Costa Rica 15

20 Spain 51 47/48 Pakistan 14

21 India 48 47/48 Indonesia 14

22/23 Japan 46 49 Colombia 13

22/23 Argentina 46 50 Venezuela 12

24 Iran 41 51 Panama 11

25 Jamaica 39 52 Ecuador 8

26/27 Brazil 38 53 Guatemala 6

26/27 Arab countries 38

Derived from Hofstede (1991, p. 53)

According to Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk and Gelfand (1995), the individualistic

cultures tend to be more modern and industrialised than collectivistic societies, while

collectivistic cultures tend to be more traditional and agriculturally based than

individualistic societies. Hofstede (1980, 1994a, 2002) reports that most wealthy

189

countries in the world are more individualistic and most poorer countries are more

collectivistic, thus indicating a positive correlation between Gross Domestic Product

and individualism. He claims that wealth makes it easier for individuals to take care of

themselves, empowering them to no longer need to rely on the group for survival.

Research undertaken by Singelis et al. (1995) yielded similar results in that the upper

and middle classes of a society tend more to the individualistic continuum and the

lower classes to the collectivistic continuum, thus indicating that wealth and abundant

resources afford the individual freedom to pursue their personal goals, needs and

rights. Hence financial independence leads to social and emotional independence. ―In

contrast, individuals in poorer countries are more dependent on one another and

need to share limited resources‖ (Goodwin, 1999, p. 25). Hofstede (2002) cautions

that people need to balance the pursuit of their own goals, needs and rights with

those of the group because being too individualistic may result in one feeling alone

and isolated while being too collectivistic may result in total repression of individual

identity. This has implications for intimate romantic relationships and is discussed in

more detail in the following chapter.

In the light of the above and following the arrival of democracy in South Africa,

perhaps the emerging upper and middle African, Coloured and Indian / Asian classes

may be migrating along the individualism-collectivism continuum towards

individualism.

Finally, Triandis (2001) cautions cross-cultural researchers to bear in mind that: 1) not

all collectivistic (or individualistic) societies have the same cultural characteristics –

Mediterranean collectivism differs from Korean collectivism which differs from Israeli

kibbutz collectivism; and 2) no culture is monolithically individualistic or collectivistic;

all cultures are mixes of both. "A culture should not be characterized as individualist

or collectivist. That kind of characterization is simplistic Germany is more

individualistic than Hong Kong, but even in Germany, people select collectivist

cognitions 37% of the time and in Hong Kong they select individualist cognitions 45%

of the time" (Triandis, 2001, p. 40).

190

3.2.2 Power distance

Hofstede‘s second dimension of culture, power distance, has also attracted interest

and discussion in cross-cultural literature. Power distance is defined by Hofstede

(2002, p. 36) as ―the degree of inequality between the people that is assumed to be a

natural state of affairs‖. Power distance also investigates the customary norms of

inequality within a culture and the degree of respect and deference accorded to those

in superior positions. He adds that it is "the extent to which the less powerful

members of institutions [family, school and the community] and organizations [places

of work] within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally"

(Hofstede, 1994a, p. 28). Consequently power distance is defined and explained from

below, by the less powerful members, but the way power is distributed is explained

from above, by the more powerful members.

As with the dimension of individualism versus collectivism, power distance is also

related to the wealth of a country: as a country becomes wealthier there is an

increased tendency in most cases for power distance to decrease. A high power

distance index reveals that inequalities of power and wealth have been allowed to

grow within the particular society so that its members think that people are not equal

and should not be (Hofstede, 2002). Any significant upward mobility of this society‘s

individuals is restricted. A low power distance index points towards a society that

underplays the differences between individuals‘ power and wealth. In these societies

equality and opportunity for all is emphasised.

The power distance index (PDI) values in the Table (3.4) below indicate that power

distance scores are high for Asian, Latin, Arab countries, and African countries: this

points to unequal distribution of wealth and the fact that the people of these countries

are very limited in their opportunity to rise in society. As time passes it appears that

the gap between the ‗have‘ and ‗have-nots‘ increases in these countries. South Africa

recorded a PDI score of 49 pre the 1994 elections, which is indicative of a moderate

gap between the ‗have‘ and ‗have-nots‘, as well as revealing that South African

citizens are moderately restricted in their opportunity to rise in society (Hofstede,

191

1994a). Once again these results may be skewed as the population used was more

than likely representative of White South Africans during the apartheid era. The PDI

value may or may not have changed after the 1994 elections and part of this study is

intended to establish whether there have indeed been any changes in the degree of

power distance in South Africa since democracy was established. Nordic countries,

Germany, Australian, Canada and the USA showed a moderately low PDI score,

indicating that there is moderate gap between the wealthy and the poor and that the

individuals of these countries propound a strong belief in equality for each citizen.

Therefore, citizens are afforded some opportunity to rise in society and there is a

moderately equal distribution of wealth compared to the societies with the higher

scores. Israel and Austria record a very low PDI score which is indicative of relatively

little difference between the people who are in power and the people who are not

(Hofstede, 1991).

Table 3.4 Power distance index (PDI) values for 50 countries and 3 regions

Score

Rank

Country / Region PDI

Score

Score

Rank


Score

1 Malaysia 104 27/28 South Korea 60

2/3 Guatemala 95 29/30 Iran 58

2/3 Panama 95 29/30 Taiwan 58

4 Philippines 94 31 Spain 57

5/6 Mexico 81 32 Pakistan 55

5/6 Venezuela 81 33 Japan 54

7 Arab countries 80 34 Italy 50

8/9 Ecuador 78 35/36 Argentina 49

8/9 Indonesia 78 35/36 South Africa 49

10/11 India 77 37 Jamaica 45

10/11 West Africa 77 38 USA 40

12 Yugoslavia 76 39 Canada 39

13 Singapore 74 40 Netherlands 38

14 Brazil 69 41 Australia 36

15/16 France 68 42/44 Costa Rica 35

15/16 Hong Kong 68 42/44 Germany F.R. 35

17 Colombia 67 42/44 Great Britain 35

18/19 Salvador 66 45 Switzerland 34

192

Score

Rank


Score

Score

Rank


Score

18/19 Turkey 66 46 Finland 33

20 Belgium 65 47/48 Norway 31

21/23 East Africa 64 47/48 Sweden 31

21/23 Peru 64 49 Ireland (Republic of) 28

21/23 Thailand 64 50 New Zealand 22

24/25 Chile 63 51 Denmark 18

24/25 Portugal 63 52 Israel 13

26 Uruguay 61 53 Austria 11

27/28 Greece 60


3.2.3 Masculinity versus femininity

Hofstede‘s (1980) masculinity versus femininity dimension is powerful, yet often

understated by researchers (Hofstede, 1998). Masculinity, in relation to its opposite,

femininity, refers to the distribution of roles between the genders. Hofstede (1991, p.

261-2) defines this dimension as follows: "masculinity pertains to societies in which

social gender roles are clearly distinct (i.e., men are supposed to be assertive, tough,

and focused on material success whereas women are supposed to be more modest,

tender, and concerned with the quality of life); femininity pertains to societies in which

social gender roles overlap (i.e., both men and women are supposed be modest,

tender, and concerned with the quality of life)." ―Feminine cultures stress quality of

life, nurturance, warm personal relationships and fluid sex roles. In ‗masculine‘

cultures competition, success and performance are more prevalent values, and there

is a greater emphasis on sex role differentiation‖ (Goodwin, 1999, p. 27). Therefore

despite the name, this cultural dimension has little to do with gender roles (Germany

is a masculine culture, but gender empowerment is high, while most Muslim nations

are feminine cultures, but gender empowerment is low). Rather, it relates to nurturing

/ care-orientated (feminine) versus assertive / achievement-orientated (masculine)

behaviours and ideals; like all of Hofstede's ratings, masculinity/femininity is believed

193

to be ingrained in the cultural mindset (Hofstede, 1998, 2002). In tougher or

masculine societies it is found that there exists an unequal role distribution between

men and women and ―more emphasis on achievement and fighting than on caring

and compromise‖ (Hofstede, 2002, p. 37).

The masculinity index describes the degree to which masculine values are valued

over feminine values. With respect to the masculinity Index (MAS) values in Table

(3.5) below, research shows that Japan (masculine (MAS) score of 95) is the world's

most masculine society, while Sweden (MAS of 5) is the most feminine society

(Hofstede, 1991). Masculinity is also high in some European countries like Austria, Italy

and Switzerland, and moderately high in Germany, South Africa, USA and Anglo

countries (Hofstede, 1991). These countries hold to similar values of assertiveness,

materialism/material success, self-centredness, power, strength, and individual

achievements. Masculine countries exhibit a high degree of ego enhancement

(Hofstede, 1998). The masculinity index (MAS) values are low in Nordic countries and

in the Netherlands and moderately low in some Latin and Asian countries like France,

Spain, South Korea and Thailand (Hofstede, 1991). These countries adhere to similar

values of nurturance, modesty, tenderness, relationships and the quality of life.

Feminine countries have a high level of relationship enhancement (Hofstede, 1998).

South Africa records a MAS score of 63 and is ranked 13/14th out of 53 countries: it

falls into the moderately masculine culture and, as a country, holds those said values

in esteem (Hofstede, 1991).

Table 3.5 Masculinity index (MAS) values for 50 countries and 3 regions

Score

Rank

Country / Region MAS

Score

Score

Rank


Score

1 Japan 95 28 Singapore 48

2 Austria 79 29 Israel 47

3 Venezuela 73 30/31 Indonesia 46

4/5 Italy 70 30/31 West Africa 46

4/5 Switzerland 70 32/33 Turkey 45

6 Mexico 69 32/33 Taiwan 45

7/8 Ireland (Republic of) 68 34 Panama 44

7/8 Jamaica 68 35/36 Iran 43

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden

194

Score

Rank


Score

Score

Rank


Score

9/10 Great Britain 66 35/36 France 43

9/10 Germany F.R. 66 37/38 Spain 42

11/12 Philippines 64 37/38 Peru 42

11/12 Colombia 64 39 East Africa 41

13/14 South Africa 63 40 Salvador 40

13/14 Ecuador 63 41 South Korea 39

15 USA 62 42 Uruguay 38

16 Australia 61 43 Guatemala 37

17 New Zealand 58 44 Thailand 34

18/19 Greece 57 45 Portugal 31

18/19 Hong Kong 57 46 Chile 28

20/21 Argentina 56 47 Finland 26

20/21 India 56 48/49 Yugoslavia 21

22 Belgium 54 48/49 Costa Rica 21

23 Arab countries 53 50 Denmark 16

24 Canada 52 51 Netherlands 14

25/26 Malaysia 9 50 52 Norway 8

25/26 Pakistan 50 53 Sweden 5

27 Brazil 49


At times there has been confusion between the distinguishing of the individualism

versus collectivism dimension (Ind/Col) from the masculine versus feminine

dimension (Mas/Fem) (Hofstede, 1998). Whereas relationships in Ind/Col are

predetermined by group ties, that is independence from in-groups versus dependence

on in-groups, relationships in Mas/Fem concern ego enhancement versus relationship

enhancement, regardless of group ties (Hofstede, 1998). In other words an individual

from a collectivistic society will help his or her people whereas an individual from a

feminine society will help anyone in need. Hofstede (1998) emphasises that unlike the

Ind/Col and power distance dimensions the masculine versus feminine dimension is

unrelated to and not impacted on by wealth.

195

3.2.4 Uncertainty avoidance

Hofstede defines uncertainty avoidance as "the extent to which the members of a

culture feel threatened by uncertain or unknown situations." (Hofstede, 1994a, p.

113). Intolerable anxiety is a basic human response to extreme uncertainty and every

culture has developed ways to alleviate and cope with the anxiety of the unknown by

minimising uncertainty via technology, law and religion. According to Hofstede (1991),

feelings of uncertainty are acquired and learned from one‘s cultural heritage.

Therefore different societies display differing levels of tolerance and comfort for the

unpredictable, novel and unusual; for unstructured situations; uncertainty and

ambiguity (Hofstede, 2002). Cultures who are high as regards uncertainty avoidance

exercise low tolerance, are consequently uncomfortable with what is different,

unpredictable and ambiguous and will try to minimise situations where ‗what is

different is dangerous‘. Uncertainty avoiding cultures try to minimise and plan for the

possibility of such situations by laying down strict laws and rules, safety and security

measures, and by holding a belief in one truth (Hofstede, 2002; Goodwin, 1999). The

cultures that score low on uncertainty avoidance, or uncertainty accepting cultures,

are more tolerant of what is different, unpredictable and ambiguous and are therefore

many-truth orientated, holding the attitude of ‗what is different is curious‘ (Hofstede,

2002; Goodwin, 1999).

Research into the uncertainty avoidance index (UAI) values in Table (3.6) below

indicates that Greece scores the highest and Singapore the lowest. Uncertainty

avoidance scores are higher in Japan, in Latin, Mediterranean, and in German

speaking countries, but lower in Anglo, Nordic and Chinese countries. South Africa

records a UAI score of 49, is ranked 39/40th out of 53 countries and is therefore

moderately an uncertainty accepting culture: in other words, as a country it is more

tolerant of what is different, unpredictable and ambiguous.

196

Table 3.6 Uncertainty avoidance index (UAI) values for 50 countries and 3 regions

Score

Rank

Country / Region UAI

Score

Score

Rank

Country / Region UAI

Score

1 Greece 112 28 Ecuador 67

2 Portugal 104 29 Germany F.R. 65

3 Guatemala 101 30 Thailand 64

4 Uruguay 100 31/32 Iran 59

5/6 Belgium 94 31/32 Finland 59

5/6 Salvador 94 33 Switzerland 58

7 Japan 92 34 West Africa 54

8 Yugoslavia 88 35 Netherlands 53

9 Peru 87 36 East Africa 52

10/15 France 86 37 Australia 51

10/15 Chile 86 38 Norway 50

10/15 Spain 86 39/40 South Africa 49

10/15 Costa Rica 86 39/40 New Zealand 49

10/15 Panama 86 41/42 Indonesia 48

10/15 Argentina 86 41/42 Canada 48

16/17 Turkey 85 43 USA 46

16/17 South Korea 85 44 Philippines 44

18 Mexico 82 45 India 40

19 Israel 81 46 Malaysia 36

20 Colombia 80 47/48 Great Britain 35

21/22 Venezuela 76 47/48 Ireland (Republic of) 35

21/22 Brazil 76 49/50 Hong Kong 29

23 Italy 75 49/50 Sweden 29

24/25 Pakistan 70 51 Denmark 23

24/25 Austria 70 52 Jamaica 13

26 Taiwan 69 53 Singapore 8

27 Arab countries 68


197

3.2.5 Long-term orientation versus short-term orientation

After frequent criticism that Hofstede‘s work was based on Western concepts and

thinking and after the result of his co-operation with Michael Bond, Hofstede (1991)

introduced a fifth dimension to his work: Long-term versus short-term orientation which

focuses on future and present virtue (Hofstede, 1991; 2002). Bond (1988), who termed

the new dimension Confucian dynamism, highlighted that both the positively and the

negatively rated values of this dimension are found in the teachings of Confucius. Long-

term orientation is characterised by ―persistence, ordering relationships by status and

observing this order, thrift, and having a sense of shame‖, whereas short-term

orientation is characterised by ―personal steadiness and stability, protecting your ‗face‘,

respect for tradition and reciprocation of greetings, favours, and gifts‖ (Hofstede, 1991,

p. 165-6). Long-term orientation was found to be positively correlated with national

growth (Hofstede, 1991). This is evident in the countries known as the ‗Five Dragons‘

(Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea and Singapore) whose economic growth has

been surprisingly fast in the past few decades. Hofstede (1991) argues that although the

short-term orientation characteristic of protecting one‘s face or face saving is markedly

present in East Asia, the low scores on this pole indicated that the people of the region

want to consciously de-emphasise it.

From the long-term orientation index (LTO) values Table (3.7) below, it is evident that

many East Asian nations, such as those mentioned, tend to score especially high on

long-term orientation but others do not, for example the Philippines. Most European

and American nations score low while the less developed nations like Pakistan and

African countries score very low and are therefore very short-term orientated. China

scored highest and Pakistan lowest. South Africa does not, as yet, have a LTO score.

198

Table 3.7 Long-term orientation index (LTO) values for 23 countries

Score

Rank

Country / Region LTO

Score

Score

Rank

Country / Region LTO

Score

1 China 118 13 Poland 32

2 Hong Kong 96 14/15 Australia 31

3 Taiwan 87 14/15 Germany 31

4 Japan 80 16 New Zealand 30

5 South Korea 75 17 United States 29

6 Brazil 65 18/19 Great Britain 25

7 India 61 18/19 Zimbabwe 25

8 Thailand 56 20 Canada 23

9 Singapore 48 21 Philippines 19

10 Netherlands 44 22 Nigeria 16

11 Bangladesh 40 23 Pakistan 00

12 Sweden 33


3.2.6 Summary of Hofstede‘s cultural dimensions

Below, in Table 3.8, is a summary of Hofstede‘s cultural dimensions by country or

region in alphabetical order. Each score is coded into high (H), moderate (M) and low

(L).

Table 3.8 Summary of values of Hofstede‟s cultural dimensions by country or region

Country Individualism

Power

Distance Masculinity

Uncertainty

Avoidance

Long term

orientation

Arab countries 38 M 80 H 53 M 68 M

Argentina 46 M 49 M 56 M 86 H

Australia 90 H 36 L 61 M 51 M 31 L

Austria 55 M 11 L 79 H 70 M

Belgium 75 H 65 M 54 M 94 H

Brazil 38 M 69 M 49 M 76 M 65 M

Canada 80 H 39 L 52 M 48 M 23 L

Chile 23 L 63 M 28 L 86 H

199


Power


Uncertainty

Avoidance

Long term

orientation

China, Mainland 118 H

Colombia 13 L 67 M 64 M 80 H

Costa Rica 15 L 35 L 21 L 86 H

Denmark 74 H 18 L 16 L 23 L

East Africa 27 L 64 M 41 M 52 M

Ecuador 8 L 78 H 63 M 67 M

Finland 63 M 33 L 26 L 59 M

France 71 H 68 M 43 M 86 H

Germany FR 67 H 35 L 66 H 65 M 31 L

Great Britain 89 H 35 L 66 H 35 L 25 L

Greece 35 M 60 M 57 M 112 H

Guatemala 6 L 95 H 37 M 101 H

Hong Kong 25 L 68 M 57 M 29 L 96 H

India 48 M 77 H 56 M 40 L 61 M

Indonesia 14 L 78 H 46 M 48 M

Iran 41 M 58 M 43 M 59 M

Ireland 70 H 28 L 68 H 35 L

Israel 54 M 13 L 47 M 81 H

Italy 76 H 50 M 70 H 75 M

Jamaica 39 M 45 M 68 H 13 L

Japan 46 M 54 M 95 H 92 H 80 H

Malaysia 26 L 104 H 50 M 36 L

Mexico 30 L 81 H 69 H 82 H

Netherlands 80 H 38 L 14 L 53 M 44 M

New Zealand 79 H 22 L 58 M 49 M 30 L

Norway 69 H 31 L 8 L 50 M

Pakistan 14 L 55 M 50 M 70 M

Panama 11 L 95 H 44 M 86 H

Peru 16 L 64 M 42 M 87 H

Philippines 32 L 94 H 64 M 44 M 19 L

Poland 32 L

Portugal 27 L 63 M 31 L 104 H

Salvador 19 L 66 M 40 M 94 H

Singapore 20 L 74 H 48 M 8 L 48 M

South Africa 65 H 49 M 63 M 49 M

South Korea 18 L 60 M 39 M 85 H 75 M

200


Power


Uncertainty

Avoidance

Long term

orientation

Spain 51 M 57 M 42 M 86 H

Sweden 71 H 31 L 5 L 29 L 33 L

Switzerland 68 H 34 L 70 H 58 M

Taiwan 17 L 58 M 45 M 69 M 87 H

Thailand 20 L 64 M 34 L 64 M 56 M

Turkey 37 M 66 M 45 M 85 H

Uruguay 36 M 61 M 38 M 100 H

USA 91 H 40 L 62 M 46 M 29 L

Venezuela 12 L 81 H 73 H 76 M

West Africa 20 L 77 H 46 M 54 M 16 L

Yugoslavia 27 L 76 H 21 L 88 H

Table 3.9 reflects a summary of the countries recording the top three and bottom

three scores in each dimension.

Table 3.9 Top three and bottom three country values on Hofstede‟s cultural

dimensions

Individualism Large Power

Distance

Masculinity Strong Uncertainty

Avoidance

Long-term

Orientation

High USA Malaysia Japan Greece China

Australia Guatemala Austria Portugal Hong Kong

Great Britain Panama Venezuela Guatemala Taiwan

Low Panama Denmark Netherlands Denmark Philippines

Ecuador Israel Norway Jamaica Nigeria

Guatemala Austria Sweden Singapore Pakistan

Table 3.10 reflects South Africa‘s scores with respect to Hofstede‘s (1991)

dimensions. South Africa scores in the moderate range of all these, with the

exception of the individualism-collectivism dimension, where it scores at the lower

end of the high individualism scores when compared to other countries. As noted

earlier these scores may be skewed because the sample used was more than likely

from a pre-apartheid predominantly White South African population and is therefore

not indicative of South Africa as a whole.

201

Table 3.10 South Africa‟s rank and values on Hofstede‟s cultural dimensions

Individualism Large Power

Distance

Masculinity Strong Uncertainty

Avoidance

Long-term

Orientation

Rank 16 35/36 13/14 39/40 unknown

Value 65 49 63 49 unknown

high moderate moderate moderate unknown

3.2.7 Criticism and limitations of Hofstede‘s cultural dimensions

Hofstede (2002) outlines a number of difficulties with regards to culture. He observes

that although culture is not universally accepted and even though there are numerous

ways of defining it, culture nonetheless concerns the social world people live in and the

way in which groups of people construct and shape their lives. He adds that culture can

never be pinned down; that ―culture only manifests itself through social action that

always takes place in a changing context‖ (Hofstede, 2002, 41). As a result of culture‘s

changeable and dynamic nature it is difficult to measure it reliably and validly.

Other researchers also question the reliability and validity of his research by highlighting

the limitations that exist when data is collected through questionnaires (Goodwin, 1999).

Tayeb (1996) points out that Hofstede‘s research is founded on an attitude-survey

questionnaire, which Tayeb asserts is the least appropriate way of studying culture.

However, it could be argued that when attempting to compare culture across so many

countries, practically, Hofstede‘s survey-based approach is in actual fact a highly

efficient way of doing so. As Hofstede (2002) notes, different members of the same

culture interpret and articulate their culture in a way that may not be understood and

accepted by members of the same cultural group. Related to this concept is the point

that the averages of a country do not relate to individuals of that country and that not all

individuals (or their multiple selves) or even regions / races with subcultures fit into a

country‘s cultural model. In addition Hofstede‘s sample comprised middle-class

professional employees, teachers and students, which he recognises are not reflective

of a country‘s general population (Goodwin, 1999; Hofstede, 1991).

202

Fernandez et al., (1997) points out that Hofstede‘s classic work has been criticised for

reflecting his own beliefs about what is and is not a suitable measure of a value. Finally,

Hofstede‘s research has been criticised as being outdated (Goodwin, 1999). By

Hofstede‘s own account culture is dynamic and changeable and is impacted on by

internal (enculturation) and external (acculturation) influences. Fernandez et al., (1997)

undertook a study that investigated the time differences since Hofstede‘s study (more

than 25 years previously). Their results show that Japan scored lower on uncertainty

avoidance than in Hofstede‘s study; Mexico scored higher on the individualism-

collectivism continuum, while the United States and Germany have become more

feminine over the last 25 years.

Having outlined the criticisms and limitations of Hofstede‘s cultural dimensions model it

is important to note that it is nonetheless a fruitful and acknowledged work in the field of

culture research. Although the work provides a relatively general framework for analysis,

it is nevertheless a useful guide to understanding the generic differences in culture

between countries in that it reduces the complexities of culture and its interactions into

five relatively easily understood, and to some extent measurable, cultural dimensions,

thus allowing comparisons to be made.

Having gained a clearer understanding of culture it is important to clarify the differences

between nation, ethnic group and race prior to investigating South African culture.

3.3. Nation, ethnic group and race

According to Fenton (2003) ethnic group, race and nation share the same core:

descent or ancestry and culture. He clarifies that, although they share the same

kernel, there are differences when one moves from the common core outwards; more

specifically, 1) race makes explicit reference to physical or ‗visible‘ differences; 2)

nations are associated with state or political difference; and 3) ethnic groups are a

subset of a nation, referring to cultural differences that are foreign, exotic or belong to

a minority.

203

Race refers to a group of individuals that exhibit common physiognomy, phenotypic

similarities that arise from physical, genetic or biological dispositions, such as skin

colour, height, facial features and hair texture (McBride Murray, Phillips Smith & Hill,

2001; Ruiz, 2004; Segall et al., 1999). Ruiz (2004) acknowledges that the validity of

this definition has been questioned. Segall et al., (1999) agree, considering that

variations of physical, genetic or biological dispositions constitute a continuous

dimension rather than being categorical. Marger (1991, p. 21) emphasises that pure

races do not exist and that ―racial groups differ in relative, not absolute ways‖. Marger

(1991) concedes that there are physical differences (distinctive gene frequencies and

phenotypic traits) amongst people due to eons of inbreeding and adaptations to

physical environments. And it is these physical differences that allow them to fall into

―typical‖ statistical categories. However these ―typical‖ physical types tend to

intersect, intermingle and blend into one another. He adds that ―races are socially

defined groupings and are meaningful only to the extent that people make them so‖

(Marger, 1991, p. 35).

Hence it may be said that classification of race is on the whole arbitrary and depends

on the specific objectives of the classifier. Today, more than fifteen years after the

abolition of apartheid, South African government officials still divide population

estimates into four racial groups: African, White, Coloured and Indian / Asian,

indicating that although race as a definition and categorisation has been rigorously

questioned its conceptualisation and use has remained robust in South Africa

(Statistics South Africa, 2008) and, according to Lock (1993), throughout the world.

Not only has race remained important in South Africa as a mode of categorisation but

it is also politically important, for example, as in Black Economic Empowerment

(BEE), employment equity quotas, affirmative action, etcetera. This inquiry will

categorise the people of South African according to the four current official South

African racial categories (Statistics South Africa, 2008).

Marger (1991, p. 35) defines an ethnic group as ―a group within a larger society that

displays a common set of cultural traits, a sense of community among its members

based on presumed common heritage, a feeling of ethnocentrism on the part of the

group members, ascribed group membership, and, in some cases, a distinct territory‖.

204

Thus Marger (1991) agrees with Fenton (2003) that ethnic groups constitute a ‗subset of

a nation‘. According to McBride Murray et al. (2001) and Ruiz (2004) ethnicity is a

subjective, self-reported sense of belonging to a particular group of people who identify

themselves as interconnected because they share a common origin and history as well

as a common milieu of cultural values, customs and traditions that are perceived by

outsiders as different, unfamiliar and unusual. Feinberg (1993) notes that ethnicity is a

multifaceted phenomenon and that although it can include various elements (e.g.

historical, political, psychological and economic) it is a resource that can be used to

either promote unity or threaten peace and stability. Jones (1993) considers that

being part of an ethnic group gives one a sense of belonging, identification and

meaning. He adds that ethnicity is a created and constructed phenomenon since the

origin of ethnic groups is often based on recent history. Grobler (1993, p. 4) highlights

the dynamic phenomenon of ethnicity in South Africa: ―at times in South Africa‘s

history it is possible to identify all the White people in a specific community as a single

ethnic group. The same is sometimes true of, for example, virtually all the Black

inhabitants of a specific area. However, at other times, those same White people on

the one hand and those same Black people on the other hand, could and did dissolve

into different and even conflicting ethnic groups‖.

South Africa as a nation is different from any other country and displays an overall and

idiosyncratic South African culture which is birthed out of the kaleidoscope of cultures

and heritages that co-exist in the nation. In 1994 during Nelson Mandela‘s presidency

he, with the help of Archbishop Desmond Tutu, introduced the concept of

multiculturalism into the South African national identity by means of the creation of the

image ‗rainbow nation‘. When Mbeki took over the presidency he emphasised the

‗African Renaissance‘ discourse. The ‗African Renaissance‘ 1) was focused on

creating an ‗African information super highway‘ and 2) linked the national identity with

Black Africanness (Alexander, 2006). As Alexander (2006) comments, this, together

with the legislation and policies like BEE, has left some minority parties and the other

three racial groups feeling excluded from the new national identity.

Alexander (2006) also observes that globalisation has impacted on South African

immigration and emigration. He says mostly White, but a higher than expected

205

percentage of Black, South Africans emigrate, mainly to the United Kingdom,

because they are able to earn more internationally than at home. The majority of

immigrants into South Africa are from neighbouring countries and are illegal. Although

South Africans are known to be xenophobic towards these immigrants they are much

more accepting of skilled White foreigners who arrive in South Africa with foreign

currency.

Alexander (2006) suggests that sport (e.g. rugby, cricket, soccer, athletics, and

swimming) plays an important part in shaping national identity. Whilst rugby and

cricket primarily draw White South African crowds and soccer Black South African

spectators ―the passive support for South African teams is nonetheless pervasive and

multiracial‖ (Alexander, 2006, p.41).

Although South African‘s kaleidoscopic cultures and heritages co-exist they are not

fully integrated due to history, past regulation and in some cases choice (Joyce, 2005).

Joyce (2005, p. 13) suggests that ―any objective summary of the diverse population

must take account of the separate identities‖. Black South Africans are the dominant

racial group in South Africa. The other racial physically distinct and divergent groups in

South African are the three groups already mentioned. Each of these racial groups

carries cultural heritages that are distinctive from one another (Joyce, 2005; Marger,

1991; Mmusi, 1993). Within each of these groups distinct ethnic groups exist and these

in turn exhibit cultural heritages that are unique from one another (Joyce, 2005; Marger,

1991; Mmusi, 1993).

3.4. South Africa‘s groupings

Bowes and Pennington (2003) claim that one of the most complex webs of different

but interfacing cultures in the world resides in South Africa with its Black, Coloured,

Indian / Asian and White population groups and its eleven different languages. They

go on to say that South Africa has within her very diverse tribal customs, the full

spectrum of religious sects as well as large numbers of ‗international cultures‘

(Chinese, Greek, Japanese, Nigerian, Portuguese and Zimbabwean to name a few).

Although South Africa, ―The Rainbow Nation‖, is a melting pot of widely divergent

206

cultures and heritages where blurring of cultural boundaries is occurring due to

acculturation, it is important to outline and contrast the four main South African racial

groupings that exist and their cultural and ethnic subgroups (Berry et al., 1992; Joyce,

2005; Marger, 1991; Matsumoto, 2000; Meyer, Mmusi, 1993; Viljoen, 2002a; Segall et

al., 1999; South African Tourism, 2006). The 2006 mid year population estimates were

(Statistics South Africa, 2008): the total population was estimated at 48.7 million with

approximately 25.2 million (52%) of the population being female. Almost a third (32%)

of the population was under 15 years old and approximately 7% was over sixty years

old. Reports (Statistics South Africa, 2008) indicate that the majority of the South

African population are Africans (38.6 million or 79.2 %); followed by the White

population (4.5 million or 9.2%); the Coloured population (4.4 million or 9.0%); and

finally the Indian / Asian population (1.2 million or 2.6%).

Figure 3.2. South African National Population Estimates, 2006

Derived from Statistics South Africa (2008).

However within these four racial groupings the cultural groups are further nuanced.

Research delineates South Africa's population into the following groups (Hammond-

Tooke, 1993; Joyce, 2005; Mmusi, 1993; South African Tourism, 2006):

African Group

o The Nguni (including the Zulu, Xhosa, Ndebele and Swazi), who

constitute two thirds of the population

o The Sotho-Tswana people (includes the Southern, Northern and Western

Sotho (Tswana) people)

black

white

coloured

indian/asian

207

o The Tsonga

o The Venda

o Other immigrants from Africa

White Group

o The Afrikaners (of Dutch origin)

o The English

o Other immigrants from Europe

Coloured Group

o Coloureds

o The Khoikhoi and San people

Indian / Asian Group

o Indians

o Other immigrants from Asia

There are 11 officially recognised languages, namely: Afrikaans, English, Southern

Ndebele, Northern Sotho, Sesotho, Swati, Tsonga, Tswana, Venda, Xhosa and Zulu.

Most South Africans are multilingual and English is fairly widely spoken, particularly in

urban centres (South African Information, 2006; South African Tourism, 2006; South

African Venues, 2006).

Almost 80% of South Africa's population identifies with the Christian faith. Other

significant religious groups include the Hindus (Hindu), Muslims (Islam) and Jewish

(Judaism) (Pavlou, 2005; South African Information, 2006; South African Tourism,

2006; South African Venues, 2006).

3.4.1. African cultural group

Although almost 80% of South Africa's population is African or Black, this grouping is

neither culturally nor linguistically homogenous (Hammond-Tooke, 1993; Marger, 1991;

Mmusi, 1993; South African Information, 2006; Statistics South Africa, 2008). This group

does share marked historical and cultural affinities but also encompasses distinct

cultural identities that are distinguished into discrete groups by tradition, custom, social

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afrikaans

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Ndebele_language

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Ndebele_language

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Sotho_language

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sesotho_language

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swati_language

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsonga_language

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tswana_language

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venda_language

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xhosa_language

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zulu_language

208

system and language (Joyce, 2005). There are four main classic ethnographic African

groups: Nguni, Sotho, Tsonga and Venda (Hammond-Tooke, 1993). The Nguni people

predominantly comprise the Zulu, Xhosa, Ndebele and Swazi. The Sotho people

consist of the Southern Sotho (which includes the Kwena and Tlokwa), Northern Sotho

(which includes the Pedi, Lovedu and Kgaga) and Western Sotho (Tswana) (which

includes the Kgatla, Ngwato, Thlaping and Hurutse). The Tsonga comprise the

Nhlanganu, Nkuna and Tshangana. The Venda consist of the Mphepu, Tshivase and

Mphaphuli (Hammond-Tooke, 1993; South African Tourism, 2006). ―Nine of South

Africa‘s eleven official languages are African, reflecting a variety of tribal / cultural /

[ethnic] groupings which nonetheless have a great deal in common in terms of

background, culture and descent‖ (South African Information, 2006).

Although Africans are in a transitional phase of development in which a shift is taking

place from a traditional to a more modern, individualistic, Western-orientated way of

life, the African worldview is still founded on a holistic and anthropocentric ontology

(Viljoen, 2002a). African people function as a collectivistic culture, where the

individual lives and thinks in the context of the community (Mwamwenda, 1999;

Viljoen, 2002a). Hence the traditional African ethos rests on the survival of the

community and its union with nature (Mwamwenda, 1999; Viljoen, 2002a). As a result

the personhood and identity of the traditional African is embedded in his/her collective

existence (Viljoen, 2002a). ―Personal interests are given second priority; whereas

collective interests are given first priority‖ (Mwamwenda, 1999, p. 13). In Table 3.11 a

diagrammatic representation of the contrast between the Western and African

outlooks on the person and worldview is offered.

209

Table 3.11 A schematic comparison of the Western and African views of the person

and worldviews

Western views of the

person and worldview

African views of the person

and worldview

Individuality

Psychobehavioural

modalities

Groupness

Uniqueness Sameness

Differences Commonality

Competition

Values & customs

Co-operation

Individual rights Collective responsibility

Separateness &

Independence

Co-operation &

Interdependence

Survival of the fittest

Ethos

Survival of the tribe

Control over nature One with nature

Derived from Nobles (as cited in Viljoen, 2002a)

Where the Western notion of selfhood is one of ‗self-contained individualism‘ and

‗independence‘ the African concept of selfhood is one of interdependence and is

contextually based, ―defined in terms of one‘s relationships with others, such as

family, community and status or position within the group‖ (Mkhize, 2004a, p. 27).

However, notions of selfhood are not necessarily static; the modern world embodies

constant and rapid changes as well as ongoing cross-pollination of ideas between

cultures. Individuals are being exposed to multiple perspectives. It is when these

perspectives are able to enter into relationship with one another, when they are able

to open dialogue with one another, that the situation becomes psychologically

noteworthy (Mkhize, 2004a). These multiple perspectives impact on psychological

development and are explained by sociocultural approaches and concepts such as

dialogism (Mkhize, 2004a, 2004b). Dialogism advocates that meaning is emergent

and evolves from our encounters with others and our social milieu (Mkhize, 2004b). It

follows that the dialogical self is portrayed by multiplicity, flexibility, diversity and

change and emerges from exposure to others‘ voices (Mkhize, 2004b).

Mkhize (2004b) argues that the dialogical self is consistent with the African self in that

an African is pluralistic as well as being in constant dialogue with the universe and

210

lives in symbiosis with it. He adds that like dialogism, the African view emphasises

that selfhood emerges through participation with others and that individuals gain self-

understanding through contact and identification with the other who is different from

themselves. He emphasizes that African selfhood is never complete; a human being

is always becoming or in the making.

In order for worldviews, whether they are Western or African orientated, to avoid

becoming monological, attention needs to be focused on the point of contact between

bodies of knowledge or at the point at which worldviews converge, where meaning

emerges (Mkhize, 2004b). Since South Africa is very diverse in its ethnic groups,

cultures, languages and beliefs, social interaction generates intercultural dialogue and

influences the selfhood of South Africans who find themselves straddling two cultures;

being raised in one culture and being introduced to or influenced by another. Thus,

given the increasing hybridisation of African and Western worldviews, it may be that, in

particular, urbanised Africans who have received a tertiary education may in fact

straddle the traditional African way as well as the Western way, or what has developed

into the modern African way. This would be in line with what current researchers are

proposing: that the embracing of new cultural values and norms may either replace

the original ones or that they are advocated in concurrent maintenance with the latter

(Berry et al., 1992; Segall et al., 1999).

3.4.2. White cultural group

The White cultural grouping in South Africa makes up just over 9% of the country‘s

population (Statistics South Africa, 2008). The majority of the White ethnic group are

descendants of the colonial immigrants of the late 17th, 18th and 19th centuries: Dutch,

French, German and British settlers (Mmusi, 1993; South African Information, 2006).

Linguistically, approximately 60% of this group define themselves as Afrikaans

speaking; with many of the remaining 40% defining themselves as English speaking

(South African Information, 2006; South African Venues, 2006). Joyce (2005) describes

the Afrikaans people as pioneering, patriarchal, Calvinistic, clan orientated and rural-

agrarian and the English as colonial and urban-industrial. During the apartheid era the

211

Afrikaners were politically dominant but the English-speaking White people were

economically dominant (Marger, 1991). Although they were neither culturally nor

politically unified both groups profited from apartheid and white rule (Marger, 1991).

Adhikari (2005) claims that White South Africans continue to enjoy economic dominance

while attempting to realign allegiances by ingratiating themselves with the African

political elite.

The worldview of the White South African corresponds closely with the Western

worldview. Whereas the Black South African is collectivistic and is concerned with

interdependence and family, community and the group, the White South African is

individualistic and concerned with independence and ‗self-contained individualism‘

(Mkhize, 2004a). Thus in terms of Table 3.1, the White South Africans strive for

psychobehavioural modalities such as: individuality, uniqueness and differences;

values and customs that embody: competition, individual rights and separateness and

independence; and an ethos that denotes survival of the fittest and control over

nature (Nobles as cited in Viljoen, 2002a).

3.4.3. Coloured cultural group

The Coloured cultural grouping in South Africa constitutes approximately 9% of the

country‘s population (Statistics South Africa, 2008). The Coloured ethnic group

comprises mixed-race people primarily descended from the earliest settlers, Cape

slaves, and the indigenous Khoisan peoples (Adhikari, 2005; Marger, 1991; Mmusi,

1993; South African Information, 2006). Approximately 90% of Coloured people speak

Afrikaans, while the remaining 10% speak English as their mother tongue (Marger,

1991; South African Information, 2006). Erasmus and Pieterse (1999, p. 173) concur

and expand this point: ―Historically, poorer Coloured people, mainly in urban areas,

were privileged in relation to Africans with regard to certain categories of work; the

provision of higher levels of access to education and health services; the provision of

unemployment benefits that emerged from being part of the recognized / ‘legal‘ labour

force; the provision of housing infrastructure (both buildings and services) and the

212

extension of a range of welfare services such as disability grants, (higher) state

pensions, maintenance grants, amongst others‖.

The worldview of the Coloured South African is tainted by the lack of identity that he /

she feels (Brindley, 1976). According to Brindley (1976, p. 73), apartheid has played a

key role in Coloured South Africans ―losing sight of their place and position in the total

scheme of things; and this in turn is causing them to feel unwanted; divided amongst

themselves, disillusioned and bitter‖. She quotes how Coloured people describe rifts in

the community and the lack of a collectivistic worldview: ―‘the fault of the Coloureds,

especially here in Johannesburg, is that they do not stand together, they are not united,

each is only out for himself…..Their biggest downfall is that they look at other Coloureds

as ‗laag‘ (‗low down‘)‘‖ (Brindley, 1976, p. 74). Adhikari (2005) in more recent work

confirms Brindley‘s (1976) claims.

Adhikari (2005) claims that the Coloured identity has remained fundamentally stable

throughout the era of white supremacy and rule. He goes on to observe that there are

four significant characteristics that shaped the foundation of the Coloured identity:

1. the desire to assimilate into the White dominant society in the hope and

aspiration of future acceptance by the dominant White minority;

2. the Coloureds‘ intermediate status between the dominant White minority and the

large African majority in the South African racial hierarchy. Zimitri Erasmus, a

Coloured sociologist in South Africa, says ―growing up coloured meant knowing

that I was not only not white, but less than white: not only black but better than

black (as we referred to African people)‖ (as cited in Adhikari, 2005, p. 10), thus

indicating the position of relative privilege for Coloured people during apartheid

rule when compared to African people. This resulted in a fear that they might lose

this position of relative privilege and be demoted to the position of the Africans,

which spurred their expression and association with whiteness and the parallel

distancing from Africanness;

3. negative and derogatory associations with which the Coloured identity was

infused, especially the shame that was attached to their supposed racial and

cultural hybridism. ―Coloured identity……tended to be accepted with resignation

and often with a sense of shame by its bearers, as a bad draw in the lottery of

213

life‖ (Adhikari, 2005, p. 14). Brindley (1976) reports that only a handful of the

people she interviewed were proud of being Coloured;

4. the marginality of the Coloured people caused them a great deal of anger,

frustration, alienation, apathy and fatalism because of the severe constraints this

marginality placed on the possibilities of social and political action. Brindley

(1976) adds that lack of self-confidence, self-pity, and sensitivity are the

psychological features that are characteristic of marginality in the Coloured

individual.

According to Adhikari (2005, p. 176), the Coloured people in post-apartheid South Africa

say that ―first we were not white enough and now we are not black enough‖. Although

the skilled and educated middle class Coloured South Africans have benefited after

apartheid, the working class Coloured people have remained victims of poverty and

marginalisation with some evidence that living standards have deteriorated.

Consequently the past relative position of privilege has been lost in the current context

of the democratic transition‘s equity measures, leaving Coloured people at the bottom of

the pecking order in the new South Africa (Adhikari, 2005; Erasmus & Pieterse, 1999).

Adhikari (2005, p. 186) concludes that the ―Coloured identity in the new South Africa is

one of fragmentation, uncertainty and confusion‖.

The worldview of the Coloured South African is currently unknown because no formal

research has been undertaken as yet to establish the Coloured people‘s cultural

orientation according to the individualism and collectivism dimension. Part of this

study represents an attempt to clarify this issue. Perhaps it could be hypothesised

that the skilled, educated middle class Coloured South African may lean more closely

towards the Western / individualistic worldview, whereas the poorer, working class

Coloured South African may be more collectivistic in this regard.

3.4.4. Indian / Asian cultural group

The South African Indian / Asian cultural group comprise 2.6% of the country‘s

population (Statistics South Africa, 2008). Most of this cultural group is of Indian origin

214

(Hindu or Muslim) and its members do preserve their own cultural heritage and religious

beliefs (Joyce, 2005). The Indian people are descended from 19th century indentured

workers brought to work on the sugar plantations and from Indian traders (Joyce, 2005;

Marger, 1991; Mmusi, 1993; South African Information, 2006). Although a few of the

older Indian generation speak Indian languages the majority of the young Indians speak

English exclusively (Joyce, 2005). Overall the Indian society is unified and prosperous

with a high proportion of professionals and entrepreneurs (Joyce, 2005). Joyce (2005)

postulates that although relationships and social interaction are regulated by the

disciplined patriarchal extended family, this is altering to produce smaller families where

the traditional male authority no longer goes unquestioned. Women have a propensity to

lead far freer and diverse lives than in previous generations (Joyce, 2005).

A smaller part of the Indian / Asian cultural group consists of Chinese people who are

descendants of the gold mine migrant workers of the late 19th century and post

apartheid Chinese immigrants. The Chinese population is estimated at approximately

100 000 people (Mmusi, 1993).

Unlike the Western worldview the Eastern is more like the African worldview in that its

focus falls on collectivism and on a ―person‘s harmonious connectedness to fellow

humans, society, nature and the cosmos‖ (Viljoen, 2002b, p. 501). Similar to the African

view of negation of a person‘s unique identity, the Eastern perspective emphasizes the

transcendence of an ego or unique identity (Viljoen, 2002b). While, as mentioned, the

Western worldview emphasises the individualised self who strives for autonomy and

actualisation of the self, conversely, the Eastern worldview emphasizes the

contextualized self which consists of 1) a familial self or the ‗we-centered self‘ which

is fostered in mutual symbiotic interpersonal relationships; and 2) a spiritual self which

is fostered in the transcendent relationships (Viljoen, 2002b). Viljoen (2002b) clarifies

that the Eastern worldview does not negate individuality or actualisation of the self but

instead emphasizes actualisation of the self as the ‗transcendence of the self‘ rather

than the ‗extension of the self‘.

Having briefly explored the history, worldviews and identities of the four primary

groups in South Africa the study considers the concept of globalisation. Culture and

215

ethnicity in this country and worldwide cannot be understood nowadays without

probing the powerful and pervasive impact of globalisation.

3.5. The impact of globalisation on culture

3.5.1 Introduction

Although globalisation and the flow of goods, people and ideas have existed for eons,

the current pace and extent of globalisation are unprecedented (Arnett, 2002; Bhugra

& Mastrogianni, 2004; Franklin, Lury & Stacey, 2000; Jensen, 2003). Researchers

explain that the dramatically accelerated connections and interactions between

different cultures and regions are due to advances in communications and travel as

well as worldwide economic and financial interdependence (Arnett, 2002; Bhawuk,

2008). These connections and advances are no longer restrained by national

boundaries or geographic ‗locatedness‘ (Franklin et al., 2000). Giddens (1990, p. 64)

supports this by noting ―an intensification of worldwide social relations which link

distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring

many miles away and vice versa‖.

3.5.2 Distinguishing factors of globalisation

Recently researchers have distinguished between two facets of globalisation: 1) the

horizontal and 2) the vertical. The vertical facet is the more recent addition and is also

known as neoliberal globalisation (Alexander, 2006). The horizontal axis focuses on

―expanding opportunities for shared understandings with people in other countries‖,

consequently the multiplicity of identities, while the vertical focuses on ―increasing

inequalities and reducing common experience‖ (Alexander, 2006, p. 59). Husted

(2003) concurs with the concept of vertical globalisation and suggests that

globalisation may affect different subcultures differently. He says that research shows

college students in Recife and Porto Alegre, Brazil have more in common with college

students in Philadelphia than with low socioeconomic status groups in Porto Alegre,

Brazil. Similarly Arnett (2002) reports that young people who stem from Arab urban

216

middle and upper classes are more similar to Western young people than to Arab

young people from rural areas. Alexander (2006, p. 44) provides a South African

example of social diversity and the antithesis of shared experiences: ―an income-less,

AIDS stricken family living in rural KZN, and a jet-setting millionaire living in, among

other places, a Johannesburg or Cape Town mansion‖.

Researchers broadly define globalisation as a process in which there is a gradual and

progressive receding of the traditional boundaries that separate individuals, cultures

and societies. They say that this process is changing the nature of human interaction

in many realms: cultural (values, systems and practices), environmental, social,

economic (including knowledge and skills), political (including the military sphere),

technological and modes of transport and communication (Bhugra & Mastrogianni,

2004; Hermans & Kempen, 1998; Kunitz, 2000; Lee, 2000; Nsibambi, 2001). ―It is

changing the way we perceive time and space, and the way we think about the world

and ourselves‖ (Bhugra & Mastrogianni, 2004, p. 10). Of primary relevance and focus

in this study is the way in which globalisation is impacting on the cultural realm. As

Hermans and Kempen (1998) observe, the impact of globalisation and the

interconnectedness that new technologies are wielding has resulted in the decrease

in and even removal of spatial distances, drawing people from different cultural

origins into close relationships. They add that the shared understandings,

interconnection and hybridisation across cultures allow for the interweaving of

cultures which opens up space for the creation of new genres, complex cultural

mixtures and new forms for the development of cultural identities. They propose that

globalisation is starting to fracture the cross-cultural assumption that culture is

geographically located and that as a result of globalisation cultures are ever

changing, flowing and fusing.

3.5.3 The cultural uniformity debate

Franklin et al. (2000) postulate that there is an overarching global culture which is

driven and supported by technologies (i.e. new electronic networks such as the

Internet and satellite telecommunications), products (i.e. multinational consumer

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/184/1/#REF69

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/184/1/#REF73

217

brands, for instance McDonalds, Coca Cola, Holiday Inn, Hilton Hotel, Body Shop,

Benetton) and industries (such as airline industries, international tourism and the

popular media industry, e.g. movies, television soap operas, television talk shows,

and various music genres). There are some who agree and add that globalisation and

cultural connectedness are leading to a cultural uniformity: one worldwide

homogeneous culture, while others suggest this approach is reductionistic (Arnett,

2002). Husted (2003) argues that the deep mental cultural programming that

Hofstede (1991) describes is more in line with what local culture is about and that

global culture is a standardisation of cultural practice which is only one level and facet

of culture. He concludes that globalisation is a standardisation of culture in a very

superficial sense and that even when a foreign practice is adopted by a local culture,

such a practice is mediated through the local culture values, beliefs and practices into

a hybridised form; e.g. McDonalds in Mexico provides its customers with jalapeños.

Husted (2003) expands this to contend that in terms of their worldview, individuals

from different cultures do not necessarily think similarly about important world issues

nor do they think similarly about how conflicts between values should be resolved.

Featherstone (1990) suggests researchers should rather employ a broader definition

of culture and think more in terms of processes, that is, ―cultural integration and

cultural disintegration processes‖ which occur not only on the ―inter-state level‖ (inter-

provincial level) but also transcend that level and transpire on the ―trans-national or

trans-societal level‖ (p. 1). Hermans and Kempen (1998) add an alternative

dimension, writing that in the face of globalisation ―self or identity can be conceived of

as a dynamic multiplicity of different and even contrasting positions or voices that

allow mutual dialogical relationships‖ (p. 1118). They go on to argue that, instead of

cultural homogeneity, hybridisation, bicultural and multicultural identities are more

likely to emerge. Jensen (2003) concurs, suggesting that many adolescents

nowadays develop a bicultural identity. Arnett (2002) is also a member of this camp

and he proposes that ―many adolescents in today‘s world of globalisation develop a

‗local identity‘ based on their indigenous tradition, as well as a ‗global identity‘ based

on their exposure to a global (often Western) culture conveyed through media‖

(Jensen, 2003, p.193). He adds that nowadays identity formation represents a much

218

more active process of creation and recreation based on individual choices and

decisions.

3.5.4 Consequences of globalisation

For Arnett (2002, p. 777) ―the central psychological consequence of globalisation is

that it results in transformations in identity, that is, in how people think about

themselves in relation to the social environment‖. He goes on to outline what he

considers to be the four primary psychological consequences of globalisation: 1) most

individuals have a sense that they are part of a global culture as well as being rooted

in their local culture and as a result people have developed a bicultural identity; 2)

some young non-Western people are experiencing increased levels of identity

confusion due to the fact that they feel uncomfortable in the evolving local and global

culture; 3) some individuals form self-selected cultures with like-minded individuals,

for example, religious systems and music genres; and 4) a post-adolescent period is

evolving, where love and work identity exploration extend beyond the previous

adolescent years (10-18 years) into the emerging adulthood period (18 – 25 years). In

other words, transitions into adult roles of work, marriage and parenthood are being

extended to later ages because these young people are taking time to explore and

experience different jobs, different education possibilities and a variety of love

relationships. The fourth and final point of Arnett‘s consequences is very pertinent to

this study because the bulk of the sample is derived from the 18-25 year population.

As Jensen (2003, p. 190) remarks ―the globalisation ethos, in many ways a Western

and even American ethos, often emphasizes individual autonomy and secular values,

and quite frequently these values are not easily reconciled with those of more

traditional cultures emphasizing community cohesion and religious devotion‖. She

proceeds to interrogate the impact of the accompanying psychological challenges,

losses and gains of a multicultural identity formation: 1) ‗culture shedding‘ where the

individual leaves behind unlearned aspects of the parents‘ culture as well as

undesirable beliefs and practices; 2) ‗culture shock‘ or ‗acculturative stress‘ where the

individual in the face of globalisation finds it difficult to reconcile culturally diverse

219

views, and therefore struggles to form a coherent identity; and 3) a situation where

major psychopathology may develop. Berry (1997) suggests that the degree of

cultural distance influences the balance between gains and losses and that the

greater the cultural distance between cultures the greater the potential for

psychological and social problems.

Arnett (2002) clarifies the fact that not everyone successfully manages to adapt to the

cultural changes that globalisation demands and not everyone manages to develop a

bicultural or hybrid identity that allows the individual to negotiate living in the local as

well as the global culture. Considering Erickson‘s (1968) theory of personality and his

fifth developmental crisis that arises with regard to identity versus identity confusion,

Arnett (2002) cautions that globalisation may increase the proportion of adolescents

in non-Western cultures who experience identity confusion as opposed to those who

successfully form an identity. A variety of cultures have reported a sharp increase in

depression, suicide and substance abuse and Arnett (2002) suggests that this may

be a consequence of identity confusion as a result of joining the global culture. Arnett

(2002) echoes Berry‘s (1997) sentiment above, remarking that this is particularly

evident when there is conflict or large cultural distance between the values of the

traditional cultures versus those of the West or global culture.

3.5.5 Globalisation in South Africa

Although empirical support is yet to be comprehensively derived it appears that as

regards the South African population it may be deduced that White South Africans,

who are supposedly situated more on the individualistic cultural continuum, may

display a more seamless and effortless fit with the globalisation ethos when

compared with their African and Indian / Asian counterparts, who supposedly fall

more on the collectivistic cultural continuum. In any case, religious affiliation, social

class, individual differences, generation and gender will nonetheless create variation

within cultural communities (Jensen, 2003). It may therefore be more accurate to

suggest that the more affluent and therefore more individualistic South African will

harmonize with globalisation more effortlessly. Arnett (2002) adds, as an example,

220

that because urban adolescents worldwide exhibit such similar consumption patterns

and similar preferences for a ‗global brand‘ of music, videos, movies, soft-drinks, fast-

foods etcetera, they are known as ‗global teens‘. As a result marketers are able to

market generically to ‗global teens‘ very successfully (Arnett, 2002; Franklin et al.,

2000).

Alexander (2006) postulates that prior to 1994, the full impact of globalisation in South

Africa was delayed since this country was on a different economic trajectory and

because of the apartheid political environment. Since 1994, Webster and Adler (1999)

suggest, South Africans have had to negotiate a ‗double transition‘ with regard to

shifting patterns of identity: the demolition of apartheid as well as the advent of

globalisation. Alexander (2006) highlights that the new South African national identity

is just over a decade old and he goes on to suggest that the likely trends that will

impact on this newly formed identity are: 1) a flagging and fracturing of South African

national identity; 2) a dwindling in racial and political identities particularly in the

younger generations where they are more interested in consumerism and other

cultural aspects; 3) an increase in religious and ethnic identification, often with religion

forming a basis for ethnicity; and 4) a re-emergence and a re-visioning of class as an

identity, but in new modes. He concludes that although there is considerable variation

in patterns of South African identity amongst South Africans and when one compares

South Africa to other countries, this variation in identities is declining and those South

African identities (especially in urban areas) are more and more in line with those of

other countries because of the powerful sway of globalisation.

Dawson (2006) reports that the majority of students on South African campuses fall

into the middle class socioeconomic status category. Dawson (2006) maps the sub

categories and different student identities into academic students, trendy students,

poor or struggling students and leader/political students who fight for student rights.

Alexander (2006) suggests that although these student identities are fragmented due

to polarizing impact of post apartheid globalisation there is evidence of a new student

movement surfacing. Dawson (2006) proceeds to recount that what is most important

to students is not political activism but, instead, individualism, religiosity, studying and

making friends. Nkuna (2006) studied the Y-generation culture of a northern suburb

221

mall in Johannesburg called The Zone, noting that it is frequented by the youth of the

post-apartheid Black African elite, their White classmates, township girls desperately

trying to fit in and local celebrities. She observes that although The Zone is

multicultural, racially and gender inclusive it is also class exclusive. She adds that

whilst some brands (e.g. Levis) and some music (e.g. R&B) is popular with the

majority of the youth, there are also differences where some labels and hairstyles

only appeal to the Black Africans whilst others appeal only to the White Africans.

Nkuna (2006) reports that although there is racial integration, Black Africans are more

prone to socialise and mingle with Black Africans, White Africans with White Africans,

and so forth. She concludes that these youths are constructing Americanised, global

youth cultural identities but that these identities are mediated and modulated through

local South African inflections. Alexander (2006, p.35-36) describes The Zone as ―a

space where a new upper-class identity is being forged…….This, then, is a class

culture with global outlines, yet shaded with local tensions and inflections‖.

Arnett (2002) argues that globalisation modifies and erodes traditional ways while

according to Larson, Wilson, Brown, Furstenberg and Verma (2002) its impact in

Africa can be seen by the fact that: 1) rural African household sizes are decreasing;

2) young people feel that the traditional systems of sexual control are no longer

relevant and as a result premarital sex and pregnancy are on the increase; and 3)

more and more urban families are adopting the Western ethos of individualism

concerning personal goals in social, school and work life, in contrast to the African

tradition of family cohesion. Nsamenang (2002, p. 63) highlights this: ―The process of

acculturation and globalisation has bestowed on contemporary Africa a dual politico-

economic and cultural system of old indigenous traditions and imported

legacies…This has produced the marginal population whose adults, teenagers and

children are groping desperately to reconcile within individual and collective psyches

the ambivalences and contradictions of a confusing cultural braid.‖

222

3.5.6 Conclusion as regards globalisation

In sum, as local cultures adapt global influences to local circumstances, cultural

diversity will continue to exist (Hermans & Kempen, 1998) and as globalisation results

in increasingly complex bicultural, multicultural and hybrid identities, diversity of

identity will continue to increase for individuals (Arnett, 2002). According to Hermans

and Kempen (1998) the process of globalisation is creating a world that is

unpredictable, changing, diverse and ‗translocal‘, which evokes much uncertainty.

They suggest that this arousal of uncertainty due to globalisation and hybridisation is

closely linked with Hofstede‘s (1980) cultural dimension of uncertainty avoidance.

Possibly the countries with low uncertainly avoidance cultures for example Singapore,

Anglo, Nordic and Chinese countries as well as China will adapt to globalisation more

readily and effortlessly than countries with high uncertainty avoidance cultures, for

example, Japan, or in Latin American, Mediterranean, and German speaking countries.

As noted, South Africa is a moderately uncertainty accepting culture and may

therefore acclimatise to the challenges of globalisation fairly well. However, because

of the changing nature of culture, Hofstede‘s (1991) scores may be outdated.

3.6. Conclusion

Culture is a nebulous and ever altering construct that is influenced by many factors

including enculturation and acculturation. The fluidity of culture and the difficulty of

capturing it in a precise snapshot make the concept difficult to define and measure.

Although criticised by some, a useful and well recognized theoretical framework to

understanding general cultural differences is that of Hofstede‘s five dimensions of

culture. These dimensions were investigated in detail: individualism versus

collectivism; large versus small power distance; masculinity versus femininity; strong

versus weak uncertainty avoidance and long-term orientation versus short-term

orientation. Within this chapter the author explored the similarities (the core: descent

or ancestry and culture) and the differences when one moves from the common core

outwards: race, ethnic group and nation. South Africa‘s four major cultural groupings

were examined. Finally, the impact of globalisation on identities and culture was

223

explored worldwide and in South Africa. Globalisation has added different dimensions

and nuances to the construct of culture and identity, thus adding to this complex and

tenuous construct of culture.

In an attempt to gain greater understanding of the overall romantic love puzzle the

following chapter investigates the intersection between culture and romantic love and

considers how romantic love is influenced and shaped by culture. This intersection is

particularly difficult to investigate because both culture and romantic love are difficult

to pinpoint. In addition, the generic limitation that occurs in all cross-cultural studies –

the comparability of meaning – in this case as regards romantic love adds to the

obscurity. This difficulty prevails in this study too. Nonetheless by means of various

theories and findings researchers have attempted to uncover romantic love and its

meaning across cultures. This is surveyed in four sections in the chapter that follows.

Firstly, romantic love is explored across cultures through the lens of individualism and

collectivism. Thereafter research findings on romantic love across culture are

investigated. Thirdly, the impact of globalisation and cultural shifts on romantic love is

probed and finally South African romantic love is surveyed.

224

CHAPTER 4

Culture and Romantic Love

Dr Aubrey Richards, an anthropologist who lived among the Bemba of

Zambia in the 1930s, once related to a group of them an English folk tale about

a young prince who climbed glass mountains, crossed chasms, and fought dragons,

all to obtain the hand of a maiden he loved. The Bemba were plainly bewildered, but

remained silent. Finally an old chief spoke up, voicing the feelings of all present in the

simplest of questions.

―Why not take another girl?‖ he asked.

(Morton Hunt – The Natural History of Love)

4.1. Introduction

If culture shapes the person‘s views and how they make sense of the world, then

notions and manifestations of intimacy are also shaped by culture (Smith & Bond,

1998). In other words the way one views the self, the world and the socio-cultural

environment impacts on how one views, behaves in and manages intimate

relationships. Like all complex human phenomena romantic love is mediated by

cultural values, beliefs, ways and social institutions – it wears a cultural face and is

learned (Jankowiak, 1995; Neto, 2007). Upon investigating love beliefs some

researchers have found that culture explained more variance than did gender

(Sprecher & Toro-Morn, 2002). As Landis and O‘Shea (2000) say, passionate love is

a complex and multidimensional factor that varies as a function of culture. Beall and

Sternberg (1995) suggest that love is a social construction and that the definition and

experience of love are determined by the culture and time period of the lover and

beloved. If theorists like Freud and Fromm are to be believed then one‘s cultural

milieu mediates, deeply influences and shapes an individual‘s capacity to love in

225

adulthood (Freud, 1905; Fromm, 1956; van Zyl, 2009). Jankowiak (1995, p. 4)

captures the complexity of love and eloquently describes romantic love as ―a complex

multifaceted emotional phenomenon that is a byproduct of an interplay between

biology, self and society‖.

Researchers also agree that romantic love is a near-universal phenomenon (Buss,

2000; Cho & Cross; 1995; Jankowiak, 1995; Lampert, 1997). These findings are

supported by Harris (1995). Regardless of an individual‘s cultural milieu the seven

core characteristics of being in love are (Harris, 1995, p. 102-103):

the desire for union or merger

idealisation of the beloved

exclusivity

intrusive thinking about the love object

emotional dependency

a reordering of motivational hierarchies or life priorities

a powerful sense of empathy and concern for the beloved

Recently several cross-cultural studies have been undertaken in diverse cultures

worldwide in an attempt to unravel the nature, types and function of love; they have

amply verified the universality of love as well as the cultural differences in attitudes

about love and romance.

4.2. Love across the individualistic and collectivistic dimension

The cultural differences in romantic love can be explored usefully within a cultural

milieu by utilising the sociocultural constructs of individualism and collectivism (Dion &

Dion, 1988, 1993a, 1996, 2005). These lines of inquiry have been followed by many

researchers recently (Dion & Dion, 1993a; Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986; Goodwin &

Findlay, 1997; Levine et al., 1995; Murstein et al., 1991; Neto et al., 2000, 2007;

1991; Sprecher et al., 1994; Sprecher & Toro-Morn, 2002).

226

In more industrialised, Western societies, individualism is characterised by the ―I‖,

independence, personal initiative, personal autonomy, self-reliance, personal freedom

and striving for self actualisation and pursuit of an individual‘s own goals (Hofstede,

1980; Triandis, 1995). In less industrialised and more traditional African and Eastern

societies, collectivism is characterised by the ―we‖, interdependence, belonging to a

group, group norms, obligations and goals, group integrity unity, and loyalty

(Hofstede, 1980; Triandis, 1995). Hofstede (2002) cautions that in order to be able to

function in a healthy intimate relationship people need to balance the pursuit of their

own goals, needs and rights versus those of the group. He says that those who are

too individualistic may feel alone and isolated while those who are too collectivistic

may repress their individuality and end up feeling empty, resentful or angry. Like

Hofstede (2002), Dion and Dion (1988) argue an interesting point: that there exists an

intrinsic tension between individualistic ideals and the interdependence demanded by

romantic love. Fairly recently Barrett (2000) proposed that individualistic and

collectivistic societies vary in the forms of independence and interdependence, but

that both cultures socialise children to display both tendencies. Implying that

―independence and interdependence are fostered in all cultures and that

independence is not antithetical to interdependence‖ (Barrett, 2000, p. 94). Earlier

Triandis (1995) suggested that individualism could be divided into vertical and

horizontal dimensions. Vertical individualism emphasises autonomy with status,

inequality, power and competition, whereas horizontal individualism emphasises

autonomy with egalitarianism, uniqueness and separateness. Therefore, Fromm‘s

(1956) assertion that individualism, with its focus on self rather than others, thwarts

intimacy and love relationships may be true for vertical individualism with its emphasis

on competition and status but not necessarily for horizontal individualism.

Various researchers share anecdotes of the ways in which individualistic and

collectivistic differences play out in love. As Matsumoto recounts, when speaking to

someone from a different culture about the high divorce rate in America, the person

said this was not the case in his country and that it was because ―You Americans

marry the person you love; we love the person we marry‖ (Matsumoto & Juang, 2004,

p. 401). For Hsu (1981) there are cognitive differences between how an American

and a traditional Chinese person think about love. According to Hsu (1981) an

227

American will ask ―How does my heart feel?‖ whereas a traditional Chinese person

will ask ―What will other people say?‖ These anecdotes indicate that although love is

regarded as an essential and often adequate ingredient for a long-term romantic

relationship and marriage in Western cultures, this is not necessarily the case in other

cultures.

Dion and Dion (1993b) propose that most people in individualistic societies base

marriages on love, whereas, in collectivistic societies, most people base marriages on

other factors. Dion and Dion (1993a) contrast the Western (individualistic) concept of

romantic love, which embodies the exclusive and intense emotional involvement,

attention and commitment to the beloved as well as a physical attraction to the

beloved, with the Eastern (collectivistic) concept of love which embodies love

developing slowly with a caring companion who fits smoothly and without disruption

into the individual‘s larger complex social milieu. Because of this difference in the

concept of love between individualistic and collectivistic cultures this too impacts on

the formation of their intimate relationships. Researchers support this by asserting

that although various forms of marriage and partner formation take place in the

majority of cultures worldwide, different meanings and factors of importance are

appropriated by different cultures (Goodwin, 1999; Matsumoto & Juang, 2004).

In comparing the way individualistic societies and collectivistic societies view love,

researchers have found profound differences (Levine et al., 1995). In the

individualistic, Western cultures the idealisation of love and marriage is paramount

and mate selection is determined by individual choice and romantic love (Coontz,

2005; Dion & Dion, 1993a; Gergen & Gergen, 1988; Goodwin, 1999). On the other

hand romantic love is often perceived as dangerous and a threat to family structure in

collectivistic societies (Coontz, 2005; Levine et al., 1995; Sandhya, 2009). According

to Lee and Stone (1980), more often than not, marriage decisions in collectivistic

societies are concluded by an individual‘s family. In these societies ―relationships are

of primary importance, even when they are personally very costly and marriage links

families, rather than just mere individuals‖ (Goodwin, 1999, p. 24-25). Having said

that, this is not always the case in collectivistic societies. The African person is born

into a collectivistic society where in some cases marriage is arranged by family

228

members although in other cases marriage is determined by love (Mwamwenda,

1999; Smith, 2001). This trend is recognised in recent research conducted in other

collectivistic societies. In collectivistic societies where people are moving away from

their kin, due to geographic, economic or educational reasons, mate selection is

starting to be determined by individual choice and romantic love (Hart, 2004; Okonjo,

1992; Sandhya, 2009; Smith 2001).

Dion and Dion (1993b) conducted a study using two individualistic societies (Canada

and the United States) and three collectivistic societies (China, India, and Japan):

they helped clarify culture-related differences in romantic love along the individualism

versus collectivism dimension. They concluded that ―(a) romantic love is more likely to

be an important basis for marriage in individualistic than in collectivistic societies; (b)

psychological intimacy in marriage is more important for marital satisfaction and

personal well-being in individualistic than in collectivistic societies; and (c) although

individualism fosters the valuing of romantic love, certain aspects of individualism at

the psychological level make developing intimacy problematic‖ (p. 53).

In order to further interrogate the romantic love differences between cultures a survey

of the romantic love research findings cross-culturally is considered below under the

headings of: 1) love as a basis for marriage, 2) romantic beliefs and attitudes, 3)

attachment styles, 4) lovestyles, 5) other ways of love and 6) love and money

4.3. Romantic love cross-cultural research findings

According to evolutionary psychologists romantic love is grounded in a biological core

which serves to ensure the best possible sexual selection strategy for reproduction

(Buss, 2003). Romantic love is therefore ‗hard-wired‘ into human beings and can

consequently be assumed to be a universal phenomenon. Recent cross-cultural

evolutionary research supports this hypothesis and claims that on average both sexes

ranked love as the most important quality in a potential partner (Buss, 2003, 2004). A

vast cross-cultural study undertaken by Jankowiak and Fischer (1992) reported

similar findings. They established that romantic love existed in 88.5% of 166

traditional cultures examined. They argue that the other 11.5% were reported as not

229

experiencing romantic love because of ethnographic oversights rather than confirmed

absence of romantic love in those cultures. Although love is universal this does not

mean that individuals from these cultures are accorded the freedom to pursue and

marry the beloved; instead, often arranged marriages were the norm in these

cultures.

4.3.1. Love as a basis for marriage

According to Hart (2007, p. 345), ―marriage is at the intersection of intimacy,

economic and kin ties, evolving gender roles, and transforming cultural practices on

local, national, and global levels‖. Goodwin (1999) contends that marriage can be

conceived of as being on a continuum from completely arranged to complete freedom

of mate selection. Worldwide, arranged marriages are common and have existed for

centuries (Goodwin, 1999; Matsumoto & Juang, 2004). According to Ingoldsby

(1995), the most common form of mate selection worldwide is by arrangement. Love

as the basis for a marriage, on the other hand, is a relatively new concept and has

been practised predominantly in Western societies for the last 300 years or so

(Coontz, 2005, 2007; Goodwin, 1999; Hatfield & Rapson, 1996; Matsumoto & Juang,

2004). Arranged marriages are more common in collectivistic societies, in which

marriage is not only perceived as the union between two people but also the union

and alliance between two families – socially and economically (Dion & Dion, 1993b;

Goodwin, 1999). The belief that romantic love is not a part of marriage or that ‗love

follows after marriage‘ is inherent in the basis of these marriages. The emphasis as

regards the basis of these marriages falls instead on resource and economic

transmission (Goodwin, 1999). Included in this is the concept of the bride-price.

Often, in arranged marriages, either the bride or the groom‘s family will pay for the

privilege of the marriage. In two thirds of the cases it is the groom‘s family that will

pay the bride‘s family for the benefit of her reproductive and labour services

(Goodwin, 1999). Bride-price or ―lobola‖ is common in Africa and South Africa

(Goodwin, 1999; Mwamwenda, 1999; Schapera & Comaroff, 1991; Van der Vliet,

1991; West, 1976) with 88% of a Xhosa sample supporting the custom (Mwamwenda

230

& Monyooe, 1997). Even though the Dowry Prohibition Act was passed in 1961 the

bride-price custom persists in India (Goodwin, 1999).

The concept of romantic love as a basis of marriage is revered and important in

individualistic societies but downplayed in collectivistic societies (Dion & Dion,

1993a). These differences were exemplified in a number of recent studies.

"If a boy (girl) had all the other qualities you desired, would you marry this person if

you were not in love with him (her)?" was the question Kephart (1967) asked of more

than 1,000 American students. He found that 64.6% of the male respondents and

24.3% of the female respondents said they would not marry a person with whom they

were not in love. In later research, when Simpson, Campbell and Berscheid (1986)

posed the same question in the 1970s and the 1980s, on both occasions more than

80% of men and women said they would not, indicating that romantic love as the

basis of marriage had become substantially more important to both sexes. Simpson

et al. (1986) added two more questions to their study regarding the importance of love

for the maintenance of marriage. Although there were no gender differences, more

participants agreed than disagreed that love would be necessary for the maintenance

of marriage. When the above questions were posed across cultures, researchers

reported some interesting cross-cultural differences.

Levine et al. (1995) asked local students from eleven countries to rate the importance

of love for the basis as well as for the maintenance of a marriage. There was no

gender difference in responses, neither within cultures nor overall (Levine et al.,

1995). The Americans represented the highest percentage (85.9%) of respondents

who said that they would not marry someone they did not love while the Indians

constituted the lowest percentage (24.0%), thereby confirming the premise that

romantic love as a basis of marriage is more important in individualistic cultures than

in collectivistic cultures.

Below (Table 4.1) is a summary of Levine et al.‘s (1995) results as regards the

measure of ‗love as a basis for marriage‘ for all eleven countries, correlated with

Hofstede‘s (1991) individualism index. Upon interrogating the data more closely it is

231

evident that this comparison does not correlate seamlessly with the premise that the

more collectivistic the country the less important love is considered for the basis of

marriage. Brazil, Mexico and Hong Kong do not adhere to the premise; however,

other countries that are considered collectivistic (Thailand, Philippines, India and

Pakistan) and individualistic (United States, England and Australia) do adhere to it.

Therefore in general individuals from collectivistic societies (Thailand, Philippines,

India and Pakistan) were more likely to marry a person with whom they were not in

love than individuals from individualistic societies (United States, England and

Australia) (Levine et al., 1995). Possibly the mismatch (Brazil, Mexico and Hong

Kong) could arise because of the limitations of the study. An important limitation is

that the sample size within each country (numbers ranged from 71 to 156) was

relatively small. As with all cross-cultural studies comparability of meaning is a

limitation of this study. In addition, generalisation to the rest of the adult population in

these countries is not possible because the sample is not representative. Therefore

cautious interpretation of these results is recommended. In addition, Hofstede‘s

(1991) Individualism index values are almost 20 years old and with the rate and

impact of globalisation these values may have changed somewhat. Finally the

respondents from Brazil, Mexico and Hong Kong may have adopted more Western

notions of love because, being students, they may have been more fully exposed,

and receptive, to globalisation. Brazil is also regarded as a Westernising nation

(Goodwin, 1999), which could similarly account for its high score.

Table 4.1 Measure of „Love as a basis for marriage‟ correlated with Hofstede‟s (1991)

Individualism Index

Country Percentage of respondents

who said „no‟

Hofstede Individualism Index

(the higher, the more individualistic)

United States 85.9 91

England 83.6 89

Australia 80.0 90

Brazil 85.7 38

Mexico 80.5 30

Hong Kong 77.6 25

Japan 62.0 46

232

Thailand 33.8 20

Philippines 63.6 32

India 24.0 48

Pakistan 39.1 14

Derived and adapted from Levine et al. (1995) and Hofstede (1991)

The additional two Simpson et al. (1986) questions about the importance of love for

the maintenance of marriage were also included in the Levine et al. (1995) cross-

cultural study and although the later researchers found no gender differences there

was cross-cultural variation. When responding to "If love has completely disappeared

from a marriage, I think it is probably best for the couple to make a clean break and

start new lives", the Pakistanis (49.6%) followed by the Filipinos (40.9%) were the

least likely to believe this, while the Brazilians (77.5%) were the most likely to believe

it; 35.4% of Americans did so (Table 4.2).

Table 4.2 Responses to “If love has completely disappeared from a marriage I think it

is probably best for the couple to make a clean break and start new lives”.

Percentage of Agree Percentage of Disagree

India 46.2 26.0

Pakistan 33.0 49.6

Thailand 46.9 32.1

United States 35.4 34.7

England 44.6 23.2

Japan 41.1 17.1

Philippines 45.5 40.9

Mexico 51.7 28.0

Brazil 77.5 12.7

Hong Kong 47.1 25.5

Australia 29.3 31.1

Neutral responses account for the fact that agree and disagree do not add up to 100 percent.

Derived from Levine et al. (1995).

233

The Filipinos (71.6%) were the least likely to believe that an absence of love was

sufficient reason for ending a marriage, while the Brazilians (63.4%) were the most

likely to believe this, as did 40.3% of Americans (Table 4.3). Perhaps because they

are Eastern and collectivistic, the Filipinos place more emphasis on the extended

familial group and have lower expectations of romantic love in a marriage while the

Brazilians, with a strong Spanish influence, could be said to be a more passionate

and romantic people, and therefore may have high expectations in this respect.

Table 4.3 Responses to “In my opinion, the disappearance of love is not a sufficient

reason for ending a marriage and should not be viewed as such”.

Percentage of Agree Percentage of Disagree

India 47.1 34.6

Pakistan 54.8 35.7

Thailand 50.6 34.2

United States 36.8 40.3

England 26.8 46.4

Japan 26.4 27.9

Philippines 71.6 23.9

Mexico 34.8 50.9

Brazil 26.8 63.4

Hong Kong 51.6 24.8

Australia 39.6 22.6

Neutral responses account for the fact that agree and disagree do not add up to 100 percent.

Derived from Levine et al. (1995).

Sprecher et al. (1994) used local American (n = 1043), Russian (n = 401) and

Japanese (n = 223) students in their cross-cultural study on love. When Sprecher et

al. (1994) asked their participants Kephart‘s (1967) question "If a boy (girl) had all the

other qualities you desired, would you marry this person if you were not in love with

him (her)?" they found that 89% of the American respondents, 81% of the Japanese

and 64% of the Russians said they would not marry a person with whom they were

not in love, indicating that American and Japanese respondents were significantly

more likely to expect love in a mate than were their Russian peers. Interestingly,

234

when one compares the study carried out by Levine et al. (1995) to this study

(Sprecher et al., 1994) the Japanese score varied substantially: 62% versus 81%

respectively. No gender differences were found in Sprecher et al.‘s (1994) total cross-

national sample, or the Japanese and U.S. samples. There were, however, gender

differences in the Russian sample, with more Russian men (70%) than Russian

women (59%) averring they would insist on love in a marriage. Russian women were,

therefore, the most likely to consider marrying someone they did not love.

Sprecher and Toro-Morn (2002) in a cross-cultural study comparing American (n =

693) and Chinese (n = 735) students‘ beliefs concerning love as a basis for marriage,

amongst other beliefs with respect to love, asked participants Kephart‘s (1967)

question: "If a boy (girl) had all the other qualities you desired, would you marry this

person if you were not in love with him (her)?" They found that the American sample

was more likely to believe in the love-marriage connection and that passionate love

was a more important prerequisite for entering marriage than for their Chinese peers.

The Chinese on the other hand appeared more likely to believe that love and

passionate love were important for maintaining marriage than their American peers.

Although these authors report finding no gender differences in their Chinese sample

they report establishing an interesting gender difference in their American sample:

that is, the reverse of what has been determined in past research. Although both

American men and women believed that love was important for marriage, women

endorsed it more strongly than their male peers. Sprecher and Toro-Morn (2002)

suggest this could be because, nowadays, women are more likely to be

unconstrained by financial and practical considerations. Consequently, this frees

them to focus on emotional considerations in a marriage partner and as a result they

actually emphasise love as a prerequisite for marriage to a greater degree than do

men. This corresponds with the premise of evolutionary theory that women place a

premium on love and commitment because they incur much higher parental

investment costs, through sex, pregnancy, childbirth and child rearing, than do men.

Consequently, as mentioned, they are faced with the adaptive problem of choosing a

mate who commands the required resources as well as the motivation to commit

those resources to her and her offspring. One of the most important cues universally

for this commitment is love (Buss, 2003). The primary limitations of the Sprecher and

235

Toro-Morn (2002) study are that 1) the sample was not representative of the

countries‘ larger adult population, 2) the research could not be generalised to youths

not at university, and 3) the instruments used were Western and therefore unique

beliefs about Chinese love may have been missed.

In summary, it was found that at least 80% of individuals from the more individualistic

and Western countries such as the United States, England and Australia would not

marry someone if they were not in love with them. Westernising nations like Brazil,

Mexico, Hong Kong and Japan were not far behind, with at least 78% of individuals

from these countries responding they would not marry someone if they were not in

love with them. In collectivistic countries such as Thailand, the Philippines, India,

Pakistan and Russia only 24-64% of the respondents answered that they would marry

someone if they did not love them. These findings seem to verify the view that

romantic love is more important in individualistic and Western countries than in

collectivistic countries as a basis for marriage. Research findings with regards to the

importance of love for the maintenance of marriage were less explicit – no clear

cross-cultural differences were evident.

4.3.2. Romantic beliefs and attitudes

Sprecher and Metts (1989) postulate that love, as an ideology of romanticism, was

distinctive from other love approaches. According to Sprecher and Metts (1989, 1999)

the "romantic ideology" is associated with a large constellation of beliefs: primacy of

love as a basis for mate selection, love at first sight, there is only one true love,

idealisation of the partner and of the relationship, and love can overcome any

obstacle.

In a study conducted by Sprecher and Metts (1989) on 730 (277 males and 453

females) American students, men were found to be more romantic than women.

Other studies have produced no gender differences (Cunningham & Antill, 1981;

Sprecher et al., 1994; Sprecher & Metts, 1999; Sprecher & Toro-Morn, 2002).

Sprecher and Metts (1989) suggest that men tend to be more romantic because they

236

hold, or expect to hold, roles that provide greater economic and social security

relative to women and can therefore afford to be idealistic and romantic about the

beloved and their relationship as well as more selective because they hold more

power. Perhaps the more recent homogeneous gender results can be attributed to

the move towards greater economic and social gender equality.

Cross-cultural studies have yielded engaging findings on romanticism.

Simmons, Vomkolke, and Shimizu (1986) used local students in Japan, West

Germany, and the United States to examine their attitudes towards love and

romance. They likewise found no gender differences. They also found the Germans

to be the most romantic while the Japanese sample was established to be the least

romantic on some subscales. No other cross-cultural differences were found on the

other subscales. Overall, the results pointed to the fact that the Western individualistic

countries, West Germany and America, valued romantic love more than their

collectivistic counterparts: the Japanese tended instead to value extended family ties

and networks, which in turn influence and reinforce the marriage between partners.

Sprecher et al. (1994) administered the Romantic Beliefs Scale to local American (n =

1043), Russian (n = 401) and Japanese (n = 223) students in their cross-cultural

study on love and established that Americans and Russians were more romantic than

their Japanese counterparts. But the Japanese students nonetheless exhibited at

least moderate romantic views on love. No other cross-cultural differences were

found on the other subscales.

The above two studies correlate with the findings in the study undertaken by Levine et

al. (1995) where, overall, individuals from collectivistic societies were more likely to

marry a person with whom they were not in love than individuals from individualistic

societies.

Sprecher and Toro-Morn (2002), in their cross-cultural study comparing American (n

= 693) and Chinese (n = 735) students‘ love beliefs, surprisingly found that the

Chinese students scored higher on the Romantic Beliefs Scale than their American

237

peers. The Chinese also scored higher on two subscales: 1) belief in ‗One and Only‘

and 2) ‗Idealisation‘. No other cross-cultural differences were identified on the other

subscales.

Weaver and Ganong (2004) undertook a cross-cultural study with local African

American (205 female and 88 male) and European American (137 female and 58

male) students. They too discovered no gender differences overall, nor for both

groups. They did, however, establish that although both young White and Black

adults hold romantic beliefs that are similar they are not identical. Overall, analyses

revealed that the subscales which made up romantic love differed substantially when

comparing the two groups. The Romantic Beliefs Scale did not measure romantic

love in the same way between the two samples. According to these researchers, this

suggests that the components of romantic love may be conceptually different when

comparing samples that are ethnically different – that perhaps romantic beliefs hold

different meanings for the two groups. They caution that using measures that were

developed predominantly with respect to a White sample may not accurately measure

racially and ethnically diverse groups. This warning is particularly relevant to this

study which is attempting to measure the love beliefs of four ethnically and racially

diverse groups.

In summary, mixed results were found. Older research findings (Simmons et al.,

1986; Sprecher et al., 1994) suggest that respondents from individualistic countries

(American and German) overall were more romantic than their collectivistic

(Japanese) counterparts. However, more recent findings reported either the opposite

trend – Chinese were more romantic than their American counterparts (Sprecher &

Toro-Morn, 2002) or similar romantic beliefs were found between Black and White

Americans (Weaver & Ganong, 2004). Perhaps because of globalisation, the Chinese

have adopted American romantic beliefs to an even greater extent than the

Americans. Possibly the minimal differences between Black and White Americans

can be attributed to acculturation and or globalisation.

238

4.3.3. Attachment patterns

When investigating cross-cultural studies on attachment patterns interesting findings

were discovered.

Sprecher et al. (1994) administered the Hazan and Shaver‘s (1987) forced choice

single item measure to local American (n = 1043), Russian (n = 401) and Japanese (n

= 223) students and established that a greater proportion of Americans endorse the

secure attachment style than their Japanese and Russian peers. Similarly a greater

proportion of the Japanese and Russian participants endorsed the avoidant

attachment style than the American participants.

Doherty, Hatfield, Thompson and Choo (1994) explored the differences and

similarities between European Americans, Japanese Americans and Pacific Islanders

(total n = 124 males and n = 184 females) regarding various dimensions of love and

relationships. These authors identified few differences between ethnic groups: the

three cultural groups did not differ in passionate or companionate love. They

suggested that there were few differences because all three cultural groups

comprised urban and affluent individuals. They did find individual differences between

attachment pattern and type of love. They revealed that the individual with an anxious

attachment pattern scored the highest on passionate love and they were most likely

to be in love. The securely attached sample scored the highest on companionate love

while the avoidant group scored the lowest on both companionate love and

passionate love.

Latty-Mann and Davis (1996) investigated 335 American students and their mothers

in order to establish the relationship between attachment and partner choice. They

found that both mothers and their young adult children preferred a potential partner

who offered a clear potential for forming a secure relationship. Across both samples

secure partners were preferred over all insecure partners while among the insecure

partners, in decreasing order of preference, were preoccupied and avoidant ones.

239

You and Malley-Morrison (2000) administered the Attachment Style Questionnaire

(Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991) to 62 local Caucasian Americans and 115 local

Korean students. They found that Korean students scored higher than their American

peers on the preoccupied attachment scale and that females rated themselves as

more fearful than males. The main effect for gender in this study confirms previous

findings (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Brennan et al., 1991).

Schmitt et al. (2004) made use of 17 804 participants from 62 cultural regions

spanning North and South America; Western, Eastern and Southern Europe; Middle

East; Africa; Oceania; South, East and Southeast Asia. These authors found that

secure attachment was the highest rated form of romantic attachment in 79% of the

cultures. They also established that East Asian cultures, that is Hong Kong, Taiwan,

South Korea and Japan, were especially high on preoccupied romantic attachment. In

their view this may occur because in these cultures psychological and romantic

validation is very dependent on the opinions of others and members tend to judge

themselves according to the value they provide for others. Of particular importance in

their study is: firstly, that the mean levels of secure attachment in South Africans

compared to the three insecure attachments were higher (secure M=4.72,

preoccupied M=3.22, dismissing M=4.15, fearful M=3.42); and secondly, contrary to

expectations, all of the seven African cultures, including South Africa, failed to display

a significant negative correlation between secure and fearful attachment. These

researchers also reported that individuals who stem from social contexts with high

levels of stress tended to develop insecure romantic attachment styles whereas those

who came from social contexts with lower stress tended to develop more secure

attachment styles. Perhaps with the high levels of poverty, unemployment and crime

in South Africa, the proportion of South Africans displaying insecure attachment can

be expected to be elevated.

In summary, a number of studies report a positive correlation between East Asian

cultures (Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan) and preoccupied romantic

attachment (Schmitt et al., 2004; You & Malley-Morrison, 2000). Sprecher et al.

(1994) on the other hand report a positive correlation between East Asian cultures

(Japan and Russia) and avoidant attachment style; whereas a more secure

240

attachment style was endorsed by more Americans. Doherty et al. (1994) found that

securely attached individuals were more likely to endorse companionate love

whereas anxiously attached individuals were more likely to endorse passionate love.

Regardless of the individual‘s attachment style all preferred a potential partner who

offered a clear potential of forming a secure relationship.

4.3.4. Lovestyles

Much cross-cultural research has been carried out using Lee‘s (1976) lovestyles:

below the relevant studies are discussed in chronological order.

Hendrick and Hendrick (1986) studied 807 ethnically diverse introductory psychology

students from the University of Miami. The gender breakdown was: males (58% or

466) and females (42% or 341); and the breakdown of the ethnic heritage was: Black

(5.3% or 43), White-non-Hispanic (50.4% or 403), White-Hispanic (29% or 234),

Oriental (7.7% or 62), international students (20% or 161), other (7.6%). This study

revealed that: 1) Black, White-Hispanic and White-non-Hispanic respondents were

similar with respect to erotic love levels; 2) African-American respondents were the

least agapic; 3) Oriental respondents were less erotic and more pragmatic and

storgic; 4) international students, when comparing themselves to how American

students love, believed themselves to be more ludic, storgic and pragmatic and less

erotic than their American counterparts and 5) there was no correlation between

ethnicity and ludic or manic love. The small sample size for Black and Oriental

respondents and the enormous diversity in the international sample is reflective of a

limitation of this study. In addition these numbers are not large enough to establish

whether the same six lovestyles are factorially distinct in different cultures.

Murstein et al. (1991) compared the lovestyles of 156 (117 women and 39 men)

American students to 165 (50 women and 115 men) French students. They found that

the French respondents were higher on agape whereas American respondents were

higher on storge and mania. Weaknesses inherent in this study were 1) the significant

age differences and 2) only very tentative generalisation is possible with only one

French sample. Therefore cautious interpretation of these results is recommended.

241

Using an ethnically heterogeneous Canadian Asian (Chinese, Japanese, Korean,

Indian and Pakistani) sample of 168 undergraduates from the University of Toronto,

Dion and Dion (1993a) found that Chinese (n = 28) and other Asian (n = 26)

participants, regardless of gender, were more storge orientated than their Anglo-

Celtic or European counterparts (n = 114), thus pointing to the possible difference in

the social construction of love and intimacy in individualistic (Western), as contrasted

with collectivistic (Eastern) cultural traditions (Dion & Dion, 1988; Dion & Dion,

1993b). They also found that Asian women (Chinese participants excluded) were

more agapic and less ludic in their styles of loving than their European counterparts.

An altruistic / agapic view of love was more likely to be endorsed by women from

several Asian ethonocultural backgrounds when compared to European women (Dion

& Dion, 1993a). Dion and Dion (1993a) suggest that this may be reflective of the

more interconnected and interdependent view of self-other relationships which is

predominant in Asian collectivistic cultures. Nevertheless, it is important to note that a

limitation of this study is that the sample size of the individual cultures was relatively

small.

Sprecher et al. (1994) investigated local American (n = 1043), Russian (n = 401) and

Japanese (n = 223) students in their cross-cultural study on love. They found that

eros was endorsed significantly more by all three cultures than any other lovestyle.

The second highest endorsement differed across culture: storge for the American

sample; agape for the Russian sample; and mania for the Japanese sample. They

reported that when compared to the Japanese and the Russians, the Americans

recorded a significantly higher score on eros and storge and a significantly lower

score on mania. When these authors compared the Japanese and Russians, the

Russians had a higher eros score than the Japanese. When comparing the

Americans and Russians, the Russians recorded a significantly higher score on ludus

than the Americans. Although the differences between the three cultures‘ lovestyles

are discussed above, in the context of the rest of this study which considered other

aspects of love, Sprecher et al. (1994) concede that the three cultures‘ views and

experiences of love were relatively similar despite the fact that the three societies

differ quite substantially: economically, politically, socially and psychologically. As with

242

all cross-cultural studies comparability of meaning is a limitation of this study. In

addition, generalisation to the rest of the adult population in these countries is not

possible because the sample is not representative. Therefore cautious interpretation

of these results is again suggested.

Cho and Cross‘s (1995) Taiwanese student sample (99 participants with a fairly even

gender spread) from the University of Texas at Austin, yielded very similar factors to

Lee‘s (1976) lovestyles ―but with a distinctly Chinese flavour‖ (p. 301). Firstly, like

Americans from previous studies (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986, 1990), the Taiwanese

participants positively endorse storge; indicating that in the Taiwanese culture a good

friendship and mutual understanding are valuable in romantic relationships. Secondly,

ludus is neither valued nor common in intimate relationships in the Taiwanese culture.

Thirdly, a more complex Taiwanese pragmatic love was more strongly endorsed by

the participants. Cho and Cross (1995) maintain that this is a culturally distinct

approach to love and marriage; that it is embedded in the traditional system of partner

selection (based on compatibility and parental selection) in the Chinese culture. It is

also reflective of the cultural belief that a reliable other to spend one‘s life with, is the

purpose of love, romance and marriage. Finally, the fact that the Chinese culture

allows males to pursue their ideal romantic partner did not manifest itself in this study.

Cho and Cross (1995, p. 303) suggest ―that Taiwanese women are making progress

toward equal status in intimate relationships‖. This study‘s findings should be viewed

as exploratory and tentative because of its fairly small sample size and also because

of the fact that a Taiwanese student sample from the University of Texas at Austin is

not representative of all Chinese people. Finally, the impact of acculturation would be

expected to be stronger the longer the individual had lived in the United States. Cho

and Cross (1995) concluded that because there is great variance in how love and

romance are framed and established across cultures further research is necessary to

probe the different cultural beliefs and values of romantic relationships.

In a study of 188 Latino students, Leon, Parra and Cheng (1995) confirmed Hendrick

and Hendrick‘s (1986) findings, in that their Latino respondents endorsed eros, agape

and storge more often but ludus and mania least often.

243

Goodwin and Findlay (1997) explored the differences in lovestyles between a local

Chinese (n = 100) and British (n = 100) population. The Chinese participants were

found to endorse pragma and agape more but eros less than their British

counterparts. In view of the Chinese cultural and religious tradition, its belief in and

value of interdependency within the community and the centrality of family honour

and stability, it is not surprising that the Chinese sample would endorse pragma and

agape more strongly than their Western, individualistic counterparts.

Neto et al. (2000) in their study on attitudes toward love in various countries from

African, Asia, South America and Europe found that the factor structure of Lee‘s

(1976) six lovestyles was valid across cultures. Their sample consisted of: 97

Angolans, 230 Brazilians, 112 Cape Verde participants, 200 French, 85 Macao

participants, 101 Mozambicans, 177 Portuguese, 145 local Swiss students. Their

study aimed to test their hypotheses that factors involving strong personal feelings

such as eros, mania and agape would not be impacted on by culture and that factors

involving low personal feelings like ludus, storge and pragma would be susceptible to

cultural differences. The data supported the hypotheses fairly well. Neto et al. (2000)

established that eros, mania and agape supported moderate cross-cultural

differences while, by contrast, in the following lovestyles, ludus, pragma and storge,

cross-cultural differences were considerable: Angolans, Brazilians, Cape Verdeans

and Mozambicans were more pragmatic than the French and Swiss; Angolans, Cape

Verdeans and Mozambicans were more storgic than the French and Swiss; and

Angolans and Mozambicans were the most ludic in their responses.

With relatively equal numbers of local Japanese male and female students in a total

sample of 343 students, a study was conducted to establish the relationship between

lovestyles and various romantic experiences (Kanemasa et al., 2004). This study

provided support for Lee‘s lovestyle theory (1976) as well as evidence for the

construct validity of his distinctive six lovestyles within a Japanese population. There

were no other significant findings. Cautious interpretation of these results is advisable

because generalisation to the rest of the adult population in Japan is not possible as

the sample is not representative.

244

Le (2005) undertook a study to investigate the relationship between narcissism and

immature love as mediators of vertical individualism and ludus. He used a sample of

179 predominantly female students: 65 were White, 54 were Asian and 60 were multi-

ethnic. He found that 1) vertical individualism predicted the endorsement of

narcissism and immature love, 2) narcissism and immature love predicted the

endorsement of the game playing ludus lovestyle, and 3) that males scored higher

than females on vertical individualism, narcissism and ludus. They conclude that

vertical individualism was related to a ludic lovestyle which is mediated by narcissism

and immature love. These results suggest that there is some truth in Fromm‘s (1956)

assertion that current individualistic Western cultures, with their excessive focus on

self-interests, hinder healthy, loving interpersonal relationships. Due to the fact that a

student sample was used, these findings should once again be interpreted with

caution because the sample is not representative and therefore these results cannot

be generalised to the rest of the population.

There is a dearth of South African lovestyle research; however two studies were

located. Rudnick (1997) investigated 108 (54 couples) White South Africans to

determine the relationship between lovestyles and relationship satisfaction. He

reports that the more erotic and agapic and the less ludic a partner was, the more

satisfying the relationship.

Pavlou (2005) used a Black South African university student sample (n =275; with a

relatively even gender split) to establish: firstly, the validity of Lee‘s (1976) typology of

love when applied to a Black South African population, and secondly, the relationship

between lovestyles and those who were high on the collectivism continuum compared

to those who were low on the collectivism continuum. She found that the lovestyles

typology was factorially valid for a Black South African population. Irrespective of

whether the participant was high or low on the collectivism continuum, eros, followed

by storge, were the most commonly endorsed lovestyles by both genders. This

demonstrates that most young Africans covet and want the headiness of passionate

love yet at the same time emphasise and want the solidity of friendship in their love

relationships. Bearing in mind that it could be argued that the sample is more likely to

represent the ―elite‖ in the Black South African population, the emphasis on eros may

245

be understood as reflective of the impact of globalisation on romantic relationships via

worldwide media, for example, internet, TV, movies, music etcetera. The emphasis on

storge is reflective of the more interconnected and interdependent view of self-other

relationships which is predominant in collectivistic cultures like the Black South

African culture. These findings may point to the possibility that the young Black South

African has established a bicultural romantic identity that straddles both his or her

traditional collectivistic culture and the Western global culture. Because the sample is

not representative these results cannot be generalised to the rest of the Black South

African population and should therefore likewise be interpreted with caution.

Neto (2007) undertook a cross-cultural study utilising English (n = 231), Indian (n =

154) and Portuguese (n = 177) local students. His premise is that the British and

Portuguese students are individualistic and that the Indian students are collectivistic.

All three cultural groups endorsed eros, agape and storge most strongly and rejected

ludus, pragma and mania most strongly. He found no cultural differences in eros but

established that the collectivistic Indian participants recorded higher scores on

pragma, mania and agape than their British and Portuguese counterparts. The Indian

participants had lower ludus scores when compared to their British peers whereas the

Indian participants recorded higher storge scores in comparison to their Portuguese

peers. These results support the Dions‘ (Dion & Dion, 1993) argument that the social

construction of love differs when individualistic and collectivistic cultures are

compared. These results should be interpreted with caution because the sample is

not representative as it is drawn from students. Therefore these results cannot be

generalised to the rest of the British, Portuguese or Indian populations.

In summary, the above studies of lovestyles revealed that eros is the lovestyle most

endorsed by most cultures (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986; Leon et al., 1995; Neto, 2007;

Pavlou, 2005; Sprecher et al., 1994). However, in some studies the respondents from

individualistic cultures generally recorded higher eros scores than individuals from

collectivistic cultures (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986; Sprecher et al., 1994), thus

indicating that although eros is important in most cultures, eros is more important in

individualistic cultures than in collectivistic cultures. Goodwin and Findlay (1997)

reported that Chinese respondents endorsed pragma and agape more but eros less

246

than their British counterparts. Similar findings were noted by Neto et al. (2000) who

indicated that in general collectivistic cultures were more pragmic, storgic and ludic

when compared to individualistic cultures. Neto (2007) also reported similar findings:

their collectivistic Indian participants endorse pragma, mania and agape more than

their individualistic counterparts (British and Portuguese). Dion and Dion (1993a)

observed that their Asian and Chinese respondents were more storge orientated than

their Anglo-Celtic counterparts. Cho and Cross (1995) discovered similar findings in

their Taiwanese sample, who strongly endorsed storge. Sprecher et al. (1994)

reported contrary results: they found that Americans scored higher on storge than did

their Japanese and Russian counterparts. This result is perplexing. Overall it seems

that eros is the most strongly endorsed lovestyle globally. However, upon comparing

collectivistic and individualistic cultures, the former seem to endorse pragma, agape

and storge more, and eros less, than the individualistic cultures. In other words, the

collectivistic cultures value practical, selfless and friendship styles of love more but

passionate love less than individualistic cultures.

4.3.5. Other ways of romantic love

Other instruments that have been used to measure romantic love cross-culturally

have also yielded interesting results.

The love attitudes of Taiwanese students living in the United States were assessed

using the Love Attitude Scale (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1990). After factor analysis,

these authors identified six different lovestyle factors which they suggest are reflective

of Taiwanese culture. The combination of eros (passionate love) and agape (altruistic

love) became ―romantic and considerate love‖ whereas the combination of agape

(altutristic love) and pragma (practical love) became ―obligatory love‖. This suggests

that perhaps love attitudes and beliefs hold different meanings for racially and

ethnically diverse groups. These results also echo Weaver and Ganong‘s (2004)

warning that because different cultures attribute differing meanings to romantic love

and also conceptualise romantic love differently, the employment of measures that

were developed predominantly with respect to White samples may not accurately

247

measure racially and ethnically diverse groups. Even so, Hendrick and Hendrick

(1990) as well as Weaver and Ganong (2004) concluded that overall there are many

love similarities between the Taiwanese and American student samples and the

White and Black American samples respectively.

Goodwin and Findlay (1997) compared the lovestyles and yuan (Chinese concept of

fated and predestined love) of British, Hong Kong and Chinese subjects. They found

that the Chinese subjects endorsed yuan, altruistic (agape) and pragmatic (pragma)

lovestyles more than their British counterparts. Surprisingly, they discovered that the

British participants also scored high on many of the yuan items. They report finding

no gender differences in yuan scores, in both samples. Following this study, Hendrick

and Hendrick (2000) reflect on whether in fact an Eastern philosophy of fatalism, duty

and obligation can also be found in Western notions of love. This is a question that is

yet to be answered empirically.

Sprecher et al. (1994) compared American, Japanese and Russian students using

various measures of love: love as a basis for marriage, romantic beliefs, attachment

types, lovestyles and love experiences. They concluded that even though the groups

demonstrated some differences, overall the subjects were similar in many love

orientations. Contreras et al. (1996) confirmed this notion of the cross-cultural

similarity of love attitudes and experiences. They established, among their Mexican

American and Anglo American couples, only modest love attitude and sexual attitude

differences. In addition, when comparing Anglo Americans, bicultural individuals and

Mexican Americans, they found no difference in passionate, friendship-orientated or

altruistic love. The three groups also reported similar levels of relationship

satisfaction. Supporting this finding are Hatfield and Rapson (1996) who concluded in

their study that passionate love was a culturally universal phenomenon.

In summary, the above studies suggest that, broadly, romantic love is a universal

phenomenon; however the meanings, understandings, behaviours and

conceptualisations of romantic love are mediated through culture. Nonetheless,

recent studies show that globalisation is altering romantic aspirations and

expectations in collectivistic societies to reflect more of the individualistic themes and

248

practices of love but these are mediated through the local culture‘s values, beliefs and

practices into a hybridised perception of love (Hart, 2004; Husted, 2003;

Mwamwenda, 1999; Sandhya, 2009; Smith, 2001).

4.3.6. Love and money

According to Levine et al. (1995) there is a profound link between economic wealth

and romantic love: affluent societies are able to adopt the freedom and luxury of a

romantic approach to love whereas poorer societies adopt a more practical view.

Hofstede (1980, 1994a, 2002) reports a strong correlation between affluence and

individualistic societies. It therefore follows that individuals in individualistic countries

enjoy greater freedom to adopt a romantic approach to love whereas individuals in

the poorer collectivistic countries are more likely and willing to marry someone they

do not love. Research confirms this (Levine et al., 1995; Sprecher et al., 1994).

Levine et al. (1995) claim that countries with a greater gross domestic product were

also the countries that placed more importance on romantic love in marriages. They

add that in cultures where economic interdependence between romantic partners is

weak, love is more important for marriage.

Sprecher et al. (1994) found that in an economically struggling society such as

Russia, even though the respondents still endorse a romantic love ideology, there

were a relatively large number of respondents (70% of men and 59% of women) who

were prepared to consider marrying someone they did not love.

Sprecher and Toro-Morn (2002) in a cross-cultural study comparing American and

Chinese students‘ beliefs in love as a basis for marriage found that the participants

who were middle-class and upper-class were more likely to make a stronger

passionate love-marriage connection than their lower-class peers. These authors

concluded that financial prosperity contributes to the freedom to focus on passionate

love as a basis for marriage.

249

In conclusion, wealth and economic prosperity influences the individualism-

collectivism continuum; with individualistic countries tending to be wealthier than

collectivistic countries (Hofstede, 1980, 1994a, 2002). Following this trend, if wealth

and economic prosperity influences the said continuum, consequently it also

influences the importance of love in marriage. The more economic prosperity, wealth

and abundant resources an individual commands, the more independence and

freedom they enjoy to pursue their personal goals, needs and rights; the more

freedom to choose love as the basis for marriage (Goodwin, 1999; Levine et al.,

1995; Matsumoto & Juang, 2004; Sprecher et al., 1994). Hence, applying this

principle to South African society, it would seem that South Africans who are

economically stable and independent will experience more freedom to marry for love,

while those who are not will be more restricted by the group system and their reliance

on the group. Prior to exploring the nuances of the ways in which South Africans love

romantically, the study will investigate how globalisation is impacting on romantic love

and intimate relationships.

4.4. Impact of globalisation and cultural shifts on romantic love

4.4.1. Introduction

Matsumoto and Juang (2004) highlight the point that as a result of the impact of

globalisation, equality and romantic love seems to becoming more and more

important in intimate relationships the world over, especially as a criterion for

marriage (Sandhya, 2009). Hart (2004, p. 361) eloquently describes this process: ―As

individuals embrace Western practices, they gain freedom and independence from

kin as new economic opportunities encourage them to break away, structures of

authority collapse, constraints vanish, and romantic love flourishes in this heady

atmosphere of individualism‖. With globalisation, more and more young adults, from

what would normally be considered collectivistic cultures, are selecting their own

marriage partners (Hart, 2004; Netting, 2006; Sandhya, 2009). Arnett (2001) confirms

that this trend is reflected in countries such as Turkey, Egypt, Japan and China.

250

Netting (2006) explains that when an economy industrialises, modernises and people

become more affluent, old and collectivistic values weaken and give way to Western,

individualistic values. Consequently, with the collapse of paternal authority, young

adults mobilise their abilities and skills to find their own jobs, establish their own

homes, attract and choose their own partners and develop their own beliefs. With the

freedom to choose their own partner and the adoption of Western values, so too is

romantic love sought in intimate relationships and marriage.

Even though globalisation is increasing the importance of romantic love in intimate

relationships, perhaps it is pertinent to heed Fromm‘s (1956) warning that the

capitalistic and materialistic Western culture is creating a society where most modern

men and women are not capable of mature love; instead they barter ‗personality

packages‘. Giddens (1992) may disagree with Fromm (1956) by arguing that in very

Western cultures, globalisation, via a de-traditionalised cultural framework, is pushing

romantic love aside and replacing it with what he calls a "pure" or "confluent" love.

Through constant communication, the ―pure love‖ relationship attempts to achieve an

intimate knowledge of the other's unique and authentic self. In other words, intimacy

is sought as a means to self-development and Western culture and globalisation has

allowed for the development of this type of ―pure‖ love.

4.4.2. Cultural shifts

Different perceptions of how cultural shifts are impacting on romantic love

asrediscussed below: 1) demographic trends; 2) the Yeppies, and 3) ―pure‖ love

replacing romantic love.

4.4.2.1 Demographic trends

Sandhya (2009) describes the impact of modernisation and globalisation in India by

summarising the 11 demographic trends that characterise the emerging middle class

currently: 1) marriage is occurring at later ages, 2) more single mothers, 3) more

nuclear families, 4) higher numbers of teenage and unmarried mothers, 5) higher

251

numbers of cohabiting couples, 6) increases in premarital and extramarital sex, 7)

increased numbers of love marriages, 8) more divorces, 9) marital fertility shifts, 10)

more people speaking English, and 11) women are more educated and more of them

are working. Brehm et al. (2002) report on very similar cultural demographic changes

in the United States: 1) fewer people are marrying, 2) marriage is occurring at later

ages, 3) increased numbers of unmarried mothers, 4) higher rates of cohabitation, 5)

more divorces, 6) higher numbers of children living in single-parent homes and 7)

more pre-school children have working mothers. Sandhya (2009) attributed the

demographic changes in the Indian population to globalisation whereas Brehm et al.

(2002) attribute these changes in the American population to socioeconomic

development, higher levels of individualism and technology. These attributions of the

demographic changes outlined above may point to the fact that perhaps globalisation

impacts are felt globally - not only in the more collectivistic cultures and countries but

even the very Western and individualistic cultures and countries - and that the

impacts of globalisation are felt at different levels and rates in different countries.

Larson et al. (2002) outline worldwide changes to marriages: 1) marriage is becoming

less absolute, 2) marriage is occurring at later ages, 2) the value of the emotional

quality in marriage is increasing in importance, 4) more divorces, 5) continual

increases in expectations of what constitutes a good relationship, and 6) gender roles

between partners are becoming more flexible and negotiable – due to increased

economic and legal freedom for women. They also outline worldwide global changes

to romantic relationships and sexuality: 1) mass media are bringing romantic love and

sexuality into the open and depict these positively by associating them with pleasure,

satisfaction and recreation, 2) greater acceptance of diverse sexual identities and 3)

earlier involvement in romantic and sexual relationships due to earlier puberty and

freer parental and community controls in Northern America, Europe, Latin America,

sub-Saharan Africa and East and Southeast Asia (rates of sexual involvement have

not been increasing in the Middle East and South Asia, especially for young females).

252

4.4.2.2 The Yeppies

Fox (2005) utilised information gained from young adults in the United Kingdom and

suggests that the ‗twenty-somethings‘ of today are known as Yeppies - 'Young

Experimenting Perfection Seekers'. According to Fox (2005) they try to find the

perfect job, the ideal relationship and the most fulfilling lifestyle by adopting a

shopping-style and experimenting attitude to life. The trend for the Yeppies is to delay

and postpone big, life-altering decisions until they feel they have experienced and

exhausted all their options. This leads to a delay in the transition to adulthood and the

period is conceptualised as a prolonged adolescence. She clarifies that these young

adults are not restless or irresponsible but essentially conservative and cautious. The

tendency for young adults to extend adolescence and young adulthood worldwide to

their mid to late twenties has also been recognised by other recent researchers

(Arnett, 2002; Larson, 2002; Larson, Wilson & Mortimer, 2002).

The Yeppies do not only engage in life-shopping but they also engage in a 'mate-

shopping' approach to marriage. They marry later and have more partners than their

peers in the past (Arnett, 2002; Fox, 2005; Larson, 2002; Larson, Wilson & Mortimer,

2002). Fox (2005, p.12) says, ―The majority still believe in marriage; they are just

prepared to wait longer and, more important, to ‗try on‘ a number of relationships until

they find the one that is right for them‖. She says that these young adults will and do

mobilise mate shopping through dating agencies and organised matchmaking

facilities. She suggests that the difficult task of mate selection should be facilitated.

―Sometime in the future, our grandchildren will look back on late-20th century ‗random

mating‘ and laugh at our brief, misguided, unsustainable attempt to cope without

matchmakers‖ (Fox, 2005, p. 24).

Although they have been criticised as the 'Peter Pan' generation who never want to

grow up, Fox (2005) believes their reluctance to commit is a major shift in aspirations

in that they may be seeking perfection: searching for what may well be unrealistic and

unattainable. A female respondent said: ―We have high expectations of personal

happiness, which I don't think my parents' generation had‖ (Fox, 2005, p. 7).

253

Fox (2005) also writes of a new collectivism. Once they have left home, she says, the

Yeppies attempt to sublimate feelings of isolation and alienation that are common in

modern cities. They attempt to re-create a sense of family and community when they

eventually leave home by forming ‗neo-tribes‘ and ‗pseudo-kin‘ relationships with like

minded individuals.

If one applies Erikson‘s (1968) stage developmental theory to the Yeppies trend of

delaying adulthood and extending adolescence, the implication is that the

developmental crises of identity and intimacy may be extended. Erikson (1968)

postulated that genetic and social factors simultaneously result in individual

development. He declares that personality development emerges in eight stages

ranging from birth to death. A certain aspect of personality transpires as a central

point at each stage. A developmental crisis arises from the interaction between

genetic development and social influences at each point of these stages. According to

Erikson, the developmental crisis emerges at genetically determined ages and in a

fixed sequence (Erikson, 1968).

For Erikson (1968) the crisis demands a choice between two opposing developmental

possibilities. These possibilities are complementary opposites and the ideal resolution

is a healthy balance between the two extreme possibilities. The resolution of the

developmental crisis is a new synthesis and results in an ego strength or

psychological strength or developmental gain or emerging value (Erikson, 1968). The

ego strength enables the individual to advance to a higher level of development. An

unsuccessful resolution of a crisis complicates the resolution of the subsequent

stages. The individual, however, has the opportunity to resolve the crisis at a later

stage (Erikson, 1968). Erikson‘s eight stages are as follows (Table 4.4):

254

Table 4.4 Erikson‟s eight stages of development

Opposing issues of each stage Emerging

Value

Period of Life

1 Basic Trust vs. Mistrust Hope Infancy (birth to 1 year)

2 Autonomy vs. Shame and Doubt Will Early childhood (1 to 3 years)

3 Initiative vs. Guilt Purpose Play age (3 to 6 years)

4 Industry vs. Inferiority Competence School age (6 to 12 years)

5 Identity vs. Identity (role) confusion Fidelity Adolescence (12 to 20 years)

6 Intimacy vs. Isolation Love Young adulthood (20 to 40

years)

7 Generativity vs. Stagnation (self

absorption)

Care Maturity (40 to 65 years)

8 Integrity vs. Despair & Disgust Wisdom Old Age (65 and older)

Derived and adapted from (Erikson‘s Eight Ages of Human Life in Kimmel, 2002).

Erikson‘s (1968) adolescence and young adulthood are the stages of importance in

this study and to the Yeppies. According to Erikson (1968) it is in these stages that

the individual is required to successfully synthesise the opposing possibilities of 1)

intimacy and isolation as well as developing the ego strength of love and 2) identity

and identity (role) confusion and developing the ego strength of fidelity which

encompasses social and vocational identities. According to Fox (2005) and the trend

evident in the Yeppies, Erikson‘s (1968) stages and developmental crises will be

extended substantially so that longer times are needed for a resolution and new

synthesis in order to ultimately achieve the corresponding ego strengths and

emerging values.

4.4.2.3 ―Pure‖ love replacing romantic love?

Giddens (1992), a world renowned sociologist, provides an alternative explanation for

the way in which intimate relationships are evolving in the Western world. He

suggests that there have been profound cultural shifts in intimate relationships in

individualistic societies. According to Giddens (1990, 1992) the trend, under the

255

weight of globalisation, in advanced Western capitalistic societies nowadays, is to

move away from the traditional (the ideal of ―romantic‖ love) to the post traditional

model of intimate sexual relationships (the ―pure love‖ or ―confluent‖ love

relationship). In other words, he postulates that a new form of love has developed,

called "pure" or "confluent", and that this love is replacing romantic love. He suggests

that in the posttraditional advanced capitalist societies of the West, the ―pure love

relationship‖ is now the dominant cultural form. He claims that individuals who pursue

the ―pure love relationship‖ value autonomy and equality – equal rights and

obligations, open communication, mutual respect, mutual trust and mutual self

actualisation. In his view confluent or pure love is "active contingent love, and

therefore clashes with the 'for-ever, one and only'" (Giddens, 1992, p. 61) virtues of

romantic love. These ―pure love relationships‖, according to Giddens (1992), are

expected to dissolve once the ability to serve as a self development vehicle for either

partner is exhausted. Therefore the individuals in ―pure love relationships‖ are

especially lacking in ontological security. As a result these relationships ―hold great

promise for human freedom and happiness, but are so unpredictable that they also

threaten to overwhelm people with anxiety‖ (Gross & Simmons, 2002, p. 531).

Therefore, Giddens (1992) warns, the ―pure love relationship‖, which has enormous

potential to make the world a better place, also brings with it new risks - one of the

biggest being psychological insecurity.

Brown (2005, p. 23) acknowledges Giddens‘ (1992) view and adds, ―indeed, in a

postmodern age, the need for or belief in romantic love might seem unreconstructed

and naïve (and ready for transformation), but…that romantic love retains a compelling

hold in contemporary culture‖. Brown (2005) argues that romantic love prevails

because like other human emotions, love is not only socially derived but also

psychologically derived. Brown (2005) explains romantic love‘s prevailing nature and

compelling hold from a psychoanalytical perspective via intrapsychic processes: 1)

the ‗infantile anxiety of longing‘ to be loved and fearing loss and separation (Freud,

1923), 2) infantile longing for emotional, non-verbal attunements, and 3) a mitigation

of the individual‘s ‗sense of loneliness‘. Perhaps Brown (2005) is suggesting that

romantic love sublimates and soothes the individual‘s primitive infantile fears and

anxieties, whereas the ―pure love relationship‖ possibly has the capacity to activate

256

these primitive infantile fears and anxieties. Brown (2005) also argues that Giddens‘

(1992) concept of pure love relationships fails to recognise the negative (e.g. hate,

jealousy and envy) and ambivalent emotions present in an intimate relationship.

Finally, she highlights criticisms that have been aimed at Giddens‘ (1992) notion: that

is, for being too rational, individualistic and advocating ‗technocratic emotional

management‘. Fromm (1956) may argue that pure love is reflective of what he calls

immature love rather than mature love.

Gross and Simmons (2002) undertook the difficult task of attempting to test Giddens‘

theory by using a sample of 1970 individuals. They reported that there was a positive

association between being in a pure love relationship and experiencing a heightened

sense of autonomy, being happier with their partnerships and being more likely to

support egalitarian political arrangements. They also found that there was no

significant association between being in a pure love (or hybrid-type) relationship and

anxiety or harmful addictions. The researchers conceded that a number of limitations

were inherent in their study and highlighted the need for more nuanced empirical

tests of Giddens' concept. Nonetheless it makes, at the very least, a start to testing

what could be a fertile and rich theory.

4.4.3. Globalisation and love research

Hart (2004) interviewed 89 rural Turkish households in order to unravel the

experiences of these individuals with regard to desire, modernity and identity in the

arena of marriage. She reports that although the participants felt the need to display

the adoption of modern practices and the rejection of practices such as arranged

marriages, bride-wealth and polygamy, in practice, ideologies of modernity were held

at a distance and arranged marriages were in actual fact not infrequent. Hart (2004)

clarifies that the arranged marriages today are not the arranged marriages of the

past. Instead the present day arranged marriages have the space to develop into

romances before or after the marriage ceremony. She suggests that these marriages

blur the distinction between the arranged marriage and the love-match and are

perceived by the local Turkish participants as marriages of choice – ‗duty to desire‘.

257

She argues that the rise of romantic love and individualism does not necessarily

automatically result in a split from extended kin networks. She concludes that ―Love,

even romantic love, can flourish in the public atmosphere of kin networks‖ (Hart,

2004, 162). Yan (2003) undertook a similar study in a rural Chinese village and he too

concurs that improved and changed economic arrangements have transformed the

ways in which people express themselves - much more intimately and romantically.

These rural studies perhaps shed some light on understanding how rural South

Africans may be negotiating marriages nowadays.

Research undertaken by Netting (2006) investigated Indian Canadian (Indo-

Canadian) youths and their experience of straddling two lives: one in Canadian

secular society and the other in their Indian ethnic community. Her study was based

on in-depth interviews with 27 Indo-Canadian, single young adults living permanently

in Canada. These youths seem to develop bi-cultural identities. One is based on the

traditional Indian / collectivistic culture gained from their immediate, extended family

and Indian community; and the other on Canadian values / an individualistic culture

stemming from school, neighbours, and peer groups. According to Netting (2006) the

collectivistic and individualistic cultures focus on different values. The former values

and promotes a responsibility to others, obedience and self-sacrifice. The latter

culture values and promotes independence and individual rights and, in the

individualistic milieu, self-sacrifice and compassion are understood as voluntary acts

motivated by care and love. One of the key struggles these youths have to negotiate,

out of this bi-cultural identity, is the contrast between individualistic and collectivistic

values that determine the nature of romantic relationships and marriage: they must

negotiate between the "love-marriage" of the West and the "arranged marriage"

advocated by their traditional Indian heritage.

Not surprisingly, this author reports that most respondents strongly desire a partner of

their choice as well as their parents' approval. Netting (2006) reports that her

research revealed that compromises were made by both the young Indo-Canadian

adults and their parents. As a result these young adults report limiting themselves to

partners who were semi-approved of by their parents - of the same religion and

sometimes even the same caste. They report that although the topic of marriage was

258

frustrating and difficult, by means of discussion it was solvable. They describe

discovering that through the struggle, difficulty and frustration of negotiating their bi-

cultural identities and therefore bi-cultural needs, desires and wants, their parents

were more flexible than they had expected; Indian values, with fewer social barriers,

had been reincorporated into a family; greater intergenerational respect and possibly

even additional gender equality was developed; and finally they became active,

creative, resilient agents of cultural re-creation and evolution. This study may reflect

the Indian/Asian and Black South African youths‘ struggle with the multiple identities

that globalisation brings and that are often in conflict with their traditional collectivistic

cultural values. Perhaps the negotiations, compromises and changes that ensued for

the parents and youths of the Indian Canadian sample may be reflective in the South

African context when one takes into account the rapid changes globalisation is

bringing.

Sandhya (2009) conducted a study of 91 married Indian couples. She found that the

experience and expression of intimacy is an important aspiration for Indian men and

women and that intimacy also predicted enhanced levels of happiness in marriage.

She attributes barometers of happiness and intimacy in a relationship to the

increased importance of self needs due to globalisation. She differentiates happy

couples as reporting agreement, empathy, validation, support, and fulfilled

expectations.

4.5. South African love

South Africans comprise divergent ethnic, racial and cultural groupings. Black and

Indian South Africans are, and function as, a collectivistic culture. The Black and

Indian South African individual lives and thinks in the context of the group, extended

family and community (Meyer et al., 2002; Mwamwenda, 1999). White South Africans

are, and function as, a moderately individualistic culture – the individual and their

independence are paramount (Hofstede, 1991). It is not yet known how the majority

of Coloured people function, and part of the purpose of this study is to establish

whether their cultural orientation and functioning is collectivistic or individualistic. If

259

love is mediated by culture, as many researchers claim, then perhaps the four broad

cultural groups in South African hold different and diverse conceptualisations

regarding the meanings and the ways of loving.

4.5.1. Love attitude and values

According to Oppong (1980), traditionally, romantic love plays a small part in Black

African nations and is at times viewed as disruptive. Other research found that

although a particular style of ―African love‖ exists, the same African subjects strongly

endorsed many of the ―American love‖ attitudes (Philbrick & Opolot, 1980). This is

corroborated by Bell (1995): ―passionate love or romantic love … has been an integral

part of African culture‖ (p. 153). He elaborates, writing that Kenyan Taita people

outline three kinds of African love: 1) love is infatuation; this is experienced as ―an

irresponsible feeling of longing and deep attraction toward another person‖ (p. 158);

2) love is lust and is experienced as a strong sexual attraction for another; and 3)

romantic love which is characterised by passion and enduring affection. The Kenyan

Taita people‘s romantic love can be related to a mix of companionate (enduring

attachment) and passionate (romantic) love. It could also be likened to Lee‘s (1976)

eros lovestyle. Although arranged marriages are the norm in the Taita, ―Taitas are

seldom surprised when someone marries for the love of the heart‖ (p.163).

Stones (1986) administered the Munro-Adams Love Attitude Scale to 375 South

African students: the sample was equally split between the sexes and between Black

and White students. He aimed to assess and compare Black and White South African

student scores as regards Romantic Power, Romantic Idealism and Conjugal

(mutual) Love. Romantic Power measures the ―belief that love has a potent influence

on a person‘s life and surmounts all obstacles‖ (Stones & Philbrick, 1989a, p. 131).

Romantic Idealism measures the belief that ―love is the very essence of life and is the

highest relationship goal between a man and a woman‖ (Stones & Philbrick, 1989a, p.

131). Conjugal Love measures the ―belief that love should be calm, sober, and a

stabilising influence and that love demands serious thought and careful consideration‖

(Stones & Philbrick, 1989a, p. 131). Stones (1986) found that both groups had an

260

equal belief in the power of love - Romantic Power and suggested the similarity in

scores on the Romantic Power subscale may be attributed to the fact that all

participants stemmed from a tertiary education system and therefore had attained a

relatively high level of Western sophistication. He also compared the South African

results to previous studies conducted in Uganda and America. The South African

sample matched the American and Ugandan sample on Romantic Power. However,

South African mean scores were distinctly lower on the Romantic Idealism and

Conjugal Love scales than those of their American and Ugandan counterparts. He

suggested that these distinctly lower scores may be attributed to the sociopolitical

atmosphere of unrest and the severe censorship that were present at the time of the

study. Finally, he reported that when Black and White participants were compared the

Black participants recorded a marginally higher mean score on Conjugal Love.

In a later study Stones and Philbrick (1989a) once again administered the Munro-

Adams Love Attitude Scale but this time to 74 rural South African Xhosa scholars

(senior secondary school pupils) ─ the sample had a relatively equal gender

weighting. The female mean scores were slightly higher than those of their male

peers on Romantic Power. The female mean scores were significantly higher than

their male peers on Romantic Idealism. The male mean scores were slightly higher

than their female peers on Conjugal Love. They concluded that Romantic Power was

ranked as primary by both sexes while Conjugal Love was ranked higher than

Romantic Idealism by the male participants, and that the opposite was true for female

participants.

Stones and Philbrick (1989b) replicated the above study (Stones & Philbrick, 1989a)

with 69 (32 male and 37 female) South African Xhosa collegiate university students.

The male-female comparison on mean scores of the three subscales differed from the

previous study‘s adolescent sample. The statistics as regards Romantic Power and

Romantic Idealism yielded the opposite results. The male mean scores were slightly

higher than their female peers on Romantic Power. The male mean scores were

significantly higher than those of their female peers on Romantic Idealism. The male

mean scores were slightly higher than their female peers on Conjugal Love. These

261

results suggest that shifts in endorsement of different love attitudes occur as females

and males mature and age.

When comparing their studies to previous ones which had been conducted, Stones

and Philbrick (1989a, 1989b) found that Romantic Power received equally strong

support in South Africa, Uganda and Senegal; South Africans supported Romantic

Idealism substantially less than the other two countries; and finally Conjugal Love was

equally supported by South African and Ugandan participants and markedly more so

by Senegalese participants. They suggest that the low South African support of

Romantic Idealism is due to ―the Xhosa‘s sociopolitical position within the framework

of apartheid [which] leaves little room for idealism in the affairs of love‖ (Stones &

Philbrick, 1989a, p. 132). They suggest that the much higher score of Conjugal Love

recorded by the Senegalese participants was possibly due to the greater linguistic

and ethnic homogeneity in their society.

Furnham (1984) administered the Rokeach Value Survey between three diverse

South African cultural groups during the Apartheid era – Blacks, Whites and Indians –

in an attempt to investigate the differences in attitudes toward love and romance. He

found that White South Africans valued love and friendship the highest whereas Black

South Africans placed the highest worth on equality and peace. These findings could

be attributed to the fact that at the time the study was undertaken, it was historically a

time of unrest and Black South Africans and Indians were discriminated against

socially, politically and economically. If one considers these results in light of

Maslow‘s (1964) hierarchy of needs, they suggest that the privileged and affluent

White South African societies and cultures had the luxury of indulging in higher order

needs such as beauty, love and friendship because their basic security needs were

being satisfied and therefore they enjoyed the freedom to pursue needs such as love,

self actualisation and self-esteem. For the poorer Black South African societies and

cultures, who were downtrodden and struggling to survive, Maslow‘s (1964) lower

needs of physical and social security were paramount and thus peace and equality

were important for this group because essentially under those conditions the luxury of

love and romance is inevitably marginalised.

262

4.5.2. Love and marriage

The nature of the African worldview is collectivistic and interdependent and this too

spills over into marriage. Given the support which each partner must give to the other

to create a successful marriage, marriage by its very nature appeals to the

interdependence of the African collectivistic culture (Mwamwenda, 1999). According

to Mwamwenda (1999) Africans enter into marriage either through love or by

arrangement and the marriage is characterised by its own ‗balance of power‘ which is

determined by the resources each spouse brings into the marriage (Van der Vliet,

1991).

Traditional African marriages not only bind two individuals; they are also contracts

between clans and families. The male‘s family normally takes the initiative and

approaches the female‘s family (Schapera & Comaroff, 1991). Bridewealth (lobola),

which legitimises the traditional marriage, is negotiated and the male‘s family pays

traditionally in cattle, thereby ensuring that the wife resides with the husband‘s family

and the offspring of the union belong to the father‘s lineage (Mwamwenda, 1999;

Schapera & Comaroff, 1991; Van der Vliet, 1991; West, 1976). It is not uncommon to

hold a Christian ceremony as well as a traditional African ceremony. An important

part of the union is fertility; so much so that the birth of a child secures the wife‘s

position in the husband‘s family. Often, in urban settings, only once a child is born will

a marriage take place (Little, 1973). It is not unusual that the basis for these arranged

marriages rests on socioeconomic reasons rather than love and romantic ones. ―True

love has rarely influenced the choice of wife here‖, said a respondent in an interview

(Little, 1973, p. 133). The author acknowledges that this is a relatively old source and

that in postliberation South Africa, the effects of acculturation and globalisation may

have changed these views substantially; nonetheless it is important to report on these

historically traditional views.

Nevertheless researchers have found that in many African cultures romantic love is

an essential part of the courting ritual through which young people are initiated

(Goodwin, 1999). Many researchers assert that in African societies love, infatuation,

romance and flirting are not uncommon (Bell, 1995; Little, 1973; Plotnicov, 1995;

263

West, 1976). For some people love can become so consuming that across the

socioeconomic spectrum Africans will go to an African traditional healer for a love

potion that will gain or retain the beloved‘s attention and affection (Caplan, 1997;

Little, 1973). The Zulu people are famous for their love tokens where beads

masquerade as love-letters. Each bead colour means something so that by

combining the colours one can send a love message. White beads denote love; black

beads represent darkness and unhappiness; green beads represent resentment;

yellow beads stand for wealth; pink beads symbolise poverty whereas red beads

represent eyes swollen from searching for a lover‘s face (West, 1976). A woman who

sends a love-letter of white, black and pink beads is saying ‗I love you, I‘m sad that

we can‘t meet and I‘m worried you won‘t have enough lobola for us to marry‘. This

concern is reflective of the adherence to arranged marriages for socioeconomic

reasons as well as of the notion of romantic and passionate love. As Goodwin (1999)

observes, unfortunately, for some, ―wanting to marry for love is not the same as doing

so‖ (p. 64).

Although in many traditional African societies marriages were frequently arranged by

the parents of the couple, Western ideas and values promoting individual partner

choice are spreading through mass media and education (Meekers, 1995). Meekers

(1995) from a sample of 3360 Togolese women deduced that autonomy of partner

choice increased amongst the upper class women when compared to lower class

women, urban women when compared to rural women, literate women when

compared to illiterate women, Christian women compared to non-Christian women,

women who marry later compared to women who marry early, and economic

independent women who control their own incomes compared to women who are less

economically independent and have less control of their own incomes. Even though,

greater economic status, urbanization and education have been eroding the institution

of arranged marriages, Togolese women still prefer to have parental approval of their

autonomously chosen marriage partner. Meekers (1995) concludes that even though

Western values are eroding the traditional African ways, it is unlikely that the

Togolese society will adopt purely Western ways. Instead, she reports that traditional

family values and characteristics are being retained and being integrated and merged

with modern Western family systems and characteristics. One of the traditional

264

African characteristic of intimate relationships that has survived to some extent in

South Africa is the practice of polygamy.

According to Gustafsson and Worku (2006), polygamy was mostly confined to royal

family and traditional leaders in the past and only took place with the consent of the

first wife. Currently polygamy is permitted legally as long as the first wife‘s interests

are protected. African men tended to support the more open, segregated and

polygamous style of marital relationship (Van der Vliet, 1991; Little, 1973). In contrast,

the women favoured the closed, joint, monogamous style of marital relationship (Van

der Vliet, 1991; Little, 1973). This as well as infidelity is reported as comprising the

primary source of conflict in the South African (Xhosa) couples that Van der Vliet

(1991, p. 232) interviewed: ―While the women deplored their men‘s behaviour, most of

them seemed resigned to it as more or less inevitable‖. Similar findings were reported

amongst the Igbo women in Nigeria (Smith, 2001). According to Smith (2001), many

of the Igbo women know that their men seek, and are involved with, other women and

this too often causes intense marital conflict amongst the Igbo. Being able to keep

women outside of marriage is a sign of economic status and continuing virility in the

eyes of African men (Little, 1973; Smith, 2001). Smith (2001) postulates that Igbo

men adopt a sense of entitlement regarding extramarital sexual relationships because

―it is our culture‖. He suggests that this is 1) due to the fact that married women are

principally socially appraised in their role as mothers and 2) a result of the patrilineal

society of the Igbo people, where the children of the couple are said to belong to the

husband‘s people (Smith, 2001). Therefore, a woman who chooses to leave the

marriage on the basis of her husband‘s infidelity risks losing her children. These

patrilineal values are common throughout Africa and in South Africa too

(Mwamwenda, 1999; Schapera & Comaroff, 1991; Van der Vliet, 1991; West, 1976).

Bafana (2009, p. 11) confirms that although wives will not approve, in African and in

South Africa ―having a mistress is like wearing a badge of honour, adding to the

man‘s social standing‖. Perhaps this explains the propensity to and one-sided social

acceptability of extramarital sexual relationships. South African Xhosa women attempt

to keep their husbands faithful by calling upon ‗modern‘ marriage models which

include making decisions together, spending leisure time together, having a strong

emotional bond and practising monogamy and marital fidelity (Van der Vliet, 1991). In

265

contrast the Xhosa men often counteract these attempts by insisting on living

according to the traditional marital model which includes strict gender-based labour

division, patriarchal attitudes, segregated men and women‘s worlds with men

exercising more social, financial and sexual freedom (Van der Vliet, 1991).

Ten years after Van der Vliet‘s (1991) research findings Smith (2001) reports that

Igbo constructions of marriage are changing and that they are being shaped by

notions of romantic love, emotional intimacy, conjugality and companionship. He adds

that a similar trend is being followed by Africans across Africa and that Africans are

―increasingly likely to select marriage partners, at least in part, on whether they are in

love‖ (Smith, 2001, p. 130). According to Smith (2001), although individual mate

selection is in its infancy in Africa, it is being readily adopted in urban, educated and

elite African circles. There is an evolution of African culture and in the realm of

intimate relationships, marriages seem to be utilising new as well as old embedded

social and cultural systems to transform, reproduce and adapt previous African

methods of marriage and family organisation.

The relative weight of old and new influence differs when one compares current

courtship and marriage relationships, according to Smith (2001). In current courtship,

the relationships that are negotiated are based largely on the quality of the

interpersonal relationships that exist between the couple. This affords women relative

equality in the area of sexuality and mate selection and it provides women with

considerably more power than ever before. Nowadays African men not only have to

pay bride price but must also woo and win the woman‘s heart, thus reflecting equality

in the weight of old and new influences. However, once married, gender dynamics are

transformed and women seem to lose the equality of power they experienced in the

courtship phase; there is a shift of weight toward the old influence. This balance of

power before marriage and the consequent imbalance of power, once marriage has

taken place, is echoed by the South African women Van der Vliet (1991, p. 236)

interviewed; one of them said:

When he wants to marry he tells you all sorts of lies. ―You‘ll be my

equal, I‘ll be faithful to you‖ and all that and you think, ―This is the

266

man I must marry!‖ The minute you put on the rings – hunh! – the

trouble starts. They want a woman to be subservient. [They expect a

women] to be a housewife and give birth to children. In fact, that‘s the

main thing when they marry, they always think about how this woman

will give birth to many children for the sake of our family name and to

increase the whole clan.

This causes much conflict and unhappiness especially on the part of the woman. As a

result of men‘s desire for a traditional (unequal) marriage, many women, from the elite

to the hawker and domestic worker, are choosing to reject marriage and become

independent unmarried mothers, thus putting a ―nail in the coffin of patriarchy‖ (Van

der Vliet, 1991, p. 237). Larson et al. (2002) concur with this, noting how in Western

and African nations divorce and parenting without marriage are on the rise.

Bikitsha (2009) introduces a new perspective; she suggests that nowadays some

modern, professional and affluent African women are entering into polygamous

marriages out of choice. She attributes this to statistics – Black South Africans record

the lowest marriage rates in Africa and only 31% of Black people between the ages of

25 to 34 were married or living together. She concludes that as a result of these

statistics there are some women who become accustomed to their independence and

financial security and choose to remain alone even when men their age are ready to

commit in their thirties and forties; and the women who are set on marrying may ―find

themselves not being ‗the one‘, but the second or the third‖ (Bikitsha, 2009, p. 20).

Although a relatively old source, Little (1973) echoes the above sentiments

concerning the relative weight of old and new influences before and after marriage

and cautions that the approval of the significance of romantic love during courtship

does not inevitably mean romantic love will be an emphasis after marriage. He

comments that the concept of love in African society is not necessarily identical to

Western notions of love, for example, romantic love in African societies does not

necessarily imply exclusivity (Little, 1973). Even though Western notions of romantic

love have impacted widely on the language of African romantic love, Little (1973)

concludes that its actual content of meaning is burdened by existing social values.

267

Little‘s (1973) views are supported by contemporary researchers who assert that

romantic love has an ethnic face and is mediated by one‘s traditional beliefs, culture

and local conditions (Cho & Cross, 1995; Goodwin, 1999; Jankowiak, 1995;

Jankowiak & Fisher, 1992; Smith, 2001).

Nevertheless, romantic love is based on intense feelings for another, feelings of

immense and psychological depth, the subjective idealisation of the other, strong

emotional attachment and erotic stimulation, and it is no different for peoples of Africa

(Jankowiak, 1995). An eighty year old Taita man describes his intense love for his

fourth wife: ―She was the wife of my heart … I could look at her and she at me, no

words would pass, just a smile‖ (Bell, 1995, p. 161). Goodwin concludes eloquently

(1999, p. 65), ―many aspects of ‗Western‘ love are important in African (and West

Indian societies), but that the particular constellation of love beliefs and behaviours

adopted is likely to be a complex synthesis of traditional beliefs, local conditions and

outside influences‖.

According to Dinna (2005), for a Muslim or Hindu Indian family, marriage is an

exceptionally important occasion – it joins two families and consolidates two

fraternities. Hinduism believes an individual is complete and holy only once they are

married – marriage is seen for both partners as a way of growing spiritually. Dinna

(2005) recognises in South African Indians, as did Netting (2006) in Canadian

Indians, that young adults prefer to choose their own mate, whereas their parents still

seek to arrange their marriages. According to Dinna (2005), in modern arranged

marriages in South Africa partner choice is based on mutual agreement between

parents and the individuals to be married. Dinna (2005) highlights the point that

although arranged Indian marriages record a low divorce rate, this is not necessarily

due to high marital satisfaction but instead because women do not want to embarrass

their family of origin by divorcing. Although love marriages in the Indian community

have been frowned upon, the influence of globalisation and exposure to Western

culture means that they have become more acceptable (Dinna, 2005). A study of

South African Indians was undertaken by Dinna (2005) to establish differences in

marital satisfaction. The sample consisted of 24 couples from love relationships and

20 couples from arranged marriages. It was found that couples who married as a

268

result of love relationships reported higher levels of marital satisfaction as compared

to couples whose marriage was arranged.

4.5.3. Marriage statistics in South Africa

Individuals from different population groups practise different types of marriages. The

two key kinds are civil and traditional marriages. Prior to 1984, marriages amongst

Whites and Coloureds were civil marriages; Africans and Indians could choose to

marry according to either civil or traditional marriages. Traditional marriages are

conducted according to African tradition for African people and according to Hindu or

Muslim religious ceremonies for Indian people (Gustafsson & Worku, 2006).

Budlender, Chobokoane and Simelane (2004) use Census 1996 to report that 70% of

marriages in South Africa were civil marriages with the rest being traditional

marriages. According to Gustafsson and Worku (2006) traditional marriages may be

polygamous.

Statistics South Africa (2007) reports that the median age for Black grooms was 34

years old and 30 for brides. Udjo (2001) reported similar findings: Black South African

men and women record relatively similar mean ages at marriage (early thirties) but

South African women are married at the highest mean age (32.2 years) in the world.

Gustafsson and Worku (2006), using Census 2001, also highlight the high proportion

of single African mothers between the ages of 20-40 (48%). They attribute these

trends to the lack of eligible men due to the low gender ratio amongst Africans: 92

men to 100 women (i.e. there are 1.6 million fewer African men than women),

apartheid legacies and high lobola prices. They report that 78% White women

between the age of 20 and 40 years old with at least one child were in a civil

marriage, compared to only 19% of African women in civil marriages and 16% in

traditional marriages. Perhaps this highlights the fact that different cultural

understandings of what constitutes marriage exist; or possibly this demonstrates that

in the African culture formal marriage as an institution is not as important as in White

culture; or perhaps these figures support Little‘s (1973) assertion that marriage is only

likely to take place after a child is born in the African culture.

269

According to Budlender et al. (2004) the percentage of cohabiting women has been

steadily increasing, from 4% to 7% over the period of 1995-99. Cohabitation was

reported in African and Coloured population groups more often and least often

amongst White and Indian population groups (Budlender et al., 2004). Gustafsson

and Worku (2006) suggest that high lobola prices and low employment and income

perhaps explain the recent shift to cohabitation.

Budlender et al. (2004) emphasize - from a comparison of the South African

population groups over the period of 1995-99 - that not only did Whites and Indians

marry earlier when marrying for the first time but that marriage was also almost

universal amongst Whites and Indians but not amongst Africans and Coloureds. The

prevalence of South Africans having ever married, who were age 50 and above, was

overall 83.4%. As evident in Table 4.5, Budlender et al. (2004) highlight that the

prevalence of marriage by the age of 50 with respect to population group: Whites

group were most likely to have married by the age of 50 (94.8%), Indian group were

second most likely (92.2%), third likely were the Coloured group (83.1%), while the

least likely were the African group (80.1%).

Table 4.5 Average percentage of people, age 50 and above, ever married by population

group and gender, 1995-1999

Population Group Male Female Total

African 79.8 80.4 80.1

White 94.3 95.3 94.8

Coloured 83.3 82.8 83.1

Indian 92.0 91.8 92.2

Derived and adapted from (Budlender et al., 2004).

According to Statistics South Africa (2007) the median age for divorce was 43 for men

and 39 for women. Although White South Africans record the highest divorce rate out

of all the groups in South Africa, over the past ten years the percentage of divorces

has been declining in White South Africans (to 33.5%) and increasing in Coloured (to

270

2.9%) and African (to 30.6%) groups (Statistics South Africa, 2007). On average, the

proportion of people reporting divorce or separation has increased over time and the

proportion of people marrying has declined over time, therefore suggesting that the

institution of marriage is being eroded. Perhaps Giddens (1992) is correct in saying

that society is calling for a different conceptualisation of intimate relationships.

4.6. Conclusion

Romantic and passionate love are seemingly universal experiences, but the ways in

which romance, love and passion are expressed, understood and fulfilled differ

across cultures. Researchers have found that the dimension of collectivism versus

individualism has been a useful one to help differentiate and understand love

amongst cultures and much research has been conducted in terms of these

dimensions. The love and culture chapter of this study reviewed the research that has

been undertaken globally using different scales to measure romantic love: love as a

basis for marriage, romantic beliefs, attachment patterns and lovestyles. These

studies have revealed the nuances of love in different cultures at different periods of

time. The relationship between love and money was explored and it was found that

the wealthier an individual is, the more likely they are to be individualistic, and the

more likely they are to possess the freedom to choose love as the basis of their

romantic relationships.

Globalisation and cultural shifts exert a profound effect on ways of loving across

cultures: with collectivistic cultures adopting the more individualistic values of

romantic love, and advanced individualistic cultures adopting the values of equality

and autonomy in ―pure love‖ relationships.

Within the rainbow of cultures of South Africa there are cultures that are ostensibly

traditionally more collectivistic in nature (Black South African and Indian South

African); and others that are ostensibly traditionally more individualistic in nature

(White South African); and yet others whose cultural nature is currently unknown

(Coloured South African). These ethnic groups and their complex relationship with

romantic love were explored. Although the information gathered provides some

271

understanding, challenges prevail in this field of study and there are still a number of

unanswered questions as regards the nuances of South African love. The process of

uncovering the answers to these questions and nuances is further challenged by the

blurring of cultural boundaries in South Africans due to acculturation, and

globalisation. Of particular relevance is the possibility that urban middle and upper

class young adults are more homogeneous across culture than their rural and lower

class cultural counterparts. This study attempts to start to close some of the gaps in

current knowledge.

Prior to concluding the literature review it may be useful to revisit Figure 2.7 and

complete the tentative integrated model of romantic love model by showing how

external factors – globalisation, culture and factors that nurture attraction, liking and

loving – may possibly influence how an individual loves romantically. A revised model

with these external factors is diagrammatically represented below in Figure 4.1.

272

Figure 4.1 A tentative integrated model of romantic love with external influences

273

CHAPTER 5

Research Methodology

5.1 Introduction

The aim of the proposed research study was to explore the differences between ways

of loving across the four cultural groups in South Africa (i.e. African, White, Coloured

and Indian/Asian) in the initial stages of love of mate selection. The study sought to

examine this by establishing the cross-cultural differences in 1) love experiences, 2)

love as a basis for marriage, 3) love as a basis for the maintenance of marriage, 4)

romantic beliefs, 5) attachment styles and 6) lovestyles. Gender differences, as a

whole and within cultures, across the six ways of loving were also probed. The

intersection between these six ways of loving were investigated using the overall

South African sample. In addition, the influence of socio-economic status on ways of

loving was examined. Finally, how the four South African cultural groups map to the

individualism collectivism continuum were explored.

Individualism collectivism:

Hypothesis 1: Blacks and Indian/Asians will score significantly higher than Whites and

Coloureds on the collectivism measure.

Hypothesis 2: Whites and Coloureds will score significantly higher than Blacks and

Indian/Asians on the individualism measure.

Culture:

Hypothesis 3: Cultural groups who are more collectivistic (Black and Indian/Asian) are

significantly less likely to endorse ‗love as a basis for marriage‘ than cultural groups

who are more individualistic (White and Coloured).


significantly less likely to have high romanticism than cultural groups who are more

individualistic (White and Coloured).

274


likely to have similar proportions of secure, preoccupied, dismissing and fearful

attachment styles as cultural groups who are more individualistic (White and

Coloured).


significantly more pragma than cultural groups who are more individualistic (White

and Coloured).

Hypothesis 7: The Black group is significantly more ludus than cultural groups who

are more individualistic (White and Coloured).


significantly less eros than cultural groups who are more individualistic (White and

Coloured).

Gender:

Hypothesis 9: Men are significantly more ludus and agape than women and women

are significantly more eros, storge, pragma, and mania than men.

Hypothesis 10: Men are significantly more likely to have a dismissing attachment style

than women and women are significantly more likely to have a preoccupied

attachment style than men.

Love ways intersect:

Hypothesis 11: Individuals that are eros are significantly more likely to marry for love,

be high on romanticism, and be securely attached than the other five lovestyles.

Hypothesis 12: Individuals that are ludus are significantly less likely to marry for love,

be low on romanticism, and have a dismissing attachment style than the other five

lovestyles

Socioeconomic status:

Hypothesis 13: Individuals that are from a low socioeconomic group are less likely to

endorse ‗love as a basis for marriage‘ than individuals that are from a high

socioeconomic group.

The study was based on non-experimental research; there was no direct control of the

independent variable, no control group and randomisation (Kerlinger, 1986). The

investigation was of an exploratory nature and this was achieved by assessing the

variable in its natural environment. In addition, the study was also a comparative study

275

in that it focused on the differences between the Hofstede‘s (1980; Hofstede & Bond,

1988) different cultural dimensions and ways of loving.

5.2 Sample

The sample was drawn from male and female second-year, third-year and honours

students in Gauteng using convenience sampling methods. The sample size was made

up of 460 subjects and the four cultural groups being studied (i.e. African, Indian/Asian,

Coloured and White) were well represented. The aim was to get the sample size to be

as close to equal numbers across gender and the four cultural groups as possible; this

was by in large achieved.

5.3 Measurement instruments

Questionnaires were included to measure the following (see Appendix A): four of which

referred to feelings and experiences of love; one which delineated Hofstede‘s (1994)

five cultural dimensions; and one that measured the degree of an individual‘s

individualism and collectivism. In addition demographic information pertinent to the study

was collected.

5.3.1 Biographical Questionnaire

The biographical information that was gathered was as follows:

o Gender biographic information was required in order to establish any gender

differences that would emerge across the love measures. In addition, the study

sought to gather equal numbers of male and female participants.

o Race biographic information was required in order to establish racial differences on

the individualism collectivism continuum as well as any racial differences that would

emerge across the love measures. In addition, the study sought to gather equal

numbers of Black, White, Coloured and Indian/Asian participants.

o Ethnicity biographic information was gathered to establish if the racial groups could

be structured in an alternative way that was ethnically sensitive.

276

o The participants were asked for their highest level of education in order to ensure the

sample was a mature student sample.

o The participants were asked about the type of job they had – this question was

asked because it was part of the Hofstede Value Survey Model questionnaire.

o The participants were asked about which setting they grew up in (rural, small town,

large town, suburb or large city), in order to establish if there were any differences in

ways of loving between those who had grown up in a rural area when compared to

those who had grown up in an urban area.

o The participants were asked about their family social class (upper, upper middle,

middle, lower middle, working or lower) in order to establish which general

socioeconomic status strata they belonged to.

o Current romantic relationship status (not involved, casual dating, serious dating,

engaged or living together, married or other) biographic information was gathered to

assist in establishing whether there were differences in ways of loving when

compared to levels of relationship involvement.

o The participants were asked about their religious orientation in order to establish if

religion played a role in the ways of loving.

o The participants were asked about the frequency of their love experiences (see

Appendix A) in order to establish some general information about their romantic

relationship histories.

5.3.2 Love as a basis for marriage

Subjects were asked the three questions that were originally asked in the Kephart

(1967) and Simpson et al. (1986) studies (see Appendix A, section 2). The subjects

responded to each of the three questions with 1) Yes / Agree or 2) No / Disagree.

These questions revealed the participants beliefs about the importance of love in

marriage. They are:

If a man (woman) had all the other qualities you desired, would you marry this

person if you were not in love with him (her)? - yes; no

If love has completely disappeared from a marriage, I think it is probably best

for the couple to make a clean break and start new lives. – agree; disagree

277

In my opinion, the disappearance of love is not a sufficient reason for ending a

marriage and should not be viewed as such. – agree; disagree

Kephart (1967) as well as Simpson et al., (1986) also included an ‗undecided‘ option.

For the purposes of this study, however, it was excluded in order not to complicate

the cross cultural comparison.

5.3.3 Romantic Beliefs Scale

Sprecher and Metts (1989) developed the Romantic Beliefs Scale (RBS) to measure

a variety of romantic beliefs and attitudes (see Appendix A, section 3). They

suggested that the "romantic ideology" is associated with beliefs like primacy of love

as a basis for mate selection, love at first sight, there is only one true love,

idealisation of the partner and of the relationship, and love can overcome any

obstacle. Four factors emerged from the factor analysis. The first fact explained most

of the variance and this factor, which they called ―Love finds a way‖, included

measuring the beliefs that 1) love as a basis for mate selection was paramount, 2)

love conquers all, and 3) true love lasts for ever. The other three factors that emerged

meaningfully they called ―One and only‖, ―Idealization‖ and ―Love at first sight‖. Their

final scale consists of fifteen items, which may be collapsed into four categories: 1)

love finds a way, 2) one and only, 3) idealisation and 4) love at first sight. The

subjects responded to each of the 15 items on a (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly

agree response scale. Thus, the higher the score, the more romantic the respondent.

However, the author of this study, in error, switched the response scale to (1) strongly

agree to (7) strongly disagree. Therefore, for this study, the lower the score, the more

romantic the respondent. The questionnaire yields a total score on romanticism as well

as scores on each of the four categories. In this study the analysis considered the total

score (mean) as well as the mean for the individual on the four categories. The lower

the total score (1(R) + 2 to 15) on the questionnaire, the greater the romanticism of the

individual. The four categories are measured as follows:

1) love finds a way is measured by items 2, 5, 9, 11, 13, 15

2) one and only is measured by items 4, 3, 10

3) idealisation is measured by items 7, 8, 14

278

4) love at first sight is measured by items 1(R), 6, 12

Sprecher and Metts (1989) reported Cronbach alphas of 0.81 (total score), 0.80 (Love

finds a way), 0.71 (One and only), 0.64 (Idealization), and 0.57 (Love at first sight).

Later studies found this instrument to be reliable with coefficient alphas reported at .79,

.78, .77 and .82 (Sprecher et al., 1994). Sprecher and Toro-Morn (2002) in their cross-

cultural study comparing North American and Chinese respondents found that the total

scale coefficient alpha was .81 for the American sample and .76 for the Chinese

sample; love finds a way (.75 for the American sample and .68 for the Chinese

sample), one and only (.69 for the American sample and .61 for the Chinese sample),

and idealization (.71 for the American sample and .52 for the Chinese sample); and

love at first sight, was not presented in the analysis because of its lower reliability in

both samples. Weaver and Ganong (2004) used confirmatory and exploratory factor

analyses to evaluate the generalisibility of the Romantic Beliefs Scale model to African-

American and European-American respondents. They reported in their findings that the

factor structure did not replicate for African-American. This may indicate that

components of romantic love may be different conceptually in some ways for these two

groups. This study also explore into whether RBS model will replicate the components

of romantic love across the four South African cultural groups.

5.3.4 Relationship Scales Questionnaire

The study employed Griffin and Bartholomew‘s (1994a; 1994b) Relationship Scales

Questionnaire‘s (RSQ) thirty items, which measures the four attachment patterns:

secure, preoccupied, dismissing and fearful (see Appendix A, section 4). This

measurement was born out of Hazan and Shaver‘s (1987) work and the data can be

converted back to their original three attachment styles: secure, avoidant and

anxious-ambivalent. The RSQ has a 5-point scale [from (1) Not at all like me to (3)

Somewhat like me to (5) Very much like me], where participants rate the extent to

which each statement best describes their characteristic style in close relationships.

Five items contribute to the secure and dismissing attachment patterns and four items

contribute to the fearful and preoccupied attachment patterns. The four categories are

measured as follows (Griffith & Bartholomew 1994a ; Kurdek, 2002):

http://www.sfu.ca/psyc/faculty/bartholomew/faq_files/kurdek2002.pdf

279

o Secure Items: 3, 9(R), 10, 15, 28(R).

o Preoccupied Items: 6(R), 8, 16, 25

o Dismissing Items: 2, 6, 19, 22, 26

o Fearful Items: 1, 5, 12, 24

An alternative way of scoring this scale is to calculate Simpson et al.‘s (1992) two

attachment dimensions:

o Avoidance: 10(R), 12, 13, 15(R), 20, 24, 29, 30(R),

o Anxiety: 11, 18, 21, 23, 25

Kurdek (2002) investigated the psychometric properties of the RSQ sub-scores and

found that goodness-to-fit indices failed to validate the existence of Griffith and

Bartholomew‘s (1994a) secure, preoccupied, dismissing and fearful styles. However,

he found that Simpson et al.‘s (1992) avoidance and anxiety dimensions emerged as

reliable factors out of the RSQ; with Cronbach‘s alpha for the avoidance score as .77

and for the anxiety score as .83 and the correlation between the two scores as .50.

Bartholomew (1990) developed a two dimensional (self-model and other-model), four

category model of adult attachment (refer to Figure 2.1). Griffith and Bartholomew

(1994b) found that Simpson et al.‘s (1992) anxiety subscale corresponded closely

and inversely to Bartholomew (1990) self-model dimension and that Simpson et al.‘s

(1992) avoidance subscale corresponded closely to Bartholomew (1990) other-model

dimension. As per Griffith and Bartholomew‘s (1994b) findings this study will combine

Simpson et al.‘s (1992) and Bartholomew‘s (1990) models (Figure 5.1). The RSQ will

be scored according to Simpson et al.‘s (1992) avoidance and anxiety dimensions

(Kurdek, 2002) and then these dimensions will be utilised to as the self-model and

other-model dimensions (Griffith & Bartholomew, 1994b) to extract Griffith and

Bartholomew‘s (1994a) secure, preoccupied, dismissing and fearful attachment

styles.

280

Figure 5.1 Two-dimensional: anxiety/self-model and avoidance/other-model; four-

category model of adult attachment. (Derived and adapted from Bartholomew, (1990);

Griffin and Bartholomew (1994a, 1994b); Simpson et al.‘s (1992)).

Atkins, (2003) outlined that some authors have criticized the RSQ as being founded

on conventional rather than empirical categories of attachment. Although he agrees

with Feeney and Noller (1996) that self-report measures may be a better measure of

current relationship functioning rather than trait-like characteristic, he postulates that

there may be some advantages in using an attachment measure that has been

constructed to be a face-valid measure of attachment as conceptualised by Bowlby.

Positive Self model / Low

anxiety

(anxious)

Negative Other model / High avoidance

(avoids intimacy)

Negative Self model / High

anxiety

(self confident)

Positive Other model / Low avoidance

(seeks people out)

SECURE

FEARFUL DISSMISSING

PREOCCUPIED

http://www.richardatkins.co.uk/atws/page/51.html

http://www.richardatkins.co.uk/atws/person/97.html


http://www.richardatkins.co.uk/atws/document/80.html

281

5.3.5 Love Attitude Scale

Hendrick and Hendrick (1986) were inspired by Lee‘s (1976) Colours of Love theory

to develop the Love Attitude Scale (LAS) (see Appendix A, section 5). Lee‘s Colours

of Love theory was found, by Hendrick and Hendrick (1986) to be a valid and reliable

typology and that Lee‘s delineated six lovestyles were factorially and psychometrically

dissimilar. The LAS has a total of forty-two items, with seven items dedicated to each

of the six lovestyles (eros, ludus, storge, pragma, mania and agape). A 5-point Likert-

type scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) is utilized in the

LAS (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986). The seven items per lovestyle are totalled

respectively and the lowest of the six scores denotes the individual‘s preferred

lovestyle. The six lovestyles are measured as follows:

Eros: items 1 - 7

Ludus: items 8-14

Storge: items 15-21

Pragma: items 22 - 28

Mania: items 29-36

Agape: items 37-42

Reliability analyses in earlier research yielded alpha coefficients above .70 for five of

the subscales (from .68 for storge to .83 for agape) and test-retest reliability values

from .70 for mania to .82 for ludus (Hendrick & Hendrick‗s, 1986, 1989). Montgomery

and Sorell (1997) echoed Hendrick and Hendrick‘s (1986, 1989) results when their

sample produced alpha coefficients ranging from .71 for storge to .82 for agape in

more recent research. Sprecher and Toro-Morn (2002) in their study comparing North

American and Chinese respondents found that the coefficient alpha was below .50 for

both the eros and ludus scales in the Chinese sample. But the coefficient alphas for

these scales were adequate (.65 and .69, respectively), in the American sample. The

American sample and the Chinese sample had the following coefficient alphas,

respectively, for the other lovestyles: storge (.78 and .77), pragma (.66 and .59),

mania (.60 and .52), and agape (.80 and .79). Pavlou (2005) using exploratory as well

as AMOS confirmatory factor analysis, found the validity and reliability of the LAS and

Lee‘s lovestyles typology can reasonably be applied to the African student population

282

in South Africa. Her exploratory factor analysis confirmed the existence of the same

six principal lovestyle factors that had been established in earlier research (Hendrick

& Hendrick, 1990). Although ludus was factorially distinct, similar to Sprecher and

Toro-Morn‘s (2002) Chinese sample, it indicated poor reliability (ludus = .53).

It was reported by Hendrick and Hendrick (1986, 1989) that the LAS scale produced

good internal consistency and some evidence of content validity. In addition, Borrello

and Thompson (1990) endorsed the validity of the LAS scale for further utilization in

research.

5.3.6 Auckland Individualism Collectivism Questionnaire

According to Robert, Lee and Chan (2006) because the underlying constructs of

individualism and collectivism are complex and broad, the development of good

individualism and collectivism measures has not proven easy (see Appendix A,

section 7). In a review and meta-analysis of 83 studies on individualism and

collectivism Oyserman, Coon and Kemmelmeier (2002) reported that the three most

common measuring instruments for individualism and collectivism were: 1) the

Independent-Interdependent (SCS) scale, 2) the Horizontal-Vertical Collectivism-

Individualism scale and 3) the INDCOL measure. Oyserman et al. (2002) analysed

these scales and identified seven major domains relating to individualism and eight

major domains relating to collectivism. Oyserman et al. (2002) concluded that

although the three most commonly used measuring instruments assess aspects of

the critical attributes of individualism and collectivism, no measurement tool at the

time assessed all the critical attributes of individualism and collectivism. Based on the

findings of the meta-analysis (Oyserman et al., 2002), Auckland Individualism

Collectivism Questionnaire (AICQ) was developed by Shulruf, Hattie and Dixon

(2003). It consists of 30 items related uniquely to each of the six factors: three of

these factors relate to Collectivism (Advice, Harmony and Closeness) and the other

three factors relate to Individualism (Compete, Unique and Responsibility). The items

are compiled into a questionnaire using six anchors as part of a frequency scale from

‗Never or almost never‘ to ‗Always‘.

283

The six factors are measured as follows:

Individualism

Compete = items 15, 17, 28, 30

Unique = items 5, 8, 16,

Responsibility = items 1, 10, 11, 13, 27, 29

Collectivism

Advice = items 4, 6, 22, 25, 26

Harmony = items 2, 3, 7, 14, 23,

Closeness = items 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24

The estimates of reliability (alpha) for each scale is .77 for advice, .71 for harmony,

.62 for closeness, .78 for compete, .76 for unique, and .73 for responsibility (Shulruf

et al., 2003). The authors of this tool warn that it has not, as yet, been tested for

extensive variety of populations, so until this is done using the AICO should be used

with caution. The psychometric properties of this scale will be investigated within this

study.

5.3.7 Values Survey Module

Hofstede (1994a) developed the Values Survey Module 1994 (VSM 94) (see

Appendix A, section 6). It is a 26-item questionnaire developed for comparing

culturally determined values of people from two or more countries or regions. The

twenty content questions allow index scores to be computed on five dimensions of

national or regional culture (Individualism/Collectivism; Power Distance;

Masculinity/Femininity; Uncertainty Avoidance; and Long-term Orientation / Short-

term Orientation). The subjects responded to each of the 20 items on a 5-point Likert

response scale. Index scores are derived from the mean scores on the questions for

national or regional samples of respondents. The remaining six questions were of a

demographic nature and were covered in the demographic section of this study‘s

questionnaire pack.

284

The index scores per cultural dimension are scored as follows:

o Power Distance: –35m(03) +35m(06) +25m(14) –20m(17) –20

o Individualism/Collectivism: –50m(01) +30m(02) +20m(04) –25m(08) +130

o Masculinity/Femininity: +60m(05) –20m(07) +20m(15) –70m(20) +100

o Uncertainty Avoidance: +25m(13) +20m(16) –50m(18) –15m(19) +120

o Long-term Orientation: -20m(10) +20m(12) +40

Hofstede (2002) concedes that culture is changeable and dynamic in nature and is

therefore difficult to measure reliably and validly. In addition, some researchers question

the reliability and validity of using a attitude-survey questionnaire, like Hofstede‘s, to

study culture; others criticize Hofstede for reflecting his own beliefs about what is and is

not a suitable measure of a cultural value, while others criticize his work for being

outdated (Fernandez et al., 1997; Goodwin, 1999; Tayeb, 1996). Ratner and Hui (2003)

argue that Hofstede‘s scales are impoverished because a culture‘s dimensions are

characterised on the basis of how individuals respond to, in some cases, as few as

three questionnaire items per dimension. In addition they argue that Hofstede

presumes questions concerning attitudes towards work to measure general social

values. Nonetheless, as mentioned previously, Hofstede‘s model is still a fruitful and

acknowledged work in the field of culture. Although it provides a relatively general

framework for analysis, it is nevertheless a useful guide to understanding the generic

differences in culture between countries in that it reduces the complexities of culture and

its interactions into five relatively easily understood, and to some extent measurable,

cultural dimensions. Therefore, allowing comparisons to be made.

5.3.8 Bem Sex Role Inventory

Bem (1974) developed the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) which measures an

individuals' gender role orientation in terms of masculinity, femininity, and androgyny.

The BSRI contains 60 adjectives rated on a 7-point scale (1 = never or almost never

true; 7 = always or almost always true) to reflect how well the adjective describes the

respondent's daily behaviour. The BSRI catalogues twenty stereotypic feminine

characteristics (e.g., gentle, sensitive to others), twenty stereotypic masculine

285

characteristics (e.g., assertive, self-reliant), and twenty gender-neutral characteristics

(e.g., conventional, happy). Scores on the Femininity and Masculinity scales are the

average ratings for all endorsed feminine and masculine items, respectively.

Research indicates that the reliability and validity of the BSRI are satisfactory, with

Cronbach alpha coefficients of .86 to .87 on the Masculinity scale and .75 to .78 on

the Femininity scale (Bem, 1981). This instrument was used in the pilot study but was

omitted from the final questionnaire pack as it was considered, after the results of the

pilot study, to have generated more confusion than clarity.

5.4 Research method

The survey was conducted by means of individual self-administered anonymous

questionnaires. The questionnaire took no longer than forty-five minutes to complete.

The questionnaire was conducted in English. It was decided that the questionnaire

would not be translated because the mature university students that would be

participating in the study were deemed fully competent to answer the questionnaire in

English.

A pilot questionnaire (Appendix B) was initially administered on sixty-five university

students (second-year, third-year and honours students). The pilot study provided

valuable information. Firstly, time taken to complete the questionnaire was

established – between thirty-five to forty-five minutes. Secondly, the biographical and

Love Experiences section was restructured. Thirdly, the Bem Sex Role Inventory

scale was deemed an inappropriate scale for the study in that it brought an additional

dimension of an individuals' gender role orientation into the study. This was judged to

be a confounding variable that would complicate the study and as a result it was

omitted from the final questionnaire pack. Because of these changes data gleaned

from the pilot questionnaire was not incorporated into the overall study.

Permission to collect data was obtained from the authorities in charge at The

University of Johannesburg campus for the pilot as well as the final questionnaire.

The pilot questionnaire was administered by the author and the final questionnaire

was administered by trained psychology honours student field workers. These field

286

workers were trained to: thank the subjects for participating; inform participants on the

aim, nature and purpose of the study; assure subjects that the participation was

voluntary, confidential and anonymous; assure participants that should they want to

withdraw from the study, they could do so at any stage, with no penalties; advise

subjects that the questionnaire had seven sections which appeared on both sides of

the pages; advise subjects to answer all questions; request subjects to answer

independently; appeal to participants to answer as spontaneously and as honestly as

possible; inform participants that the questionnaire would take approximately half an

hour to forty-five minutes to complete and finally request subjects to read and sign the

consent form. They were also trained to communicate concern for the protection and

welfare of the subjects. An invitation for counselling should any of the subjects feel

they required it was extended and the author‘s telephone number and email address

were provided – none of the subjects took up the invitation. The student field workers

were trained that before administering the tests, adequate research was to be

undertaken to ensure that the circumstances of the university were taken into

account. For example, the questionnaires were not be filled in directly before or after

exam periods, tests or stressful, busy periods at the university as this may have had a

direct influence on the variable being measured. An offer to receive an electronic

copy of the report or to receive generic feedback electronically, once analysis has

taken place, was also communicated.

Of the total 460 (65 for pilot and 395 for final) questionnaires collected, 395 were valid

and used for the purposes of the analyses of the study.

5.5 Data analysis procedures

A range of statistical techniques, such as frequency, mean scores, standard

deviations and correlations were employed to describe the data. In order to test the

hypotheses, Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyse the difference

between means of the groups. The Chi-square test for independence was used to

explore the relationship between categorical variables. Factor analysis was utilised to

isolate and reduce factors / variables.

287

5.6 Ethical considerations

The pilot and final questionnaire pack began with a letter (see Appendix A) that

explained the aim, nature and purpose of the study; that the study intended to explore

the nature of romantic love and investigate how we love in South Africa. In addition,

outlined in the letter was that participation in this study on South African love was

voluntary and that respondents could terminate participation at any time with no

penalties. The letter also assured subjects that confidentiality and anonymity would

be maintained and that the time taken to complete questionnaire would be no more

than 30-45 minutes. Finally the letter explained that, to the knowledge of the

researcher, no harm or risk is associated with participation in the study and that

should the respondent request it, generic feedback would be provided electronically.

The subjects were given time to page through the questionnaire and were then asked

to sign the informed consent before participating in the study.

Following the ethical guidelines outlined on the first page of the questionnaire pack,

all respondents participated voluntarily with no penalties for withdrawal. Confidentially

was ensured and maintained - no identifying information was requested. Prior to

participation, subjects were given adequate information regarding the nature and

purpose of the study as well as verbal and written instructions. The nature of the

study was such that the participants would be safe from psychological and or physical

risk. Nonetheless concern for the protection and welfare of the subjects was

communicated before participation and an invitation for counselling was extended. An

offer to receive electronic feedback on the final findings of the study was also

communicated to the respondents.

5.7 Conclusion

The six aims as well as the thirteen hypotheses were outlined in this chapter.

Convenient sampling was utilised on a mature student population from Gauteng and

all racial groups were well represented by the sample of 460. Varying methods were

employed to gather data: demographic information pertinent to the study was

288

collected; four questionnaires were included to investigate feelings and experiences

of love; one questionnaire established Hofstede‘s (1994) five cultural dimension; and

one questionnaire that delineated an individual‘s degree of individualism and

collectivism. In addition, the psychometric instruments‘ reliability and validity statistics

were considered. The research method as well as the data analysis procedures

employed were outlined. Finally ethical considerations were explained. The following

chapter presents the results of the data gathered and analysed.

289

CHAPTER 6

Results and Discussion

6.1. Introduction

In order to obtain the necessary data for this study a variety of questionnaires were

administered and the necessary demographic information was collected. The breadth

of data allowed for a multitude of research areas to be explored, however only the

information germane to the theory in the literature review will be presented here. The

data were analysed and is presented in this chapter under the following sections: 1)

descriptive statistics, 2) factor analysis, 3) reliability of instruments, 4) individualism

and collectivism, 5) love results by race, gender and the intersection between race

and gender, 6) love results by socioeconomic status and 7) results of love measures

and lovestyles.

6.2. Descriptive statistics

6.2.1. Demographics

A mature student population was sourced to examine the intricacies of love. The

sample‘s ages ranged from 18 to 37 years old with a mean of 22.08 and a standard

deviation of 2.8. This suggests a relatively standard student population where most

the respondents (89%) fell into the 18-25 category (Table 6.1).

290

Table 6.1 Frequency distribution of age

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

18 - 21 181 45.9 47.3

22 -25 158 40.0 41.5

26 - 30 37 9.3 9.7

31 years or older 6 1.7 1.7

Total 382 96.7 100.0

Missing 13 3.3

Total 395 100.0

There was a fairly even gender distribution in the sample, with 49% males and 51%

females. The race distribution, crucial to the study, was comprised as shown in Table

6.2 – note the relatively even distribution.

Table 6.2 Frequency distribution of race


Black 110 27.8 28.4

White 113 28.6 29.2

Coloured 82 20.8 21.2

Indian 82 20.8 21.2

Total 387 98.0 100.0

Missing 8 2.0

Total 395 100.0

An overwhelming majority of the respondents (94%) indicated that they had lived

primarily in an urban area while growing up and only 1% indicated they currently lived

in a rural area. The majority of the respondents indicated English (57%) as their home

language. Most of the sample (66%) indicated Christianity as their religious

orientation while 12% said they were Muslim, 9% said they were Hindu, whereas only

1.5% indicated African Ancestral Worship as their religious orientation (Table 6.3).

291

Table 6.3 Proportions of religious orientation

N Percentage

Christianity 259 65.9%

African Ancestor Worship 6 1.5%

Hindu 37 9.4%

Muslim 48 12.2%

Buddhism 6 1.5%

Judaism 2 .5%

Atheist 12 3.1%

Agnostic 17 4.3%

Other 13 3.3%

According to the respondents there was little overall difference in current social class

(Table 6.5) compared to social class growing up (Table 6.4). Almost 50% of the

respondents placed themselves in the upper social class and upper-middle

categories, 36% of respondents indicated that they fell into the middle social class

category and only 15% indicated they fell into the lower middle and lower social class

categories (Table 6.5).

Table 6.4 Frequency distribution of social class growing up


Upper (family income more than R400

000 per annum(pa)) 58 14.7 15.1

Upper Middle (R220-399 000 pa) 122 30.9 31.8

Middle (R100-219 000 pa) 130 32.9 33.9

Lower Middle (R40-99000 pa) 45 11.4 11.7

Lower (less than R39 000 pa) 29 7.3 7.6

Total 384 97.2 100.0

Missing 11 2.8

Total 395 100.0

292

Table 6.5 Frequency distribution of current social class


1 Upper (family income more than

R400 000 per annum(pa)) 70 17.7 18.2

2 Upper Middle (R220-399 000 pa) 118 29.9 30.6

3 Middle (R100-219 000 pa) 140 35.4 36.4

4 Lower Middle (R40-99000 pa) 37 9.4 9.6

5 Lower (less than R39 000 pa) 20 5.1 5.2

Total 385 97.5 100.0

Missing 10 2.5

Total 395 100.0

6.2.2. Love experiences

More than sixty percent of the participants (62%) said they were in love with someone

at the time of answering the questionnaire. Over 70% of the respondents indicated

they had been in love at least three times in their lifetime and 10% said they had

never been in love before. Seventy percent of the respondents indicated that they had

been in an intimate relationship previously. In excess of 50% of the respondents

indicated that they were currently in an intimate relationship. When asked about their

current romantic relationship status more than 31% said they were not involved, 19%

were dating casually, 44% were dating seriously, living together or engaged and 3.6%

were married (Table 6.6).

293

Table 6.6 Frequency distribution of answers to the question: What is your current

romantic relationship status?


Not Involved 123 31.1 31.3

Casual Dating 76 19.2 19.3

Serious Dating 145 36.7 36.9

Engaged or Living Together 29 7.3 7.4

Married 14 3.5 3.6

Other 6 1.5 1.5

Total 393 99.5 100.0

Missing 2 .5

Total 395 100.0

Of the respondents that were currently in a relationship, approximately 66% indicated

that their relationship duration was a maximum of two years old. When asked about

the longest relationship they had had in the past, 75% of the respondents said their

maximum relationship duration was two years (Table 6.7). The short duration of the

relationship age may be due to the fact that the mean age of the sample was young

(22.08 years old). Of note, is that a substantial 22.3%, of the respondents chose not

to answer the question. This was even higher when asked about the relationship

duration of their current relationship (39%). Over 94% of the participants indicated

they were heterosexual.

294

Table 6.7 Frequency distribution of answers to the question: “If you have been in an

intimate relationship in the past, how long was your longest relationship?”


Less than 6 months 83 21.0 27.0

Between 6 months and 1 year 87 22.0 28.3

Between 1 and 2 years 61 15.4 19.9



More than 5 years 7 1.8 2.3

Total 307 77.7 100.0

Missing 88 22.3

Total 395 100.0


When asked Kephart‘s (1967) question: "If a man or a woman had all the other

qualities you desired, would you marry this person if you were not in love with him

(her)?" 80.5% of the sample said they would not.

6.2.4. Love as a basis for the maintenance of marriage

When investigating the findings on the importance of love for the maintenance of

marriage, two questions were posed (Simpson et al., 1986). Overall slightly more

participants agreed (56.7% and 52.1%) than disagreed (43.3% and 47.9%) that love

would be necessary for the maintenance of marriage (Table 6.8, 6.9).

295

Table 6.8 Frequency distribution of answers to the question: “If love has completely

disappeared from a marriage, I think it is probably best for the couple to make a clean

break and start new lives”.


Agree 224 56.7 56.7

Disagree 171 43.3 43.3

Total 395 100.0 100.0

Table 6.9 Frequency distribution of answers to the question: “In my opinion, the

disappearance of love is not a sufficient reason for ending a marriage and should not

be viewed as such”.


Agree 203 51.4 52.1

Disagree 187 47.3 47.9

Total 390 98.7 100.0

Missing 5 1.3

Total 395 100.0

6.2.5. Romantic Beliefs Scale – romantic beliefs

As per section 5.3.3 the lower the score the more romantic the respondent. Table

6.10 indicates that the mean of the subscale ‗Love finds a way‘, which consisted of six

items was 17.00, whereas the means for the other three subscales, which consisted

of only three items each, were lower. Refer to section 5.3.3 for a brief explanation of

the components of this scale.

Table 6.10 Descriptive statistics of romantic beliefs

N Mean Std Deviation

Love finds a way 395 17.00 6.374

One and only 395 11.39 4.492

Idealisation 395 11.27 4.095

Love at first sight 395 13.37 3.511

Valid N (listwise) 395

296

Table 6.11 shows that the majority of the 395 participants indicated their dominant

romantic belief was ‗Love finds a way‘ (64.8%), followed by ‗Love at first sight‘

(19.7%) and ‗One and only‘ (8.1%). The least endorsed romantic belief was

‗Idealization‘ (7.3%).

Table 6.11 Frequency distribution of romantic beliefs


Love finds a way 256 64.8 64.8

One and only 32 8.1 8.1

Idealisation 29 7.3 7.3

Love at first sight 78 19.7 19.7

Total 395 100.0 100.0

6.2.6. Relationship Style Questionnaire – attachment patterns

Table 6.12 indicates that the avoidance dimension, which consists of eight items, had

a mean of 21.28, while the anxiety dimension, which consists of five items, had a

mean of 11.47.

Table 6.12 Descriptive statistics of attachment patterns


Avoidance 388 21.28 5.699

Anxiety 386 11.47 4.420


In order to establish the four attachment styles the data was divided into four

quadrants with: low avoidance and low anxiety being the secure attachment style; low

avoidance and high anxiety being the preoccupied attachment style; high avoidance

and low anxiety being the dismissing attachment style; and high avoidance and high

anxiety being the fearful attachment style (refer to Figure 5.1).

For analytical purposes a decision was taken to primarily utilise those participants

who were well differentiated into their various attachment types. This involved

297

excluding those who were closest to the means as their scores were too highly

associated with the scores in the other quadrants, and may have arguably be

positioned there through measurement error. Although this involved losing some data,

it allowed for a more purist measure of attachment type. The areas that were

excluded were between 20 and 22 on the avoidance dimension and between 10 and

12 on the avoidance dimension (illustrated in Figure 6.1). Table 6.13 indicates that as

a result of this process, there were 120 participants that were excluded from the

sample size.

Figure 6.1 Two-dimensional: anxiety/self-model and avoidance/other-model; four-

category model of adult attachment with excluded area

Table 6.13 shows that the majority of the participants indicated their dominant

attachment dimension was secure (35.3%), followed by fearful (24.4%), and the least

endorsed attachment dimensions were preoccupied (20.0%) and dismissing (20.4%).

Positive Self model / Low

anxiety

Negative Other model / High avoidance

Negative Self model / High

anxiety

Positive Other model / Low avoidance

SECURE

FEARFUL DISMISSING

PREOCCUPIED

298

Refer to section 2.5.3.4. for a full explanation of the four adult attachment styles.

Table 6.13 Frequency distribution of attachment patterns


Secure 97 24.6 35.3

Pre-occupied 56 14.2 20.4

Dismissing 55 13.9 20.0

Fearful 67 17.0 24.4

Total 275 69.6 100.0

Excluded 120 30.4

Total 395 100.0

6.2.7. Love Attitude Scale - lovestyles

According to the Love Attitude Scale, the lower the score on a lovestyle the greater

the endorsement of that lovestyle. All six lovestyles consist of seven items each,

therefore Table 6.14 indicates that on average eros (mean = 14.98) was easier for the

respondents to endorse than ludus (mean = 25.48). Refer to section 2.10 for a full

explanation of the six lovestyles.

Table 6.14 Descriptive statistics of lovestyles

N Mean Std. Deviation

Eros 392 14.98 4.985

Ludus 392 25.48 6.551

Storge 391 18.35 6.136

Pragma 390 21.00 6.301

Mania 391 22.05 6.066

Agape 391 16.70 5.798


Although a test taker on the LAS will have a score for all the lovestyles, only the

individual‘s lowest score indicates the dominant lovestyle. This was used to

categorise the participants. The sample‘s dominant lovestyle scores are indicated in

299

Table 6.15 and Figure 6.2. The results suggest that the majority of the 395

participants indicated their dominant lovestyle was eros (39.7%), followed by agape

(22.3%), storge (18.2%), pragma (9.6%), and ludus (6.1%). The least endorsed

lovestyle was mania (4.1%).

Table 6.15 Frequency distribution of lovestyles


Eros 157 39.7 39.7

Ludus 24 6.1 6.1

Storge 72 18.2 18.2

Pragma 38 9.6 9.6

Mania 16 4.1 4.1

Agape 88 22.3 22.3

Total 395 100.0 100.0

Agape

Mania

Pragma

Storge

Ludus

Eros

Figure: 6.2 Proportion of samples‟ dominant lovestyle

6.2.8. Auckland Individualism Collectivism Questionnaire

Table 6.16 indicates that on the Auckland Individualism Collectivism Questionnaire

the means and standard deviations of the six subscales. When combining the

compete, unique and responsibility subscales, which in total consist of thirteen items,

the dimension of individualism emerges; and when combining the advice, harmony

and closeness subscales, which in total consist of sixteen items, the dimension of

300

collectivism emerges (Shulruf et al., 2003). All participants have both individualism

and collectivism scores.

Table 6.16 Descriptive statistics of Individualism Collectivism dimensions


Compete 388 15.70 4.56

Unique 389 14.88 2.97

Responsibility 386 27.07 4.55

Total Individualism 375 57.72 9.79

Advice 377 20.25 5.96

Harmony 379 19.23 3.89

Closeness 383 21.31 4.44

Total Collectivism 355 60.92 11.00


6.2.9. Hofstede‘s Value Survey Model

The participants‘ scores on the Hofstede‘s (1991) five dimensions of cultures are

reflected by Table 6.17. This instrument was used to establish differences between

the four primary cultural groups along the five dimensions with particular emphasis in

the individualism and collectivism dimension. For an explanation of these dimensions,

refer to section 3.2. Overall the individualism score of the current study was 89.9, the

power distance score was 18.5, the masculinity score was 46.4, the uncertainty

avoidance score was 56.5 and the long-term orientation score was 43.1.

This study is essentially concerned with the individualism scores as yielded by race

and gender. Although the overall sample endorsed individualism highly there were

some slight gender and racial differences (Table 6.17). Females (94.1) endorsed

individualism more than males (85.6). Whites (98.0) endorsed individualism the most,

followed by Indian/Asians (95.1), Coloureds (86.7) and Blacks (79.3). Although there

were differences between the sexes and between the cultural groups, overall

individualism was highly endorsed by all groups and collectivism was not well

endorsed. Although these results have provided updated dimension scores for South

301

Africa on the Hofstede‘s (1991) country rankings (see literature review section 3.2)

their homogeneous results prove to hinder further cross-cultural analyses as no

differences emerged along the individualism collectivism dimension. The possible

reasons for these homogeneous results will be explored in the following chapter.

Table 6.17 Scores on the dimensions of the Value Survey Model

Individualism

Index

Power

Distance

Index

Masculinity

Index

Uncertainty

Avoidance

Index

Long-term

Orientation

Index

Overall 89.90 18.53 46.36 56.48 43.71

Male 85.63 12.79 54.45 51.23 41.37

Female 94.10 23.60 38.51 60.68 45.53

Black 79.34 14.06 29.38 63.62 44.18

White 98.04 20.08 43.88 40.49 51.25

Coloured 86.65 24.25 56.56 56.79 43.90

Indian/

Asian 95.12 16.00 60.09 69.81 31.46

302

6.3. Factor analysis

The instruments used in the study were developed and tested predominantly on

American populations. It was therefore necessary to establish the instruments‘

psychometric properties for South African participants. The original instruments were

found to yield subscales from a set of variables. In order to confirm that the variables

in the instruments would reduce to the same subscales / components / factors in the

South African sample, factor analysis was done on the data. Of the various factor

analysis data reduction techniques, principal component analysis which gives an

empirical summary of the data set, with all the variance in the variables being used,

was utilised in this study. Pallant (2005) suggests that at least 150-300 cases, and

preferable closer to 300 cases, are required in order for a data set to be suitable for

factor analysis. Although, in this study, a factor analysis for the four South Africa

population groups was not feasible because of the small numbers (Black = 110, White

= 113, Coloured = 82 and Indian/Asian = 82), the overall South African data set

consists of 395 cases and was therefore suitable for factor analysis. The instruments

that were subjected to factor analysis were: Romantic Beliefs Scale, Relationship

Questionnaire Scale, Love Attitude Scale, and Auckland Individualism Collectivism

Questionnaire.

6.3.1. Romantic Beliefs Scale

The 15 items of the Romantic Beliefs Scale (RBS) were subjected to principal

components analysis using SPSS. Prior to performing principal components analysis

the suitability of data for factor analysis was assessed. Inspection of the correlation

matrix (Table 6.18) revealed the presence of many coefficients of .3 and above. The

Kiaser-Meyer-Oklin was .858 (Table 6.19), exceeding the recommended value of .6

(Kaiser, 1970, 1974). The Bartlett‘s Test of Sphericity (Bartlett, 1954) reached

statistical significance, supporting the factorability of the correlation matrix.

303

Table 6.18 Romantic Beliefs Scale correlation matrix (item)

r.s3.1 s3.2 s3.3 s3.4 s3.5 s3.6 s3.7 s3.8 s3.9 s3.10 s3.11 s3.12 s3.13 s3.14 s3.15

1R 1.000 -.035 -.117 -.076 -.118 .128 .040 .053 -.015 -.052 -.029 .199 -.018 -.011 -.110

2 -.035 1.000 -.038 .074 .177 .044 .062 -.020 .301 .013 .183 .087 .010 .003 .191

3 -.117 -.038 1.000 .384 .207 .230 .230 .251 .191 .489 .159 .121 .174 .179 .175

4 -.076 .074 .384 1.000 .339 .355 .307 .313 .278 .510 .316 .241 .359 .338 .372

5 -.118 .177 .207 .339 1.000 .243 .303 .221 .427 .208 .539 .182 .351 .356 .601

6 .128 .044 .230 .355 .243 1.000 .345 .318 .193 .310 .178 .503 .259 .275 .163

7 .040 .062 .230 .307 .303 .345 1.000 .417 .195 .259 .170 .337 .259 .452 .244

8 .053 -.020 .251 .313 .221 .318 .417 1.000 .202 .352 .218 .291 .304 .491 .238

9 -.015 .301 .191 .278 .427 .193 .195 .202 1.000 .250 .563 .205 .297 .265 .514

10 -.052 .013 .489 .510 .208 .310 .259 .352 .250 1.000 .282 .223 .305 .272 .275

11 -.029 .183 .159 .316 .539 .178 .170 .218 .563 .282 1.000 .220 .361 .296 .622

12 .199 .087 .121 .241 .182 .503 .337 .291 .205 .223 .220 1.000 .252 .266 .208

13 -.018 .010 .174 .359 .351 .259 .259 .304 .297 .305 .361 .252 1.000 .511 .441

14 -.011 .003 .179 .338 .356 .275 .452 .491 .265 .272 .296 .266 .511 1.000 .421

15 -.110 .191 .175 .372 .601 .163 .244 .238 .514 .275 .622 .208 .441 .421 1.000

Table 6.19 Romantic Beliefs Scale KMO and Bartlett's test (item)

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. .858

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 1770.828

df 105

Sig. .000

304

In Table 6.20, principal components analysis revealed the presence of four

components with eigenvalues exceeding 1, explaining 31.75%, 11.56%, 8.99% and

7.35% of the variance respectively. These four components explained 59.65% of the

total unrotated variance. Utilising Catell‘s (1966) scree test, the screeplot (Figure 6.3)

revealed a clear break after only one component. When interrogating the component

matrix (Table 6.21) it was found that the four factor structure did not replicate for the

South African sample, therefore indicating that perhaps the components of romantic

love may differ for the South African sample. Similar findings were reported by

Weaver and Ganong (2004) who investigated the generalisibility of the Romantic Beliefs

Scale model to African-American and European-American respondents. They reported

in their findings that the factor structure did not replicate for African-American. Having

said that, as indicated in Table 6.21, almost all of the items load the highest on (with the

exception of item 1 and 2) component one, thus indicating that the instrument may be

utilised using a total romanticism score. The results of this analysis support the use of

the one component - a total score of romanticism - as suggested by the scale authors

but not the use of four subscales / components as suggested by the scale authors

(Sprecher & Metts, 1989).

305

Table 6.20 Romantic Beliefs Scale total variance explained (item)

Component

Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Total

% of

Variance

Cumulative

% Total

% of

Variance

Cumulative

%

1 4.763 31.752 31.752 4.763 31.752 31.752

2 1.733 11.556 43.309 1.733 11.556 43.309

3 1.349 8.990 52.299 1.349 8.990 52.299

4 1.102 7.349 59.648 1.102 7.349 59.648

5 .898 5.984 65.632

6 .770 5.136 70.768

7 .703 4.686 75.454

8 .613 4.085 79.538

9 .557 3.716 83.254

10 .509 3.393 86.648

11 .484 3.225 89.872

12 .437 2.916 92.788

13 .397 2.649 95.437

14 .353 2.356 97.793

15 .331 2.207 100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Component Number

151413121110987654321

Eig

en

valu

e

5

4

3

2

1

0

Scree Plot

Figure 6.3 Romantic Beliefs Scale screeplot (item)

306

Table 6.21 Romantic Beliefs Scale component matrix (item)

Component

1 2 3 4

15 .707 -.450

14 .662 -.494

5 .661 -.379

11 .655 -.462

4 .655

13 .632 -.359

9 .606 -.433

10 .591 -.416

8 .576 .373

7 .564 .327

6 .533 .425

12 .492 .351 .459

1R .321 .617

3 .452 -.557 .317

2 -.427 .468

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a 4 components extracted.

An alternative factor analysis method was employed in an attempt to establish

whether a stronger total general factor could be achieved on the total romanticism

score for individuals in the South African sample - the four subscales of the Romantic

Beliefs Scale were subjected to principal axis factoring using SPSS. Principal axis

factoring revealed the presence of one component with an eigenvalue exceeding 1,

explaining 36.7% of the unrotated variance (Table 6.22) – this is a slightly stronger

total general factor when compared to the item factor analysis which yielded a total

general factor on component one of 31.75 (Table 6.20). An inspection of the screeplot

in Figure 6.4 once again revealed a clear break after the first component.

307

Table 6.22 Romantic Beliefs Scale total variance explained (factor)

Factor Initial Eigenvalues

Extraction Sums of Squared

Loadings

Total

% of

Variance

Cumulative

% Total

% of

Variance

Cumulative

%

1 2.066 51.662 51.662 1.469 36.736 36.736

2 .812 20.290 71.951

3 .607 15.180 87.131

4 .515 12.869 100.000

Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring.

Factor Number

4321

Eig

en

va

lue

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

Scree Plot

Figure 6.4 Romantic Beliefs Scale screeplot (factor)

Table 6.23 Romantic Beliefs Scale factor matrix (factor)

FACTOR

1

LOVE FINDS A WAY .581

ONE AND ONLY .602

IDEALISATION .755

LOVE AT FIRST SIGHT .448

Extraction Method: Principal Axis Factoring. a 1 factors extracted. 11 iterations required.

308

Usually to aid in the interpretation of the components yielded, either Varimax or

Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization rotation is performed. However because only one

factor was extracted, the solution cannot be rotated. The results of this analysis

support the use of the one component - a total score of romanticism - as suggested

by the scale authors (Sprecher & Metts, 1989).

6.3.2. Relationship Scale Questionnaire

The 13 items of the Relationship Scale Questionnaire (RSQ) were subjected to

principal components analysis using SPSS. Prior to performing principal components

analysis the suitability of data for factor analysis was assessed. Inspection of the

correlation matrix revealed the presence of many coefficients of .3 and above. As

reflected in Table 6.24, the Kiaser-Meyer-Oklin was .785, exceeding the

recommended value of .6 (Kaiser, 1970, 1974). The Bartlett‘s Test of Sphericity

(Bartlett, 1954) reached statistical significance, supporting the factorability of the

correlation matrix.

Table 6.24 Relationship Scale Questionnaire KMO and Bartlett's Test (item)



df 78

Sig. .000

Principal components analysis revealed the presence of three components with

eigenvalues exceeding 1, explaining 24.98%, 17.05% and 8.69% of the variance

respectively. These three components explained 50.72% of the total unrotated

variance (Table 6.25). An inspection of the screeplot revealed a clear break after the

second component (Figure 6.5). Using Catell‘s (1966) scree test, it was decided to

retain two components for further investigation.

309

Table 6.25 Relationship Scale Questionnaire variance explained (item)

Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings

Total

% of

Variance

Cumulative

% Total

% of

Variance Cumulative %

1 3.247 24.979 24.979 3.247 24.979 24.979

2 2.216 17.050 42.029 2.216 17.050 42.029

3 1.129 8.687 50.716 1.129 8.687 50.716

4 .917 7.053 57.769

5 .853 6.561 64.330

6 .799 6.148 70.477

7 .696 5.353 75.831

8 .680 5.234 81.064

9 .604 4.646 85.711

10 .547 4.205 89.916

11 .539 4.144 94.059

12 .409 3.150 97.209

13 .363 2.791 100.000


Component Number

13121110987654321

Eig

en

va

lue

4

3

2

1

0

Scree Plot

Figure 6.5 Relationship Scale Questionnaire screeplot (item)

310

Table 6.26 Relationship Scale Questionnaire component matrix (item)

Component

1 2 3

13 .682 .367

20 .647 .326

21 .634 -.439

12 .619 -.374

24 .589

11 .574 -.427

23 .522 -.501

29 .509 .303

25 .381 -.598

18 -.547

10R .499

30R .468

15R .802


To aid in the interpretation of these two components, Varimax Kaiser Normalization

rotation was performed. The rotated solution revealed the presence of a simple

structure (Thurstone, 1947), both components showing a number of strong loadings

and all variables loading substantially on two component (Table 6.27). As reflected in

Table 6.28, the two-component solution explained 42.03 percent of the rotated

variance, with Component one contributing 21.73% and Component two contributing

20.30%. The interpretation of the two components was consistent with previous

research on the RSQ scale, with avoidance items loading strongly on Component one

and anxiety items loading strongly on Component two. The results of this analysis

support the use of the avoidance and anxiety items as separate subscales, as

suggested by the scale authors (Kurdek, 2002, Simpson et al., 1992).

311

Table 6.27 Relationship Scale Questionnaire rotated component matrix (item)

Component

1 2

13 .759

20 .706

12 .625

29 .585

24 .583

10R .535

30R .497

15R

21 .743

23 .719

25 .703

11 .696

18 .591

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. a Rotation converged in 3 iterations.

Table 6.28 Relationship Scale Questionnaire total variance explained by varimax

rotated principal components (item)

Component Attachment Dimension Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings

Total % of Variance Cumulative %

1 Avoidance 2.825 21.731 21.731

2 Anxiety 2.639 20.298 42.029


6.3.3. Love Attitude Scale

The 42 items of the Love Attitude Scale (LAS) were subjected to principal

components analysis using SPSS. Prior to performing principal components analysis

the suitability of data for factor analysis was assessed. Inspection of the correlation

matrix revealed the presence of many coefficients of .3 and above. As reflected in

Table 6.29 the Kiaser-Meyer-Oklin was .837, exceeding the recommended value of .6

312

(Kaiser, 1970, 1974). The Bartlett‘s Test of Sphericity (Bartlett, 1954) reached

statistical significance, supporting the factorability of the correlation matrix.

Table 6.29 Love Attitude Questionnaire KMO and Bartlett‟s test (item)



df 861

Sig. .000

Principal components analysis revealed the presence of 9 components with

eigenvalues exceeding 1, explaining 16.96%, 9.4%, 7.9%, 6.9%, 5.7%, 4.2%, 2.96%,

2.7% and 2.5% of the variance respectively (Table 6.30). These nine components

explained in total 59% of the total unrotated variance. An inspection of the screeplot

revealed a clear break after the sixth component (Figure 6.6). Using Catell‘s (1966)

scree test, it was decided to retain six components for further investigation.

Table 6.30 Love Attitude Scale total variance explained (item)


Total

% of

Variance

Cumulative

% Total

% of

Variance

Cumulative

%

1 7.123 16.961 16.961 7.123 16.961 16.961

2 3.959 9.427 26.387 3.959 9.427 26.387

3 3.311 7.883 34.271 3.311 7.883 34.271

4 2.886 6.871 41.142 2.886 6.871 41.142

5 2.385 5.678 46.820 2.385 5.678 46.820

6 1.763 4.198 51.018 1.763 4.198 51.018

7 1.242 2.957 53.975 1.242 2.957 53.975

8 1.123 2.674 56.649 1.123 2.674 56.649

9 1.067 2.541 59.190 1.067 2.541 59.190

10 .986 2.348 61.538

11 .947 2.255 63.793

12 .885 2.107 65.900

13 .834 1.986 67.886

14 .821 1.955 69.842

313

Total

% of

Variance

Cumulative

% Total

% of

Variance

Cumulative

%

15 .754 1.795 71.636

16 .747 1.779 73.416

17 .714 1.699 75.115

18 .696 1.656 76.771

19 .669 1.592 78.363

20 .619 1.473 79.837

21 .593 1.412 81.249

22 .571 1.359 82.608

23 .536 1.277 83.885

24 .515 1.226 85.112

25 .507 1.206 86.318

26 .484 1.152 87.470

27 .451 1.073 88.543

28 .446 1.062 89.606

29 .413 .983 90.589

30 .406 .967 91.556

31 .387 .922 92.478

32 .376 .894 93.373

33 .359 .854 94.227

34 .342 .813 95.040

35 .318 .757 95.797

36 .302 .719 96.516

37 .293 .698 97.214

38 .273 .649 97.863

39 .255 .608 98.471

40 .232 .553 99.024

41 .225 .535 99.559

42 .185 .441 100.000


314

Component Number

424140393837363534333231302928272625242322212019181716151413121110987654321

Eig

en

va

lue

8

6

4

2

0

Scree Plot

Figure 6.6 Love Attitude Scale screeplot (item)

Table 6.31 Love Attitude Scale component matrix (item)

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

37 .661 .368

40 .650

39 .629 .394

42 .626 .413

41 .613

36 .612 .412

31 .562 -.322

4 .549 .354

38 .530 -.322 .439

9 -.517 .344 .322

14 -.517 .346 .315

17 .511

13 -.490 .310

6 .471 .354 .362

10 -.459 .318 .406

11 -.453 .312 .343

98 -.451 .303

315

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

20 .449 -.340 -.337

32 .411 .396 .380 -.311

29 .386 .302

28 .650

27 .579 .334

22 .546 .313

25 .543 .301

24 .542 .320

23 .528

26 .428 .333

33 .323 .406 .335

35 .378 .366

21 .450 -.584 .305

18 .408 -.549 .364

19 .398 -.544 .367

30 .315 .452 -.321

5 .437 -.436

34 .301 .395 .394

2 .365 .528 .352

7 .401 .508

1 .360 .479 -.340

3 .303 .348 .443 .441

15 -.396 -.396

12 .322 .367 .341

16 -.338 .385


To aid in the interpretation of these six components, Varimax with Kaiser

Normalization rotation was performed. The rotated solution revealed the presence of

a simple structure (Thurstone, 1947), all six components showing a number of strong

loadings and all variables loading substantially on only one component (Table 6.33).

The six-component solution explained a healthy 51.02 percent of the rotated

variance, with relatively equal contribution from each of the six components:

Component one contributing 9.6%, Component two contributing 8.7%, Component

316

three contributing 8.5%, Component four contributing 8.1%, Component five

contributing 8.1%, and Component six contributing 8.0% (Table 6.32). The

interpretation of the six components was consistent with previous research on the

Love Attitude Scale, with Ludus items loading strongly on Component one, Agape

items loading strongly on Component two, Storge items loading strongly on

Component three, Eros items loading strongly on Component four, Mania items

loading strongly on Component five, and Pragma items loading strongly on

Component six. Although Ludus was the first factor extracted and accounted for most

of the variance, it did not overshadow the other factors. Instead the factors were

comparable in size with only modest differences in variance per factor. Although item

5 and 17 loaded highest in the component they were suppose to according the theory

(Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986) (i.e. component 4 (eros) for item 5 and component 3

(storge) for item 17), they also loaded positively on component one and four

respectively. Nonetheless overall the results of this analysis support the use of eros,

ludus, storge, mania, pragma and agape items as separate subscales, as suggested

by the scale authors (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986).

Table 6.32 Love Attitude Scale total variance explained by varimax rotated principal

components (item)

Component Lovestyle Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings


1 Ludus 4.047 9.636 9.636

2 Agape 3.638 8.662 18.298

3 Storge 3.570 8.501 26.799

4 Eros 3.403 8.104 34.902

5 Mania 3.392 8.077 42.980

6 Pragma 3.376 8.038 51.018


317

Table 6.33 Love Attitude Scale rotated component matrix (item)

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6

10 .750

14 .697

9 .690

11 .675

12 .620

8 .549

13 .543

36 -.402 .392

39 .772

38 .760

42 .755

37 .731

40 .664

41 -.338 .518

18 .858

19 .848

21 .833

20 .568

16 .514

15 .427

17 .335 .306

3 .754

2 .752

7 .723

4 .632

6 .616

1 -.308 .484

5 .354 .399

28 .724

27 .698

25 .689

23 .674

318

1 2 3 4 5 6

22 .673

26 .639

24 .621

32 .775

30 .714

33 .672

35 .661

34 .608

29 .605

31 -.363 .489


6.3.4. Auckland Individualism Collectivism Questionnaire

The 29 items of the Auckland Individualism Collectivism Questionnaire were

subjected to principal components analysis using SPSS. Prior to performing principal

components analysis the suitability of data for factor analysis was assessed.

Inspection of the correlation matrix revealed the presence of many coefficients of .3

and above. The Kiaser-Meyer-Oklin was .813 (Table 6.34), exceeding the

recommended value of .6 (Kaiser, 1970, 1974). The Bartlett‘s Test of Sphericity

(Bartlett, 1954) reached statistical significance, supporting the factorability of the

correlation matrix.

Table 6.34 Auckland Individualism Collectivism Questionnaire KMO and Bartlett‟s test

(item)



df 406

Sig. .000

In Table 6.35, principal components analysis revealed the presence of eight

components with eigenvalues exceeding 1, explaining 17.73%, 13.79%, 6.41%,

319

5.87%, 5.02%, 4.49%, 3.90% and 3.63% of the variance respectively. These four

components explained 60.83% of the total unrotated variance. Utilising Catell‘s (1966)

scree test, the screeplot (Figure 6.7) revealed a clear break after two components.

When interrogating the component matrix (Table 6.36) it was found that the six factor

structure did not replicate for the South African sample, therefore indicating that

perhaps the components of compete, unique, responsibility, advice, harmony,

closeness may differ for the South African sample. Having said that, the primary goal

for using this instrument was to establish the individualism and collectivism factors;

therefore further investigations on Catell‘s (1966) two component result were

undertaken.

Table 6.35 Auckland Individualism Collectivism Questionnaire total variance explained

(item)


Total

% of

Variance

Cumulative

% Total

% of

Variance

Cumulative

%

1 5.141 17.729 17.729 5.141 17.729 17.729

2 3.999 13.789 31.518 3.999 13.789 31.518

3 1.859 6.409 37.927 1.859 6.409 37.927

4 1.701 5.865 43.793 1.701 5.865 43.793

5 1.456 5.022 48.815 1.456 5.022 48.815

6 1.302 4.488 53.303 1.302 4.488 53.303

7 1.130 3.895 57.199 1.130 3.895 57.199

8 1.054 3.634 60.833 1.054 3.634 60.833

9 .985 3.398 64.231

10 .822 2.836 67.067

11 .791 2.727 69.794

12 .780 2.690 72.483

13 .680 2.346 74.829

14 .650 2.242 77.071

15 .612 2.111 79.182

16 .605 2.085 81.267

17 .576 1.987 83.253

18 .553 1.907 85.160

320

Total

% of

Variance

Cumulative

% Total

% of

Variance

Cumulative

%

19 .543 1.872 87.032

20 .519 1.790 88.822

21 .486 1.677 90.499

22 .443 1.527 92.026

23 .408 1.406 93.432

24 .391 1.349 94.781

25 .362 1.248 96.029

26 .334 1.152 97.181

27 .311 1.072 98.254

28 .272 .939 99.193

29 .234 .807 100.000


Component Number

2928272625242322212019181716151413121110987654321

Eig

en

valu

e

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

Scree Plot

Figure 6.7 Auckland Individualism Collectivism Questionnaire screeplot (item)

321

Table 6.36 Auckland Individualism Collectivism Questionnaire component matrix (item)

Component

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

11 .636 -.342

14 .586

5 .585 .407

22 .576 .526 -.337

16 .558 -.419

1 .545 -.304

10 .536

29 .527

25 .510 .441

27 .458

3 .447

28 .415 -.527 .452

4 .479 .511 -.442

23 .510 .321 -.426

26 .395 .457 .302

17 .392 -.416 .406

30 .365 -.343 .599

15 -.461 .539

19 .430 .559

6 .466 .425 -.472

20 .465 .438

7 .381 .660

2 .425 .587

18 .332 .360 -.455

24 .315 -.588 .329

12 .392 .366 .467

21 .339 .608

13 -.433 .455

8 .510 .540


To aid in the interpretation of these two components, Varimax with Kaiser

322

Normalization rotation was performed. The rotated solution revealed the presence of

a simple structure (Thurstone, 1947), with two components showing a number of

strong loadings and all variables loading substantially on the two component (Table

6.38). As reflected in Table 6.37, the two-component solution explained 31.51 percent

of the rotated variance, with Component one contributing 16.09% and Component

two contributing 15.43%. The interpretation of the two components was consistent

with previous research on the Auckland Individualism Collectivism Questionnaire, with

individualism items loading strongly on Component one and collectivism items loading

strongly on Component two. The results of this analysis support the use of

individualism and collectivism as separate subscales, as suggested by the scale

authors (Shulruf et al., 2003).

Table 6.37 Auckland Individualism Collectivism Questionnaire total variance explained

by varimax rotated principal components (item)

Component Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings


1 Individualism 4.665 16.086 16.086

2 Collectivism 4.475 15.432 31.518


323

Table 6.38 Auckland Individualism Collectivism Questionnaire rotated component

matrix (item)

Component

1 2

11 .707

16 .696

28 .657

5 .639

1 .608

17 .568

29 .560

8 .554

15 .514

30 .500

14 .498 .319

27 .462

13 .390

21

22 .774

4 .700

25 .666

6 .625

26 .604

23 .563

3 .511

10 .500

12 .455

24 .409

20 .381

19 .378

2 .350

18 .343

7 .316


324

6.3.5. Conclusion on factor analysis

Of the four instruments (Romantic Beliefs Scale, Relationship Questionnaire Scale,

Love Attitude Scale and Auckland Individualism Collectivism Questionnaire) that were

subjected to factor analysis all were found to reduce to the same subscales /

components / factors to varying degrees in the South African population used in this

study. Although the Romantic Beliefs Scale did not reduce to the original four

subscales, the original overall romanticism beliefs component emerged – total

romanticism - and was used in the study. The Relationship Scale Questionnaire

reduced to the original two components of avoidance and anxiety. The Love Attitude

Scale reduced to the original six components of eros, ludus, storge, pragma, mania

and agape. Although Auckland Individualism Collectivism Questionnaire did not

reduce to the original six subscales, the original two components of individualism and

collectivism emerged and were used in the study.

325

6.4. Reliability of instruments

6.4.1. Reliability of Romantic Beliefs Scale

The Cronbach alpha coefficients on the Romantic Beliefs Scale in the current study

were fairly robust (Table 6.39). The reliability of the four factors (Cronbach α) were:

love finds a way α = .71, one and only α = .72, idealization α = .71 and love at first

sight α = .55. In general the four subscales had good reliability with the exception of

love at first sight. The total scale coefficient alpha was .82. All these reliabilities,

including love at first sight, compared favourably with the reliabilities reported by the

scale authors‘ (Sprecher & Metts, 1989) and consequent findings (Sprecher & Toro-

Morn, 2002).

Table 6.39 Reliability of Romantic Beliefs Scale

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

Love finds a way .775 6

One and only .719 3

Idealisation .713 3

Love at first sight .545 3

Total .824 15

6.4.2. Reliability of Relationship Questionnaire Scale

According to Kurdek (2002), the Relationship Questionnaire Scale (Simpson et al.,

1992) has good internal consistency, with Cronbach alpha coefficients of .77 for

avoidance and .83 for anxiety. Although the current study‘s Cronbach alpha

coefficients were slightly less than previous studies, they nonetheless showed

favourable reliability: .713 for avoidance and .744 for anxiety (Table 6.40).

326

Table 6.40 Reliability of Relationship Questionnaire Scale


Avoidance .713 8

Anxiety .744 5

Total .720 13

6.4.3. Reliability of Love Attitude Scale

The Cronbach alpha coefficients on the Love Attitude Scale in the current study were

fairly robust (Table 6.41). The reliability of the six factors (Cronbach α) were: eros α =

.745, ludus α = .806, storge α = .793, pragma α = .810, mania α = .793 and agape α =

859. Therefore all six subscales had good reliability. The total scale coefficient alpha

was .781. These reliabilities compared favourably with the reliabilities reported by the

scale authors‘ (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986) and consequent findings (Hendrick &

Hendrick, 1989, 1990; Montgomery & Sorell, 1997; Sprecher & Toro-Morn, 2002).

Table 6.41 Reliability of Love Attitude Scale


Eros .745 7

Ludus .806 7

Storge .793 7

Pragma .810 7

Mania .793 7

Agape .859 7

Total .781 42

6.4.4. Reliability of Auckland Individualism Collectivism Questionnaire

The Cronbach alpha coefficients on the Auckland Individualism Collectivism

Questionnaire were fairly robust in the current study‘s population (Table 6.42). The

reliability (Cronbach α) of the six factors were: .79 for compete, .77 for unique, and

.67 for responsibility, .83 for advice, .53 for harmony, and .57 for closeness. Therefore

327

all six subscales had good reliability, with the exception of harmony and closeness.

This suggests that responses to harmony and closeness questions may not have

been interpreted in the same way by the South African sample. Nonetheless these

reliabilities compare relatively favourably with the scale authors‘ reliability findings

(Shulruf et al., 2003). In addition, the total scale coefficient alpha was .80, the total

individualism coefficient alpha was .81 and the total collectivism coefficient alpha was

.795; which reflects satisfactory reliability.

Table 6.42 Reliability of Auckland Individualism Collectivism Questionnaire


Compete .790 4

Unique .770 3

Responsibility .668 6

Individualism total .814 13

Advice .832 5

Harmony .533 5

Closeness .567 6

Collectivism total .795 16

Total .800 29

6.4.5. Conclusion on reliability of instruments

The four instruments (Romantic Beliefs Scale, Relationship Questionnaire Scale,

Love Attitude Scale and Auckland Individualism Collectivism Questionnaire) produced

satisfactory reliabilities and favourable comparisons to the original scale authors‘

reliability findings (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986; Kurdek, 2002; Shulruf et al., 2003;

Sprecher & Metts, 1989).

328

6.5. Individualism Collectivism

Prior to commencing with the analyses of culture and the various love measures it

was important to investigate if the individualism and collectivism instrument (Auckland

Individualism and Collectivism Questionnaire) would, as per theory, show the

anticipated differences amongst the four primary cultural groups in South Africa. That

is, the Black and Indian/Asian group as being more collectivistic and the White group

being more individualistic.

6.5.1. Auckland Individualism and Collectivism Questionnaire by race

A one-way between groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the link

between race and, individualism and collectivism, as measured by Auckland

Individualism and Collectivism Questionnaire. Table 6.43 outlines the means and

standard deviations by race of individualism and collectivism. There was no

statistically significant differences at the p<.05 level in the scores between race on

individualism [F(1,363)=.579, p=.629] and between race on collectivism

[F(1,344)=2.337, p=.073] (Table 6.44). Even though no significant findings were

observed when exploring the link between race and, individualism and collectivism

the trends that emerged were that the Indian/Asian group were the most

individualistic (M=58.40, SD=10.94) and the most collectivistic (M=63.58, SD=11.61);

the Coloured group were the second most individualistic (M=58.16, SD=8.77) and the

third most collectivistic (M=60.05, SD=9.74); the Black group were the third most

individualistic (M=57.78, SD=11.13) and the least collectivistic (M=59.29, SD=12.41);

and the White group were the least individualistic (M=56.68, SD=8.52) and the

second most collectivistic (M=61.41, SD=9.83).

329

Table 6.43 Individualism collectivism descriptives determined by race

N Mean

Std.

Deviation Std. Error

95% Confidence

Interval for Mean Min Max

Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound

Individualism Black 103 57.7767 11.13283 1.09695 55.6009 59.9525 20.00 78.00

White 111 56.6757 8.52074 .80875 55.0729 58.2784 41.00 78.00

Coloured 75 58.1600 8.76578 1.01219 56.1432 60.1768 41.00 75.00

Indian 78 58.3974 10.94299 1.23905 55.9302 60.8647 28.00 78.00

Total 367 57.6540 9.87698 .51557 56.6401 58.6678 20.00 78.00

Collectivism Black 98 59.2857 12.41050 1.25365 56.7976 61.7739 29.00 85.00

White 105 61.4095 9.83390 .95969 59.5064 63.3126 40.00 88.00

Coloured 74 60.0541 9.74172 1.13245 57.7971 62.3110 41.00 88.00

Indian 71 63.5775 11.60869 1.37770 60.8297 66.3252 30.00 88.00

Total 348 60.9655 11.02807 .59117 59.8028 62.1282 29.00 88.00

Table 6.44 Individualism collectivism ANOVA determined by race

Sum of

Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Individualism Between Groups 170.104 3 56.701 .579 .629

Within Groups 35534.948 363 97.892

Total 35705.052 366

Collectivism Between Groups 843.088 3 281.029 2.337 .073

Within Groups 41358.498 344 120.228

Total 42201.586 347

6.5.2. Auckland Individualism and Collectivism Questionnaire by gender

A one-way between groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore link

between gender and, individualism and collectivism, as measured by Auckland

Individualism and Collectivism Questionnaire. Table 6.45 outlines the means and

standard deviations by gender of individualism and collectivism. There was no

statistically significant differences at the p<.05 level in the scores between gender on

individualism [F(1,368)=2.588, p=.109] but there was for collectivism

[F(1,348)=10.190, p=.002] (Table 6.46). The effect size, calculated using eta squared,

330

was .3. Therefore, despite reaching statistical significance, the actual difference in

mean scores between the groups for collectivism was quite small. Women are

significantly more likely to be collectivistic than men (Table 6.45 and Figures 6.8 and

6.9).

Table 6.45 Individualism collectivism descriptives determined by gender

N Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

95% Confidence


Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound

Individualism Male 180 58.5167 10.23712 .76303 57.0110 60.0224 20.00 78.00

Female 190 56.8737 9.40476 .68229 55.5278 58.2196 28.00 78.00

Total 370 57.6730 9.83956 .51153 56.6671 58.6789 20.00 78.00

Collectivism Male 173 59.1040 11.17049 .84928 57.4277 60.7804 29.00 88.00

Female 177 62.8023 10.49948 .78919 61.2448 64.3598 37.00 88.00

Total 350 60.9743 10.97807 .58680 59.8202 62.1284 29.00 88.00

Table 6.46 Individualism collectivism ANOVA determined by gender

Sum of

Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Individualism Between Groups 249.511 1 249.511 2.588 .109

Within Groups 35475.918 368 96.402

Total 35725.430 369

Collectivism Between Groups 1196.562 1 1196.562 10.190 .002*

Within Groups 40864.206 348 117.426

Total 42060.769 349

* significant at the .05 level

331

Gender

FemaleMale

Mean

of

Ind

ivid

ualism

60.00

59.00

58.00

57.00

56.00

55.00

56.874

58.517

Figure 6.8 Means of individualism as determined by gender

Gender

FemaleMale

Mean

of

Co

llecti

vis

m

63.00

62.00

61.00

60.00

59.00

58.00

62.80

59.10

Figure 6.9 Means of collectivism as determined by gender

332

6.5.3. Auckland Individualism and Collectivism Questionnaire by race and gender

interaction

A two-way between-the-groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the link

between gender, race and individualism, as measured by Auckland Individualism

Collectivism Questionnaire. The main effect for gender [F(1,356)=2.589, p=.108], race

[F(3,356)=.706, p=.549] and the interaction effect [F(3,356)=.347, p=.792] did not

reach statistical significance at the .05 (nor the .01) significance level (Table 6.47,

6.48, Figure 6.10).

Table 6.47 Individualism descriptives determined by gender and race

Gender Race Mean Std. Deviation N

Male Black 58.1250 13.07365 48

White 57.8966 8.65861 58

Coloured 58.5152 8.80739 33

Indian 59.8421 10.19943 38

Total 58.4915 10.31720 177

Female Black 57.4906 9.40054 53

White 55.1731 8.23127 52

Coloured 57.8810 8.82956 42

Indian 57.0250 11.56584 40

Total 56.8342 9.46921 187

Total Black 57.7921 11.24217 101

White 56.6091 8.53067 110

Coloured 58.1600 8.76578 75

Indian 58.3974 10.94299 78

Total 57.6401 9.91171 364

333

Table 6.48 Individualism Tests of Between-Subjects Effects determined by gender and

race

Source

Type III Sum

of Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Partial Eta

Squared

Corrected Model 559.863(a) 7 79.980 .811 .578 .016

Intercept 1175078.58

7 1

1175078.58

7

11917.5

00 .000 .971

Gender 255.314 1 255.314 2.589 .108 .007

Race 208.897 3 69.632 .706 .549 .006

Gender * Race 102.511 3 34.170 .347 .792 .003

Error 35101.992 356 98.601

Total 1245009.00

0 364

Corrected Total 35661.854 363

a R Squared = .016 (Adjusted R Squared = -.004)

Race

IndianColouredWhiteBlack

Esti

mate

d M

arg

inal M

ean

s

60.00

59.00

58.00

57.00

56.00

55.00

57.03

57.88

55.17

57.49

59.84

58.52

57.90

58.13

Female

Male

Gender

Estimated Marginal Means of Individualism

Figure 6.10 Gender x race means of Individualism.


between gender, race and collectivism, as measured by Auckland Individualism

334

Collectivism Questionnaire. As per previous findings for gender there was a statistical

main effect for gender [F(1,337)= 12.000, p=.001] and there was a statistical main

effect for race [F(3,337)= 2.682, p=.047]; however, the effect size was small for both

gender and race (partial eta squared =.03 and .02 respectively). Because the effect

size for the statistical main effect for race was small and because previous analysis

that explored only race and collectivism and individualism via one-way between

groups analysis of variance (see section 6.5.1) did not yield significance, this small

significant finding will not be used in the overall analyses. The interaction effect

[F(3,337)=.057, p=.982] did not reach statistical significance (Table 6.49, 6.50, Figure

6.11).

Table 6.49 Collectivism descriptives determined by gender and race


Male Black 56.7556 12.59357 45

White 59.4630 9.32781 54

Coloured 57.7576 11.38813 33

Indian 61.8684 11.44475 38

Total 58.9529 11.19690 170

Female Black 61.6078 12.02178 51

White 63.2000 9.93653 50

Coloured 61.9024 7.84795 41

Indian 65.5455 11.65679 33

Total 62.8743 10.51470 175

Total Black 59.3333 12.46778 96

White 61.2596 9.76023 104

Coloured 60.0541 9.74172 74

Indian 63.5775 11.60869 71

Total 60.9420 11.01675 345

335

Table 6.50 Collectivism Tests of Between-Subjects Effects determined by gender and

race

Source

Type III Sum

of Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Partial Eta

Squared

Corrected Model 2288.752(a) 7 326.965 2.792 .008 .055

Intercept 1243039.82

8 1

1243039.82

8 10615.364 .000 .969

Gender 1405.234 1 1405.234 12.000 .001* .034

Race 942.030 3 314.010 2.682 .047* .023

Gender * Race 20.104 3 6.701 .057 .982 .001

Error 39462.088 337 117.098

Total 1323057.00

0 345


a R Squared = .055 (Adjusted R Squared = .035) * significant at the .05 level

Race


Esti

mate

d M

arg

inal M

ean

s

66.00

64.00

62.00

60.00

58.00

56.00

65.55

61.90

63.20

61.6161.87

57.76

59.46

56.76

Female

Male

Gender

Estimated Marginal Means of Collectivism

Figure 6.11 Gender and race means of Collectivism.

336

6.5.4. Conclusion on Auckland Individualism and Collectivism Questionnaire

In sum, the Auckland Individualism and Collectivism Questionnaire yielded relatively

homogeneous results in the individualistic and collectivistic dimensions across South

African cultural/racial groups. Although there were no significant findings when

exploring the link between race and, individualism and collectivism the trends that

emerged were that the Indian/Asian group were the most individualistic and the most

collectivistic; the Coloured group were the second most individualistic and the third

most collectivistic; the Black group were the third most individualistic and the least

collectivistic; and the White group were the least individualistic and the second most

collectivistic. The only profound significant finding was that women were more likely to

be collectivistic than men. The race and gender interaction effect did not reach

statistical significance. The primary reason for utilising this instrument was to

establish individualism and collectivism differences between cultural groups,

consequently the homogeneous results suggested further cross-cultural analyses

would be fruitless. The possible reasons for these homogeneous results will be

explored in the following chapter. Both instruments (the Hofstede‘s Value Survey

Model (see 6.2.8) and the Auckland Individualism and Collectivism Questionnaire)

that were used to establish individualism and collectivism in South African cultural

groups, yielded relatively homogeneous results and were therefore deemed futile in

further cross-cultural comparisons and analyses. Consequently, race was used to

explore possible cross-cultural differences in romantic love in the analyses that follow.

337

6.6. Love results by race, gender and the intersection between race and gender

6.6.1. Love experiences by race and gender

Although more individuals in the sample were in love at the time of the study than not,

some racial differences emerged. Table 6.51 indicates White participants (65.2%)

were most likely to be in love, closely followed by Black (63.3%) and Coloured

participants (61%). Indian/Asian participants were the least likely to be in love

(54.3%). These differences, however, were not significant (Table 6.52).

Table 6.51 Crosstabulation by race and “Are you currently in love with someone?”

Race Total

Black White Coloured Indian

Yes Count 69 73 50 44 236

% within Race 63.3% 65.2% 61.0% 54.3% 61.5%

No Count 40 39 32 37 148

% within Race 36.7% 34.8% 39.0% 45.7% 38.5%

Total Count 109 112 82 81 384

% within Race 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Table 6.52 Chi-Square Test by race and “Are you currently in love with someone?”

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 2.561(a) 3 .464

Likelihood Ratio 2.538 3 .469

Linear-by-Linear Association 1.757 1 .185

N of Valid Cases 384

a 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 31.22.

When considering gender differences, significantly more women (69.7%) than men

(53.4%) were in love at the time of the study (Table 6.53, 6.54). According to Pallant

(2005) when the chi-square consists of a 2 x 2 table, as is the case in Table 6.54, the

continuity correction value should be used instead of the Pearson Chi-square value in

order to compensate for the overestimation of the chi-square value. This rule was

applied through-out on 2 x 2 chi-square tables.

338

Table 6.53 Crosstabulation by gender and “Are you currently in love with someone?”

Gender Total

Male Female

Are you currently in love

with someone?

Yes Count 101 138 239

% within Gender 53.4% 69.7% 61.8%

No Count 88 60 148

% within Gender 46.6% 30.3% 38.2%

Total Count 189 198 387

% within Gender 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Table 6.54 Chi-Square Test by gender and “Are you currently in love with someone?”

Value df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(1-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 10.822(b) 1 .001

Continuity Correction(a) 10.144 1 .001*


Fisher's Exact Test .001 .001



a Computed only for a 2x2 table b 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 72.28. * significant at the .05 level

When investigating race by gender, Table 6.55 and 6.56 revealed that although there

were race by gender differences between those who were and who were not in love

at the time of the study, none were significant. The trend for males that emerged

showed that Black men, closely followed by White men, were the most likely to be in

love at the time of the study when compared to other males, and Coloured men,

Indian/Asian men were the least likely to be in love when compared to other males.

The trend for females that emerged showed that White women were the most likely to

be in love at the time of the study when compared to other females and Indian/Asian

women were the least likely to be in love when compared to other females.

339

Table 6.55 Crosstabulation by race, gender and “Are you currently in love with

someone?”

Gender

Are you currently in love with

someone? Total

Yes No

Male Race Black 33 18 51

33.3% 20.7% 27.4%

White 30 28 58

30.3% 32.2% 31.2%

Coloured 18 17 35

18.2% 19.5% 18.8%

Indian 18 24 42

18.2% 27.6% 22.6%

Total 99 87 186

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Female Race Black 35 21 56

25.7% 35.6% 28.7%

White 43 10 53

31.6% 16.9% 27.2%

Coloured 32 15 47

23.5% 25.4% 24.1%

Indian 26 13 39

19.1% 22.0% 20.0%

Total 136 59 195

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

340

Table 6.56 Chi-square test by race, gender and “Are you currently in love with

someone?”

Gender Value df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Male Pearson Chi-Square 4.611(a) 3 .203

Continuity Correction




Female Pearson Chi-Square 4.886(b) 3 .180



Linear-by-Linear Association .015 1 .901


a 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 16.37. b 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 11.80.

When investigating the gender results within race there were significant differences

between White men and women (Table 6.57 and 6.58). White women were

significantly more likely to be in love with someone at the time of the study than their

male counterparts. Although not significant, the Black, Coloured and Indian/Asian

groups also followed the same trend - women were more likely to be in love than their

male counterparts.

341

Table 6.57 Crosstabulation by gender within race and “Are you currently in love with

someone?”

Race Are you currently in love with someone? Total

Yes No

Black Gender Male Count 33 18 51

% within Are you currently in love with someone?

48.5% 46.2% 47.7%

Female Count 35 21 56


51.5% 53.8% 52.3%



100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

White Gender Male Count 30 28 58


41.1% 73.7% 52.3%



58.9% 26.3% 47.7%



100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Coloured Gender Male Count 18 17 35


36.0% 53.1% 42.7%



64.0% 46.9% 57.3%



100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Indian Gender Male Count 18 24 42


40.9% 64.9% 51.9%



59.1% 35.1% 48.1%



100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

342

Table 6.58 Chi-square test by gender within race and “Are you currently in love with

someone?”

Race Value df

Asymp.

Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact

Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact

Sig. (1-

sided)

Black Pearson Chi-Square .056(b) 1 .813

Continuity Correction(a) .001 1 .972

Likelihood Ratio .056 1 .813




White Pearson Chi-Square 10.638(c) 1 .001






Coloured Pearson Chi-Square 2.339(d) 1 .126

Continuity Correction(a) 1.691 1 .193




N of Valid Cases 82

Indian Pearson Chi-Square 4.620(e) 1 .032





N of Valid Cases 81

a Computed only for a 2x2 table b 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 18.59. c 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 18.14. d 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 13.66. e 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 17.81. * significant at the .05 level

343

In sum, the significant differences that were observed were in gender and in gender

within race for those who were currently in love and those who were not: 1) women

were significantly more likely to be in love than men and 2) White women were

significantly more likely to be in love than White men. No significant differences were

found in race and race by gender. The trends that emerged showed that 1)

Indian/Asian participants were the least likely to be in love at the time of the study and

the most likely to be in love were the White participants closely followed by Black and

Coloured participants; 2) when comparing the males across race, Black men, closely

followed by White men, were the most likely to be in love at the time of the study and

Coloured men, Indian/Asian men were the least likely to be in love; 3) when

comparing the females across race, White women were the most likely to be in love

at the time of the study and Indian/Asian women were the least likely to be in love.

6.6.2. Love as a basis for marriage by race and gender

Over eighty percent of the sample said they would not marry a person they were not

in love with (Table 6.10). When investigating race differences it was found that: 82

Black (74.5%), 104 White (92.0%), 70 Coloured (85.4%) and 54 Indian/Asian (65.9%)

respondents said they would not marry someone they did not love (Table 6.59, Figure

6.12). Table 6.60 indicates that there were statistically significant differences between

the race groups. According to Hinkle, Wiersma and Jurs (1988) when the

standardised residual for a category is greater than 2.00 (in absolute value), the

researcher can conclude that it is a major contributor to the significance of the chi-

square. Table 6.59 shows that the standardised residual in the ―Yes‖ category is -2.8

in the White group and 2.9 in the Indian/Asian group. It can be therefore concluded

that these two groups are major contributors to the significance of the chi-square.

Indian/Asian participants were significantly more likely to marry someone they did not

love, while White participants were significantly less likely to marry someone they did

not love.

344

If a man or woman had all the other qualities you desired, would you marry this person if you were not in love with

him or her?

NoYes

Co

un

t

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Indian

Coloured

White

Black

Figure 6.12 Race proportions of those who would and would not marry someone they

did not love.

Table 6.59 Crosstabulation by race and “If a man or woman had all the other qualities

you desired, would you marry this person if you were not in love with him or her?”

Race Total


Yes Count 28 9 12 28 77

% within Race 25.5% 8.0% 14.6% 34.1% 19.9%

Std. Residual 1.3 -2.8 -1.1 2.9

No Count 82 104 70 54 310

% within Race 74.5% 92.0% 85.4% 65.9% 80.1%

Std. Residual -.7 1.4 .5 -1.4

Total Count 110 113 82 82 387

% within Race 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

345

Table 6.60 Chi-Square Test by race and “If a man or woman had all the other qualities

you desired, would you marry this person if you were not in love with him or her?”


Pearson Chi-Square 24.098(a) 3 .000*




a 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 16.32. * significant at the .05 level

When considering gender differences no significant differences were found: 80.6%

(154) of the male respondents and 80.4% (160) of the female respondents said they

would not marry a person they were not in love with (Table 6.61, 6.62, Figure 6.13).


him or her?

NoYes

Co

un

t

200

150

100

50

0

Female

Male

Figure 6.13 Proportion of males and females who would and would not marry someone

they did not love.

346

Table 6.61 Crosstabulation by gender and “If a man or woman had all the other

qualities you desired, would you marry this person if you were not in love with him or

her?”

GENDER TOTAL

MALE FEMALE

YES COUNT 37 39 76

% WITHIN GENDER 19.4% 19.6% 19.5%

NO COUNT 154 160 314

% WITHIN GENDER 80.6% 80.4% 80.5%

TOTAL COUNT 191 199 390

% WITHIN GENDER 49.0% 51.0% 100.0%

Table 6.62 Chi-Square Test by gender and “If a man or woman had all the other


her?”

Value df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(1-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square .003(b) 1 .955

Continuity Correction(a) .000 1 1.000


Fisher's Exact Test 1.000 .529



a Computed only for a 2x2 table b 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 37.22.

When investigating race by gender Table 6.63 and 6.64 revealed that there were

significant race by gender differences between those who would and would not marry

someone they did not love. Table 6.63 shows that the standardised residual in the

―Yes‖ category is greater than 2.00 in the Black male group (2.4), the White male

group (-2.5) and the Indian/Asian female group (2.9). It can be therefore concluded

that Black and White males are major contributors to the significance of the male chi-

square and Indian/Asian women are major contributors to the significance of the

female chi-square (Hinkle et al., 1988). Black male participants were significantly

347

more likely to marry someone they did not love, while White males were significantly

less likely to marry someone they did not love when compared to males from other

racial groups. Indian/Asian females were significantly more likely to marry someone

they did not love when compared to females from other racial groups.

Table 6.63 Crosstabulations by race, gender and “If a man or woman had all the other


her?”

Gender

If a man or woman had all the other

qualities you desired, would you

marry this person if you were not in

love with him or her? Total

Yes No

Male Race Black Count 18 34 52

48.6% 22.5% 27.7%

Std. Residual 2.4 -1.2

White Count 3 56 59

8.1% 37.1% 31.4%

Std. Residual -2.5 1.3

Coloured Count 4 31 35

10.8% 20.5% 18.6%

Std. Residual -1.1 .5

Indian Count 12 30 42

32.4% 19.9% 22.3%

Std. Residual 1.3 -.6


100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Female Race Black Count 9 47 56

23.1% 29.9% 28.6%

Std. Residual -.6 .3

White Count 6 47 53

15.4% 29.9% 27.0%

Std. Residual -1.4 .7

348

Gender

If a man or woman had all the other

qualities you desired, would you

marry this person if you were not in

love with him or her? Total

Yes No

Coloured Count 8 39 47

20.5% 24.8% 24.0%

Std. Residual -.4 .2

Indian Count 16 24 40

41.0% 15.3% 20.4%

Std. Residual 2.9 -1.4


100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Table 6.64 Chi-square test by race, gender and “If a man or woman had all the other


her?”

Gender Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Male Pearson Chi-Square 18.897(a) 3 .000*





Female Pearson Chi-Square 13.346(b) 3 .004*





a 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 6.89. b 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 7.96. * significant at the .05 level

When investigating gender within race it was found that Black males were

significantly more likely to marry someone they did not love than Black females (Table

349

6.65 and 6.66). Of note, is that the chi-square assumption concerning ‗minimum

expected cell frequency‘ was violated, nonetheless the results provide useful

information.

Table 6.65 Crosstabulations by gender within race and “If a man or woman had all the


him or her?”

Race

If a man or woman had all the other qualities

you desired, would you marry this person if

you were not in love with him or her? Total

Yes No

Black Gender Male 18 34 52

Female 9 47 56

Total 27 81 108

White Gender Male 3 56 59

Female 6 47 53

Total 9 103 112

Coloured Gender Male 4 31 35

Female 8 39 47

Total 12 70 82

Indian Gender Male 12 30 42

Female 16 24 40

Total 28 54 82

350

Table 6.66 Chi-square test by gender within race and “If a man or woman had all the


him or her?”

Race Value df

Asymp.

Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact

Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact

Sig. (1-

sided)

Black Pearson Chi-Square 4.945(b) 1 .026












Coloured Pearson Chi-Square .502(d) 1 .479





N of Valid Cases 82

Indian Pearson Chi-Square 1.190(e) 1 .275





N of Valid Cases 82

a Computed only for a 2x2 table b 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 13.00. c 2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.26. d 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.12. e 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 13.66. * significant at the .05 level

351

In sum, significant differences were observed in the South African sample when

investigating Kephart‘s (1967) question ―If a man or woman had all the other qualities

you desired, would you marry this person if you were not in love with him or her?‖.

When probing for racial differences, it was found that Indian/Asian participants were

significantly more likely to marry someone they did not love, while White participants

were significantly more likely to marry someone they did love. Although no overall

gender differences were found, when probing race by gender it was found that Black

male participants were significantly more likely to marry someone they did not love,

while White males were significantly less likely to marry someone they did not love

when compared to males from other racial groups. Indian/Asian females were

significantly more likely to marry someone they did not love when compared to

females from other racial groups. Finally when exploring gender within race it was

found that Black males were significantly more likely to marry someone they did not

love than Black females.

6.6.3. Love as a basis for the maintenance of marriage by race and gender

When investigating the racial findings on the importance of love for the maintenance

of marriage, two questions were posed (Simpson et al., 1986). Overall more

participants agreed (56.7%) than disagreed (52.1%) that love would be necessary for

the maintenance of marriage (Table 6.8, 6.9). When responding to "If love has

completely disappeared from a marriage, I think it is probably best for the couple to

make a clean break and start new lives" Table 6.67 shows that the Indian/Asian

participants (47.6) were the least likely to believe this, the White participants (61.1%),

closely followed by Coloured (58.5%) and Black (58.2%) participants were the most

likely to believe this. When responding to ―In my opinion, the disappearance of love is

not a sufficient reason for ending a marriage and should not be viewed as such‖.

Table 6.69 shows that the Indian/Asian respondents (59.3%) were the least likely to

believe that the disappearance of love was sufficient reason for ending a marriage,

the White respondents (46.8%) were the most likely to believe this. Tables 6.68, 6.70

confirmed that the proportion of individuals by race group who agree with the

352

importance of love for the maintenance of marriage on both questions was not

significant.

Table 6.67 Crosstabulation by race and “If love has completely disappeared from a

marriage, I think it is probably best for the couple to make a clean break and start new

lives”.

Race Total


Agree Count 64 69 48 39 220

% within Race 58.2% 61.1% 58.5% 47.6% 56.8%

Disagree Count 46 44 34 43 167

% within Race 41.8% 38.9% 41.5% 52.4% 43.2%

Total Count 110 113 82 82 387

% within Race 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Table 6.68 Chi-Square Test by race and “If love has completely disappeared from a


lives”.







353

Table 6.69 Crosstabulation by race “In my opinion, the disappearance of love is not a

sufficient reason for ending a marriage and should not be viewed as such”.

Race Total


Agree Count 55 52 43 48 198

% within Race 50.5% 46.8% 53.1% 59.3% 51.8%

% of Total 14.4% 13.6% 11.3% 12.6% 51.8%

Disagree Count 54 59 38 33 184

% within Race 49.5% 53.2% 46.9% 40.7% 48.2%

Total Count 109 111 81 81 382

% within Race 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Table 6.70 Chi-Square Test by race “In my opinion, the disappearance of love is not a

sufficient reason for ending a marriage and should not be viewed as such”.







When investigating the gender findings on the importance of love for the maintenance

of marriage, two questions were posed (Simpson et al., 1986) there were slight

gender differences: 58.6% of males and 54.8% of females believed that if love had

completely disappeared from a marriage, that it was probably best for the couple to

make a clean break and start new lives (Table 6.71) and 48.4% of males and 55.6%

of females believed that the disappearance of love was not a sufficient reason for

ending a marriage (Table 6.73). Tables 6.72 and 6.74 confirm that the proportion of

the men‘s beliefs with regard to the importance of love for the maintenance of

marriage on both questions was not significantly different from the proportion of

women‘s beliefs with regard to the importance of love for the maintenance of

marriage on both questions.

354

Table 6.71 Crosstabulation by gender “If love has completely disappeared from a


lives”.

GENDER TOTAL

MALE FEMALE

AGREE COUNT 112 109 221

% WITHIN GENDER 58.6% 54.8% 56.7%

DISAGREE COUNT 79 90 169

% WITHIN GENDER 41.4% 45.2% 43.3%


% WITHIN GENDER 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Table 6.72 Chi-Square Test by gender “If love has completely disappeared from a


lives”.

Value df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(1-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square .593(b) 1 .441







355

Table 6.73 Crosstabulation by gender “In my opinion, the disappearance of love is not

a sufficient reason for ending a marriage and should not be viewed as such”

GENDER TOTAL

MALE FEMALE

AGREE COUNT 91 110 201

% WITHIN GENDER 48.4% 55.6% 52.1%

DISAGREE COUNT 97 88 185

% WITHIN GENDER 51.6% 44.4% 47.9%


% WITHIN GENDER 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Table 6.74 Chi-Square Test by gender “In my opinion, the disappearance of love is not

a sufficient reason for ending a marriage and should not be viewed as such”

Value df

Asymp. Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(2-sided)

Exact Sig.

(1-sided)

Pearson Chi-Square 1.976(b) 1 .160







Table 6.75 to 6.78 revealed that there were no significant race by gender differences

and no significant gender within race differences were found when investigating the

importance of love in the maintenance of marriage across both of Simpson et al.‘s

(1986) questions (Table 6.79 to 6.82).

356

Table 6.75 Crosstabulations by race, gender and “If love has completely disappeared


start new lives”.

Gender

If love has completely disappeared from a

marriage, I think it is probably best for the couple

to make a clean break and start new lives.

Total

Agree Disagree


27.3% 28.2% 27.7%

White 41 18 59

37.3% 23.1% 31.4%

Coloured 21 14 35

19.1% 17.9% 18.6%

Indian 18 24 42

16.4% 30.8% 22.3%

Total 110 78 188

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%


30.6% 26.1% 28.6%

White 27 26 53

25.0% 29.5% 27.0%

Coloured 27 20 47

25.0% 22.7% 24.0%

Indian 21 19 40

19.4% 21.6% 20.4%

Total 108 88 196

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

357

Table 6.76 Chi-square test by race, gender and “If love has completely disappeared


start new lives”.

Gender Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)






Female Pearson Chi-Square .916(b) 3 .822






Table 6.77 Crosstabulations by race, gender and “In my opinion, the disappearance of

love is not a sufficient reason for ending a marriage and should not be viewed as

such”.

Gender

In my opinion, the disappearance of love is

not a sufficient reason for ending a marriage

and should not be viewed as such.

Total

Agree Disagree


27.0% 28.1% 27.6%

White 23 36 59

25.8% 37.5% 31.9%

Coloured 19 15 34

21.3% 15.6% 18.4%

Indian 23 18 41

25.8% 18.8% 22.2%

Total 89 96 185

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

358

Gender



and should not be viewed as such.

Total


27.8% 29.9% 28.7%

White 29 23 52

26.9% 26.4% 26.7%

Coloured 24 23 47

22.2% 26.4% 24.1%

Indian 25 15 40

23.1% 17.2% 20.5%

Total 108 87 195

100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Table 6.78 Chi-square test by race, gender and “In my opinion, the disappearance of


such”.

Gender Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)












359

Table 6.79 Crosstabulations by gender within race and “In my opinion, the



Race

if love has completely disappeared from a

marriage, I think it is probably best for the

couple to make a clean break and start

new lives. Total

Agree Disagree


Female 33 23 56

Total 63 45 108


Female 27 26 53

Total 68 44 112


Female 27 20 47

Total 48 34 82


Female 21 19 40

Total 39 43 82

360

Table 6.80 Chi-square test by gender within race and “In my opinion, the



Race Value df

Asymp.

Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact

Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact

Sig. (1-

sided)


Continuity Correction(a) .000 1 1.000
















N of Valid Cases 82

Indian Pearson Chi-Square .764(e) 1 .382





N of Valid Cases 82

a Computed only for a 2x2 table b 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 21.67. c 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 20.82. d 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 14.51. e 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 19.02.

361

Table 6.81 Crosstabulations by gender within race and “In my opinion, the



Race



and should not be viewed as such. Total

Agree Disagree


Female 30 26 56

Total 54 53 107


Female 29 23 52

Total 52 59 111


Female 24 23 47

Total 43 38 81


Female 25 15 40

Total 48 33 81

362

Table 6.82 Chi-square test by gender within race and “In my opinion, the



Race Value df

Asymp.

Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact

Sig. (2-

sided)

Exact

Sig. (1-

sided)


















N of Valid Cases 81

Indian Pearson Chi-Square .344(e) 1 .558





N of Valid Cases 81

a Computed only for a 2x2 table b 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 25.26. c 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 24.36. d 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 15.95. e 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 16.30.

363

In sum, no significant differences were found amongst race, gender, race by gender

and gender within race in the current South African sample when considering

Simpson et al.‘s (1986) two questions with regard to the importance of love in the

maintenance of marriage.

6.6.4. Romantic beliefs by race and gender


between race and total romanticism, as measured by Romantic Beliefs Scale. The

lower the score on total romanticism the more romantic the participant would be.

Table 6.83 shows the means on a total romanticism score per race group: Black

(M=51.073), White (M=55.336), Coloured (M=53.646), and Indian/Asian (M=53.003).

Even though there was no statistically significant difference at the p<.05 level in the

scores for race [F(3,383)=2.243, p=.083] (Table 6.84), the trend that emerged

showed that the Black participants were more romantic than their White, Coloured

and Indian/Asian counterparts.

Table 6.83 Romantic Beliefs descriptives determined by race

N Mean

Std.


95% Confidence

Interval for Mean Minimum Maximum

Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound

Black 110 51.073 12.94428 1.23419 48.6266 53.5188 21.00 90.00

White 113 55.336 12.26756 1.15404 53.0497 57.6229 29.00 89.00

Coloured 82 53.646 11.98803 1.32386 51.0123 56.2804 27.00 89.00

Indian 82 51.732 16.12762 1.78100 48.1881 55.2753 15.00 86.00

Total 387 53.003 13.37182 .67973 51.6662 54.3390 15.00 90.00

364

Table 6.84 One-way ANOVA: Romantic Beliefs determined by race

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between

Groups 1191.517 3 397.172 2.243 .083

Within Groups 67827.481 383 177.095

Total 69018.997 386


between gender and total romanticism, as measured by Romantic Beliefs Scale.

Although females were slightly more romantic than males: mean score for males

(M=53.25, SD=13.761) and females (M=52.85, SD=13.124) (Table 6.85), there was

no statistically significant difference at the p<.05 level in the scores for gender

[F(1,388)=0.088, p=.767] (Table 6.86).

Table 6.85 Romantic Beliefs descriptives determined by gender

N Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

95% Confidence


Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound

Male 191 53.2513 13.76111 .99572 51.2872 55.2154 15.00 90.00

Female 199 52.8492 13.02435 .92327 51.0285 54.6700 21.00 89.00

390 53.0462 13.37449 .67724 51.7146 54.3777 15.00 90.00

Table 6.86 One-way ANOVA: Romantic Beliefs determined by gender

Sum of Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Between

Groups 15.755 1 15.755 .088 .767

Within Groups 69567.415 388 179.297

Total 69583.169 389

A two-way between-the-groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the

relationship between race by gender on romanticism, as measured by Romantic

Beliefs Scale. As expected from the previous romanticism gender and race

365

investigations the main effect for race [F(3,376)=2.266, p=.080]; and the main effect

for gender [F(1,376)=.019, p=.890] did not reach statistical significance (Table 6.88).

There was a statistically significant effect for the interaction [F(3,376)=2.687, p=.046]

and the effect size was partial eta squared =.02. This shows that the relationship of

race (or gender) with romanticism is contingent on the gender (or race) of the person.

Figure 6.14 and Table 6.87, shows that the Black women and Indian/Asian men

scored low on romanticism relative to the White men, White women, Black men, and

Indian/Asian women. For the White and Coloured groups the difference in

romanticism scores for men and women were small, whereas for the Black and

Indian/Asian groups clear differences could be observed.

Table 6.87 Romantic beliefs descriptives determined by race and gender


Male Black 53.3654 12.63209 52

White 55.7119 12.62599 59

Coloured 53.4286 12.03007 35

Indian 48.7619 17.06774 42

Total 53.0851 13.76826 188

Female Black 48.5000 12.85443 56

White 54.8679 12.07515 53

Coloured 53.8085 12.08419 47

Indian 54.8500 14.64547 40

Total 52.7908 13.05421 196

Total Black 50.8426 12.92116 108

White 55.3125 12.32008 112

Coloured 53.6463 11.98803 82

Indian 51.7317 16.12762 82

Total 52.9349 13.39180 384

366

Table 6.88 Romantic beliefs Tests of Between-Subjects Effects determined by race and

gender

Source

Type III Sum

of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Partial

Eta

Squared

Corrected

Model 2686.570(a) 7 383.796 2.186 .035 .039

Intercept 1044388.531 1 1044388.531 5949.778 .000 .941

Gender 3.355 1 3.355 .019 .890 .000

Race 1193.450 3 397.817 2.266 .080 .018

Gender * Race 1415.171 3 471.724 2.687 .046* .021

Error 66000.802 376 175.534

Total 1144695.000 384



Race


Esti

mate

d M

arg

ina

l M

ea

ns

56.00

54.00

52.00

50.00

48.00

54.85

53.81

54.87

48.50

48.76

53.43

55.71

53.37

Female

Male

Gender

Estimated Marginal Means of total romanticism score

Figure 6.14 Means of total romanticism score as determined by gender and race.

367

In sum, even though no significant differences emerged when interrogating the data

by race or gender, the trends that emerged were that Black participants were more

romantic than their White, Coloured and Indian/Asian counterparts and women were

more romantic than men. When investigating for effect for the interaction between

race and gender there was a statistical significance: Black women and Indian/Asian

men scored high on romanticism relative to the White men, White women, Black men,

and Indian/Asian women. In addition, for the White and Coloured groups the

difference in romanticism scores for men and women were small, whereas for the

Black and Indian/Asian groups clear differences could be observed.

6.6.5. Attachment styles by race and gender

When investigating attachment style as determined by race, the data revealed that all

four race groups endorsed a secure attachment style the most with the exception of

the Black group who had the same proportion for secure (27.2%), dismissing (27.2%)

and fearful (27.2%) attachment styles (Table 6.89). The Indian/Asian group were the

most secure (41.3%) followed by the White group (38.8%), Coloured group (36.2%)

and the Black group (27.2%). The second highest score for the White group was

preoccupied (26.3%) attachment style; dismissing for Coloured group (19.1%); and

preoccupied and dismissing (17.5%) for the Indian/Asian group. None of these

differences were statistically significant (Table 6.90).

368

Table 6.89 Crosstabulation by race and attachment style

Race Total


Secure Count 22 31 17 26 96

% within Race 27.2% 38.8% 36.2% 41.3% 35.4%

Preoccupied Count 15 21 8 11 55

% within Race 18.5% 26.3% 17.0% 17.5% 20.3%

Dismissing Count 22 11 9 11 53

% within Race 27.2% 13.8% 19.1% 17.5% 19.6%

Fearful Count 22 17 13 15 67

% within Race 27.2% 21.3% 27.7% 23.8% 24.7%

Total Count 81 80 47 63 271

% within Race 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Table 6.90 Chi-Square Test by race and attachment style







When examining attachment style as determined by gender, the data revealed that:

both genders had relatively similar proportions for secure attachment style (34.6%

males and 36.2% females); females were more likely to be preoccupied (24.6%)

when compared to males (16.2%) and men were more likely to be dismissing (22.1%)

and fearful (27.2%) when compared to females (17.4% and 21.7% respectively)

(Table 6.91). These differences were not statistically significant (Table 6.92).

369

Table 6.91 Crosstabulation by gender and attachment style

Gender Total

Male Female

Secure Count 47 50 97

% within Gender 34.6% 36.2% 35.4%

Preoccupied Count 22 34 56

% within Gender 16.2% 24.6% 20.4%

Dismissing Count 30 24 54

% within Gender 22.1% 17.4% 19.7%

Fearful Count 37 30 67

% within Gender 27.2% 21.7% 24.5%


% within Gender 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Table 6.92 Chi-Square Test by gender and attachment style







When exploring race by gender Table 6.93 and 6.94 revealed that although there

were race by gender differences in attachment styles, none were significant. When

comparing endorsement of attachment style across race the White male participants

endorse secure attachment (34%) and preoccupied attachment (43%) the highest,

while the Black male participants endorsed dismissing (41%) and fearful (38%) the

highest. When comparing endorsement of attachment style across race the White

female participants, like the White males, endorse secure attachment (30%) and

preoccupied attachment (35%) the highest, while the Black female participants, like

the Black males, endorsed dismissing (39%). Black, White and Indian/Asian female

participants endorsed the fearful attachment style (27%) equally.

370

Table 6.93 Crosstabulations by race, gender and attachment style

Gender Attachment Style Total

Secure

Pre-

occupied Dismissing Fearful

Male Race Black 10 6 12 14 42

21.3% 28.6% 41.4% 37.8% 31.3%

White 16 9 7 9 41

34.0% 42.9% 24.1% 24.3% 30.6%

Coloured 7 2 4 7 20

14.9% 9.5% 13.8% 18.9% 14.9%

Indian 14 4 6 7 31

29.8% 19.0% 20.7% 18.9% 23.1%

Total 47 21 29 37 134

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Female Race Black 12 9 9 8 38

24.5% 26.5% 39.1% 26.7% 27.9%

White 15 12 4 8 39

30.6% 35.3% 17.4% 26.7% 28.7%

Coloured 10 6 5 6 27

20.4% 17.6% 21.7% 20.0% 19.9%

Indian 12 7 5 8 32

24.5% 20.6% 21.7% 26.7% 23.5%

Total 49 34 23 30 136

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Table 6.94 Chi-square test by race, gender and attachment style

Gender Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)




Linear-by-Linear Association

2.143 1 .143





Linear-by-Linear Association

.007 1 .935

N of Valid Cases 136 a 3 cells (18.8%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.13. b 1 cells (6.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.57.

371

When investigating gender within race no significant differences were found (Table

6.95 and 6.96), however some trends emerged. Black males were predominately

fearfully attached (64%) whereas most Black females endorsed a preoccupied

attachment style (60%). The majority of White males endorsed a dismissing

attachment style (64%) whereas most White females, like their Black female

counterparts, endorsed a preoccupied attachment style (57%). Most Coloured men

endorsed, like their Black male counterparts a fearful attachment style (54%), while

most Coloured women, like their Black and White female counterparts endorsed a

preoccupied attachment style (75%). The majority of Indian/Asian men endorsed

dismissing (55%) and secure (54%) attachment style, while most Indian/Asian women

like their Black, White and Coloured female counterparts endorsed a preoccupied

attachment style (64%). Of note, is that the chi-square assumption concerning

‗minimum expected cell frequency‘ was violated, nonetheless the results provide

useful information.

Table 6.95 Crosstabulations by gender within race and attachment style

Race Attachment Style Total

Secure

Pre-


Black Gender Male Count 10 6 12 14 42

% within

Attachment Style 45.5% 40.0% 57.1% 63.6% 52.5%

Female Count 12 9 9 8 38

% within


Total Count 22 15 21 22 80

% within


372

Race Attachment Style Total

Secure

Pre-


White Gender Male Count 16 9 7 9 41

% within



% within


Total Count 31 21 11 17 80

% within


Coloured Gender Male Count 7 2 4 7 20

% within



% within


Total Count 17 8 9 13 47

% within


Indian Gender Male Count 14 4 6 7 31

% within



% within


Total Count 26 11 11 15 63

% within


373

Table 6.96 Chi-square test by gender within race and attachment style

Race Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

Black Pearson Chi-Square 2.653(a) 3 .448




N of Valid Cases 80

White Pearson Chi-Square 1.289(b) 3 .732




N of Valid Cases 80

Coloured Pearson Chi-Square 1.713(c) 3 .634




N of Valid Cases 47

Indian Pearson Chi-Square 1.114(d) 3 .774




N of Valid Cases 63

a 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 7.13. b 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.36. c 3 cells (37.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 3.40. d 0 cells (.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 5.41.

In sum, no significant differences emerged when interrogating the attachment style

data by race, gender, race by gender or gender within race. Nonetheless there were

trends that emerged.

The predominate attachment style across race was secure - with the exception of the

Black group who had the same proportion for secure, dismissing and fearful

attachment styles.

374

Although both males and females endorsed the secure attachment styles the most,

females were more likely to be preoccupied when compared to males, and men were

more likely to be dismissing and fearful when compared to females.

When exploring the trend for race by gender that emerged it was found that the White

male participants endorse secure attachment and preoccupied attachment the

highest, while the Black male participants endorsed dismissing and fearful the highest

when compared to males from other cultural groups. When comparing females from

different cultural groups it was found that, like the White males, the White female

participants endorse secure attachment and preoccupied attachment the highest;

while the Black female participants, like the Black males, endorsed dismissing

attachment the highest. Black, White and Indian/Asian female participants endorsed

the fearful attachment style equally.

When investigating the trends for gender within race (Table 6.95 and 6.96) it was

found that Black and Coloured males were predominately fearfully attached when

compared to their female counterparts, whereas most Black and Coloured females

endorsed a preoccupied attachment style when compared to their male counterparts.

The majority of White and Indian/Asian males endorsed a dismissing attachment style

when compared to their female counterparts whereas most White and Indian/Asian

females, like Black and Coloured females, endorsed a preoccupied attachment style

when compared to their male counterparts.

6.6.6. Lovestyles by race and gender

When investigating race and dominant lovestyles Figures 6.15 to 6.18 showed that

Black (40%), White (46.9%) and Coloured (46.3%) respondents strongly endorsed

eros as their dominant lovestyle. The Indian/Asian group endorsed agape (28.0%) as

their dominant lovestyle and this was followed by eros (24.4%), storge (18.3%) and

pragma (17.1%). The Black group endorsed storge (23.6%) as their second strongest

lovestyle and agape (12.7%) as their third strongest lovestyle. The White group

375

endorsed agape (26.5%) as their second strongest lovestyle and storge (14.2%) as

their third strongest lovestyle. The Coloured group endorsed agape (22.0%) as their

second strongest lovestyle and storge (14.6%) as their third strongest lovestyle.

Mania and ludus were the least endorsed for all four groups. When compared to the

other groups the Indian/Asians endorsed ludus the highest (11%) and mania the

lowest (1.2%).

Agape

Mania

Pragma

Storge

Ludus

Eros

Agape

Mania

Pragma

Storge

Ludus

Eros

Figure 6.15 Proportion of Black samples‟

predominant lovestyle

Figure 6.16 Proportion of White samples‟


Agape

Mania

Pragma

Storge

Ludus

Eros

Agape

Mania

Pragma

Storge

Ludus

Eros

Figure 6.17 Proportion of Coloured

samples‟ predominant lovestyle

Figure 6.18 Proportion of Indian/Asian

samples‟ predominant lovestyle


between race and lovestyles, as measured by Love Attitude Scale. Table 6.97

outlines the means and standard deviations by race of each lovestyle and Figures

6.29-34 are graphic representations of the means of the six lovestyles as determined

376

by race. The lower the mean the more that lovestyle is endorsed. According to Hinkle

et al. (1988) if the sample sizes are relatively equal when Levene‘s test for

homogeneity of variances is violated, the effect of heterogeneity of variances on the

Type I error is minimal. The South African sample sizes were relatively equal in this

study. Therefore although Levene‘s test for homogeneity of variances was violated for

eros (.004), the South African sample sizes were relatively equal, and therefore the

effect of heterogeneity of variances on the Type I error was minimal (Hinkle et al.,

1988). There were no statistically significant differences at the p<.05 level in the

scores between the race groups on eros, storge and mania but there was for ludus

[F(3,381)=.439, p=.726] and agape [F(1,379)=7.682, p=.000] (Table 6.98). Pragma

[F(1,378)=2.566, p=.054] was very close to being significant. The effect size,

calculated using eta squared, was .03 for ludus. Therefore, despite reaching

statistical significance, the actual difference in mean scores between the groups for

ludus was quite small. The effect size, calculated using eta squared, was .06 for

agape, which according to Cohen (1988) is a medium effect. Post hoc comparisons

using the Tukey HSD confirmed that the significant differences between racial groups

and lovestyles are located in ludus, pragma and agape at the .05 significance level.

There was a significant difference between Black (M=14.97, SD=5.439) and White

(M=14.60, SD=4.112) ludus lovestyles; between White (M=22.14, SD=5.733) and

Indian/Asian (M=19.59, SD=7.010) pragma lovestyles; and between Black (M=18.71,

SD=5.653) and White (M=15.53, SD=4.945), and Black (M=18.71, SD=5.653) and

Indian/Asian (M=15.46, SD=6.465) agape lovestyles (Table 6.111). The White sample

was significantly less ludus than the Black sample; the White sample was significantly

less pragma than the Indian/Asian sample; and the White and Indian/Asian sample

were significantly more agape than the Black sample (Table 6.97, 6.98, 6.99 and

Figures 6.19-24).

It was found that there was a statistically significant difference at the p<.01 level in the

scores between races on agape - between Black (M=18.71, SD=5.653) and White

(M=15.53, SD=4.945), and Black (M=18.71, SD=5.653) and Indian/Asian (M=15.46,

SD=6.465) - the White and Indian/Asian sample were significantly more agape than

the Black sample.

377

Table 6.97 Lovestyles descriptives determined by race

N Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

95% Confidence


Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound

Eros Black 110 14.97 5.439 .519 13.94 16.00 7 35

White 112 14.60 4.112 .389 13.83 15.37 2 26

Coloured 81 15.14 4.499 .500 14.14 16.13 7 27

Indian 82 15.40 5.883 .650 14.11 16.70 7 31

Total 385 14.99 4.989 .254 14.49 15.49 2 35

Ludus Black 110 24.20 6.689 .638 22.94 25.46 7 35

White 112 26.91 5.666 .535 25.85 27.97 10 35

Coloured 81 24.72 6.341 .705 23.31 26.12 8 35

Indian 82 25.94 7.464 .824 24.30 27.58 1 35

Total 385 25.47 6.584 .336 24.81 26.13 1 35

Storge Black 109 18.63 6.280 .602 17.44 19.83 7 35

White 112 18.20 6.006 .567 17.07 19.32 7 34

Coloured 81 19.04 5.942 .660 17.72 20.35 8 32

Indian 81 17.77 6.311 .701 16.37 19.16 7 32

Total 383 18.41 6.129 .313 17.79 19.02 7 35

Pragma Black 109 20.92 6.352 .608 19.71 22.12 7 35

White 111 22.14 5.733 .544 21.06 23.21 8 35

Coloured 81 20.98 6.160 .684 19.61 22.34 7 35

Indian 81 19.59 7.010 .779 18.04 21.14 7 35

Total 382 21.00 6.326 .324 20.37 21.64 7 35

Mania Black 110 21.60 6.070 .579 20.45 22.75 7 35

White 111 22.23 5.942 .564 21.12 23.35 9 34

Coloured 81 22.21 6.082 .676 20.86 23.55 11 34

Indian 81 22.07 6.273 .697 20.69 23.46 7 35

Total 383 22.01 6.061 .310 21.40 22.62 7 35

Agape Black 110 18.71 5.653 .539 17.64 19.78 7 35

White 111 15.53 4.945 .469 14.60 16.46 7 27

Coloured 81 17.14 5.659 .629 15.88 18.39 7 29

Indian 81 15.46 6.465 .718 14.03 16.89 7 35

Total 383 16.77 5.791 .296 16.19 17.35 7 35

378

Table 6.98 One-way ANOVA Lovestyles determined by race

Sum of

Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Eros Between Groups 32.895 3 10.965 .439 .726

Within Groups 9525.064 381 25.000

Total 9557.958 384

Ludus Between Groups 473.973 3 157.991 3.723 .012*

Within Groups 16169.871 381 42.441

Total 16643.844 384

Storge Between Groups 76.028 3 25.343 .673 .569

Within Groups 14274.432 379 37.663

Total 14350.460 382

Pragma Between Groups 304.261 3 101.420 2.566 .054

Within Groups 14940.736 378 39.526

Total 15244.997 381

Mania Between Groups 27.637 3 9.212 .249 .862

Within Groups 14007.298 379 36.959

Total 14034.935 382

Agape Between Groups 734.383 3 244.794 7.682 .000*

Within Groups 12077.935 379 31.868

Total 12812.319 382


Table 6.99 Multiple comparisons lovestyles determined by race (Tukey HSD)

Dependent

Variable (I) Race (J) Race

Mean

Difference

(I-J)

Std.

Error Sig.

95% Confidence

Interval

Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound

Eros Black White .375 .671 .944 -1.36 2.11

Coloured -.163 .732 .996 -2.05 1.73

Indian -.430 .729 .935 -2.31 1.45

White Black -.375 .671 .944 -2.11 1.36

Coloured -.538 .729 .882 -2.42 1.34

Indian -.804 .727 .686 -2.68 1.07

379

Coloured Black3 .163 .732 .996 -1.73 2.05

White .538 .729 .882 -1.34 2.42

Indian -.267 .783 .986 -2.29 1.75

Indian Black .430 .729 .935 -1.45 2.31

White .804 .727 .686 -1.07 2.68

Coloured .267 .783 .986 -1.75 2.29

Ludus Black White -2.711(*) .875 .011 -4.97 -.45

Coloured -.516 .954 .949 -2.98 1.95

Indian -1.739 .950 .261 -4.19 .71

White Black 2.711(*) .875 .011 .45 4.97

Coloured 2.195 .950 .098 -.26 4.65

Indian .972 .947 .734 -1.47 3.41

Coloured Black .516 .954 .949 -1.95 2.98

White -2.195 .950 .098 -4.65 .26

Indian -1.223 1.021 .628 -3.86 1.41

Indian Black 1.739 .950 .261 -.71 4.19

White -.972 .947 .734 -3.41 1.47

Coloured 1.223 1.021 .628 -1.41 3.86

Storge Black White .437 .826 .952 -1.69 2.57

Coloured -.404 .900 .970 -2.73 1.92

Indian .868 .900 .770 -1.46 3.19

White Black -.437 .826 .952 -2.57 1.69

Coloured -.841 .895 .784 -3.15 1.47

Indian .431 .895 .963 -1.88 2.74

Coloured Black .404 .900 .970 -1.92 2.73

White .841 .895 .784 -1.47 3.15

Indian 1.272 .964 .552 -1.22 3.76

Indian Black -.868 .900 .770 -3.19 1.46

White -.431 .895 .963 -2.74 1.88

Coloured -1.272 .964 .552 -3.76 1.22

Pragma Black White -1.218 .848 .477 -3.41 .97

Coloured -.058 .922 1.000 -2.44 2.32

Indian 1.325 .922 .477 -1.06 3.70

White Black 1.218 .848 .477 -.97 3.41

Coloured 1.160 .919 .587 -1.21 3.53

380

Indian 2.543(*) .919 .030 .17 4.91

Coloured Black .058 .922 1.000 -2.32 2.44

White -1.160 .919 .587 -3.53 1.21

Indian 1.383 .988 .500 -1.17 3.93

Indian Black -1.325 .922 .477 -3.70 1.06

White -2.543(*) .919 .030 -4.91 -.17

Coloured -1.383 .988 .500 -3.93 1.17

Mania Black White -.634 .818 .866 -2.74 1.48

Coloured -.610 .890 .903 -2.91 1.69

Indian -.474 .890 .951 -2.77 1.82

White Black .634 .818 .866 -1.48 2.74

Coloured .024 .888 1.000 -2.27 2.32

Indian .160 .888 .998 -2.13 2.45

Coloured Black .610 .890 .903 -1.69 2.91

White -.024 .888 1.000 -2.32 2.27

Indian .136 .955 .999 -2.33 2.60

Indian Black .474 .890 .951 -1.82 2.77

White -.160 .888 .998 -2.45 2.13

Coloured -.136 .955 .999 -2.60 2.33

Agape Black White 3.178(*) .759 .000 1.22 5.14

Coloured 1.573 .827 .228 -.56 3.71

Indian 3.252(*) .827 .001 1.12 5.39

White Black -3.178(*) .759 .000 -5.14 -1.22

Coloured -1.604 .825 .211 -3.73 .52

Indian .075 .825 1.000 -2.05 2.20

Coloured Black -1.573 .827 .228 -3.71 .56

White 1.604 .825 .211 -.52 3.73

Indian 1.679 .887 .233 -.61 3.97

Indian Black -3.252(*) .827 .001 -5.39 -1.12

White -.075 .825 1.000 -2.20 2.05

Coloured -1.679 .887 .233 -3.97 .61

* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

381

Race


Mean

of

ero

s s

co

re

17

16

15

14

13

15.402

15.136

14.598

14.973

Figure 6.19 Means of eros lovestyle as determined by race

Race


Mean

of

lud

us s

co

re

28

27

26

25

24

25.94

24.72

26.91

24.2

Figure 6.20 Means of ludus lovestyle as determined by race

382

Race


Mean

of

sto

rge s

co

re

20

19

18

17

16

17.765

19.037

18.196

18.633

Figure 6.21 Means of storge lovestyle as determined by race

Race


Mean

of

pra

gm

a s

co

re

23

22

21

20

19

19.59

20.98

22.14

20.92

Figure 6.22 Means of pragma lovestyle as determined by race

383

Race


Mean

of

man

ia s

co

re

24

23

22

21

20

22.074

22.2122.234

21.6

Figure 6.23 Means of mania lovestyle as determined by race

Race


Mean

of

ag

ap

e s

co

re

19

18

17

16

15

15.46

17.14

15.53

18.71

Figure 6.24 Means of agape lovestyle as determined by race

384

When considering gender and dominant lovestyles Figures 6.25 and 6.26 below

provide a visual representation of the gender proportion with regard to dominant

lovestyle. It is clear that men were more agapic and more ludic than women and

women were more eros, storge and pragma than men.

Agape

Mania

Pragma

Storge

Ludus

Eros

Agape

Mania

Pragma

Storge

Ludus

Eros

Figure 6.25 Proportion of male samples‟


Figure 6.26 Proportion of female samples‟



between gender and lovestyles, as measured by Love Attitude Scale. Table 6.100

outlines the means and standard deviations by gender of each lovestyle and Figures

6.27-32 are graphic representations of the means of the six lovestyles as determined

by gender. Once again, although Levene‘s test for homogeneity of variances was

violated for ludus (.000) the effect of heterogeneity of variances on the Type I error

was minimal (Hinkle et al., 1988). There was no statistically significant differences at

the p<.05 level in the scores between gender on eros, pragma, mania and agape but

there was for ludus [F(1,386)=32.98, p=.000] and storge [F(1,384)=37.28, p=.021]

(Table 6.101). The effect size, calculated using eta squared, was a medium effect

size (.07) for ludus and a small effect size (.01) for storge. Table 6.100, 6.101 and

Figures 6.28, 6.29 showed that men were significantly more ludus than women and

women were significantly more storge than men.

385

Table 6.100 Lovestyles descriptives determined by gender

N Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

95% Confidence

Interval for Mean

Minimum Maximum

Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound

Eros Male 190 15.37 5.066 .368 14.65 16.10 7 35

Female 198 14.62 4.896 .348 13.94 15.31 2 30

Total 388 14.99 4.988 .253 14.49 15.49 2 35

Ludus Male 190 23.67 7.008 .508 22.67 24.68 1 35

Female 198 27.33 5.481 .390 26.57 28.10 10 35

Total 388 25.54 6.529 .331 24.89 26.19 1 35

Storge Male 189 19.04 6.247 .454 18.15 19.94 7 35

Female 197 17.60 5.968 .425 16.76 18.44 7 34

Total 386 18.31 6.141 .313 17.69 18.92 7 35

Pragma Male 189 21.24 6.310 .459 20.33 22.14 7 35

Female 196 20.64 6.318 .451 19.75 21.53 7 35

Total 385 20.93 6.313 .322 20.30 21.57 7 35

Mania Male 189 22.56 6.190 .450 21.67 23.44 7 35

Female 197 21.47 5.890 .420 20.64 22.29 9 34

Total 386 22.00 6.055 .308 21.39 22.61 7 35

Agape Male 189 16.47 6.091 .443 15.60 17.34 7 35

Female 197 16.90 5.532 .394 16.12 17.68 7 33

Total 386 16.69 5.809 .296 16.11 17.27 7 35

386

Table 6.101 One way ANOVA lovestyles determined by gender

Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Eros Between

Groups 54.899 1 54.899 2.214 .138

Within Groups 9573.059 386 24.801

Total 9627.959 387

Ludus Between

Groups 1298.572 1 1298.572 32.977 .000*

Within Groups 15199.768 386 39.378

Total 16498.340 387

Storge Between

Groups 200.946 1 200.946 5.390 .021*

Within Groups 14316.981 384 37.284

Total 14517.927 385

Pragma Between

Groups 34.678 1 34.678 .870 .352

Within Groups 15267.566 383 39.863

Total 15302.244 384

Mania Between

Groups 114.298 1 114.298 3.135 .077

Within Groups 14001.702 384 36.463

Total 14116.000 385

Agape Between

Groups 17.635 1 17.635 .522 .470

Within Groups 12973.059 384 33.784

Total 12990.694 385


387

Gender

FemaleMale

Mean

of

ero

s s

co

re

17

16

15

14

13

14.621

15.374

Figure 6.27 Means of eros lovestyle as determined by gender

Gender

FemaleMale

Mean

of

Lu

du

s s

co

re

28

27

26

25

24

23

27.33

23.67

Figure 6.28 Means of ludus lovestyle as determined by gender

388

Gender

FemaleMale

Mean

of

sto

rge s

co

re

20

19

18

17

16

17.599

19.042

Figure 6.29 Means of storge lovestyle as determined by gender

Gender

FemaleMale

Mean

of

pra

gm

a s

co

re

23

22

21

20

19

20.638

21.238

Figure 6.30 Means of pragma lovestyle as determined by gender

389

Gender

FemaleMale

Mean

of

man

ia s

co

re

24

23

22

21

20

21.467

22.556

Figure 6.31 Means of mania lovestyle as determined by gender

Gender

FemaleMale

Mean

of

ag

ap

e s

co

re

18

17

16

15

14

16.898

16.471

Figure 6.32 Means of agape lovestyle as determined by gender

390

When exploring the interaction effect of race x gender for lovestyles the following

results emerged.


between gender, race and eros lovestyle, as measured by Love Attitude Scale.

Although Levene‘s test for homogeneity of variances was violated for eros (.018), the

South African sample sizes are relatively equal, and therefore the effect of

heterogeneity of variances on the Type I error is minimal (Hinkle et al., 1988). The

main effect for gender [F(1,374)=2.028, p=.155], race [F(3,374)=.517, p=.671] and the

interaction effect [F(3,374)=.799, p=.495] did not reach statistical significance at the

.05 (Table 6.102, 6.103).

Table 6.102 Eros lovestyle descriptives determined by race and gender


Male Black 16.02 6.080 52

White 14.86 3.734 58

Coloured 15.26 4.321 35

Indian 15.43 6.005 42

Total 15.39 5.096 187

Female Black 13.98 4.723 56

White 14.21 4.474 53

Coloured 15.04 4.676 46

Indian 15.38 5.830 40

Total 14.58 4.890 195

Total Black 14.96 5.489 108

White 14.55 4.098 111

Coloured 15.14 4.499 81

Indian 15.40 5.883 82

Total 14.97 5.002 382

391

Table 6.103 Eros lovestyle Tests of Between-Subjects Effects determined by gender

and race

Source

Type III Sum

of Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Partial Eta

Squared


Intercept 83810.938 1 83810.938 3345.340 .000 .899

Gender 50.806 1 50.806 2.028 .155 .005

Race 38.884 3 12.961 .517 .671 .004

Gender * Race 60.038 3 20.013 .799 .495 .006

Error 9369.836 374 25.053

Total 95182.000 382




between gender, race and ludus lovestyle, as measured by Love Attitude Scale.

Although Levene‘s test for homogeneity of variances was violated for ludus (.000), the

South African sample sizes were relatively equal, and therefore the effect of

heterogeneity of variances on the Type I error was minimal (Hinkle et al., 1988). As

expected, following the previous analysis with regard to race and gender, there was a

statistically significant main effect for gender [F(1,374)=34.606, p=.000] and there

was a statistically significant main effect for race [F(3,374)=4.865, p=.002]. The effect

size was medium for gender (partial eta squared =.09) and small for race (partial eta

squared =.04) (Table 6.104). The interaction effect [F(3,374)=.359, p=.783] did not

reach statistical significance (Table 6.104, 6.105).

392

Table 6.104 Ludus lovestyle descriptives determined by race and gender


Male Black 22.37 7.018 52

White 25.07 5.416 58

Coloured 22.06 6.915 35

Indian 24.62 8.687 42

Total 23.65 7.046 187


White 29.11 5.075 53

Coloured 26.74 5.066 46

Indian 27.33 5.704 40

Total 27.33 5.485 195

Total Black 24.31 6.629 108

White 27.00 5.612 111

Coloured 24.72 6.341 81

Indian 25.94 7.464 82

Total 25.53 6.553 382

Table 6.105 Ludus lovestyle Tests of Between-Subjects Effects determined by gender

and race

Source

Type III Sum of

Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Partial Eta

Squared


Intercept 240119.822 1 240119.822

6204.2

77 .000 .943

Gender 1339.336 1 1339.336 34.606 .000* .085

Race 564.869 3 188.290 4.865 .002* .038

Gender * Race 41.674 3 13.891 .359 .783 .003

Error 14474.663 374 38.702

Total 265318.000 382




between gender, race and storge lovestyle, as measured by Love Attitude Scale. As

393

per previous findings there was a statistically significant main effect for gender

[F(1,372)=6.231, p=.013]; the effect size for gender (partial eta squared =.02) was

small (Table 6.106, 6.107, Figure 6.44). The main effect for race [F(3,372)=.753,

p=.521] and the interaction effect [F(3,372)=.482, p=.695] did not reach statistical

significance (Table 6.106, 6.107).

Table 6.106 Storge lovestyle descriptives determined by race and gender


Male Black 18.85 6.705 52

White 19.33 5.226 58

Coloured 19.71 5.954 35

Indian 18.85 7.220 41

Total 19.16 6.222 186


White 16.96 6.639 53

Coloured 18.52 5.947 46

Indian 16.65 5.072 40

Total 17.63 5.975 194

Total Black 18.54 6.285 107

White 18.20 6.033 111

Coloured 19.04 5.942 81

Indian 17.77 6.311 81

Total 18.38 6.137 380

394

Table 6.107 Storge lovestyle Tests of Between-Subjects Effects determined by race

and gender

Source

Type III Sum

of Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Partial Eta

Squared


Intercept 124968.068 1 124968.068 3341.885 .000 .900

Gender 233.008 1 233.008 6.231 .013* .016

Race 84.486 3 28.162 .753 .521 .006

Gender * Race 54.050 3 18.017 .482 .695 .004

Error 13910.749 372 37.394

Total 142669.000 380




between gender, race and pragma lovestyle, as measured by Love Attitude Scale.

The main effect for gender [F(1,371)=.986, p=.321], race [F(3,371)=2.465, p=.062]

and the interaction effect [F(3,371)=.348, p=.791] did not reach statistical significance

(Table 6.108, 6.109).

395

Table 6.108 Pragma lovestyle descriptives determined by race and gender


Male Black 21.60 5.805 52

White 22.07 6.113 58

Coloured 21.54 6.036 35

Indian 19.66 7.371 41

Total 21.31 6.329 186


White 22.12 5.353 52

Coloured 20.54 6.285 46

Indian 19.53 6.714 40

Total 20.62 6.328 193

Total Black 20.81 6.362 107

White 22.09 5.740 110

Coloured 20.98 6.160 81

Indian 19.59 7.010 81

Total 20.96 6.329 379

Table 6.109 Pragma lovestyle Tests of Between-Subjects Effects determined by race

and gender

Source

Type III Sum

of Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Partial Eta

Squared

Corrected

Model 376.771(a) 7 53.824 1.352 .225 .025

Intercept 160901.258 1 160901.258 4042.539 .000 .916

Gender 39.241 1 39.241 .986 .321 .003

Race 294.316 3 98.105 2.465 .062 .020

Gender * Race 41.510 3 13.837 .348 .791 .003

Error 14766.553 371 39.802

Total 181611.000 379


a R Squared = .025 (Adjusted R Squared = .006)


between gender, race and mania lovestyle, as measured by Love Attitude Scale. The

396

main effect for gender [F(1,372)= 2.445, p=.119], race [F(3,372)=.315, p=.815] and

the interaction effect [F(3,372)=.322, p=.809] did not reach statistical significance

(Table 6.110, 6.111).

Table 6.110 Mania lovestyle descriptives determined by race and gender


Male Black 22.19 6.212 52

White 23.09 6.065 58

Coloured 22.43 5.381 35

Indian 22.27 7.018 41

Total 22.53 6.172 186


White 21.29 5.771 52

Coloured 22.04 6.620 46

Indian 21.87 5.487 40

Total 21.45 5.895 194

Total Black 21.48 5.987 108

White 22.24 5.969 110

Coloured 22.21 6.082 81

Indian 22.07 6.273 81

Total 21.98 6.048 380

Table 6.111 Mania lovestyle Tests of Between-Subjects Effects determined by race and

gender

Source

Type III Sum

of Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Partial Eta

Squared


Intercept 178790.053 1 178790.053 4861.678 .000 .929

Gender 89.916 1 89.916 2.445 .119 .007

Race 34.749 3 11.583 .315 .815 .003

9Gender * Race 35.552 3 11.851 .322 .809 .003

Error 13680.442 372 36.775

Total 197477.000 380



397


between gender, race and agape lovestyle, as measured by Love Attitude Scale. As

per previous findings there was a statistically significant main effect for race

[F(3,372)=7.520, p=.000] - the effect size was small (partial eta squared =.05) (Table

6.140). The main effect for gender [F(1,372)=.161, p=.688] and the interaction effect

[F(3,372)=1.156, p=.326] did not reach statistical significance (Table 6.112, 6.113).

Table 6.112 Agape lovestyle descriptives determined by race and gender


Male Black 18.19 5.757 52

White 15.12 4.960 58

Coloured 16.57 5.832 35

Indian 16.32 7.624 41

Total 16.52 6.078 186


White 15.85 4.884 52

Coloured 17.57 5.548 46

Indian 14.58 4.956 40

Total 16.95 5.532 194

Total Black 18.69 5.704 108

White 15.46 4.915 110

Coloured 17.14 5.659 81

Indian 15.46 6.465 81

Total 16.74 5.802 380

398

Table 6.113 Agape lovestyle Tests of Between-Subjects Effects determined by race and

gender

Source

Type III Sum

of Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Partial Eta

Squared


Intercept 102630.477 1 102630.477 3208.527 .000 .896

Gender 5.161 1 5.161 .161 .688 .000

Race 721.641 3 240.547 7.520 .000* .057

Gender * Race 110.960 3 36.987 1.156 .326 .009

Error 11899.084 372 31.987

Total 119204.000 380



In sum, the significant findings for lovestyles by race, gender and the interaction

between race and gender were as follows: 1) the Black participants were significantly

more ludus than the White participants, 2) the Indian/Asian participants were

significantly more pragma than the White participants, 3) the White and Indian/Asian

respondents were significantly more agape than the Black respondents, 4) South

African men were significantly more ludus than South African women and 5) the

female participants were significantly more storge than their male counterparts. There

were no significant findings when exploring the interaction between race and gender

and lovestyles.

6.6.7. Race and gender conclusion

In conclusion the findings that were yielded by the South African mature student

participants for the love measures were as follows:

o In love at the time of the study

The two significant findings in this section were that: 1) women were significantly

more likely to be in love than men and 2) White women were significantly more likely

to be in love with someone at the time of the study than White males. The trends that

399

emerged that were of interest were: 1) Indian/Asian participants were the least likely

to be in love at the time of the study and the most likely to be in love were the White

participants closely followed by Black and Coloured participants; 2) when comparing

the males across race, Black men were the most likely to be in love at the time of the

study and Coloured men, Indian/Asian men were the least likely to be in love; 3) when

comparing the females across race, White women were the most likely to be in love


Although there were no other significant results in gender within race, the same trend

was followed by the Black, Coloured and Indian/Asian groups - women were more

likely to be in love than their male counterparts.

o Love as the basis of marriage

When considering race group differences, Indian/Asian participants were significantly

more likely to marry someone they did not love, while White participants were

significantly less likely to marry someone they did not love. Even though there were

no overall gender differences, when probing race by gender it was found that Black

male participants were significantly more likely to marry someone they did not love,

while White males were significantly less likely to marry someone they did not love

when compared to males from other racial groups. Indian/Asian females were

significantly more likely to marry someone they did not love when compared to

females from other racial groups. Finally when exploring gender within race it was

found that Black males were significantly more likely to marry someone they did not

love than Black females.

o Love as a basis for the maintenance of marriage

No significant differences were found amongst race, gender, race by gender and

gender within race in the current South African sample when considering both

Simpson et al.‘s (1986) questions with regard to the importance of love in the

maintenance of marriage.

o Romantic beliefs

Even though no significant differences emerged when interrogating the data by race

or gender, the trends that emerged were: 1) Black participants were more romantic

400

than their White, Coloured and Indian/Asian counterparts; and 2) South African

females were more romantic than their male counterparts. When investigating for

effect for the interaction between race and gender there was a statistical significance:

Black women and Indian/Asian men scored high on romanticism relative to the White

men, White women, Black men, and Indian/Asian women. For the White and

Coloured groups the difference in romanticism scores for men and women were

small, whereas for the Black and Indian/Asian groups clear differences could be

observed.

o Attachment styles

No significant differences emerged when interrogating the attachment style data by

race, gender, race by gender or gender within race. The trends that emerged that

were of interest were that: 1) the predominate attachment style across race was

secure - with the exception of the Black group who had the same proportion for

secure, dismissing and fearful attachment styles; 2) although both males and females

endorsed the secure attachment styles the most, females who were insecurely

attached were more likely to be preoccupied when compared to males and men who

were insecurely attached were more likely to be dismissing and fearful when

compared to females; 3) White male participants endorsed secure attachment and

preoccupied attachment the highest when compared to males from other racial

groups, while the Black male participants endorsed dismissing and fearful the highest

when compared to males from other racial groups; 4) the White female participants

endorsed secure attachment and preoccupied attachment the highest when

compared to females from other racial groups, while the Black female participants

endorsed the dismissing attachment style when compared to females from other

racial groups; and 5) Black and Coloured males were predominately fearfully attached

when compared to their female counterparts whereas most Black and Coloured

females endorsed a preoccupied attachment style when compared to their male

counterparts, the majority of White and Indian/Asian males endorsed a dismissing

attachment style when compared to their female counterparts whereas most White

and Indian/Asian females, like Black and Coloured females, endorsed a preoccupied

attachment style when compared to their male counterparts.

401

o Lovestyles

Lovestyles significant findings by race, gender and the interaction between race and

gender were as follows: 1) the Black participants were significantly more ludus than

the White participants, 2) the Indian/Asian participants were significantly more

pragma than the White participants, 3) the White and Indian/Asian respondents were

significantly more agape than the Black respondents, 4) South African men were

significantly more ludus than South African women and 5) the female participants

were significantly more storge than their male counterparts. There were no significant

findings when exploring the interaction between race and gender and lovestyles.

Table 6.113 outlines the significant findings for the race, gender, race by gender,

gender within race section and race by gender interaction.

402

Table 6.114 Summary of significant findings by race, gender, race by gender, gender within race and race by gender

interaction

In love at time of study

Love as basis for marriage

Love as basis for

maintenance of marriage

Romantic beliefs

Attachment styles

Lovestyles

Race

Black + ludus* - agape*

White +* - ludus* - pragma* + agape*

Coloured

Indian/Asian -* + pragma* + agape*

Gender

Male -* + ludus* - storge*

Female +* - ludus* + storge*

Race by gender

Male Black -*

White +*

Coloured Indian/Asian

Female Black

White

Coloured Indian/Asian -*

403

In love at time of study

Love as basis for marriage

Love as basis for

maintenance of marriage

Romantic beliefs

Attachment styles

Lovestyles

Gender within race

Black Male -* Female +*

White Male -*

Female +*

Coloured Male

Female Indian/Asian Male

Female

Race by gender interaction

*


404

6.7. Love results by socioeconomic status

6.7.1. Socioeconomic status and race

For the purposes of this study socioeconomic status was divided into the following

categories: upper (family income more than R400 000 per annum), upper middle

(R220-399 000 pa), middle (R100-219 000 pa), and lower middle (R40-99 000 pa)

and lower (less than R39 000 pa).

Although the majority of the participants fell into the upper middle and middle income

categories across race (Table 6.115, Figure 6.33), Table 6.116 indicates significant

differences were observed between race and socioeconomic status. The

standardised residual in the upper income category was greater than 2.00 in the

White group (2.1) and the standardised residual in the lower income category was

greater than 2.00 in the Black group (4.0) (Table 6.115). It can be therefore concluded

that these groups were the major contributors to the significance of the chi-square

(Hinkle et al., 1988). White participants were significantly more likely to be in the

upper income group when compared to their Black, Coloured and Indian/Asian

counterparts; and Black participants were significantly more likely to be in the lower

income group when compared to their White, Coloured and Indian/Asian

counterparts.

405

Table 6.115 Crosstabulation by socioeconomic status and race

Socioeconomic status

Race

Upper

Upper

Middle Middle

Lower

Middle Lower Total

Black Count 12 30 39 10 15 106

% within

Socioeconomic status 17.9% 25.9% 27.9% 28.6% 75.0% 28.0%

Std. Residual -1.6 -.4 .0 .1 4.0

White Count 29 39 36 6 2 112

% within


Std. Residual 2.1 .8 -.9 -1.4 -1.6

Coloured Count 10 21 38 10 2 81

% within


Std. Residual -1.1 -.8 1.5 .9 -1.1

Indian Count 16 26 27 9 1 79

% within


Std. Residual .5 .4 -.4 .6 -1.6

Total Count 67 116 140 35 20 378

% within


Table 6.116 Chi-Square Test by socioeconomic status and race

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)





a 2 cells (10.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.18.

406

Race


Co

un

t

40

30

20

10

0

Lower

Lower Middle

Middle

Upper Middle

Upper

Current social class

Figure 6.33 Socioeconomic status as determined by race

6.7.2. Socioeconomic status and gender

No significant differences were observed for men and women across socioeconomic

status (Table 6.117, 6.118).

407

Table 6.117 Crosstabulation by socioeconomic status and gender


Gender

Upper

Upper

Middle Middle

Lower

Middle Lower Total

Male Count 39 55 67 16 9 186

% within

Socioeconomic

status

56.5% 47.0% 47.9% 44.4% 47.4% 48.8%

Female Count 30 62 73 20 10 195

% within

Socioeconomic

status

43.5% 53.0% 52.1% 55.6% 52.6% 51.2%

Total Count 69 117 140 36 19 381

Socioeconomic

status 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Table 6.118 Chi-Square Test by socioeconomic status and gender







6.7.3. Socioeconomic status by race and gender

When investigating race by gender and socioeconomic status, Table 6.119 and 6.120

revealed there were significant differences. The standardised residual in the lower

income category for Black male participants (3.0) and Black female participants (2.4)

is greater than 2.00; it can be therefore be concluded that these two groups were the

major contributors to the significance of the chi-square (Hinkle et al., 1988). Black

male and female participants were significantly more likely to be in the lower income

group when compared to their male and female White, Coloured and India/Asian

counterparts. Of note, is that the chi-square assumption concerning ‗minimum

408

expected cell frequency‘ was violated, nonetheless the results provide useful

information.

Table 6.119 Crosstabulation by socioeconomic status and race by gender


Gender Race

Upper

Upper

Middle Middle

Lower

Middle Lower Total

Male Black Count 6 9 20 7 7 49

% within


Std. Residual -1.2 -1.5 .5 1.5 3.0

White Count 16 20 17 3 2 58

% within


Std. Residual 1.2 .6 -.9 -.8 -.5


% within

Socioeconomic status 18.9% 20.0% 22.4% 13.3% .0% 19.1%

Std. Residual .0 .1 .6 -.5 -1.3

Indian Count 8 15 15 3 0 41

% within


Std. Residual -.1 .8 .0 -.2 -1.4

Total Count 37 55 67 15 9 183

% within


Female Black Count 6 20 19 3 7 55

% within


Std. Residual -.9 .7 -.4 -1.0 2.4

White Count 13 19 19 2 0 53

% within


Std. Residual 1.6 .6 -.3 -1.4 -1.7


% within


Std. Residual -1.6 -1.2 1.3 1.6 -.3

409

Gender Race

Upper

Upper

Middle Middle

Lower

Middle Lower Total

Indian Count 8 11 12 6 1 38

% within


Std. Residual .8 -.3 -.6 1.2 -.7

Total Count 30 60 73 19 10 192

% within


Table 6.120 Chi-Square Test by socioeconomic status and race by gender

Gender

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)









a 8 cells (40.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.72. b 6 cells (30.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.98.

When investigating gender within race and socioeconomic status no significant

differences were found (Table 6.121 and 6.122). Once again, of note, is that the chi-

square assumption concerning ‗minimum expected cell frequency‘ was violated,

nonetheless the results provide useful information.

410

Table 6.121 Crosstabulation by socioeconomic status and gender within race


Race Gender

Upper

Upper

Middle Middle

Lower

Middle Lower Total

Black Male Count 6 9 20 7 7 49

% within Socioeconomic

status 50.0% 31.0% 51.3% 70.0% 50.0% 47.1%

Female Count 6 20 19 3 7 55


status 50.0% 69.0% 48.7% 30.0% 50.0% 52.9%

Total Count 12 29 39 10 14 104


status 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

White Male Count 16 20 17 3 2 58


status 55.2% 51.3% 47.2% 60.0% 100.0% 52.3%

Female Count 13 19 19 2 0 53


status 44.8% 48.7% 52.8% 40.0% .0% 47.7%

Total Count 29 39 36 5 2 111


status 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Coloured Male Count 7 11 15 2 0 35


status 70.0% 52.4% 39.5% 20.0% .0% 43.2%



status 30.0% 47.6% 60.5% 80.0% 100.0% 56.8%

Total Count 10 21 38 10 2 81


status 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Indian Male Count 8 15 15 3 0 41


status 50.0% 57.7% 55.6% 33.3% .0% 51.9%



status 50.0% 42.3% 44.4% 66.7% 100.0% 48.1%

Total Count 16 26 27 9 1 79

% within Socioeconomic 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

411

status

Table 6.122 Chi-Square Test by socioeconomic status and race

Gender

Value df

Asymp. Sig. (2-

sided)

Black Pearson Chi-Square 5.470(a) 4 .242




White Pearson Chi-Square 2.427(b) 4 .658




Coloured Pearson Chi-Square 7.578(c) 4 .108



N of Valid Cases 81

Indian Pearson Chi-Square 2.839(d) 4 .585



N of Valid Cases 79

a 1 cells (10.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.71. b 4 cells (40.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .95. c 4 cells (40.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .86. d 4 cells (40.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .48.

6.7.4. Socioeconomic status and love experiences

There were no statistically significant results when considering socioeconomic status

and the sample‘s response to the question ‗Are you currently in love with someone‘

(Table 6.123, 6.124).

412

Table 6.123 Crosstabulation by socioeconomic status and “Are you currently in love

with someone?”


Upper

Upper

Middle Middle

Lower

Middle Lower Total

Yes Count 40 75 86 22 13 236

% within


No Count 29 43 54 14 6 146

% within


Total Count 69 118 140 36 19 382

% within


Table 6.124 Chi-Square Test by socioeconomic status and “Are you currently in love

with someone?”


Pearson Chi-Square .951(a) 4 .917


Linear-by-Linear

Association .298 1 .585



6.7.5. Socioeconomic status and love as a basis for marriage

Table 6.125 indicates individuals with upper (81.4%), upper middle (81.4%), middle

(82.1.8%) and middle lower (83.8%) income groups were more likely to marry

someone they loved, whereas individuals from the lower income group (60.0%) were

less likely to marry someone they loved. There were no significant differences

between the socioeconomic status and whether an individual would or would not

marry someone they loved (Table 6.126).

413

Table 6.125 Crosstabulation by socioeconomic status and “If a man or woman had all

the other qualities you desired, would you marry this person if you were not in love

with him or her?”


Upper

Upper

Middle Middle

Lower

Middle Lower Total

Yes Count 13 22 25 6 8 74

% within


Std. Residual -.1 -.1 -.4 -.4 2.1

No Count 57 96 115 31 12 311

% within


Std. Residual .1 .1 .2 .2 -1.0

Total Count 70 118 140 37 20 385

% within


Table 6.126 Chi-Square Test by socioeconomic status and “If a man or woman had all

the other qualities you desired, would you marry this person if you were not in love

with him or her?”







6.7.6. Socioeconomic status and love as a basis for the maintenance of marriage


and the sample‘s response to the question ‗If love has completely disappeared from a


lives‘ (Table 6.127, 6.128).

414

Table 6.127 Crosstabulation by socioeconomic status and “ If love has completely


break and start new lives”


Upper

Upper

Middle Middle

Lower

Middle Lower Total

Agree Count 38 70 75 22 13 218

% within


Disagree Count 32 48 65 15 7 167

% within


Total Count 70 118 140 37 20 385

% within


Table 6.128 Chi-square Test by socioeconomic status and “If love has completely


break and start new lives”








and the sample‘s response to the question ‗In my opinion, the disappearance of love

is not a sufficient reason for ending a marriage and should not be viewed as such‘

(Table 6.129, 6.130).

415

Table 6.129 Crosstabulation by socioeconomic status and “In my opinion, the


be viewed as such”


Upper

Upper

Middle Middle

Lower

Middle Lower Total

Agree Count 40 58 70 19 12 199

% within


Disagree Count 30 59 68 17 7 181

% within


Total Count 70 117 138 36 19 380

% within


Table 6.130 Chi-square Test by socioeconomic status and “In my opinion, the


be viewed as such”







6.7.7 Socioeconomic status and romantic beliefs


and the sample‘s total romanticism scores (Table 6.131, 6.132).

416

Table 6.131 Total romanticism descriptives determined by Socioeconomic status

N Mean

Std.


95% Confidence


Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound

Upper 70 52.7000 13.24830 1.58347 49.5411 55.8589 19.00 89.00

Upper Middle 118 53.9915 12.40519 1.14199 51.7299 56.2532 21.00 82.00

Middle 140 52.7786 12.61041 1.06577 50.6713 54.8858 24.00 89.00

Lower Middle 37 52.7838 18.21192 2.99402 46.7116 58.8559 15.00 90.00

Lower 20 52.5000 11.43632 2.55724 47.1476 57.8524 28.00 77.00

Total 385 53.1221 13.18688 .67207 51.8007 54.4435 15.00 90.00

Table 6.132 One way ANOVA: Total romanticism determined by Socioeconomic status


Between Groups 130.165 4 32.541 .186 .946

Within Groups 66645.098 380 175.382

Total 66775.262 384

6.7.8. Socioeconomic status and attachment patterns

Table 6.133 and Figure 6.34 indicated differences in attachment style when

investigating the link between socioeconomic status and attachment style. The upper

and upper middle income group endorsed the secure attachment style the most. The

middle income group endorse the fearful attachment style the most. The middle lower

income group endorsed the preoccupied attachment style, while the lower income

group endorsed the dismissing attachment style the most. The chi-square test

showed there were significant differences between the attachment style and

socioeconomic status (Table 6.134). Table 6.133 shows that the standardised

residual in the lower income category is greater than 2.00 (in absolute value) in the

dismissing group (2.0). It can be therefore concluded that this group was the major

contributor to the significance of the chi-square (Hinkle et al., 1988). Dismissing

participants were significantly more likely to be in the lower income group.

417

Table 6.133 Crosstabulation by socioeconomic status and attachment style


Attachment

Style

Upper

Upper

Middle Middle

Lower

Middle Lower Total

Secure Count 23 34 27 8 2 94

% within


Std. Residual 1.4 .8 -.9 -.3 -1.6

Preoccupied Count 10 14 21 9 2 56

% within


Std. Residual -.1 -.9 .4 1.6 -.8

Dismissing Count 7 21 15 3 7 53

% within


Std. Residual -.9 1.1 -.8 -.9 2.0

Fearful Count 9 15 29 5 6 64

% within


Std. Residual -.8 -1.1 1.5 -.4 1.0

Total Count 49 84 92 25 17 267

% within


Table 6.134 Chi-square Test by Socioeconomic status and attachment style







418

Attachment Style

FearfulDismissingPre-occupiedSecure

Co

un

t

40

30

20

10

0

Lower

Lower Middle

Middle

Upper Middle

Upper


Figure 6.34 Attachment style and socioeconomic status

6.7.9. Socioeconomic status and lovestyles

Table 6.135 and Figure 6.35 indicated that across socioeconomic status the eros

lovestyle was the most endorsed lovestyle. The second most endorse lovestyle was

agape across income group with exception of upper middle and middle lower which

endorsed the storge lovestyle. The third most endorse lovestyle by income group

was: the pragma lovestyle for the upper income group; the agape lovestyle for the

upper middle income group; storge for the middle income group; agape for the middle

lower income group; and the mania lovestyle for the lower income group. The chi-

square showed there were no significant differences between the lovestyles and

socioeconomic status (Table 6.136). Of note, is that the chi-square assumption

concerning ‗minimum expected cell frequency‘ was violated, nonetheless the results

provide useful information.

419

Table 6.135 Crosstabulation by socioeconomic status and lovestyles


Lovestyle

Upper

Upper

Middle Middle

Lower

Middle Lower Total

Eros Count 28 49 54 15 6 152

% within


Ludus Count 2 10 5 4 2 23

% within


Storge Count 7 25 27 8 2 69

% within


Pragma Count 9 6 17 4 2 38

% within


Mania Count 2 4 7 0 3 16

% within

Socioeconomic status 2.9% 3.4% 5.0% .0% 15.0% 4.2%

Agape Count 22 24 30 6 5 87

% within


Total Count 70 118 140 37 20 385

% within


Table 6.136 Chi-square Test by socioeconomic status and lovestyles






a 11 cells (36.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .83.

420

6.7.10 Socioeconomic status and love conclusion

When interrogating the link between socioeconomic status and race, gender, race by

gender, gender within race, the race by gender interaction and love measures there

were a number of significant findings: 1) Although the majority of the participants

across race fell into the upper middle and middle income categories, White

participants were significantly more likely to be in the upper income group when

compared to other racial groups; 2) Black participants were significantly more likely to

be in the lower income group when compared to their White, Coloured and

Indian/Asian counterparts; 3) Black male and female participants were significantly

more likely to be in the lower income group when compared to their male and female

White, Coloured and India/Asian counterparts and 4) participants from the lower

income group were significantly more likely to have a dismissing attachment style.

421

6.8. Results of love measures and lovestyles

6.8.1. Love experiences and lovestyles

Table 6.137 and Figure 6.35 indicates individuals with an eros lovestyle (69.7%) were

the most likely to be in love at the time of the study than any other lovestyle. The eros

lovestyle was closely followed by agape (66.7%) and mania (66.7%). Fifty-five

percent of storge (55.6%) and 55.3% of pragma were in love at the time of the study.

Ludus lovestyle (16.7%) was the least likely to be in love at the time of the study than

any other lovestyle. Table 6.138 shows that there were significant differences

between participants with difference lovestyles and whether they were in love with

someone at the time of the study. Table 6.137 showed that the standardised residual

in the ―Yes‖ category was greater than 2.00 (in absolute value) for the participants

whose predominant lovestyle was ludus (-2.8). In addition the standardised residual in

the ―No‖ category was greater than 2.00 (in absolute value) for the participants whose

predominant lovestyle was ludus (3.6). According to Hinkle et al. (1988) the

conclusion that can be drawn was that ludus in both categories (Yes and No) was the

major contributor to the significance of the chi-square. Ludus participants were

significantly more likely to not be in love at the time of the study when compared to

participants with other dominant lovestyles.

Table 6.137 Crosstabulation by lovestyles and “Are you currently in love with

someone?”

Lovestyle Total

Eros Ludus Storge Pragma Mania Agape

Yes Count 108 4 40 21 10 58 241

% within lovestyle 69.7% 16.7% 55.6% 55.3% 66.7% 66.7% 61.6%

Std. Residual 1.3 -2.8 -.7 -.5 .2 .6

No Count 47 20 32 17 5 29 150


Std. Residual -1.6 3.6 .8 .6 -.3 -.8

Total Count 155 24 72 38 15 87 391


422

Table 6.138 Chi-square Test by lovestyle and “Are you currently in love with

someone?”







Are you currently in love with someone?

NoYes

Co

un

t

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Agape

Mania

Pragma

Storge

Ludus

Eros

Lovestyle

Figure 6.35 Are you currently in love with someone by lovestyle

6.8.2. Love as a basis for marriage and lovestyles

Table 6.139 and Figure 6.36 indicate individuals with an agape lovestyle (89.8%) and

eros lovestyle (87.9%) were the most likely to marry someone they love than any

other lovestyle. Following these lovestyles were storge (75%), pragma (65.8%) and

mania (62.5%). Fifty percent of the individuals in the ludus lovestyle said they would

marry someone they did not love. Table 6.140 shows that there were significant

423

differences between the lovestyles and whether they would or would not marry

someone they were not in love with. Table 6.139 shows that the standardised residual

in the ―Yes‖ category was greater than 2.00 (in absolute value) for the participants

whose predominant lovestyle was eros (-2.1), ludus (3.4), pragma (2.1) and agape (-

2.0). According to Hinkle et al. (1988) the conclusion that could be drawn was that

eros, ludus, pragma and agape in the Yes category were the major contributors to the

significance of the chi-square. Eros and agape participants were significantly more

likely to marry someone they were in love with when compared to participants with

other dominant lovestyles; while ludus and pragma participants were significantly less

likely to marry someone they were in love with when compared to participants with

other dominant lovestyles.

Table 6.139 Crosstabulation by lovestyles and “If a man or woman had all the other


her?”

Lovestyle

Total Eros Ludus Storge Pragma Mania Agape

Yes Count 19 12 18 13 6 9 77


Std. Residual -2.1 3.4 1.1 2.1 1.6 -2.0

No Count 138 12 54 25 10 79 318


Std. Residual 1.0 -1.7 -.5 -1.0 -.8 1.0

Total Count 157 24 72 38 16 88 395


Table 6.140 Chi-square Test by lovestyle and “If a man or woman had all the other


her?”







424


him or her?

NoYes

Co

un

t

125

100

75

50

25

0

Agape

Mania

Pragma

Storge

Ludus

Eros

Lovestyle

Figure 6.36 “If a man or woman had all the other qualities you desired, would you

marry this person if you were not in love with him or her?” as determined by lovestyle

6.8.3. Love as a basis for the maintenance of marriage and lovestyles

Table 6.141 indicates individuals with a ludus and mania lovestyle (62.5%) were the

most likely to agree with the statement ‗If love has completely disappeared from a


lives‘ when compared to the other lovestyles. These lovestyles were closely followed

by the eros lovestyle (60.5%). The storge lovestyle (48.6%) was the least likely to

agree with the statement than any other lovestyle. Even though these differences

emerged there were no significant differences between the lovestyles and whether

individuals agreed or disagreed with the above statement (Table 6.142).

425

Table 6.141 Crosstabulation by lovestyles and “If love has completely disappeared


start new lives”

Lovestyle Total


Agree Count 95 15 35 21 10 48 224

% within

lovestyle 60.5% 62.5% 48.6% 55.3% 62.5% 54.5% 56.7%

Disagree Count 62 9 37 17 6 40 171

% within

lovestyle 39.5% 37.5% 51.4% 44.7% 37.5% 45.5% 43.3%

Total Count 157 24 72 38 16 88 395

% within

lovestyle

100.0

%

100.0

%

100.0

%

100.0

%

100.0

%

100.0

% 100.0%

Table 6.142 Chi-square Test by lovestyle and “If love has completely disappeared from

a marriage, I think it is probably best for the couple to make a clean break and start

new lives”







Table 6.143 indicates individuals with a ludus lovestyle (62.5%) were the most likely

to agree with the statement ‗In my opinion, the disappearance of love is not a

sufficient reason for ending a marriage and should not be viewed as such‘ when

compared to the other lovestyles. Ludus was followed by the mania lovestyle (62.5%),

pragma (57.9%, storge (54.9%) and agape (51.2%). The eros lovestyle (46.5%) was

the least likely to agree with the statement than any other lovestyle. Although these

differences emerged there were no significant differences between the lovestyles and

whether individuals agreed or disagreed with the above statement (Table 6.144).

426

Table 6.143 Crosstabulation by lovestyles and “In my opinion, the disappearance of


such”

Lovestyle Total


Agree Count 73 15 39 22 10 44 203

% within

lovestyle 46.5% 68.2% 54.9% 57.9% 62.5% 51.2% 52.1%

Disagree Count 84 7 32 16 6 42 187

% within

lovestyle 53.5% 31.8% 45.1% 42.1% 37.5% 48.8% 47.9%

Total Count 157 22 71 38 16 86 390

% within

lovestyle 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Table 6.144 Chi-square Test by lovestyle and “In my opinion, the disappearance of love

is not a sufficient reason for ending a marriage and should not be viewed as such”







6.8.4. Romantic beliefs and lovestyles


between romanticism and lovestyle. There was a statistically significant difference at

the p<.05 level in the scores for lovestyles [F(5,389)=2.58, p=.026] (Table 6.146). The

effect size, calculated using eta squared, was small, .03. Post hoc comparisons using

the Tukey HSD test indicated the mean score for individuals with an agape lovestyle

(M=49.648, SD=12.863) were significantly more likely to be romantic than individuals

with a storge lovestyle (Table 6.145, 6.147, Figure 6.37). There was no statistically

significant difference at the p<.01 level for any of the scores.

427

Table 6.145 Total romanticism descriptives as determined by lovestyles

N Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

95% Confidence


Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound

Eros 157 52.605 13.70465 1.0938 50.445 54.7656 15.00 90.00

Ludus 24 57.417 14.04625 2.8672 51.486 63.3479 22.00 86.00

Storge 72 56.069 12.49713 1.4728 53.133 59.0061 27.00 87.00

Pragma 38 54.526 14.72034 2.3880 49.688 59.3648 26.00 86.00

Mania 16 51.938 8.45749 2.1144 47.431 56.4442 37.00 63.00

Agape 88 49.648 12.86360 1.3713 46.922 52.3733 27.00 89.00

Total 395 53.028 13.39356 .67390 51.703 54.3527 15.00 90.00

Table 6.146 One-way ANOVA: Total romanticism as determined by lovestyles


Between Groups 2266.201 5 453.240 2.577 .026

Within Groups 68412.493 389 175.868

Total 70678.694 394

Table 6.147 Multiple comparisons: Total romanticism as determined by lovestyles

(Tukey HSD)

(I) Lovestyle (J) Lovestyle

Mean

Difference

(I-J)

Std.

Error Sig.

95% Confidence

Interval

Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound

Eros Ludus -4.81157 2.90654 .562 -13.1359 3.5127

Storge -3.46435 1.88753 .444 -8.8702 1.9415

Pragma -1.92122 2.39756 .967 -8.7878 4.9453

Mania .66760 3.48022 1.000 -9.2997 10.6349

Agape 2.95737 1.76598 .549 -2.1004 8.0151

428

(I) Lovestyle (J) Lovestyle

Mean

Difference

(I-J)

Std.

Error Sig.

95% Confidence

Interval

Ludus Eros 4.81157 2.90654 .562 -3.5127 13.1359

Storge 1.34722 3.12577 .998 -7.6049 10.2994

Pragma 2.89035 3.45773 .961 -7.0125 12.7932

Mania 5.47917 4.28013 .796 -6.7791 17.7374

Agape 7.76894 3.05390 .114 -.9774 16.5153

Storge Eros 3.46435 1.88753 .444 -1.9415 8.8702

Ludus -1.34722 3.12577 .998 -10.2994 7.6049

Pragma 1.54313 2.65908 .992 -6.0724 9.1587

Mania 4.13194 3.66529 .870 -6.3654 14.6293

Agape 6.42172(*) 2.10739 .030 .3862 12.4573

Pragma Eros 1.92122 2.39756 .967 -4.9453 8.7878

Ludus -2.89035 3.45773 .961 -12.7932 7.0125

Storge -1.54313 2.65908 .992 -9.1587 6.0724

Mania 2.58882 3.95219 .987 -8.7302 13.9078

Agape 4.87859 2.57422 .407 -2.4939 12.2511

Mania Eros -.66760 3.48022 1.000 -10.6349 9.2997

Ludus -5.47917 4.28013 .796 -17.7374 6.7791

Storge -4.13194 3.66529 .870 -14.6293 6.3654

Pragma -2.58882 3.95219 .987 -13.9078 8.7302

Agape 2.28977 3.60419 .988 -8.0326 12.6121

Agape Eros -2.95737 1.76598 .549 -8.0151 2.1004

Ludus -7.76894 3.05390 .114 -16.5153 .9774

Storge -6.42172(*) 2.10739 .030 -12.4573 -.3862

Pragma -4.87859 2.57422 .407 -12.2511 2.4939

Mania -2.28977 3.60419 .988 -12.6121 8.0326

* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

429

Lovestyle

AgapeManiaPragmaStorgeLudusEros

Mean

of

tota

l ro

man

ticis

m s

co

re

58.00

56.00

54.00

52.00

50.00

48.00

Figure 6.37 Means of total romanticism as determined by lovestyles

The relationship between romanticism (as measured by the Romantic Beliefs Scale)

and the six lovestyles (as measured by the Love Attitude Scale) was investigated

using Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. There were significant

associations that emerged (Table 6.148). There was a medium, positive correlation

between eros and romanticism [r=.31, n=392, p<.0005]; a weak, negative correlation

between ludus and romanticism [r=.16, n=392, p<.0005]; a weak, positive correlation

between storge and romanticism [r=.13, n=392, p<.0005]; a weak, positive correlation

between pragma and romanticism [r=.16, n=392, p<.0005]; a weak, positive

correlation between mania and romanticism [r=.28, n=392, p<.0005]; and a medium,

positive correlation between agape and romanticism [r=.34, n=392, p<.0005].

However, the higher the lovestyle score the less the lovestyle is endorsed and the

higher the romanticism score the less romantic the individual is. In other words, the

more romantic an individual the more eros and agape they were. The strength of this

relationship was moderate. Although not as strong (a modest effect), a similar

relationship emerged between romanticism and mania, storge and pragma: the more

430

romantic an individual the more storge and pragma they were. Finally, the more

romantic an individual the less ludus they were. The strength of this relationship was

modest

431

Table 6.148 Correlations of romanticism and lovestyles

Romanticism Eros Ludus Storge Pragma Mania Agape

Romanticism Pearson Correlation 1

Sig. (2-tailed)

N 395

Eros Pearson Correlation .311(**) 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 392 392

Ludus Pearson Correlation -.162(**) -.133(**) 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .008

N 392 392 392

Storge Pearson Correlation .130(*) .094 -.186(**) 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .010 .065 .000

N 391 390 390 391

Pragma Pearson Correlation .163(**) .056 .083 .135(**) 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .270 .104 .008

N 390 389 389 390 390

Mania Pearson Correlation .280(**) .196(**) -.094 .169(**) .150(**) 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .062 .001 .003

N 391 390 390 390 390 391

Agape Pearson Correlation .344(**) .259(**) -.410(**) .326(**) -.046 .369(**) 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .365 .000

N 391 390 390 390 390 391 391 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

432

6.8.5. Attachment patterns x lovestyles


between lovestyle and attachment style. There was a statistically significant

difference at the p<.05 level in the scores for eros lovestyle [F(3,271)=4.12, p=.007];

ludus lovestyle [F(3,271)=14.04, p=.000]; mania lovestyle [F(3,270)=16.00, p=.000];

and agape lovestyle [F(3,270)=3.74, p=.012] (Table 6.150). The effect size,

calculated using eta squared, was small (.04) for eros; medium (.13) for ludus; large

for mania (.15); and small (.04) for agape. Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey

HSD test indicated the mean score for individuals with an eros lovestyle were

significantly less likely to have a dismissing (M=16.56, SD=4.289) or fearful (M=16.12,

SD=6.163) attachment style and were significantly more likely to have a secure

attachment style (M=14.01, SD=4.312) (Table 6.149 to 6.151, Figure 6.38).

Individuals with a ludus lovestyle were significantly more likely to have a dismissing

(M=22.71, SD=5.740) or fearful (M=23.55, SD=6.856) attachment style and were

significantly less likely to have a secure (M=27.93, SD=5.740) or preoccupied

(M=27.96, SD=5.634) attachment style (Table 6.149 to 6.151, Figure 6.39).

Individuals with a mania lovestyle were significantly more likely to have a preoccupied

(M=18.25, SD=5.596) or fearful (M=20.15, SD=6.426) attachment style and were

significantly less likely to have a secure (M=23.95, SD=5.637) or dismissing

(M=24.42, SD=6.262) attachment style (Table 6.149 to 6.151 and Figure 6.42).

433

Table 6.149 Lovestyle descriptives as determined by attachment style

N Mean

Std.

Deviation

Std.

Error

95%

Confidence

Interval for

Mean Min Max

Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound

Eros Secure 97 14.01 4.312 .438 13.14 14.88 7 26

Pre-occupied 56 14.77 5.124 .685 13.40 16.14 7 30

Dismissing 55 16.56 4.289 .578 15.40 17.72 7 30

Fearful 67 16.12 6.163 .753 14.62 17.62 2 35

Total 275 15.19 5.067 .306 14.59 15.79 2 35

Ludus Secure 97 27.93 5.740 .583 26.77 29.08 8 35

Pre-occupied 56 27.96 5.634 .753 26.46 29.47 13 35

Dismissing 55 22.71 6.178 .833 21.04 24.38 10 35

Fearful 67 23.55 6.856 .838 21.88 25.22 7 35

Total 275 25.83 6.517 .393 25.05 26.60 7 35

Storge Secure 97 18.44 6.076 .617 17.22 19.67 7 33

Pre-occupied 56 18.43 6.263 .837 16.75 20.11 7 34

Dismissing 54 18.06 6.341 .863 16.32 19.79 8 32

Fearful 67 18.21 6.745 .824 16.56 19.85 7 35

Total 274 18.31 6.302 .381 17.56 19.06 7 35

Pragma Secure 97 21.97 6.170 .626 20.73 23.21 7 35

Pre-occupied 56 19.88 6.892 .921 18.03 21.72 7 33

Dismissing 54 21.50 6.703 .912 19.67 23.33 10 35

Fearful 66 19.52 6.376 .785 17.95 21.08 8 35

Total 273 20.85 6.532 .395 20.08 21.63 7 35

Mania Secure 97 23.95 5.637 .572 22.81 25.08 7 32

Pre-occupied 56 18.25 5.596 .748 16.75 19.75 9 31

Dismissing 55 24.42 6.262 .844 22.73 26.11 9 35

Fearful 66 20.15 6.426 .791 18.57 21.73 7 32

Total 274 21.96 6.427 .388 21.20 22.73 7 35

Agape Secure 97 15.59 5.379 .546 14.50 16.67 7 28

Pre-occupied 56 15.18 5.471 .731 13.71 16.64 7 27

Dismissing 55 17.98 6.531 .881 16.22 19.75 7 35

434

Fearful 66 17.52 5.682 .699 16.12 18.91 7 32

Total 274 16.45 5.803 .351 15.76 17.14 7 35

Table 6.150 One-way ANOVA: Lovestyles as determined by attachment style

Sum of

Squares df

Mean

Square F Sig.

Eros Between Groups 306.623 3 102.208 4.116 .007

Within Groups 6729.544 271 24.832

Total 7036.167 274

Ludus Between Groups 1565.286 3 521.762 14.038 .000

Within Groups 10072.336 271 37.167

Total 11637.622 274

Storge Between Groups 6.688 3 2.229 .056 .983

Within Groups 10835.560 270 40.132

Total 10842.248 273

Pragma Between Groups 315.122 3 105.041 2.503 .060

Within Groups 11291.017 269 41.974

Total 11606.139 272

Mania Between Groups 1702.526 3 567.509 16.003 .000

Within Groups 9575.109 270 35.463

Total 11277.635 273

Agape Between Groups 366.599 3 122.200 3.739 .012

Within Groups 8825.186 270 32.686

Total 9191.785 273

435

Table 6.151 Multiple comparisons: Lovestyles as determined by attachment style

(Tukey HSD)

Love

-style (I) Attachment

style

(J) Attachment

style

Mean

Difference

(I-J)

Std.

Error Sig.

95% Confidence

Interval

Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound

Eros Secure Secure

Pre-occupied -.758 .836 .802 -2.92 1.40

Dismissing -2.553(*) .841 .014 -4.73 -.38

Fearful -2.109(*) .792 .041 -4.16 -.06

Pre-occupied Secure .758 .836 .802 -1.40 2.92

Pre-occupied

Dismissing -1.796 .946 .231 -4.24 .65

Fearful -1.352 .902 .440 -3.68 .98

Dismissing Secure 2.553(*) .841 .014 .38 4.73

Pre-occupied 1.796 .946 .231 -.65 4.24

Dismissing

Fearful .444 .907 .961 -1.90 2.79

Fearful Secure 2.109(*) .792 .041 .06 4.16

Pre-occupied 1.352 .902 .440 -.98 3.68

Dismissing -.444 .907 .961 -2.79 1.90

Fearful

Ludus Secure Secure

Pre-occupied -.036 1.023

1.00

0 -2.68 2.61

Dismissing 5.219(*) 1.029 .000 2.56 7.88

Fearful 4.376(*) .968 .000 1.87 6.88

Pre-occupied Secure .036 1.023

1.00

0 -2.61 2.68

Pre-occupied

Dismissing 5.255(*) 1.157 .000 2.26 8.25

Fearful 4.412(*) 1.104 .000 1.56 7.27

436

Love


style

(J) Attachment

style

Mean

Difference

(I-J)

Std.

Error Sig.

95% Confidence

Interval

Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound

Dismissing Secure -5.219(*) 1.029 .000 -7.88 -2.56

Pre-occupied -5.255(*) 1.157 .000 -8.25 -2.26

Dismissing

Fearful -.843 1.109 .872 -3.71 2.02

Fearful Secure -4.376(*) .968 .000 -6.88 -1.87

Pre-occupied -4.412(*) 1.104 .000 -7.27 -1.56

Dismissing .843 1.109 .872 -2.02 3.71

Fearful

Storge Secure Secure

Pre-occupied .015 1.063

1.00

0 -2.73 2.76

Dismissing .388 1.076 .984 -2.39 3.17

Fearful .234 1.006 .996 -2.37 2.84

Pre-occupied Secure -.015 1.063

1.00

0 -2.76 2.73

Pre-occupied

Dismissing .373 1.208 .990 -2.75 3.50

Fearful .220 1.147 .998 -2.75 3.18

Dismissing Secure -.388 1.076 .984 -3.17 2.39

Pre-occupied -.373 1.208 .990 -3.50 2.75

Dismissing

Fearful -.153 1.159 .999 -3.15 2.84

Fearful Secure -.234 1.006 .996 -2.84 2.37

Pre-occupied -.220 1.147 .998 -3.18 2.75

Dismissing .153 1.159 .999 -2.84 3.15

Fearful

Pragma Secure Secure

Pre-occupied 2.094 1.087 .220 -.72 4.90

Dismissing .469 1.100 .974 -2.37 3.31

Fearful 2.454 1.034 .085 -.22 5.13

437

Love


style

(J) Attachment

style

Mean

Difference

(I-J)

Std.

Error Sig.

95% Confidence

Interval

Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound

Pre-occupied Secure -2.094 1.087 .220 -4.90 .72

Pre-occupied

Dismissing -1.625 1.236 .554 -4.82 1.57

Fearful .360 1.177 .990 -2.68 3.40

Dismissing Secure -.469 1.100 .974 -3.31 2.37

Pre-occupied 1.625 1.236 .554 -1.57 4.82

Dismissing

Fearful 1.985 1.189 .342 -1.09 5.06

Fearful Secure -2.454 1.034 .085 -5.13 .22

Pre-occupied -.360 1.177 .990 -3.40 2.68

Dismissing -1.985 1.189 .342 -5.06 1.09

Fearful

Mania Secure Secure

Pre-occupied 5.698(*) .999 .000 3.11 8.28

Dismissing -.470 1.005 .966 -3.07 2.13

Fearful 3.797(*) .950 .000 1.34 6.25

Pre-occupied Secure -5.698(*) .999 .000 -8.28 -3.11

Pre-occupied

Dismissing -6.168(*) 1.131 .000 -9.09 -3.25

Fearful -1.902 1.082 .296 -4.70 .90

Dismissing Secure .470 1.005 .966 -2.13 3.07

Pre-occupied 6.168(*) 1.131 .000 3.25 9.09

Dismissing

Fearful 4.267(*) 1.087 .001 1.46 7.08

Fearful Secure -3.797(*) .950 .000 -6.25 -1.34

Pre-occupied 1.902 1.082 .296 -.90 4.70

Dismissing -4.267(*) 1.087 .001 -7.08 -1.46

Fearful

438

Love


style

(J) Attachment

style

Mean

Difference

(I-J)

Std.

Error Sig.

95% Confidence

Interval

Lower

Bound

Upper

Bound

Agape Secure Secure

Pre-occupied .409 .960 .974 -2.07 2.89

Dismissing -2.394 .965 .065 -4.89 .10

Fearful -1.928 .912 .152 -4.29 .43

Pre-occupied Secure -.409 .960 .974 -2.89 2.07

Pre-occupied

Dismissing -2.803 1.085 .050 -5.61 .00

Fearful -2.337 1.039 .113 -5.02 .35

Dismissing Secure 2.394 .965 .065 -.10 4.89

Pre-occupied 2.803 1.085 .050 .00 5.61

Dismissing

Fearful .467 1.044 .970 -2.23 3.17

Fearful Secure 1.928 .912 .152 -.43 4.29

Pre-occupied 2.337 1.039 .113 -.35 5.02

Dismissing -.467 1.044 .970 -3.17 2.23

Fearful

The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

439

Attachment Style


Mean

of

ero

s s

co

re

18

17

16

15

14

13

12

16.12

16.56

14.77

14.01

Figure 6.38 Mean of eros lovestyle as determined by attachment style

Attachment Style


Mean

of

lud

us s

co

re

28

27

26

25

24

23

22

23.55

22.71

27.9627.93

Figure 6.39 Mean of ludus lovestyle as determined by attachment style

440

Attachment Style


Mean

of

sto

rge s

co

re

21

20

19

18

17

16

15

18.20918.056

18.42918.443

Figure 6.40 Mean of storge lovestyle as determined by attachment style

Attachment Style


Mean

of

pra

gm

a s

co

re

23

22

21

20

19

18

17

19.52

21.5

19.88

21.97

Figure 6.41 Mean of pragma lovestyle as determined by attachment style

441

Attachment Style


Mean

of

man

ia s

co

re

24

22

20

18

20.15

24.42

18.25

23.95

Figure 6.42 Mean of mania lovestyle as determined by attachment style

Attachment Style


Mean

of

ag

ap

e s

co

re

20

18

16

14

17.52

17.98

15.18

15.59

Figure 6.43 Mean of agape lovestyle as determined by attachment style

442

6.8.6. Conclusion – love measures x lovestyles

In sum, the findings were as follows:

Individuals with a ludus lovestyle were significantly less likely to be in love at the time of

the study when compared to participants with other dominant lovestyles.

Eros and agape participants were significantly less likely to marry someone they were

not in love with when compared to participants with other dominant lovestyles; while

ludus and pragma participants were significantly more likely to marry someone they

were not in love with when compared to participants with other dominant lovestyles.


individuals with a storge lovestyle. The correlations revealed that the more romantic an

individual the moderately more eros and agape they were, and the modestly more

mania, storge and pragma they were. Finally, the more romantic an individual the less

ludus they were. The strength of this relationship was modest.

Individuals with an eros lovestyle were significantly more likely to have a secure

attachment style and significantly less likely to have a dismissing or fearful attachment

style. Individuals with a ludus lovestyle were significantly more likely to have a

dismissing or fearful attachment style and were significantly less likely to have a secure

or preoccupied attachment style. Individuals with a mania lovestyle were significantly

more likely to have a preoccupied or fearful attachment style and were significantly less

likely to have a secure or a dismissing attachment style.

443

6.9. Conclusion

6.9.1. Descriptives

The sample size was made up of 395 participants and the study utilised a mature

student population where the mean age was 22.8 years old. There was an even gender

distribution in the sample: 49% males and 51% females. The race distribution was

relatively even too: Black 28%, White 29%, Coloured 21% and Indian/Asian 21%.

The respondents grouped themselves into the following socioeconomic status: 49% into

the upper social class and upper-middle categories, 36% into the middle social class

category and 15% into the lower middle and lower social class categories. There is a

skewing to the higher socioeconomic status groups which may be reflective of the fact

that the sample is made up of university students that are commonly thought to be more

affluent than the general South African population. There was a relatively even split with

no significant differences between gender across socioeconomic status. With regards

racial proportions of socioeconomic status, although the majority of the participants fell

into the upper middle and middle income categories across race there were significant

differences in the upper and lower income group: 1) White participants were significantly

more likely to be in the upper income group when compared to other racial groups; 2)

Black participants were significantly more likely to be in the lower income group when

compared to their White, Coloured and Indian/Asian counterparts; and 3) Black male

and female participants were significantly more likely to be in the lower income group

when compared to their male and female White, Coloured and India/Asian counterparts.

6.9.2. Factor analysis and reliabilities

The instruments that were subjected to the data reduction technique of factor analysis

were: Romantic Beliefs Scale, Relationship Questionnaire Scale, Love Attitude Scale

and Auckland Individualism Collectivism Questionnaire. All four instruments were found

444

to reduce to the same subscales / components / factors, to varying degrees in the South

African population, as were reported by the respective scale authors. Although the

Romantic Beliefs Scale did not reduce to the original four subscales, the original overall

romanticism beliefs component emerged – total romanticism (Sprecher & Metts, 1989).

The Relationship Scale Questionnaire reduced to the original two components of

avoidance and anxiety (Kurdek, 2002; Simpson et al., 1992). The Love Attitude Scale

reduced to the original six components of eros, ludus, storge, pragma, mania and agape

(Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986). Although Auckland Individualism Collectivism

Questionnaire did not reduce to the original six subscales, the original two components

of individualism and collectivism emerged (Shulruf et al., 2003).

Satisfactory reliabilities and favourable comparisons to the original scale authors‘

reliability findings of the four instruments were found in the South African sample

(Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986; Kurdek, 2002; Shulruf et al., 2003; Sprecher & Metts,

1989).

6.9.3. Auckland Individualism and Collectivism Questionnaire

There were no statistically significant differences between racial groups on individualism

or collectivism. Although there were no significant findings when exploring the link

between race and, individualism and collectivism, the unexpected trends that emerged

were that the Indian/Asian group were the most individualistic and the most

collectivistic; the Coloured group were the second most individualistic and the third most

collectivistic; the Black group were the third most individualistic and the least

collectivistic; and the White group were the least individualistic and the second most

collectivistic. Even though there were no statistically significant result on individualism

between men and women, men were more likely to endorse individualism than women.

Women, on the other hand, were found to be significantly more likely to be collectivistic

than men. The race and gender interaction effect did not reach statistical significance.

The primary reason for utilising the Auckland Individualism and Collectivism

445

Questionnaire was to establish individualism and collectivism differences between

cultural groups; however, instead of significant differences emerging the data showed

homogeneous results across cultural groups. These results hindered the use of the

individualism collectivism dimension across love measures.

6.9.4. Hofstede‘s Value Survey Model

The South African sample in this study yielded the following scores on Hofstede‘s

(1991) cultural dimensions: the individualism score was 89.9, the power distance score

was 18.5, the masculinity score was 46.4, the uncertainty avoidance score was 56.5

and the long-term orientation score was 43.1. Of primary importance to this study was

the individualism and collectivism dimension as yielded by race and gender. Although

the overall sample endorsed individualism highly there were some slight gender and

racial differences. Females (94.1) endorsed individualism more than males (85.6).

White group (98.0) endorsed individualism the most, followed by Indian/Asian (95.1),

Coloured (86.7) and Black (79.3) group. Although there were differences between

cultural groups, and gender, overall individualism was highly endorsed by all groups and

collectivism was not endorsed. Therefore, once again, like the Auckland Individualism

and Collectivism Questionnaire, the Hofstede‗s Value Survey Model‘s homogeneous

results prove to be futile in further analyses as no profound cultural differences emerged

along the individualism collectivism dimension.

Consequently, race was used instead of the individualism collectivism dimension to

explore possible cross-cultural differences in romantic love measures.

6.9.5. Love experiences

Sixty-two percent of the participants said they were in love with someone at the time of

answering the questionnaire. When exploring racial differences no significance was

observed but the trend revealed that White participants (65.2%) were the most likely to

446

be in love, closely followed by Black (63.3%) and Coloured (61%) participants.

Indian/Asian participants were the least likely to be in love (54.3%). When examining

gender differences it was found that significantly more women (69.7%) than men

(53.4%) were in love at the time of the study. When investigating race by gender

differences there were no significant results but the trends revealed that 1) when

comparing males across race, Black men were the most likely to be in love at the time

of the study and Coloured men, Indian/Asian men were the least likely to be in love; 2)

when comparing females across race, White women were the most likely to be in love


When examining gender within race differences, the data revealed that White women

were significantly more likely to be in love with someone at the time of the study than

White men. Although there were no other significant results in gender within race, the

same trend was followed by the Black, Coloured and Indian/Asian groups - women were

more likely to be in love than their male counterparts. There were no statistically

significant results when considering socioeconomic status and the sample‘s response to

the question ‗Are you currently in love with someone‘.

Over 70% of the participants said they had been in love at least three times in their

lifetime and 10% said they had never been in love before. Seventy percent of the

respondents said that they had been in an intimate relationship previously and more

than 50% of the respondents said that they were currently in an intimate relationship.

Less than 25% of respondents said that they had been in a relationship that had lasted

more than two years old.


When asked Kephart‘s (1967) question: "If a man or a woman had all the other qualities

you desired, would you marry this person if you were not in love with him (her)?" 80.5%

of the sample said they would not. When investigating differences in racial groups,

significant differences were observed. Indian/Asian participants were significantly more

447

likely to marry someone they did not love, while White participants were significantly

more likely to marry someone they did love. Although no significant differences were

found in gender, when probing race by gender it was found that Black male participants

were significantly more likely to marry someone they did not love, while White males

were significantly less likely to marry someone they did not love when compared to

males from other racial groups. Indian/Asian females were significantly more likely to

marry someone they did not love when compared to females from other racial groups.

Finally when exploring gender within race it was found that Black males were

significantly more likely to marry someone they did not love than Black females.

Although there were no significant differences between the socioeconomic status and

whether an individual would or would not marry someone they loved; some interesting

trends emerged. Individuals from upper (81.4%), upper middle (81.4%), middle

(82.1.8%) and middle lower (83.8%) income groups were more likely to marry someone

they loved, whereas individuals from the lower income group (60.0%) were less likely to

marry someone they loved.

6.9.7. Love as a basis for the maintenance of marriage

When investigating the findings on the importance of love for the maintenance of

marriage, two questions were posed (Simpson et al., 1986). Overall slightly more

participants agreed (56.7% and 52.1%) than disagreed that love would be necessary for

the maintenance of marriage. There were no statistically significant findings between

the racial groups and the belief that love was necessary for the maintenance of love.

The proportion of the men‘s beliefs with regard to the importance of love for the

maintenance of marriage on both questions is not significantly different from the

proportion of women‘s beliefs with regard to the importance of love for the maintenance

of marriage on both questions. There were no statistically significant results when

considering socioeconomic status and the sample‘s beliefs with regard to the

importance of love for the maintenance of marriage on both questions.

448

6.9.8. Romantic beliefs

Even though no significant differences emerged when interrogating the data by race or

gender, when investigating for effect for the interaction between race and gender there

was a statistical significance: Black women and Indian/Asian men scored high on

romanticism relative to the White men, White women, Black men, and Indian/Asian

women. For the White and Coloured groups the difference in romanticism scores for

men and women were small, whereas for the Black and Indian/Asian groups clear

differences could be observed. In addition the trends that emerged were: 1) Black

participants were more romantic than their White, Coloured and Indian/Asian

counterparts; and 2) South African females were more romantic than their male

counterparts. No statistically significant results when considering socioeconomic status

and the sample‘s total romanticism scores were observed.

6.9.9. Attachment Styles

The majority of the participants indicated their dominant attachment style was secure

(35.3%), followed by fearful (24.4%), and the least endorsed attachment styles were

dismissing (20.4%) and preoccupied (20.0%).

Although no statistical significance was reached when investigating attachment style as

determined by race, the data revealed various trends. Of the four race groups all were

predominately a secure attachment style with the exception of the Black group which

had the same proportion for secure (27.2%), dismissing (27.2%) and fearful (27.2%)

attachment styles. A greater proportion of the Indian/Asian group were secure (41.3%),

followed by the White group (38.8%), Coloured group (36.2%) and the Black group

(27.2%). The second highest score for the White group was preoccupied (26.3%)

attachment style; dismissing for Coloured group (19.1%); and preoccupied and

dismissing (17.5%) for the Indian/Asian group.

449

When investigating attachment style as determined by gender, the data revealed on

statistically significant findings. The trends that emerged were: both genders had

relatively similar proportions for secure attachment style (34.6% for males and 36.2%

for females); whereas a greater proportion of females were preoccupied (24.6%) when

compared to males (16.2%) and a greater proportion of men were dismissing (22.1%)

and fearful (27.2%) when compared to females (17.4% and 21.7% respectively).

Although no statistical significance was found when exploring the data for race by

gender the trends that emerged were that: 1) White male participants endorsed secure

attachment and preoccupied attachment the highest when compared to males from

other racial groups, while the Black male participants endorsed dismissing and fearful

the highest when compared to males from other racial groups and 2) the White female

participants, like their White males counterparts, endorsed secure attachment and

preoccupied attachment the highest when compared to females from other racial

groups, while the Black female participants endorsed the dismissing attachment style

when compared to females from other racial groups.

Finally, when investigating the data for gender within race no significant findings

emerged but it was observed that Black and Coloured males were predominately

fearfully attached when compared to their female counterparts, whereas most Black and

Coloured females endorsed a preoccupied attachment style when compared to their

male counterparts; the majority of White and Indian/Asian males endorsed a dismissing

attachment style when compared to their female counterparts whereas most White and

Indian/Asian females, like Black and Coloured females, endorsed a preoccupied

attachment style when compared to their male counterparts.

When considering socioeconomic status and the sample‘s attachment styles, the data

revealed that participants from the lower income group were significantly more likely to

have a dismissing attachment style. This was the only statistical significance observed

in socioeconomic status and attachment.

450

6.9.10. Lovestyles

The majority of the participants indicated their dominant lovestyle was eros (39.7%),

followed by agape (22.3%), storge (18.2%), pragma (9.6%), and ludus (6.1%). The least

endorsed lovestyle was mania (4.1%).

All four race groups endorsed eros, storge and agape as their three most dominant

lovestyles. There were slight variations in order of endorsement. Black (40%), White

(46.9%) and Coloured (46.3%) respondents strongly endorsed eros as their dominant

lovestyle. The Indian/Asian group endorsed agape (28.0%) as their dominant lovestyle,

followed by eros (24.4%), storge (18.3%) and pragma (17.1%). The Black group

endorsed storge (23.6%) as their second strongest lovestyle and agape (12.7%) as their

third strongest lovestyle. The White group endorsed agape (26.5%) as their second

strongest lovestyle and storge (14.2%) as their third strongest lovestyle. The Coloured

group endorsed agape (22.0%) as their second strongest lovestyle and storge (14.6%)

as their third strongest lovestyle. Mania and ludus were the least endorsed for all four

groups. When compared to the other groups the Indian/Asians endorsed ludus the

highest (11%) and mania the lowest (1.2%).

When investigating gender and dominant lovestyles it was found that men were more

agapic and more ludic than women and women were more eros, storge and pragma

than men. Although overall the majority of males (36.6%) and females (42.7%)

endorsed eros as their dominant lovestyle. When considering the second most endorse

lovestyle, gender differences emerge. Men endorsed agape (26.7%) and ludus (9.4%)

more and women endorsed storge (22.1%) and agape (18.1%) more. Similar results

were found for men and women on mania (3.7% and 4.5% respectively) and pragma

(8.9% and 10.6% respectively).

Lovestyles significant findings by race, gender and the interaction between race and

gender were as follows: 1) the Black participants were significantly more ludus than the

White participants, 2) the Indian/Asian participants were significantly more pragma than

451

the White participants, 3) the White and Indian/Asian respondents were significantly

more agape than the Black respondents, 4) South African men were significantly more

ludus than South African women and 5) the female participants were significantly more

storge than their male counterparts. There were no significant findings when exploring

the interaction between race and gender and lovestyles.

Although no significant differences between the lovestyles and socioeconomic status

were observed, across socioeconomic status the eros lovestyle was the most endorsed

lovestyle. The second most endorse lovestyle is agape across income group with

exception of upper middle and middle lower which endorsed the storge lovestyle. The

third most endorse lovestyle by income group is: the pragma lovestyle for the upper

income group; the agape lovestyle for the upper middle income group; storge for the

middle income group; agape for the middle lower income group; and the mania

lovestyle for the lower income group.

6.9.11. Love measures and lovestyles

Individuals with an eros lovestyle (69.7%) were the most likely to be in love at the time

of the study than any other lovestyle. The eros lovestyle was closely followed by agape

(66.7%) and mania (66.7%). Fifty-six percent of storge (55.6%) and 55.3% of pragma

were in love at the time of the study. Ludus lovestyle (16.7%) was the least likely to be

in love at the time of the study than any other lovestyle. The only statistically significant

finding was that individuals with a ludus lovestyle were significantly less likely to be in

love at the time of the study when compared to participants with other dominant

lovestyles.

The study found that individuals with an agape lovestyle (89.8%) and eros lovestyle

(87.9%) were the least likely to marry someone they did not love than any other

lovestyle. These lovestyles were followed by storge (75%), pragma (65.8%) and mania

(62.5%). Fifty percent of the individuals with a ludus lovestyle said they would marry

452

someone they did not love. The significant findings were that: eros and agape

participants were significantly less likely to marry someone they were not in love with

when compared to participants with other dominant lovestyles; while ludus and pragma

participants were significantly more likely to marry someone they were not in love with

when compared to participants with other dominant lovestyles.

Although there were no significant differences between the lovestyles and whether

individuals agreed or disagreed with the statement ―If love has completely disappeared

from a marriage, I think it is probably best for the couple to make a clean break and start

new lives‖, individuals with a ludus and mania lovestyle (62.5%) were the most likely to

agree with the statement when compared to the other lovestyles. These lovestyles were

closely followed by the eros lovestyle (60.5%). The storge lovestyle (48.6%) was the

least likely to agree with the statement than any other lovestyle. Similarly, although

there were no significant differences between the lovestyles and whether individuals

agreed or disagreed with the statement ―In my opinion, the disappearance of love is not

a sufficient reason for ending a marriage and should not be viewed as such‖, individuals

with a ludus lovestyle (62.5%) were the most likely to agree with the statement when

compared to the other lovestyles. Ludus was followed by the mania lovestyle (62.5%),

pragma (57.9%, storge (54.9%) and agape (51.2%). The eros lovestyle (46.5%) was the

least likely to agree with the statement than any other lovestyle.


individuals with a storge lovestyle. The correlations revealed that the more romantic an

individual the more eros and agape they were. The strength of this relationship was

moderate. Although not as strong (a modest effect), a similar relationship emerged

between romanticism and storge and pragma: the more romantic an individual the more

storge and pragma they were. Finally, the more romantic an individual the less ludus

they were. The strength of this relationship was modest.

Individuals with an eros lovestyle were significantly more likely to have a secure

attachment style and significantly less likely to have a dismissing or fearful attachment

453

style. Individuals with a ludus lovestyle were significantly more likely to have a

dismissing or fearful attachment style and were significantly less likely to have a secure

or preoccupied attachment style. Individuals with a mania lovestyle were significantly

more likely to have a preoccupied or fearful attachment style and were significantly less

likely to have a secure or a dismissing attachment style.

454

CHAPTER 7

Summary Conclusion and Recommendations

7.1 Introduction

This study has attempted to investigate how romantic love is conceptualised across the

four primary cultural groups in South Africa. Inherent in the two central constructs of the

study – romantic love and culture – are ethereal and nebulous qualities that stubbornly

resist quantification. Although many researchers concur that romantic love is a near

universal experience (Buss, 2000; Freud, 1930; Jankowiak, 1995, Jankowiak & Fischer,

1992), it‘s multicomponential nature has also been recognised (Brown, 2005; Goodwin,

1999; Haslam & Friske, 1999; Hendrick, 2004; Hendrick & Hendrick, 1989). Cross-

cultural researchers hold that not only is romantic love multidimensional, but that it also

has a cultural face and is therefore mediated by traditional beliefs, local conditions and

outside influences (Cho & Cross, 1995; Goodwin, 1999; Jankowiak, 1995; Jankowiak &

Fisher, 1992; Smith, 2001). Researchers have identified that the meaning,

understanding, experience and importance of romantic love are perceived differently at

different times and in different cultures (Brehm et al., 2002; Cho & Cross, 1995; Coontz,

2005; Goodwin, 1999; Jankowiak, 1995; Landis & O‘Shea, 2000; Neto, 2007).

Therefore, romantic love is learned, shaped and experienced through one‘s cultural lens

and, because culture is not a static entity, one‘s understanding and meaning of romantic

love changes as one‘s culture changes and evolves.

Culture is an ever altering construct that is influenced by enculturation, acculturation

and globalisation. Although its fluid nature makes it difficult to measure, a useful

conceptual framework for understanding general cultural differences is Hofstede‘s

(1991) five dimensions of culture: individualism versus collectivism; large versus small

power distance; masculinity versus femininity; strong versus weak uncertainty

455

avoidance and long-term orientation versus short-term orientation. Of these five

dimensions the dimension of individualism-collectivism constitutes a prolific approach to

cross-cultural romantic love research in psychology (Goodwin, 1999; Hofstede, 1994a).

When applying this dimension to South Africa‘s four primary cultural groups,

researchers postulate that African and Indian/Asian South Africans reflect collectivistic

cultural values and beliefs; while White and possibly Coloured South Africans reflect

individualistic cultural values and beliefs (Adhikari, 2005; Hofstede, 1980, 1991; Mkhize,

2004a; Mwamwenda, 1999; Triandis, 1995; Viljoen, 2002a, 2002b).

When considering the differences between the manner in which individualistic societies

and collectivistic societies view love, researchers report dramatic differences (Levine et

al., 1995). Love in the Western, individualistic view is ―seen as explosive, romantic and

illogical‖ (Goodwin, 1999, p. 61). Dion and Dion (1993a) say that the Western

(individualistic) concept of romantic love embodies exclusive and intense emotional

involvement, attention and commitment to the beloved as well as a physical attraction to

her or him. In the individualistic, Western cultures the idealisation of love and marriage

is paramount and mate selection is determined by individual choice and romantic love

(Coontz, 2005; Dion & Dion, 1993a; Gergen & Gergen, 1988; Goodwin, 1997). In

contrast, love, in the African, or Eastern, collectivistic view, is ―seen as a strong binding

force that brings individuals together‖ (Goodwin, 1999, p. 61). Dion and Dion (1993a)

aver that the Eastern (collectivistic) concept of love embodies love developing slowly

with a caring companion who fits smoothly and without disruption into the individual‘s

larger complex social milieu. Romantic love is often viewed as dangerous and a threat

to family structure in collectivistic societies (Coontz, 2005; Levine et al., 1995; Sandhya,

2009). Mate selection is generally not based on romantic love in collectivistic societies;

instead, arranged marriages are common and the union is often seen as an alliance

between two families – socially and economically. If, as postulated by researchers

(Adhikari, 2005; Hofstede, 1980, 1991; Mkhize, 2004a; Mwamwenda, 1999; Triandis,

1995; Viljoen, 2002a, 2002b), White and possibly Coloured South Africans reflect

individualistic cultural values and beliefs, it may conceivably be expected that they will

456

love in the Western and individualistic way described above, whereas the Black and

Indian/Asian South Africans will love in the African/ Eastern collectivistic manner.

Even though there are profound differences between the ways in which individualistic

and collectivistic societies view love, recent researchers suggest that, due to the

pervasive and persistent influence of globalisation and modernisation, collectivistic

societies are moving toward a more Western and individualistic concept of love while

mate selection is beginning to be determined by individual choice and romantic love

(Hart, 2004; Meekers, 1995; Okonjo, 1992; Sandhya, 2009; Smith 2001). These

researchers also report that even when a foreign practice is adopted by a local culture,

that practice is mediated through the local culture values, beliefs and practices into a

hybridised form. In other words, the embracing of new cultural values and norms may

either replace the original cultural values, customs and norms or they are advocated in

concurrent maintenance with the original cultural values customs and norms (Berry et

al., 1992; Segall et al., 1999). Consequently, traditional values, characteristics and

conceptualisations of love are being retained, integrated and merged with modern

Western values, characteristics and conceptualisations of love (Husted, 2003; Meekers,

1995).

Other cross-cultural researchers highlight the issue that young adults, in particular

university students, are viewed as Westernising and constructing hybridised, bicultural

and multicultural identities (Arnett, 2002; Berry et al., 1992; Hermans & Kempen, 1998;

Jensen, 2003). ―Many adolescents in today‘s world of globalisation develop a ‘local

identity‘ based on their indigenous tradition, as well as a ‗global identity‘ based on their

exposure to a global (often Western) culture conveyed through media‖ (Jensen, 2003,

p.193). South African cultural researchers agree and add that these identities are

mediated and modulated through local South African inflections (Alexander, 2006;

Dawson, 2006; Nkuna, 2006). It would therefore be expected that each of the four

primary South African cultural groups will possess their own unique take on, and local

intonation of, Western romantic love but that this would also be modulated by whether

457

the individual is operating out of their ―local identity‖, based on their native tradition, or

out of their ―global identity‖.

Bearing all the above factors in mind the researcher attempts to make sense of the

results yielded utilising the literature review.

7.2 Conclusion based on the review of the literature

The significant findings of this study as well as the pertinent trends that emerged from

the analysis of the South African data will be discussed and presented in this chapter

under the following sections: 1) validity and reliability of the instruments, 2) individualism

– collectivism measures, 3) love measures, and 4) conclusion on key findings.

7.2.1 Validity and reliability of instruments

The researcher considered the validity and reliability of the instruments when applied to

the South African student population.

It was found, using principal component factor analysis, that: 1) the Romantic Beliefs

Scale did not reduce to the original four subscales; however, Sprecher and Metts‘s

(1989) original total romanticism component emerged; 2) the Relationship

Questionnaire Scale reduced to the original two components of avoidance and anxiety

(Kurdek, 2002; Simpson et al., 1992); 3) the Love Attitude Scale reduced to the original

six components of eros, ludus, storge, pragma, mania and agape (Hendrick & Hendrick,

1986); and 4) although the Auckland Individualism Collectivism Questionnaire did not

reduce to the original six subscales, the original two components of individualism and

collectivism, according to Shulruf et al. (2003), emerged. In sum, the Romantic Beliefs

Scale and total romanticism, the Relationship Questionnaire Scale and its components

of avoidance and anxiety, the Love Attitude Scale and Lee‘s typology of six lovestyles,

and the Auckland Individualism Collectivism Questionnaire and its components of

458

individualism and collectivism, were found to be factorially distinct and can reasonably

be applied to the South African student population.

The four instruments – Romantic Beliefs Scale, Relationship Questionnaire Scale, Love

Attitude Scale and Auckland Individualism Collectivism Questionnaire – produced

satisfactory reliabilities (all exceeding = .7) and favourable comparisons with the

reliability findings of the original authors‘ scale (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986; Kurdek,

2002; Shulruf et al., 2003; Sprecher & Metts, 1989).

7.2.2 Individualism-collectivism instruments

7.2.2.1 Auckland Individualism Collectivism Questionnaire

Following previous cross-cultural research, the expectation was that the White group in

this study would be the most individualistic and the Black and Indian/Asian group would

be the most collectivistic (Hofstede, 1980, 1991; Mkhize, 2004a; Mwamwenda, 1999;

Triandis, 1995; Viljoen, 2002a, 2002b). This study found that there were no statistically

significant differences between race and individualism, and race and collectivism

(Tables 6.43 and 6.44), therefore suggesting that the mature university sample used in

this study yielded a similar endorsement of both individualism and collectivism across

the cultural groups.

When exploring gender differences for individualism using the Auckland Individualism

Collectivism Questionnaire, no statistically significant results were observed (Tables

6.43 and 6.44), consequently suggesting equal endorsement of individualism amongst

men and women. The trend that emerged for individualism was that men were more

likely to endorse individualism than women. When gender differences for collectivism

were explored, women were found to be significantly more collectivistic than men

(Tables 6.45 and 6.46). These differences between men and women and individualism

and collectivism may be reflective of the gender socialisation process, where boys are

459

socialised to value independence, autonomy, self sufficiency and competition while girls

are socialised to value nurturing, caring for the other and harmonious relationships.

Finally, the race and gender interaction effect did not reach statistical significance

(Tables 6.47, 6.48, 6.49 and 6.50).

7.2.2.2 Value Survey Model

Upon examining the group score for the South African student population on Hofstede‘s

(1991) five dimensions, it is evident that the individualism score (89.9) of the current

study (Table 6.16) is higher when compared to previous South African scores (65)

(Table 3.3) (Hofstede, 1991). The South African individualism score yielded by this

study compares favourably with the scores of very individualistic countries, according to

Hofstede (1991): United States (91), Australia (90) and Great Britain (89). Hofstede

(2002) suggests that there is a positive relationship between individualism and wealth:

the wealthier the country the more individualistic, modern and industrialised the country

(Hofstede, 1980, 1994a, 2002; Singelis et al., 1995). Singelis et al. (1995) found that

this was also true for the upper and middle classes of a society. The rudimentary

measure of socioeconomic status in this study confirmed Dawson‘s (2006) findings that

the majority of the university student sample, commonly thought to be more affluent

than the general South African population, fell into the middle class socioeconomic

status category (Table 6.115 and Figure 6.34). Therefore, the high score on

individualism may be attributed to the fact that the sample utilised was drawn from a

more affluent socioeconomic class. It may be useful to bear in mind that the Hofstede

(1991) scores for the United States, Australia and Great Britain are relatively old and

these may have changed (Fernandez et al., 1997). Brehm et al. (2002) assert that not

only are the collectivistic countries becoming more individualistic under the weight of

globalisation but that the previously individualistic countries have moved further along

the individualistic continuum so that perhaps they may be described as post-traditional

advanced capitalistic societies.

460

On considering the results with regards to the individualism and collectivism dimension

for race and gender, differences emerged. However, these differences were not

profound. All four cultural groups strongly endorsed individualism while none of them

endorsed collectivism. The White group (98.0) endorsed individualism the most

strongly, followed by the Indian/Asian (95.1), Coloured (86.7) and Black (79.3) groups

(Table 6.16). As mentioned previously, the expected results were that the White group

would be more individualistic while the Black and Indian/Asian group would be more

collectivistic (Hofstede, 1980, 1991; Mkhize, 2004a; Mwamwenda, 1999; Triandis, 1995;

Viljoen, 2002a, 2002b). These results reveal that although the White group was the

most individualistic of the cultural groups the other groups scored high on the

individualism continuum as well.

Upon comparing the individualism and collectivism cross-cultural findings on the Value

Survey Model and the Auckland Individualism Collectivism Questionnaire,

contradictions became evident. On the Value Survey Model the expected trend was

found: the White group was established to be the most individualistic, followed by the

Indian/Asian, Coloured and Black group. However, with regards to the Auckland

Individualism Collectivism Questionnaire, the Indian/Asian participants were found to be

the most individualistic, followed by the Coloured group and the Black group, while the

least individualistic were those in the White group. In addition, when comparing the

gender findings on the Value Survey Model and the Auckland Individualism Collectivism

Questionnaire, contradictions were also evident in the gender findings. On the Value

Survey Model it was discovered that females (94.1) endorsed individualism more than

males (85.6); but on the Auckland Individualism Collectivism Questionnaire the male

participants were found to endorse individualism more strongly than their female

counterparts. These contradictory findings can possibly be attributed to the fact that the

Value Survey Model takes the average of the cross-cultural groups whereas the

Auckland Individualism Collectivism Questionnaire takes the score of the individual

participants. Hofstede (2002) himself views this as a weakness and suggests that different

members of the same culture interpret and articulate their culture in a manner that may not

be understood and accepted by members of the same cultural group.

461

A comparison of this study‘s power distance score of 18.5 (Table 6.16) with the

previous South African score of 49 (Table 3.94) indicates that this study has a lower

power distance score than the previous study. Like individualism and collectivism, the

power distance of a country is related to wealth (Hofstede, 1991). However, unlike

individualism, power distance decreases as the wealth of a country increases

(Hofstede, 1991). A low power distance score, as is the case with the population of this

study, indicates that there is a small perceived gap between the wealthy and poor

individuals of the country and that the citizens of the country hold a strong belief in the

equality of each citizen (Hofstede, 1991, 2002). Although there is a growing middle

class in South Africa there is still a vast gap between the wealthy and the poor. Perhaps

the low power distance score can, in part, be attributed to South Africa‘s history and the

long struggle for equality and transformation and conceivably this has resulted in a

South African psyche which evidences a strong and inherent belief that the equality of

each citizen is paramount. This explanation appears to hold more authority when

considering the power distance scores across race: Black (14), White (20), Coloured

(24) and Indian/Asian (16) (Table 6.16). The Black group, the group that had to struggle

the hardest for equality in South Africa, records the lowest power distance score.

The masculinity score is moderately low if one compares this study‘s score (46.4) with

previous findings (63) (Tables 3.5 and 6.16). Masculine values of assertiveness,

materialism/material success, self-centredness, power, strength, individual

achievements and ego enhancement appear to be becoming less important in South

Africa, while feminine values of nurturance, modesty, tenderness, quality of life and a

high level of relationship enhancement seem to be increasing in importance (Hofstede,

1998). When considering the masculinity scores across race the feminine values were

found to be stronger in the Black (29) and White (44) groups whereas the masculine

values were found to be stronger in the Indian/Asian (60) and Coloured groups (57)

(Table 6.16). Perhaps the higher masculinity score in the Indian/Asian group can be

attributed to an unequal role distribution that may still exist in the patriarchally run

Indian/Asian family, whereas in the White group, a stronger feminine score emerged,

462

possibly owing to Western notions of gender equality and more equal role distribution

holding a higher value in this culture. The high feminine score in the Black group may

be attributed to the value the African culture places on relationship enhancement – that

is, the African worldview of interdependence, co-operation, collective responsibility, the

survival of the community as well as being in symbiosis with the universe (Mkhize,

2004b; Mwamwenda, 1999; Viljoen, 2002a).

When one compares this study‘s score, 56.5 (Table 6.16), with previous findings, 49

(Table 3.6), the uncertainty avoidance score is higher (Hofstede, 1991). This may

suggest that South Africans in this population group are becoming a less uncertainty

accepting culture and less tolerant of what is different, unpredictable and ambiguous.

Therefore, this group will it will attempt to minimise ‗what is different is dangerous‘

situations (Hofstede, 2002; Goodwin, 1999). The 2008 xenophobic attacks aimed at

illegal African immigrants appear to be evidence of this. South Africans are known to be

intolerant of illegal immigrants from other African countries (Alexander, 2006), and

perhaps the large numbers of, usually illegal, immigrants in South Africa from

neighbouring countries have contributed to the higher uncertainty avoidance score. As

regards the uncertainty avoidance scores across race, the Indian/Asians (70) were

found to be the least tolerant of that which is different, followed by the Black (64) and

Coloured (57) groups (Table 6.16). The most tolerant of difference and ambiguity, when

comparing the four cultural groups, was the White group (41). Perhaps it is this high

score regarding uncertainty avoidance that helps to keep the Indian/Asian culture

unified (Joyce, 2005) as well as perhaps less affected by the cultural changes that

globalisation usually brings.

Finally, the study has provided a long-term orientation score of 43.1 for South Africa

(Table 6.16). This score places South Africa more strongly on the short-term orientation

dimension. This dimension is characterised by ―personal steadiness and stability,

protecting your ‗face‘, respect for tradition and reciprocation of greetings, favours, and

gifts‖ (Hofstede, 1991, p. 165-6). If one were to compare this study‘s long-term orientation

score to Hofstede‘s (1991) long-term orientation index for 23 countries, South Africa

463

would rank eleventh. According to Hofstede (1991), certain Asian nations (e.g. China,

Hong Kong and Japan) are more likely to be long-term orientated when compared to

Western nations, while others are not (e.g. Philippines). Upon considering the long-term

orientation scores across race, the Indian/Asians (31) were found to be the least long-

term orientated, followed by the Black (44), Coloured (44) and White (51) groups (Table

6.16). This suggests that those in the Indian/Asian group are more like their Philippine

counterparts, in that they are more short-term orientated, while those in the White group

are more long-term orientated. Long-term orientation is characterised by ―persistence,

ordering relationships by status and observing this order, thrift, and having a sense of

shame‖ (Hofstede, 1991, p. 165-6).

7.2.2.3 Conclusion regarding individualism collectivism instruments

In terms of previous cross-cultural research, the expectation was that the White group in

this study would be the most individualistic whereas the Black and Indian/Asian groups

would be the most collectivistic (Hofstede, 1980, 1991; Mkhize, 2004a; Mwamwenda,

1999; Triandis, 1995; Viljoen, 2002a, 2002b). This, however, was not the case

regarding the South African mature student sample in this study as no significant

differences were observed on either of the instruments that were employed to measure

individualism and collectivism (The Auckland Individualism Collectivism Questionnaire

and Hofstede‘s (1994b) Value Survey Model). Instead, this line of inquiry proved to yield

unanticipated homogeneous results across the four broad cultural groups in South

Africa. This suggests three possibilities: 1) the individualism-collectivism instruments

employed in this study are not calibrated finely enough to pick up the subtle differences

in this dimension that may have emerged using the love measures; or 2) that

individualism and collectivism may not be as culturally distinct in this mature student

population as might have been thought previously; that is, these culturally different

students are more similar than dissimilar; or 3) that both these explanations carry

validity.

464

Firstly, when exploring the first possible explanation for these homogeneous results

across cultural groups in South Africa, Robert et al. (2006) assert that the development

of accurate individualism and collectivism measures has not proven easy. Secondly, in

their meta-analyses of 83 studies on individualism and collectivism, Oyserman et al.

(2002) reported that no measurement tool at the time assessed all the critical attributes

of individualism and collectivism. Finally, the Auckland Individualism Collectivism

Questionnaire has not, as yet, been tested on an extensive variety of populations and is

therefore a "work-in-progress" rather than a mature instrument.

A second possible explanation for these homogeneous results is that of socioeconomic

status. According to Dawson (2006), the majority of South African university students

belong to the upper and middle socioeconomic classes. These findings were confirmed

by the results from this study (Table 6.115 and Figure 6.34). Cross-cultural researchers

report that a positive relationship between individualism and wealth exists (Hofstede,

1980, 1994a, 2002; Singelis et al., 1995). Therefore, the high homogeneous score on

individualism across cultural groups may be attributed to the fact that the sample,

across culture, is drawn from a more affluent socioeconomic class.

When one considers a third possible explanation for these homogeneous results,

conceivably Triandis‘s (2001) view that no culture is monolithically individualistic or

collectivistic – that all cultures are mixes of both – may point to another reason for the

homogeneous results observed. Possibly, because of the intense acculturation that

South Africans have been exposed to since 1994, democracy and the ―double

transition‖ of democracy and globalisation that they have had to negotiate (Webster &

Adler, 1999), the four primary cultural groups have become more similar than different.

Recent South African cross-cultural researchers, Alexander (2006) and Nkuna (2006),

emphasise that the variation in the identities of South African young adults is declining

and that the said identities (especially in urban areas) are more and more reflective of

those from other countries because of the powerful sway of globalisation. Nkuna (2006)

avers that urban South African youths are constructing Americanised, global youth

cultural identities but that these identities are mediated and modulated through local

465

South African inflections. Alexander (2006) and Dawson (2006) highlight that the new

South African national identity is characterised by 1) a flagging and fracturing of South

African national identity; 2) a dwindling in racial and political identities, particularly

among the younger generations where they are more interested in individualism,

consumerism and other cultural aspects; 3) an increase in religious and ethnic

identification, often with religion forming a basis for ethnicity; and 4) a re-emergence

and re-visioning of class as an identity, but in new modes. Some of these changes may

be manifesting in the sample used in this study

International cross-cultural researchers agree with the above claim that homogeneous

results across cultures are emerging and that these may be accounted for by the effect

of acculturation (Berry et al., 1992; Matsumoto, 2000; Segall et al., 1999) and

globalisation (Arnett, 2002; Hermans & Kempen, 1998; Jensen, 2003). These

researchers concur with the above in saying that young adults, particularly university

students, are seen as Westernising and developing hybridised, bicultural and

multicultural identities (Arnett, 2002; Berry et al., 1992; Hermans & Kempen, 1998;

Jensen, 2003). ―Many adolescents in today‘s world of globalisation develop a ‗local

identity‘ based on their indigenous tradition, as well as a ‗global identity‘ based on their

exposure to a global (often Western) culture conveyed through media‖ (Jensen, 2003,

p.193). Possibly, when answering the individualism collectivism sections of the

questionnaire, the South African students were operating out of their ―global identity‖

rather than their ―local identity‖.

This multiplicity of identities is known as the horizontal facet of globalisation and focuses

on ―expanding opportunities for shared understandings‖ (Alexander, 2006, p. 56). The

vertical aspect of globalisation, on the other hand, focuses on ―increasing inequalities

and reducing common experience‖ Alexander (2006, p. 59). Cross-cultural researchers

assert that educated young adults from urban, and middle and upper, classes around

the world have more in common with one another than with their rural, less educated,

cultural counterparts of a lower socioeconomic status. Alexander (2006, p.44) suggests

that the young Black ―jet-setting millionaire‖ adult has more in common with a young

466

White, Coloured and Indian/Asian jet-setting millionaire adult than the Black youth from

―an income-less, AIDS stricken family living in rural KZN‖. It is therefore not surprising

when cross-cultural researchers postulate that, nowadays, it is socioeconomic status

rather than culture that exerts a greater influence on subcultures (Alexander, 2006;

Arnett, 2002; Husted, 2003; Nkuna, 2006). The homogeneous results obtained

regarding both individualism and collectivism instruments in this study seem to suggest

that vertical globalisation is operating strongly in the South African student population.

Despite not being able to use these instruments for cross-cultural comparisons across

the love measures in this particular study, the researcher was able to report favourably

on the psychometric properties of the Auckland Individualism Collectivism

Questionnaire and provide updated South African scores for Hofstede‘s five

dimensions. These results may be useful for future research. In addition, perhaps these

unexpected homogeneous results are suggestive of the impact of globalisation and

possibly these results steer researchers to reassess previous ways of categorising –

culture, race, ethnic group and nation (Fenton, 2003; Hofstede, 1991, 2002; Marger,

1991; Segall et al., 1999) – and instead start to consider categorising according to

social class and socioeconomic status (Alexander, 2006; Arnett, 2002; Husted; 2003).

7.2.3. Love measures

Because of the multidimensionality and complexity of romantic love, the study utilised

six different ways of investigating and measuring love. In addition, because the

individualism and collectivism instruments suggest that the members of the university

sample utilised in the study are not as culturally distinct from one another as expected,

race was used to investigate whether there were any differences cross-culturally

between the four primary cultural groups in romantic love. When the results with regards

to the love measures were interrogated, some expected cross-cultural differences

emerged. A number of these results can be explained by the advent of globalisation and

its resultant changes in the realm of romantic love, while others can be explained via the

467

traditional individualistic and collectivistic categorisation. In other words, even though

this group did not adhere to the traditionally distinct individualism and collectivism

categories, when it came to the private and internal emotion of romantic love, this

categorisation emerged at times. This perhaps suggests that as regards love individuals

operate more strongly out of their ―local identity‖ rather than their ―global identity‖ at

certain times and vice versa at other times. In other words, globalisation seems to have

impacted on and influenced certain areas of romantic love to take a more individualistic

tone, but not in other areas where the collectivism and individualism dimension still

remains intact.

7.2.3.1. Love experiences

Ninety percent of the South African participants confirmed that they had been in love at

least once in their lives (section 6.2.2). These results corroborate previous findings that

romantic love is a near universal experience (Buss, 2000; Cho & Cross, 1995;

Jankowiak, 1995, Jankowiak & Fischer, 1992). Evolutionary theory would explain that

love and emotional bonding are products of evolution and sexual selection; they are

adaptive functions that ultimately ensure reproductive success (Buss, 1988; Lampert,

1997; Mellen, 1981). Evolutionary theorists, Kenrick and Trost (1997), add that although

the primary adaptive function of romantic love is sexual reproduction and teaming up

together to care for the children, the secondary adaptive gains are social support,

mutual sharing and protection. Sixty-two percent of the South African participants said

they were in love with someone at the time of answering the questionnaire (refer to

section 6.2.2). If romantic love constitutes a near universal phenomenon (Buss, 2000;

Cho & Cross, 1995; Freud, 1930; Jankowiak, 1995, Jankowiak & Fischer, 1992) and an

essential evolutionary adaptive function (Buss, 1988; Lampert, 1997; Mellen, 1981), it

seems apt that this considerable percentage of the sample maintained they were in love

when the study was carried out.

Researchers suggest that an emerging adulthood period has transpired, because young

adults nowadays have to undertake complex interpersonal negotiations not only within

468

intimate relationships but also as regards personal decisions in terms of what they want

and expect from intimate relationships and careers. Consequently, Erickson‘s (1968)

stages of identity and intimacy would conceivably take longer to negotiate under the

weight of rapid intimate and interpersonal changes driven by globalisation. Arnett (2002)

asserts that these young adults are taking time to explore and experience different jobs,

different education possibilities and a variety of love relationships. Fox (2005) adds that

young adults (Yeppies) engage in a strategy she calls ―mate-shopping‖, where they

delay and postpone big, life-altering decisions until they feel they have experienced and

exhausted all their options. This may explain why over 70% of the South African

participants said they had been in love at least three times (refer to section 6.2.2). Fox

(2005) says these young adults have high expectations of personal happiness and seek

perfection. Perhaps ―mate-shopping‖ for the perfect partner also accounts for the

sizeable 62% of young South Africans who reported being in love at the time of the

study. According to Fox (2005) these Yeppies mobilise ―mate shopping‖ through dating

agencies and organised matchmaking facilities. Internationally, the explosion of internet

dating websites and the many organised match making facilities and dating agencies

offer evidence of this. South Africa too has a number of online dating websites as well

as organised matchmaking facilities such as Corporate Dating.

Ten percent of the South African sample indicated that they had never been in love.

Maybe the proportion of such individuals can be attributed to their relatively young age

(M=22) or perhaps these respondents have not, as yet, embarked on the search for a

partner because of the delays in adopting adult roles of work, marriage and parenthood

that are characteristic of the post adolescent period of emerging adulthood (18-25

years) (Arnett, 2002; Fox, 2005; Larson, 2002; Larson, Wilson & Mortimer, 2002).

Alternatively, these young adults could be struggling to successfully adapt to the cultural

changes that globalisation demands. According to Arnett (2002), globalisation may

increase the proportion of adolescents in non-Western cultures who experience identity

confusion as opposed to those who successfully form an identity. Jensen (2003)

concurs that ―culture shock‖ or ―acculturative stress‖ may be experienced by individuals

who in the face of globalisation find it difficult to reconcile culturally diverse views, and

469

therefore struggle to form a coherent identity. Berry (1997) suggests the greater the

cultural distance between the values of the traditional and global cultures, the greater

the potential of psychological and social problems. Therefore, it is conceivable that

perhaps some of the 10% of the South African participants in this study, who have

never been in love, are struggling to form a coherent bicultural identity in love, work and

socially.

Regarding the cross-cultural differences concerning which group of participants were

more likely to be in love at the time of the study, it was expected that either 1) no

differences would emerge between the cultural groups because, according to

evolutionary theorists, romantic love is almost universal (Buss, 2000), or 2) as

suggested by cross-cultural researchers, the collectivistic African and Indian/Asian

individuals would be the least likely to be in love; while the individualistic White and

possibly Coloured individuals, who place a greater value on romantic love, would be the

most likely to be in love (Adhikari, 2005; Hofstede, 1980, 1991; Mkhize, 2004a;

Mwamwenda, 1999; Triandis, 1995; Viljoen, 2002a, 2002b). In the South African

sample, it was found that one‘s culture did not influence whether an individual would be

in love at the time of the study, therefore indicating that all cultural groups were

relatively equally likely to be in love and thus supporting the evolutionary theory

hypothesis that love is a practically universal phenomenon (Buss, 2000; Cho & Cross,

1995; Freud, 1930; Jankowiak, 1995, Jankowiak & Fischer, 1992).

Although there were no significant cross-cultural differences, upon exploring the more

nuanced trend that emerged, it was found that White participants (65.2%) were more

likely to be in love, closely followed by Black (63.3%) and Coloured (61%) participants.

Indian/Asian participants were the least likely to be in love (54.3%) (Table 6.51). These

findings regarding the White, Coloured and Indian/Asian group are reflective of the

expected individualism-collectivism continuum. However, the Black group proved to

more likely to be in love than expected. There may be numerous possible reasons for

this difference between the two traditionally collectivistic cultures (African and

Indian/Asian).

470

Firstly, conceivably the overwhelming wave of globalisation and modernisation has

been more fully welcomed by Black young adults who may have adopted the ethos of

individualism and romantic love to a greater extent that their Indian/Asian collectivistic

counterparts. The difference may be explained via the dialogical self or via religion.

Firstly, according to Mkhize (2004b), dialogism advocates that meaning is emergent and

evolves from our encounters with others and our social milieu; that the dialogical self is

portrayed by multiplicity, flexibility, diversity and change that emerges from exposure to

the voices of others (Mkhize, 2004b). Mkhize (2004b) further argues that the dialogical

self is consistent with the African self in that an African is pluralistic as well as in

constant dialogue with the universe. He adds that, like dialogism, the African view

emphasises that selfhood emerges through participation with others and that individuals

gain self-understanding through contact and identification with the other who is different

from themselves. Mkhize (2004b) highlights that African selfhood is never complete; a

human being is always becoming or in the making. In other words, the African self is

open to the influence of others as well as other ways of being in the world, which may

point to the fact that Africans would be more open to the changes that globalisation

inevitably brings. Secondly, according to Alexander (2006) and Dawson (2006), part of

the new South African identity is characterised by an increase in religious and ethnic

identification, with religion often forming a basis for ethnicity. Over 80% of Black

students indicated that their religious orientation was Christian (Pavlou, 2005), while

Meekers (1995) found that Christianity, a Western religious ideology, eroded traditional

African norms of parental sanctioned arranged marriages. The Indian/Asian group, on

the other hand, have held on to their Eastern Hindu and Muslim religion (Joyce, 2005).

Perhaps the Indian culture, via its strict religious laws and customs, has retained its

power and influence, and thereby counteracted globalisation to some extent. In addition,

perhaps it is also because the very institute of marriage is steeped in specific cultural

and religious rituals, rites and ceremonies, that traditional Indian religion has maintained

its historical norms and customs amongst its young adults.

471

Thirdly, conceivably this anomaly between the two traditionally collectivistic groups in

South Africa could be accounted for by that which current cross cultural researchers are

suggesting – that young adults nowadays develop hybridised, bicultural (a ―local

identity‖ and a ―global identity‖) and multicultural identities (Arnett, 2002; Hermans &

Kempen, 1998; Jensen, 2003). Possibly matters of romantic love and mate selection

are being mediated to a greater extent through the local culture‘s values, beliefs and

practices into a hybridised form that has a stronger local inflection and identity for the

Indian/Asian group. Conceivably, the opposite is true for the Black group who seem to

have developed a hybridised form of romantic identity by adopting a more global tone

and identity in matters of the heart.

Fourthly, the difference that emerged between the two traditionally collectivistic

societies in South Africa (Black and Indian/Asian) may also be reflective of Triandis‘s

(2001) view that not all collectivistic (or individualistic) societies display the same

cultural characteristics – Black collectivism differs from that of Indian/Asian collectivism,

both of which differ from that of the Israeli kibbutz. In the same manner, South African

Indian/Asian love is not the same as Black South African love. Past researchers have

stated that Black South Africans exhibit a particular style of ―African love‖ (Philbrick &

Opolot, 1980). Some researchers assert that an African style of romantic love,

infatuation, romance, flirting and love letters are not uncommon in African societies

(Bell, 1995; Caplan, 1997; Little, 1973; Plotnicov, 1995; West, 1976), suggesting the

existence of an inherent romantic component of African love.

When overall gender differences were explored, significantly more women (69.7%) than

men (53.4%) were in love at the time of the study (Tables 6.53 and 6.54) and when

gender within race differences were investigated, White women were significantly more

likely to be in love with someone at the time of the study than White males (Tables 6.57

and 6.58). Although there were no other significant results regarding gender within race,

the same trend was followed by the Black, Coloured and Indian/Asian groups – women

were more likely to be in love than their male counterparts. These findings concur with

those of Sprecher et al. (1994): that is, a greater proportion of American, Russian and

472

Japanese females (65%), when compared to males (53%), said that they were in love.

The evolutionary theorists would argue that although love is the single most important

quality in selecting a mate for both genders (Buss, 2000), women the world over place a

premium on love (Buss, 2003). Buss (2003) explains that because women make

immense obligatory parental investments through sex, pregnancy, breastfeeding and

childrearing, they are faced with the adaptive problem of choosing a mate who has the

required resources as well as the motivation to commit those resources to her and her

offspring (Buss, 2003). Buss (2003) argues that, universally, one of the most important

cues for this commitment is love. The said author (2003) concludes that it is not

surprising that women worldwide place a premium on love and commitment.

Upon investigating race by gender differences and being in love, there were no

significant findings (Tables 6.55 and 6.56), consequently indicating that South African

men across culture experience similar levels of being in love. This was also true for

South African women when comparing them with each other. In addition, there were no

statistically significant results in terms of socioeconomic status and the sample‘s

response to the question ―‖Are you currently in love with someone‖ (Tables 6.123 and

6.124), therefore indicating that an individual‘s socioeconomic status did not impact on

being in love. In other words, wealth does not seem to be an obstacle to the emotion of

love.

7.2.3.2. Love as the basis for marriage

When asked Kephart‘s (1967) question: "If a man or a woman had all the other qualities

you desired, would you marry this person if you were not in love with him (her)?", more

than 80% of South African participants expected to love the mate they would marry.

This result concurs with other international and cross-cultural studies that have been

conducted: American studies (Simpson et al., 1986); a study across eleven countries

(Levine et al., 1995); a study conducted utilising American, Russian and Japanese

students (Sprecher et al., 1994); as well as a study utilising American and Chinese

473

students (Sprecher & Toro-Morn, 2002) – these studies also found that, overall, a high

percentage of individuals would not marry someone whom they did not love.

According to cross-cultural researchers, traditionally, people in individualistic societies

were more likely to marry for love than those in collectivistic societies (Dion & Dion,

1993a, 1993b; Levine et al., 1995; Sprecher et al., 1994; Sprecher & Toro-Morn, 2002).

However, recent researchers suggest that because of globalisation, equality and

romantic love are apparently becoming more and more important in intimate

relationships the world over; especially as a criterion for marriage (Hart, 2004;

Matsumoto & Juang, 2004; Netting, 2006; Sandhya, 2009). With globalisation, more and

more young adults, from what would normally be considered collectivistic cultures, are

selecting their own marriage partners (Arnett, 2001; Hart, 2004; Netting, 2006;

Sandhya, 2009). Having said that, researchers postulate that individuals from

collectivistic societies do not select their own partners in an absolutely autonomous and

individualistic manner; they do so within their collectivistic culture via compromise,

negotiation and parental approval (Hart, 2004; Meekers, 1995; Netting, 2006; Sandhya,

2009, Smith, 2001). Therefore, although globalisation is changing romantic aspirations

and expectations in traditionally collectivistic societies (such as those of the Black South

African) (Hofstede, 1980, 1991; Mkhize, 2004a; Mwamwenda, 1999; Viljoen, 2002a) to

reflect more of the individualistic themes and practices of love, these are mediated

through the local culture‘s values, beliefs and practices into a hybridised perception of

love (Hart, 2004; Husted, 2003; Mwamwenda, 1999; Sandhya, 2009; Smith 2001).

With reference to the previous research discussed above, it was expected that groups

that were more individualistic, for example, the White, and possibly the Coloured

groups, would be more likely to marry for love than the more collectivistic groups, for

example, the Black and Indian/Asian groups (Adhikari, 2005; Hofstede, 1980, 1991;

Levine et al., 1995; Mkhize, 2004a; Mwamwenda, 1999; Sprecher et al., 1994; Sprecher

& Toro-Morn, 2002; Triandis, 1995; Viljoen, 2002a, 2002b). The expected individualistic

and collectivistic categorisation in the four South African groups emerged relatively

strongly with regards to this love measure. The trend that emerged was that White

474

participants (92.0%) were the most likely to marry someone they love, followed by

Coloured (85.4%), Black (74.5%) and Indian/Asian (65.9%) participants (Table 6.59).

This trend verifies the findings of previous cross-cultural researchers that romantic love

as a basis for marriage is more important in individualistic and Western cultures than in

collectivistic and Eastern / African cultures (Dion & Dion, 1993a, 1993b; Levine et al.,

1995; Sprecher et al., 1994; Sprecher & Toro-Morn, 2002).

In addition to the above trend, the significant findings which were observed also

supported this premise (Tables 6.59 and 6.60). The South African Indian/Asian

participants were significantly more likely to marry someone they did not love, while

White participants were significantly less likely to do so. Therefore, although the

instruments that were used to measure the dimension of individualism and collectivism

(Hofstede, 1994b; Shulruf et al., 2003) showed no profound differences between the

South African four primary cultural groups, when it came to answering the very personal

question of whether the individual expects to be in love with the person they intend to

marry, the South African sample reveals differences that were expected using this

dimension. These results, once again, highlight the possibility of the existence of

bicultural and / or multicultural as well as ―local and global‖ identities in that although the

Indian/Asian participants were overall very individualistic, their perceptions, beliefs,

values and possible behaviours with regards to intimate relationships also demonstrate

that they are very collectivistic. Perhaps, for the Indian/Asian group, their more

individualistic side emerges as a ―global identity‖ whereas their collectivistic side

emerges as a social or ―local identity‖. Conceivably, like the Indo-Canadians with bi-

cultural identities in Netting‘s (2006) study, the South African Indian/Asians with bi-

cultural identities are also faced with the struggle of negotiating the contrasting

individualistic and collectivistic values that determine the nature of romantic

relationships and marriage: they have to negotiate between the "love-marriage" of the

West and the "arranged marriage" advocated by their traditional Indian heritage.

Previous cross-cultural studies found no significant gender difference in responses

within cultures or overall (Levine et al., 1995; Simpson et al., 1986; Sprecher et al.,

475

1994; Sprecher & Toro-Morn, 2002). However, upon probing race by gender in the

present study it was found that Black male participants were significantly more likely to

marry someone they did not love, while White males were significantly less likely to do

so, when compared to males from other racial groups (Tables 6.63 and 6.64). In

addition, it was established that Indian/Asian females were significantly more likely to

marry someone they did not love when compared to females from other racial groups

(Tables 6.63 and 6.64). This result once again supports the premise that romantic love

is not as important in traditionally collectivistic cultures when one is selecting a marriage

partner and that this is particularly true for Black males and Indian/Asian females in

South Africa.

Finally, when gender within race was explored it was found that Black males were

significantly more likely to marry someone they did not love than Black females (Tables

6.65 and 6.66). Perhaps the reason is that Black South Africa men tend to support a

traditional African collectivistic style of marital relationships, that is, open, segregated

and polygamous marital relationships because ―it is our culture‖ (Little, 1973; Smith,

2001; Van der Vliet, 1991). In contrast, the Black South African women support a more

individualistic style of marital relationships – closed, joint, monogamous (Little, 1973;

Van der Vliet, 1991). Similarly, according to Van der Vliet (1991), South African Xhosa

women attempt to keep their husbands faithful by calling upon ―modern‖ marriage

models which include making joint decisions, spending leisure time together,

engendering a strong emotional bond and practising monogamy and marital fidelity. In

contrast the Xhosa men often counteract these attempts by insisting on living according

to the traditional marital model which includes strict gender-based labour division,

patriarchal attitudes, with men enjoying more social, financial and sexual freedom (Van

der Vliet, 1991).

It was expected that the higher the individual‘s socioeconomic status the more likely

they were to have the freedom to choose to marry someone with whom they were in

love. The South African sample confirmed this expectation as no significant results

emerged to the contrary. Netting (2006) explains that when an economy industrialises,

476

modernises and people become more affluent, old and collectivistic values weaken and

give way to Western, individualistic values. The more economic prosperity, wealth and

abundant resources an individual possesses the greater their independence and

freedom to pursue their personal goals, needs and rights; the more freedom they have

to choose love as the basis for marriage (Goodwin, 1999; Levine et al., 1995;

Matsumoto & Juang, 2004; Sprecher et al., 1994). Perhaps this is true for the South

African student participants in this study, who are considered as being more affluent

than the general South African population (Dawson, 2006); this may not, however, be

the case for rural, less educated and less affluent young adults in South Africa.

Although there were no significant findings when investigating socioeconomic status

and whether an individual would or would not marry someone they loved, the trend that

emerged was that individuals in upper (81.4%), upper middle (81.4%), middle (82.1.8%)

and middle lower (83.8%) income groups were more likely to marry someone they

loved, whereas individuals from the lower income group (60.0%) were less likely to

marry someone they loved (Table 6.125). These South African findings corroborate that

which researchers have found in other parts of the world – that a positive relationship

exists between economic wealth and romantic love, and that affluent societies are able

to adopt the freedom and luxury of a romantic approach to love and marriage whereas

poorer societies adopt a more practical approach (Goodwin, 1999; Levine et al., 1995;

Matsumoto & Juang, 2004; Sprecher et al., 1994; Sprecher & Toro-Morn, 2002).

Consequently, although most people endorse and experience romantic love, individuals

with a higher socioeconomic status are the most likely to insist on marrying someone

they loved, while individuals from a lower income group were less likely to insist on this

(Levine et al., 1995; Simpson et al., 1986; Sprecher et al., 1994; Sprecher & Toro-Morn,

2002).

In sum, when comparing the results with regards to being in love at the time of the study

and love as a basis for marriage, it appears that there is little difference between the

South African cultural groups with regards to the emotion of love and being in love.

Being in love, however, does not automatically translate into selecting that mate for

477

marriage. The South African results supported previous findings that traditionally

individualistic (White and to a lesser extent Coloured participants) believe that love is an

important and vital ingredient when deciding to marry someone, whereas participants

who are deemed by previous researchers to be traditionally collectivistic (Black and

Indian/Asian participants) found it less important (Hofstede, 1980, 1991; Mkhize, 2004a;

Mwamwenda, 1999; Triandis, 1995; Viljoen, 2002a, 2002b). A similar trend was

revealed when considering socioeconomic status and the results regarding being in love

at the time the study was undertaken and love as a basis for marriage – wealth did not

influence the likelihood of being in love but the higher the participants ‘ socioeconomic

status the more likely they were to marry someone they loved.

7.2.3.3. Love as the basis for the maintenance of marriage

In order to investigate the findings with regards to the importance of love for the

maintenance of marriage, the two questions that were developed by Simpson et al.

(1986) were posed. Overall slightly more participants agreed with both questions

(56.7% and 52.1% respectively) than disagreed (43.3% and 47.9% respectively) that

love would be necessary for the maintenance of marriage (Tables 6.8 and 6.9). The

proportion of individuals by gender and race who agreed or disagreed in this regard was

not significant (Table 6.67 to 6.82). The South African results indicating minimum

differences are reflective of previous findings (Levine et al., 1995; Sprecher & Toro-

Morn, 2002). In addition, following previous findings, the South African sample indicated

that romantic love was more important when entering into a marriage than for the

maintenance of a marriage (Sprecher & Toro-Morn, 2002).


and the sample‘s beliefs with regard to the importance of love for the maintenance of

marriage in terms of both questions (Table 6.127 to 6.130). Consequently, once they

are married, the importance of love in the maintenance of marriage across

socioeconomic status does not seem to differ among young South African adults.

478

7.2.3.4. Romanticism

Researchers over time have reported mixed findings on romanticism. Older research

findings (Simmons et al., 1986; Sprecher et al., 1994) suggest that individualistic

countries (American and German) were overall more romantic than their collectivistic

(Japanese) counterparts. However, more recent findings reported either the opposite

trend – Chinese were more romantic than their American counterparts (Sprecher &

Toro-Morn, 2002) – or similar romantic beliefs were found, for instance between Black

and White Americans (Weaver & Ganong, 2004).

Weaver and Ganong (2004), as in this study, found that the Romantic Beliefs Scale did

not measure romanticism in the same manner across cultural groups. They postulated

that perhaps components of romantic beliefs are conceptually different for different

ethnic groups and that those romantic beliefs hold different meanings for different ethnic

groups. This may point to foreign practice being mediated through the local culture

values, beliefs and practices into a hybridised form with a local inflection (Husted, 2003;

Meekers, 1995). This too, may be the case for the current South African study.

Nonetheless, a total romanticism score could be measured validly and reliably; this was

utilised in the study.

No significant differences emerged between cultural groups in South Africa, indicating

no profound differences as regards romanticism across race in South Africa (Tables

6.83 and 6.84). As per previous studies, no significant differences were observed

overall for romanticism between South African men and women (Cunningham & Antill,

1981; Simmons et al., 1986; Sprecher & Metts, 1999; Sprecher & Toro-Morn, 2002).

However, upon interrogating the data for the interaction effect between race and gender

a statistical significance was revealed (Table 6.88) which shows that the relationship of

race (or gender) with romanticism is contingent on the gender (or race) of the person.

Figure 6.15 and Table 6.87 illustrate that the Black women and Indian men scored high

479

on romanticism relative to the White men, White women, Black men, and Indian women.

For the White and Coloured groups the difference in scores as regards romanticism for

men and women were small, thus repeating the findings of previous research

Cunningham & Antill, 1981; Simmons et al., 1986; Sprecher & Metts, 1999; Sprecher &

Toro-Morn, 2002), whereas for the Black and Indian groups clear differences could be

observed.

In older research studies men were found to be more romantic than women (Sprecher &

Metts, 1989) which is reflective of the results that emerged from the Indian/Asian group

in South Africa. Sprecher and Metts (1989) suggested that men tended to be more

romantic because they held, or expected to hold, roles that provided greater economic

and social security relative to women and could therefore afford to be idealistic and

romantic about the beloved and their relationship as well being able to be more

selective because they held more power. This may be true for the traditionally

Indian/Asian collectivistic group in this study. The high levels of romanticism in the Black

female group may indicate that in this traditionally collectivistic group romance and

romantic love are becoming more valued and important: due to the pervasive and

persistent influence of globalisation and modernisation, collectivistic societies are

moving toward a more Western and individualistic concept of love while the low

romanticism levels in the Black male population may be indicative of their preference for

traditionally collectivistic modes of engaging in intimate interpersonal relationships.

The small difference that was observed between White men and women, and Coloured

men and women, with regards to romanticism scores seems to support findings from

more recent studies. These studies have produced no gender differences in

romanticism and this may be reflective of the increased gender equality. With this

potential increase in gender equality, perhaps women have the freedom to be more

idealistic, selective and romantic about the beloved. In addition, traditionally

individualistic societies in South Africa – the White and Coloured group – showed low

levels of romanticism. This result, in conjunction with previous findings (Sprecher &

Toro-Morn, 2002) suggests that romanticism is decreasing in traditionally individualistic

480

societies. This tendency may be reflective of Giddens‘ (1992) claim that the traditional

ideal of romantic love is being replaced by the post-traditional ―pure or confluent love‖ in

advanced Western capitalistic societies. He maintains that individuals who pursue the

―pure love relationship‖ value autonomy and equality – equal rights and obligations,

open communication, mutual respect, mutual trust and mutual self-actualisation.

According to Giddens (1992), these ―pure love relationships‖ are expected to dissolve

once the ability to serve as a self development vehicle for either partner is exhausted;

this clashes with the 'forever, one and only' virtue of romantic love.

There were no statistically significant results when socioeconomic status and the total

romanticism scores of the South African sample were considered (Tables 6.131 and

6.132), indicating that socioeconomic status or wealth did not influence an individual‘s

level of romanticism.

7.2.3.5. Attachment styles

No significant findings were observed with respect to attachment styles across the four

cultural groups in South Africa, thus suggesting no profound cross-cultural differences

with regard to attachment. Some researchers might suggest that these homogeneous

cross-cultural results may be attributed to a number of reasons. Firstly, Atkins (2003)

pointed out that certain authors have criticised the Relationship Style Questionnaire as

being founded on conventional rather than empirical categories of attachment, and

secondly, the attachment styles were measured categorically in this study. Bartholomew

et al. (2001) assert that most individuals have a complex attachment profile across

attachment patterns, with individuals having primary, secondary and even tertiary

attachment strategies. Others suggest that that few individuals show a purely

prototypical attachment pattern and that individual differences in adult attachment

should not be conceptualised as types or groups but should rather be understood in

terms of dimensions (Fraley & Waller, 1998). Finally, Feeney and Noller (1996) claim

that self-report measures may offer a better measure of current relationship functioning

rather than trait-like characteristics. Nonetheless, Atkins (2003) hypothesises that there

481

may be some advantages in using an attachment measure that has been constructed to

be a face-valid measure of attachment as conceptualised by Bowlby (1969, 1973, 1979,

1980) and Anisworth et al. (1978).

Previous research claims that most people are securely attached (56%), followed by

anxious-avoidant (23-25%) and anxious-ambivalent (19-20%) (Hazan & Shaver, 1987).

The attachment instrument used to establish secure attachment in the Hazan and

Shaver (1987) study yielded three attachment styles and was therefore different from

the attachment instrument used in this study (which yielded four attachment styles)

(Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994a, 1994b; Simpson et al., 1992). Nonetheless, the majority

of the South African sample was also found to be securely attached (35.3%); followed

by fearful (24.4%), dismissing (20.4%) and preoccupied (20.0%) attachment styles

(Table 6.89). This finding corroborates the findings of Schmitt et al. (2004) that across

62 cultural regions, 79% of these regions rated secure attachment as the highest form

of romantic adult attachment.

Although no statistical significance was observed when investigating attachment style

as determined by race in South Africa, the data revealed various trends. The majority of

all participants per race group all endorsed a secure attachment style with the exception

of the Black group which recorded the same proportion for secure (27.2%), dismissing

(27.2%) and fearful (27.2%) attachment styles (Table 6.89). This corroborates with the

findings of Schmitt et al. (2004) that secure attachment was more likely to be endorsed

when compared with the three insecure attachment styles, in South Africa. Therefore

most South Africans across cultural groups are securely attached, that is, they are

comfortable with intimacy and independence in close relationships. They are confident

and are able to resolve conflict constructively. They possess an ability to form and

maintain close intimate bonds with others without losing a sense of self, while they also

have an internalised sense of self worth (Bartholomew et al., 2001; Griffin &

Bartholomew, 1994b).

482

Even though the majority of the South African sample was found to be securely

attached (35.3%) (Table 6.89), this percentage was much lower than that of previous

findings (56%) (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Schmitt et al. (2004) hypothesise that

individuals from social contexts with high levels of stress tend to develop insecure

romantic attachment styles whereas those from social contexts with lower stress tend to

develop more secure attachment styles. Conceivably, with the high levels of poverty,

unemployment and crime in South Africa, the proportion of South Africans with insecure

attachment can predictably be expected to be higher than those in countries that are not

socially and economically stressed. Perhaps this assists in explaining why the data

revealed that participants from the lower income group were significantly more likely to

employ a dismissing attachment style when socioeconomic status and the attachment

styles of the South African sample are considered (Tables 6.133 and 6.134).

While no significant findings were observed when investigating attachment style as

determined by gender, the trends that emerged confirmed previous findings regarding

the four-category model of adult attachment (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Brennan

et al., 1991; You & Malley-Morrison, 2000). In terms of both genders, relatively similar

proportions for secure attachment style (34.6% males and 36.2% females) were

revealed; however, females who were insecurely attached were more likely to be

preoccupied (24.6%) when compared with males (16.2%) while men who were

insecurely attached were more likely to be dismissing (22.1%) and fearful (27.2%) as

compared with females (17.4% and 21.7% respectively) (Table 6.91). It is suggested by

certain researchers that gender specific parental sex-role socialisation practices may

account for these gender differences (Hazan & Shaver, 1994). No statistical significance

was found when exploring the data regarding race by gender and finally, no statistical

significance was observed when investigating the data for gender within race.

7.2.3.6. Lovestyles

The majority of the South African sample endorsed eros as their dominant lovestyle

(39.7%) (Figure 6.3); therefore, most South Africans value early attraction, the fire and

483

intensity of passionate love and a strong commitment to the beloved. The four South

African cultural groups endorsed the passionate eros (39.7%), selfless agape (22.3%),

and friendship orientated storge (18.2%) lovestyles the most strongly; this substantiates

the cross-cultural findings of Neto (2007).

Upon investigating lovestyles cross-culturally, differences emerged. Three of the South

African cultural groups (Black (40%), White (46.9%) and Coloured (46.3%) respondents

(Figures 6.16 to 6.19)) strongly endorsed eros as their dominant lovestyle. According to

Lee (1976), erotic lovers possess the ability to risk; display strong ego strength; they are

self confident, self assured, social and stable with high self esteem. The passionate

eros lovestyle has high expectations of intense physical and emotional intimacy (Lee,

1976). These results repeat previous findings that eros is the most strongly endorsed

lovestyle across cultural groups (Leon et al., 1995; Neto, 2007; Pavlou, 2005; Sprecher

et al., 1994).

Upon reconsidering Furnham‘s (1984) findings, changes in the social, political and

economic landscape in South African evidence a shift in the Black South African

attitudes towards love and romance. Furnham (1984) found that White South Africans

valued love and friendship the highest while Black South Africans placed the highest

worth on equality and peace. The current study suggests that the Black, like the White,

group value passionate love, selfless love and friendship based love as being important.

The Black group have moved from valuing basic security needs of peace and equality in

love to valuing and enjoying the freedom to pursue passion, friendship and giving

altruistic love. This may be indicative of the impact of globalisation and of how the Black

group are adopting more Western, individualistic and global models of interpersonal

love as well as reflective of changes in the political, social and economic landscape in

South Africa. Alternatively these findings could be attributed to what previous cross-

cultural researchers have claimed: that Black South Africans display a particular style of

―African love‖ that includes love, infatuation, romance, flirting and love letters (Bell,

1995; Caplan, 1997; Little, 1973; Philbrick & Opolot, 1980; Plotnicov, 1995; West,

1976). This also ties in with the findings observed regarding the love measure

484

previously mentioned – being in love at the time of the study – where it was found that

White participants (65.2%) were most likely to be in love, closely followed by their Black

(63.3%) and Coloured (61%) peers (Table 6.51).

Even though the majority of Black, White and Coloured participants endorse eros as

their dominant lovestyle, a slightly higher proportion of the White and Coloured group

did so than that of the Black group; therefore confirming the trend that 1) individuals

from individualistic societies endorse the passionate erotic lovestyle of eros more than

individuals from collectivistic societies and that 2) passionate love is more important in

individualistic cultures. In addition, higher proportions of the Black group endorsed the

friendship based storge, practically based pragma, game-playing ludus and obsessive

based mania lovestyles. Previously, these lovestyles have partly been found to be more

strongly endorsed by collectivistic cultures (Cho & Cross, 1995; Dion & Dion, 1993a;

Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986, 1990; Goodwin & Findlay, 1997; Neto, 2000, 2007). These

findings, once again, suggest that although globalisation is changing romantic

aspirations and expectations in traditionally collectivistic societies, such as that of the

Black South Africans (Hofstede, 1980, 1991; Mkhize, 2004a; Mwamwenda, 1999;

Viljoen, 2002a), to reflect more of the individualistic themes and practices of love, these

are however mediated through the local culture‘s values, beliefs and practices into a

hybridised perception of love (Hart, 2004; Husted, 2003; Mwamwenda, 1999; Sandhya,

2009; Smith 2001).

According to previous findings in this study with regards to other love measures, the

hybridised view of love appears to exert a stronger local and traditional collectivistic

influence in the South African Indian/Asian group. This group was found to endorse the

selfless lovestyle of agape (28.0%) as their dominant lovestyle (Figure 6.19). The

Indian/Asian group, traditionally considered collectivistic (Dinna, 2005; Hofstede, 1991;

Netting, 2006; Sandhya, 2009; Viljoen, 2002b), revealed higher scores on agape,

pragma and storge than the other cultural groups. These scores in part corroborate

Neto‘s (2007) findings that Indian participants indicated higher scores on agape,

pragma and mania as compared with their Western British and Portuguese

485

counterparts. This contributes to the argument that the social construction of romantic

love differs when comparing individualistic with the more interconnected and

interdependent view of self and others that is characteristic of the collectivistic societies

(Dion & Dion, 1993b). In addition, reflective of this finding was one discussed earlier in

this study – that Indian/Asian participants were the least likely to be in love (54.3%)

(Table 6.51).

Three significant findings emerged when interrogating lovestyles and race in the South

African sample: 1) the Black participants were significantly more ludus than the White

participants, 2) the Indian/Asian participants were significantly more pragma than the

White participants, and 3) the White and Indian/Asian respondents were significantly

more agape than the Black respondents (Tables 6.97 and 6.98). The first significant

finding, of Black participants being significantly more ludus, non-committal and game-

playing in their lovestyle than the White participants, may be explained by Meekers‘

(1995) claim. She asserts that even though Western values are eroding the traditional

African ways, traditional family values and characteristics are being retained, integrated

and merged with modern Western family systems and characteristics. One of the

traditional African characteristics of intimate relationships that has survived in South

Africa is the practice of polygamy (Gustafsson & Worku, 2006; Meekers, 1995). This

practice, and being able to keep women outside of marriage, is a sign of economic

status and continuing virility in the eyes of African men (Bafana, 2009; Little, 1973;

Smith, 2001). Previous cross-cultural researchers suggest that Black South African men

tend to support a traditional African collectivistic style of marital relationships, that is,

open, segregated and polygamous marital relationships (Little, 1973; Smith, 2001; Van

der Vliet, 1991). In contrast, these authors maintain that Black South African women

support a more individualistic style of marital relationships – ―modern‖ marriage models

– that are closed, joint and monogamous (Little, 1973; Van der Vliet, 1991). More

recently Bikitsha (2009, p. 20) introduced a new perspective; she suggests that

nowadays some modern, professional and affluent African women who are set on

marrying may ―find themselves not being ‘the one‘, but the second or the third‖ – they

are entering into polygamous marriages by choice. The above confirms that the

486

concept of love in African society is not necessarily identical to Western notions of love

(e.g. romantic love in African societies does not necessarily imply exclusivity) and that

the actual content of meaning is burdened by existing social values (Little, 1973). It is

conceivable that the traditional, polygamous, open marriage model may leave the

individuals involved feeling insecure, not as committed and therefore open to alternative

partners (Rusbult, 1983). Perhaps the ludus lovestyle is catalysed in a polygamous

culture because there is more acceptance and space for this style of loving.

The second significant finding that was observed when interrogating lovestyles and race

in the South African sample was that the Indian/Asian participants were significantly

more pragma than their White peers. This is an expected result along the individualism-

collectivism continuum and it repeats the previous findings that collectivistic societies

are more pragma, agape and storge than individualistic ones (Cho & Cross, 1995;

Goodwin & Findlay, 1997; Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986; Neto, 2000, 2007). In view of the

Indian/Asian cultural and religious tradition, belief in and valuing of interdependency

within the community, the strong belief in and supporting of group norms and obligation

as well as the centrality of family honour and stability, it is not surprising that the

Indian/Asian sample endorsed pragma notably more strongly than their White Western,

traditionally individualistic counterparts.

When lovestyles and race in the South African sample were interrogated, the third

significant finding observed was that the White and Indian/Asian respondents were

significantly more agape than the Black counterparts. Generally, in collectivistic

societies the pragma, agape and storge lovestyles were more strongly endorsed than in

individualistic ones (Cho & Cross, 1995; Goodwin & Findlay, 1997; Hendrick &

Hendrick, 1986; Neto, 2000, 2007). The Indian/Asian group, which is traditionally

thought of as collectivistic, adheres to this expectation. However, in the Black group,

which is also traditionally thought of as collectivistic, the opposite is observed. Although

this finding is perplexing it verifies Hendrick and Hendrick‘s (1986) finding that African-

American participants were the least agapic when compared with White-non-Hispanic,

White-Hispanic, Oriental, and international students.

487

The White group also presents with the opposite significance from that which would be

expected from a traditionally individualistic culture with regard to the agape lovestyle.

There may be a number of explanations for this finding. Firstly, Hendrick and Hendrick

(2000) reflect on whether in fact the Eastern philosophy of fatalism, duty and obligation

(qualities that characterise agape love) can also be found in Western notions of love.

Secondly, Barrett (2000) proposed that individualistic and collectivistic societies vary in

the forms of independence and interdependence, but that both cultures socialise

children to display both tendencies, implying that ―independence and interdependence

are fostered in all cultures and that independence is not antithetical to interdependence‖

(Barrett, 2000, p. 94). Barrett‘s (2000) point of view is verified by Triandis (2001) in his

assertion, noted earlier, that no culture is monolithically individualistic or collectivistic; all

cultures are mixes of both. A third and alternative explanation is Triandis‘s (1995)

categorisation of individualism. Triandis (1995) described vertical individualism as

emphasising autonomy with status, inequality, power and competition, which appears to

be the antithesis of the altruistic and selfless agape lovestyle. In contrast, he described

horizontal individualism as emphasising autonomy with egalitarianism, uniqueness and

separateness, which does not automatically exclude the altruistic and selfless agape

lovestyle. Perhaps the White South African group is more horizontally individualistic

than vertically individualistic. In sum, cross-cultural researchers have hypothesised that

Western notions of love carry within them collectivistic values and philosophies,

tendencies towards independence as well as interdependence, and attitudes related to

vertical as well as horizontal individualism.

When the gender differences in dominant lovestyles were examined, the findings that

men were more agapic and more ludic than women and that women were more eros,

storge and pragma than men (Figures 6.26 and 6.27) validate previous research (Dion

& Dion, 1993a; Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986; Hendrick et al., 1998; Lacey et al., 2004;

Morrow et al., 1995; Neto, 2007; Pavlou, 2005; Sprecher et al., 1994; Sprecher & Toro-

Morn, 2002; Yancy & Berglass, 1991). The two significant gender findings from the

South African sample were: 1) South African men were significantly more ludus than

488

South African women and 2) the South African women were significantly more storge

than South African men (Tables 6.100 and 6.101). Both these findings could be clarified

using the evolutionary explanation of mate selection: men are more permissive and aim

to disperse their sexual investment (and therefore value a more game-playing lovestyle

than women), while women are more selective, aim to concentrate their sexual

investment and seek to establish long-term committed and harmonious relationships

(and therefore place greater value on a friendship orientated lovestyle) (Buss & Schmitt,

1993).

There were no significant findings when exploring the interaction between race and

gender and lovestyles (Table 6.102 to 6.113) while no significant differences were

observed between the lovestyles and socioeconomic status (Table 6.136), suggesting

that wealth does not influence one‘s lovestyle.

7.2.3.7. Synthesising key love findings by cultural groups

One of the aims of this study was to investigate how the four broad different ethnic

groups in South Africa experience love and choose their partners. Each group will now

be considered in order to synthesise the findings that pertain to them.

7.2.3.7.1. Black group

The proportion of Black participants who were in love at the time of the study was very

similar to the proportion of White and Coloured participants who were in the same state.

As a group their most endorsed dominant lovestyle was the passionate and intense

eros lovestyle (followed by storge and agape). Having said that, even though three

quarters of the Black participants thought love was important as the basis for marriage,

as a group they were the second least likely group to marry someone they love when

compared with other ethnic groups.

489

Upon considering gender difference in this group it was observed that Black women

were more likely to be in love than their male counterparts, that Black males were

significantly more likely to marry someone they did not love than Black females, and

that Black women experienced higher levels of romanticism than Black men. These

findings possibly suggest that a more collectivistic hybridised approach appears to be

truer for Black males whereas Black females seemed to demonstrate a stronger

individualistic hybridised approach.

Previous research has found that higher proportions of secure attachment are endorsed

when compared with insecure attachment (Hazan & Shaver, 1987), therefore

suggesting that the majority of humans are capable of an interdependent, committed,

satisfying relationships. The South African Black group, however, endorsed secure,

dismissing and fearful attachment styles equally. Researchers maintain that insecure

attachment styles were associated with less interdependence, commitment, trust,

satisfaction, shorter relationship duration as well as less frequent positive and more

frequent negative emotions in the relationship than secure attachment styles (Hazan &

Shaver, 1987; Simpson, 1990). Perhaps this is also the case for the high proportion of

the insecure (dismissing and fearful) Black participants, that is, a tendency to struggle to

cultivate and develop satisfying stable long-term relationships. The high proportion of

insecure attachment in this group could be attributed to the fact that historically the

Black participants were the most disadvantaged cultural group in South Africa and

consequently have been subjected to high levels of poverty, unemployment, crime and

single parental investments. This substantiates the hypothesis advanced by Schmitt et

al. (2004) that individuals from social contexts with high levels of stress tended to

develop higher levels of insecure attachment styles. This perhaps assists in explaining

why, when considering socioeconomic status and the South African sample‘s

attachment styles, the data revealed that participants from the lower income group

(Black participants were significantly more likely to be in the lower income group when

compared with their White, Coloured and Indian/Asian counterparts) were significantly

more likely to exhibit a dismissing attachment style. Finally, perhaps the smaller

proportion of securely attached Black participants (27%) could be attributed to the high

490

proportion of single African mothers (48% between the ages of 20-40) in comparison to

the other cultural groups (Gustafsson & Worku, 2006). The lack of both parental figures

exercising positive, consistent parental investment and long-term mating strategies is

said to negatively impact on a child‘s development of secure attachment (Chrisholm,

1996). According to Bowlby (1979) attachment follows an individual from ‗cradle to

grave‘ therefore conceivably the negative legacy of single parental investment carries

into adulthood and negatively influences mate selection.

This study found that Black participants were significantly more ludus than the White

participants (Tables 6.97 and 6.98). According to Lee (1976), the ludic lover

understands love as a playful noncommittal game of detachment. They do not demand

nor expect exclusivity from their partners and nor do they guarantee exclusivity. Lee

(1976) asserts that the ludic lovers are socially confident, self assured, and charming

but avoid risk by not bearing his / her weaknesses or becoming dependent (Lee, 1976).

Researchers reported that the ludus lovestyle was associated with low relationship

satisfaction as well as lower levels of Rusbult‘s (1983) rewards, satisfaction,

investments and commitment and higher levels of cost and better quality of alternatives

(Davis & Latty-Mann, 1987; Hendrick, Hendrick & Adler, 1988; Marrow, Clark & Brock,

1995; Rudnick, 1997; Sokolski & Hendrick, 1999). When taking all the above previous

findings with regard to the ludus lovestyle into account it can conceivably be concluded

that the ludic individual seems to struggle to develop and maintain long-term stable

romantic relationships that are based on trust, interdependence and commitment.

Following this, when compared with their White counterparts, Black participants in

South Africa seem be more likely to experience this struggle. These results may also

reflect this group‘s traditional marriage model – characterised as open, segregated and

polygamous (Bikitsha, 2009; Little, 1973; Smith, 2001; Van der Vliet, 1991).

The second significant finding with regard to lovestyle and the Black respondents was

that Black participants were found to be significantly less agape than the White and

Indian/Asian respondents (Tables 6.97 and 6.98). This is not surprising in view of the

above significant ludus finding. Agape and ludus are generally characterised by

491

contradictory qualities and behaviours. Where ludus seeks to avoid commitment by

controlling emotional commitment, agape controls emotional commitment in order to

attain commitment. Where ludus sees romantic love as a playful non committal game,

agape sees it as a powerful, intense and rare gift to be cherished. Researchers have

found that agapic attitudes correlated positively with relationship rewards, quality and

satisfaction (Contreras et al., 1996; Davis & Latty-Mann, 1987; Hendrick & Hendrick,

1986; Hendrick, Hendrick & Adler, 1988; Mallandain & Davies, 1994; Marrow, Clark &

Brock, 1995; Montgomery & Sorell, 1997; Rudnick, 1997; Sokolski & Hendrick, 1999). It

was established that agape lovestyles were positively correlated with high levels of

Sternberg‘s intimacy, commitment and passion; positively correlated with secure

attachment style (trusting and stable); and negatively correlated with avoidant

attachment style (detached and unresponsive) (Feeney, 1999; Hendrick & Hendrick,

1989). It is conceivable that this study‘s significant ludic and agapic results in the Black

group, as well as the high proportions of single Black South Africans, dovetail with

Montgomery and Sorell‘s (1997) findings that single people held the strong ludic

attitudes and weak agapic attitudes.

In sum, although the Black South African group valued romance, passionate erotic love

and being in love, they were the second least likely to marry someone they love when

compared to other ethnic groups. In addition, they were equally likely to exhibit secure,

dismissing and fearful attachment styles while they were significantly the most ludic and

least agape when compared with other ethnic groups. This suggests that in comparison

to the other ethnic groups a higher proportion of this group tends to struggle to develop,

cultivate and maintain long-term stable romantic relationships that are based on trust,

interdependence and commitment. Overall, this group seemed to hold a mixture of

individualistic and collectivistic values and beliefs with regard to matters of the heart as

compared with the other groups with Black females leaning more towards individualistic

values and beliefs and Black men towards collectivistic ones.

492

7.2.3.7.2. White group

In line with what was expected of this traditionally individualistic culture the White group

were the most likely to be in love, the most likely to marry someone they loved, have a

secure attachment style and the most likely to endorse the passionate and intense eros

lovestyle as their dominant lovestyle (followed by agape and storge). These South

African results confirm previous findings that eros, agape and secure attachment are

associated (Feeney, 1999).

With regards to significant findings, this study established that White participants were

significantly less ludus than their Black counterparts, significantly less pragma than the

Indian/Asian participants, and significantly more agape than the Black respondents.

Therefore, the White group were less likely than their Black counterparts to treat

romantic love like a non committal game, and they were less likely than their

Indian/Asian peers to be deliberate, calculated and practical about love. These results

verify the differences between individualistic and collectivistic societies. Previous

studies established that individuals from individualistic societies endorsed pragma and

ludus less than collectivistic societies do (Cho & Cross, 1995; Goodwin & Findlay, 1997;

Hendrick & Hendrick, 1986; Neto, 2000, 2007).

The majority of the White group endorsed the secure attachment style the most

strongly. According to Simpson (1990), in his longitudinal study secure attachment

styles were associated with interdependence, commitment, trust, and satisfaction in a

romantic relationship. These adults are characterised by being able to not only give and

receive care comfortably and appropriately but also respond to cues from their partner

as to when and how care should be given (Shaver & Hazan, 1988; Simpson et al.,

1992). Secure adults had longer and more committed romantic relationships when

compared with insecure adults (Hazan & Shaver, 1987). Therefore the majority of White

South Africans will experience committed, satisfying and long-term relationships.

Perhaps the reason for this is because historically the White populace was the most

financially advantaged cultural group in South Africa and consequently has been

493

subjected to the least stress. According to Schmitt et al. (2004), those from social

contexts with lower stress tended to develop more secure attachment styles. This

confirms the finding that White participants were significantly more likely to fall in the

upper income group when compared with their Black, Coloured and Indian/Asian

counterparts. Similar to previous findings, even though most males and females were

securely attached, more White males endorsed the independent and self-sufficient

dismissing attachment style in comparison with their female counterparts, whereas

more White females endorsed the dependent demanding preoccupied attachment style

as compared to their male counterparts (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991).

It was expected that the higher the individual‘s socioeconomic status the more likely

they were to stem from an individualistic society and the more likely they were able to

adopt the freedom and luxury of a romantic approach to love as well as to experience

the freedom to choose to marry someone with whom they were in love. The South

African sample confirmed this expectation. The White group was significantly more

likely to fall in the upper income group and its members were also the most likely to be

in love at the time of the study, the most likely to be the intense passionate erotic lover

as well as the most likely to marry someone whom they loved.

In sum, the White group, as compared with the other ethnic groups, valued passionate,

selfless love; they were most likely to marry someone they loved while the majority of

this group were capable of developing, and maintaining committed, satisfying and long-

term relationships. Overall, this group appeared to hold the most individualistic values

and beliefs with regard to romantic love, when compared with the other groups.

7.2.3.7.3. Coloured group

At the time of the study, the proportion of Coloured participants who were in love was

very similar to that of the White and Black respondents. The Coloured participants were

the second most likely to marry someone they loved when compared with the other

494

cultural groups. As a group, their most endorsed dominant lovestyle was eros (followed

by agape and storge). These findings suggest that the Coloured group adopts a more

Western individualistic approach to intimate relationships in which erotic, intense

passionate love and romanticism are important ingredients when dating as well as when

selecting a mate for marriage.

The majority of the Coloured group endorsed the secure attachment style the most

strongly, which indicates that the majority of Coloured people have the ability to develop

and cultivate long-term satisfying relationships. Perhaps this occurs because they have

been subjected to relatively less stress than their Black counterparts since ―[h]istorically,

poorer coloured people, mainly in urban areas, were privileged in relations to Africans with

regard to certain categories of work; the provision of higher levels of access to education

and health services; the provision of unemployment benefits that emerged from being part

of the recognised / ‘legal‘ labour force; the provision of housing infrastructure (both

buildings and services) and the extension of a range of welfare services such as disability

grants, (higher) state pensions, maintenance grants, amongst others‖ (Erasmus &

Pieterse, 1999, p. 173). Although most Coloured males and females were securely

attached, more insecurely attached Coloured males were found to be predominantly

fearfully attached as compared with their female counterparts while more insecurely

attached Coloured females, in line with previous cross cultural studies (Bartholomew &

Horowitz, 1991), endorsed the dependent preoccupied attachment style in comparison

to their male counterparts. In other words, some Coloured male and females struggle to

develop satisfying long-term relationships because the Coloured males tend to be highly

dependent but avoid intimacy and closeness in order to circumvent loss of separation or

rejection; whereas the Coloured females seek self worth through extreme closeness

and over-investment in personal relationships.

In sum, the Coloured group, when compared with the other cultural groups, valued

passionate love as well as being in love. They were more likely to marry someone they

loved than their Black and Indian/Asian peers and the majority were capable of

developing, and maintaining committed, satisfying and long-term relationships. Overall,

495

this group, although not as strong as the White group, also seemed to hold more

individualistic values and beliefs with regard to romantic love when compared with the

other groups.

7.2.3.7.4. Indian/Asian group

In line with expectations of this traditionally collectivistic culture the Indian/Asian group

were the least likely to be in love, the least likely to marry someone they loved, and the

most likely to endorse the intense, dutiful and selfless agape lovestyle as their dominant

lovestyle (followed by eros and storge). These findings confirm that passionate,

romantic love is not as important in traditionally collectivistic societies as it is in

traditionally individualistic societies. This premise is verified by the significant lovestyle

findings in this study: that the Indian/Asian group indicated a significantly more practical,

deliberate pragma lovestyle than the White participants, and significantly more selfless

agape lovestyle than the Black respondents. Previous studies found that individuals

from collectivistic societies endorsed pragma, agape and storge more than

individualistic societies (Cho & Cross, 1995; Goodwin & Findlay, 1997; Hendrick &

Hendrick, 1986; Neto, 2000, 2007). These results are not surprising because, unlike the

Western worldview which emphasises the individualised self who strives for its

autonomy and actualisation, the Eastern worldview emphasises the contextualised self

which consists of 1) a familial self or the ‗we-centered self‘ which is fostered in mutual

symbiotic interpersonal relationships; and 2) a spiritual self which is fostered in the

transcendent relationships (Viljoen, 2002b). Viljoen (2002b) clarifies that the Eastern

worldview does not negate individuality or actualisation of the self but instead it

emphasises actualisation of the self as the ‗transcendence of the self‘ rather than the

‗extension of the self‘. Perhaps this is why the Indian/Asian group scored high on

individualism and collectivism when exploring the cross-cultural findings from the

Auckland Individualism and Collectivism Questionnaire.

496

In comparison with women from the other cultural groups the Indian/Asian females were

the least likely to be in love and were significantly more likely to marry someone they did

not love when compared to females from other racial groups. Perhaps this is because

traditionally relationships and social interaction are regulated by the disciplined patriarchal

extended family where the traditional male authority is emphasised (Joyce, 2005). A South

African Indian study was undertaken by Dinna (2005) to establish differences in marital

satisfaction between autonomous, love marriages and arranged marriages. It was

discovered that couples in love relationships reported slightly higher levels of marital

satisfaction when compared with couples whose marriages had been arranged.

The majority of the Indian/Asian group endorsed the secure attachment style the most

strongly and therefore possess the ability to cultivate and develop satisfying romantic

relationships. Perhaps this is so because historically the Indian society has been unified

and prosperous with a high proportion of professionals and entrepreneurs (Joyce, 2005)

and consequently has been subjected to less stress when compared with the Black

counterparts. As in previous findings more insecurely attached Indian/Asian males

endorsed the independent, self-sufficient dismissing attachment style when compared

with their female counterparts, whereas more insecurely attached Indian/Asian females

endorsed the dependent preoccupied attachment style in comparison with their male

counterparts (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991).

The Indian/Asian group were found to score high regarding the individualism and

collectivistic continuum when answering the Auckland Individualism Collectivism

Questionnaire, perhaps indicating that they straddle both dimensions as well as

showing cultural flexibility. When compared with the other cultural groups, they were

also found to hold more collectivistic views on most of the love measures than the other

groups. This may point to the possibility that this group has developed bicultural

identities. Perhaps individuals who stem from a traditional collectivistic society but who

are under the sway of globalisation negotiate these bicultural identities in unique ways.

It is conceivable that for the South African Indian/Asian young adult their public or global

identity takes on a more individualistic accent while the internal, private, local identity

497

maintains a more collectivistic tone. This possibly demonstrates that although

globalisation is profoundly impacting cultural identities, the perseverance and

pervasiveness of local cultural values and beliefs appear to be maintained as a nucleus.

Perhaps cultural identity, like the layers of an onion, possesses a public, outer layer that

is being shaped by global culture and an internal and private core identity that is being

shaped primarily by local culture. Conceivably, for the Indian/Asian individual it is this

internal core that directs notions of love, marriage and mate selection.

In sum, the Indian/Asian group, when compared with the other ethnic groups, valued

passionate love as well as being in love the least. They were more likely to endorse a

practical lovestyle and they were more likely to marry someone whom they did not love

than their White, Black and Indian/Asian peers. The majority of this group was securely

attached and therefore most were capable of developing, and maintaining committed,

satisfying and long-term relationships. Overall, this group seemed to hold the most

collectivistic values and beliefs with regard to romantic love as compared with the other

groups.

7.2.3.7.5. Summary of key findings by race

To conclude, it was observed that, across cultural groups, revealing trends that can be

explained via the individualism-collectivism continuum or globalisation emerged.

However, overall, the South African cultural groups are relatively similar across the love

measures. They exhibited similar proportions of being in love at the time of the study,

similar levels of romanticism and similar proportions of attachment styles. The three

most endorsed lovestyles in all four cultural groups were eros, agape and storge. The

Black, White and Coloured groups endorsed eros as their dominant lovestyle, followed

by agape and thereafter storge for the White and Coloured groups, and storge and

thereafter agape for the Black group. The participants in the Indian/Asian group endorse

agape as their dominant lovestyle, followed by eros and storge.

498

The significant differences, upon comparing cultural groups, appeared in the importance

of love as a basis for marriage where South African Indian/Asian participants were

significantly more likely to marry someone whom they did not love, while White

participants were significantly less likely to do so; and in lovestyles where: 1) the Black

participants were significantly more ludus than the White participants, 2) the

Indian/Asian participants were significantly more pragma than the White participants,

and 3) the White and Indian/Asian respondents were significantly more agape than the

Black respondents.

Upon examining race by gender differences this study found that Black males were

significantly more likely to marry someone whom they did not love while White males

were significantly more likely to insist on marrying someone whom they love when

compared with their male counterparts from other racial groups. Similarly, Indian/Asian

women were more likely to marry someone they did not love when compared to their

female peers from other racial groups

When investigating gender within race differences the study established that White

females where significantly more likely to be in love relative to White males whereas

Black males were significantly more likely to marry someone whom they did not love

than Black females.

Finally, when exploring the interaction effect between race and gender it was found that

Black women and Indian men scored high on romanticism relative to the White men,

White women, Black men, and Indian women. In addition, for the White and Coloured

groups the difference in romanticism scores between men and women was small,

whereas for the Black and Indian groups clear differences could be observed.

7.2.3.8. Summary of key love findings by gender

South African women were significantly more likely to be in love than South African men

while they are also marginally more likely to be more romantic than their male

499

counterparts. When investigating whether men or women were more likely to marry than

women or men, no profound gender differences were observed. This confirms previous

findings (Levine et al., 1995; Simpson et al., 1986; Sprecher et al., 1994; Sprecher &

Toro-Morn, 2002). Although both genders revealed relatively similar proportions in

terms of secure attachment style, a trend, similar to that of previous findings, showed

that insecurely attached females were found to be more preoccupied when compared

with insecurely attached males, while insecurely attached men were found to be more

dismissing and fearful when compared with insecurely attached females (Bartholomew

& Horowitz, 1991; Brennan et al., 1991). Upon examining the gender differences in

lovestyles it was established that men endorsed agape and ludus as their dominant

lovestyles, whereas women endorsed eros, storge and pragma as their dominant

lovestyles. This substantiates previous findings (Dion & Dion, 1993a; Hendrick &

Hendrick, 1986; Hendrick et al., 1998; Lacey et al., 2004; Morrow et al., 1995; Neto,

2007; Pavlou, 2005; Sprecher et al., 1994; Sprecher & Toro-Morn, 2002; Yancy &

Berglass, 1991). South African men were found to be significantly more game playing

ludus than South African women while South African women were significantly more

friendship orientated storge than South African men.

In sum, although most men and women are securely attached and are therefore

comfortable with intimacy as well as independence in a romantic relationship, there is a

tendency for a greater proportion of the insecure men to be more dismissing and a

greater proportion of the insecure women to be more preoccupied. In other words,

insecurely attached South African men are less focused on being in love and have a

tendency to value independence and self-reliance and to avoid intimacy and closeness

in order to circumvent the pain of potential or expected loss or rejection; consequently, it

is not surprising that the men are significantly more likely to adopt the game-playing

uncommitted ludus lovestyle. South African women on the other hand place a premium

on love; they tend to seek closeness, be dependent and invest in relationships; and

therefore it is not surprising that South African women were significantly more storge

than South African men. It seems that the men and women who are insecure indicate

different desires or expectations with regards to love.

500

7.2.3.9. Comparing love measures

7.2.3.9.1. Love measures and lovestyles

From a theoretical perspective, as regards which people displaying the dominant six

lovestyles were the most likely to be in love at the time of the study it was expected

that eros, who is supposed to value the intensity of love, would be the most likely to be

in love; and game-playing, non-committal ludus, who lacks the fire and passion of the

eros, would be the least likely to be in love. The friendship based storge lovestyle and

the practical lovestyle of pragma were expected not to differ from one another. Finally,

predictions for the obsessive mania and the selfless agape were uncertain. As

expected, in this study the researcher found that individuals with an eros lovestyle

(69.7%), more than those of any other lovestyle, were the most likely to be in love at the

time of the study. This result concurs with the finding of Hendrick and Hendrick (1986).

It also substantiates Lee‘s (1976) theory that erotic individuals have the fire of intense

and urgent passionate love for the ideal beloved.

Interestingly, the eros lovestyle was closely followed by agape (66.7%) and mania

(66.7%). This may be explained by the fact that both mania and agape are a blend of

eros and therefore may retain some of the passionate love of eros (Lee, 1976). The

mania lovestyle is a blend of eros and ludus: the manic lover yearns for passionate

intense love to maintain self-worth (Lee, 1976). The agape lovestyle is a blend of storge

and eros; Lee (1976) describes agape love as dutiful, selfless and giving as well as

intense and powerful. In addition, both agape and mania lovestyles are focused on the

beloved – with mania idealising the other and agape being of service to the other.

Therefore, it is perhaps conceivable that a reasonable proportion of these mania and

agape individuals would be in love at the time of the study. As expected, the storge

(55.6%) and pragma (55.3%) individuals did not differ from each other and were less

likely than people displaying eros, mania and agape to be in love at time of the study.

This corroborates the theory that neither storge, which is characterised by a slow

501

developing friendship, nor pragma, which is characterised by a practical, pragmatic,

logical and calculated type of love, have the fire and intensity of passionate love.

Concurring with Hendrick and Hendrick‘s (1986) findings, in the South African sample,

the game playing ludus lovestyle (16.7%) was significantly less likely to be in love at the

time of the study than any other lovestyle. This finding also substantiates Lee‘s (1976)

theory that ludic individuals do not have the fire of passionate love; instead they have

the playfulness of game-playing and non-committal love – where many rather than the

‗one and only‘ is the goal in intimate relationships. Whilst the other lovestyles seek

committed long-term relationships, the ludic lover actively avoids them. Eros, storge and

agape lovers seek committed long-term relationships with partners whom they love, and

although pragma and mania lovers also seek committed long-term relationships their

motivations are somewhat different. Manic lovers experience a desperate need to be in

love in order to feed their self-worth. Like the ludic lover, they have a tendency to

believe anyone will do – they are more focused on being loved by the idealised other

rather than loving. The pragma lover on the other hand is similar to the ludic lover in that

he or she is detached, calculated and controlled in assessing possible mates; they do

not rely on emotions (like love) to make their decision. In addition, perhaps because

mania and pragma are in part a blend of ludus they may not be as different from ludus

as eros, storge and agape.

When predicting which individuals exhibiting the dominant six lovestyles was most likely

to marry for love, the expected outcomes were eros, the most likely, ludus the least

likely, little difference between storge and pragma, and uncertain prediction for mania

and agape. The researcher of this study found that individuals with an agape (89.8%)

and eros (87.9%) lovestyles were significantly more likely to marry someone whom they

love than those with other lovestyles as reflected in the theories discussed above. The

ludus lovestyle also followed the expected course in that they were significantly more

likely to marry someone whom they did not love than those with other lovestyles. This

too is reflective of the theory in that love is perceived as a game for the ludic person.

The storge (75%) individual was more likely to marry someone they loved than their

502

pragma (65.8%) peers. Conceivably this is because although the storge individual is

more comfortable with a slow developing friendship, this friendship nonetheless

develops into a strong, stable, companionate love which becomes an important

ingredient in the decision to marry the beloved. The pragma individual, on the other

hand, is less focused on romantic love and instead values a partner who fits specific

compatibility criteria that will ensure a workable marriage. It seems that for the pragma

lover stability is more of a priority than the intensity and excitement of passionate love.

There was little difference between the percentage of the pragma (65.8%) and mania

(62.5%) individuals who would marry someone whom they love. Perhaps it is because

the mania lovestyle seeks to be loved and taken care of, rather than loving the other,

that a lower proportion of them will prioritise marrying someone they love. As expected,

the game playing ludus lovestyle (50%) was the least likely to marry someone they love.

It was found that the ludus and pragma participants were significantly more likely to

marry someone with whom they were not in love when compared with participants with

other dominant lovestyles. This too fits the theory (Lee, 1976); in that both these

lovestyles adopt a detached, controlled, calculated and deliberate approach to love.

Perhaps the differences between lovestyles rest on the emotion of love: the erotic and

agapic lover prioritise love for the beloved in their romantic relationships and decisions

to marry whereas the ludic and pragmatic lovers are detached, calculated and

controlled in their intimate relations and do not allow emotions such as love to influence

their decision about whom they should marry

Predictions for the importance of love in the maintenance of marriage were

uncertain but it was conceivable that they would be similar to the expected outcomes

mentioned. The researcher observed no significant differences between the lovestyles

and whether individuals agreed or disagreed with the statement: ―If love has completely


break and start new lives‖. Similarly, no significant differences emerged between the

lovestyles and whether individuals agreed or disagreed with the statement: ―In my

503

opinion, the disappearance of love is not a sufficient reason for ending a marriage and

should not be viewed as such‖.

From a theoretical perspective it is conceivable that those employing the eros lovestyle

who value an honest, passionate, intense and intimate relationship with the ideal

beloved would be the most romantic of the lovestyles, while the playful, non-committal,

game-playing ludus lovestyle would be the least romantic. Storge and pragma are

expected to have similar levels of romanticism. It was uncertain what the mania and

agape individuals would score on romanticism. The researcher found that the more

romantic individuals were, the more eros and agape they were. This verifies the theory

that for both these lovestyles intense and powerful love is important. The game-playing

ludus lovestyle followed the theory (Lee, 1976) that the less romantic an individual the

more ludus they were. As expected, the relationship between romanticism, and mania,

storge and pragma was not as strong as it was for eros and agape; however, the more

romantic an individual the more mania, storge and pragma they were. The study

established that individuals with an agape lovestyle were significantly more likely to be

romantic than individuals with a storge lovestyle. Perhaps this is because agape is a

more passionate selfless lovestyle when compared to the more muted friendship based

storge love.

Although most previous studies comparing lovestyles and attachment styles utilise the

three categories of attachment (secure, anxious and avoidant), these studies can be

used for comparisons in the current study because of their strong similarities. Upon

comparing Hazan and Shaver‘s (1987) original three adult attachment styles with

Bartholomew‘s (1990) four attachment patterns, it is apparent that they concur fairly

closely: secure with secure, ambivalent with preoccupied and avoidant with dismissing.

In the South African sample it was observed that individuals with the passionate eros

lovestyle were significantly more likely to display a secure attachment style and

significantly less likely to experience a dismissing or fearful attachment style.

Consequently, the confident, self-assured eros individual is more likely to be

comfortable with intimacy and independence in close relationships, is able to resolve

conflict constructively, is more likely to possess an ability to form and maintain close

504

intimate bonds with others without losing a sense of self, and enjoys an internalised

sense of self worth (Bartholomew et al., 2001; Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994b). The

South African finding corroborates Hendrick and Hendrick‘s (1989) findings that eros

was positively correlated with the secure attachment style and negatively correlated with

avoidant attachment style (detached and unresponsive).

The South African individuals with a ludus lovestyle were significantly more likely to

possess a dismissing or fearful attachment style and were significantly less likely to

display a secure or preoccupied one. Therefore ludus individuals were more likely to

possess either a 1) dismissing attachment style which is characterised by the

importance of independence and self-reliance, shunning and avoiding intimacy with

others, downplaying, devaluing and denying the importance of relationships; or 2) a

fearful attachment style which is characterised by high attachment anxiety, a struggle to

make their needs known within the relationship, being dependent on others for the

validation of their low self-worth, and avoiding intimacy and closeness to circumvent the

pain of potential or expected loss or rejection (Bartholomew et al., 2001; Griffin &

Bartholomew, 1994b). This, once again, confirms Hendrick and Hendrick‘s (1989)

findings that ludus is negatively correlated with secure attachment style and positively

correlated with avoidant attachment style. Hendrick and Hendrick (1989) also reported

that pragma was positively related to an avoidant attachment style; this, however, was

not the case for the South African sample. In a recent study Fricker (2006) echoes

similar findings when she establishes that high scores regarding avoidance were

associated with high ludus, and low eros and agape levels.

Individuals with a mania lovestyle were significantly more likely to have a preoccupied

or fearful attachment style and were significantly less likely to adopt a secure or a

dismissing attachment style. Therefore the individuals with a mania lovestyle are more

likely to be 1) preoccupied attached, which is characterised by being more dependent,

preoccupied, seeking validation of their precarious self-worth through extreme

closeness and over investment in personal relationships, 2) or fearful attached, which is

characterised as described above (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Bartholomew et al.,

505

2001; Griffin & Bartholomew, 1994b)., Once again, this correlates somewhat with

Hendrick and Hendrick‘s (1989) findings that mania was positively related to ambivalent

attachment style (anxious and uncertain). Fricker (2006), in a more recent study,

echoes this finding when she establishes that anxious attachment was positively

correlated with mania.

7.2.3.9.2. Integration of love types

The eros and agape individuals in this South African population appear to be strongly

aligned. Both were relatively equal in being the most likely to be in love at the time of

the study, more likely to marry for love, more romantic, more likely to have secure

attachment styles and less likely to have a dismissing or fearful attachment style when

compared to other lovestyles. When one refers to the possible intersections and points

of commonality and agreement between types of love derived from the various love

theories outlined in the literature review (section 2.11 and Table 2.10), it is clear that

although there are some differences between the passionate, intense eros love and the

selfless, intense and powerful agape love, there are also clear parallels. Freud (1905,

1915) might suggest that both South African eros and agape individuals possess the

capacity to enjoy an enduring relationship but that agape is not as capable of achieving

―happy love" as eros is. Similarly, Fromm (1956) may advocate that individuals with

either of these lovestyles have the ability to achieve mature love but that the eros

lovestyle also enjoys the ability to achieve erotic love. Attachment theorists may

recognise that both these lovestyles are securely attached (Bartholomew, 1990;

Bowlby, 1969; Ainsworth et al., 1978; Hazan & Shaver, 1987) while research confirms a

strong association between eros, agape and a secure attachment style (Feeney, 1999).

The interdependence theorists may suggest that both eros and agape will employ long-

term communal exchanges and will also engage in cognitive and behavioural

maintenance mechanisms (Clark & Mills, 1979; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Mills & Clark,

1994, 2001; Rusbult, 1983). Finally, evolutionary theorists may propose that both eros

506

and agape will employ a long-term ―domestic bliss strategy‖ (Buss, 1988, 1999, 2003,

2004).

Ludus, in this study, was found to be the least likely to be in love at the time of the

study, least likely to marry for love, least romantic and more likely to possess dismissing

or fearful attachment styles, while less likely to enjoy a secure or preoccupied

attachment style when compared to other lovestyles. When referring to section 2.11 and

Table 2.10, people with the game-playing and noncommittal ludus lovestyle appear to

struggle to achieve satisfaction, happiness and comfort in the realm of a romantic

intimate long-term relationship. Freud (1905, 1912, 1915, 1925) may propose that South

African ludus individuals do not possess the capacity to enjoy an enduring relationship

and will instead be burdened with neurotic love and an unresolved Oedipal complex.

Conceivably Fromm (1956) would identify the ludic individual as having a neurotic

disturbance of love; an infantile relatedness to the mother and or the father; and an

inability to achieve mature love, erotic love or self love. Attachment theorists may

advocate that ludus lovestyles are insecurely attached (Bartholomew, 1990; Bowlby,

1969; Ainsworth et al., 1978; Hazan & Shaver, 1987) while research confirms a strong

association between ludus and an insecure dismissing / avoidant attachment style

(Feeney, 1999, Fricker, 2006). The interdependence theorists may suggest that ludus

will employ short-term exchange relationships and will avoid engaging in cognitive and

behavioural maintenance mechanisms (Clark & Mills, 1979; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978;

Mills & Clark, 1994, 2001; Rusbult, 1983). Finally, evolutionary theorists may propose

that ludic men will more than likely adopt a short-term ―he-man strategy‖, whereas ludic

women will likely adopt a short-term ―sexy-sons strategy‖ (Buss, 1988, 1999, 2003,

2004).

This study established that storge and pragma were relatively similar and followed the

same direction as the eros and agape lovestyles but to a lesser extent: they were more

likely to be in love at the time of the study, more likely to marry for love, more romantic

than ludus but less so than eros and agape. The storge lovestyle was more likely to

marry for love than its pragma peers. If one refers to section 2.11 and Table 2.10,

507

friendship-based storge lovestyle seems be a healthier love type than the practical

pragma lovestyle. Freud (1905, 1914, 1915) may suggest that South African storge

individuals possess the capacity to achieve ―happy love‖ and to have an enduring

relationship but that pragma will not be as successful because of their tendency toward

a more narcissistic model of love. Fromm (1956) could propose that storge possesses

the ability to achieve mature love but not necessarily erotic love and that pragma is

characterised by ‗personality package‘ immature love. Attachment theorists may

advocate that storge is securely attached, whereas pragma displays a more avoidantly /

dismissing attachment style (Bartholomew, 1990; Bowlby, 1969; Ainsworth et al., 1978;

Hazan & Shaver, 1987); research confirms a positive correlation between pragma and

an avoidant attachment style (Hendrick & Hendrick, 1989). The interdependence

theorists may suggest that both storge and pragma will employ long-term communal

exchanges and will also engage in cognitive and behavioural maintenance mechanisms

but that pragma does so more consciously and deliberately (Clark & Mills, 1979; Kelley

& Thibaut, 1978; Mills & Clark, 1994, 2001; Rusbult, 1983). Finally, evolutionary

theorists may advocate that both storge and pragma will adopt a long-term ―domestic

bliss strategy‖ (Buss, 1988, 1999, 2003, 2004).

The South African mania individuals in this study were more likely to be in love at the

time of the study than ludus, pragma and storge but less so than eros and agape; more

likely to marry for love than ludus but less likely to do so than eros, agape, storge and

pragma; more romantic than ludus yet less romantic than eros and agape; and more

likely to possess a preoccupied or fearful attachment style as well as significantly less

likely to employ a secure or a dismissing attachment style when compared with other

lovestyles. Like the ludic lovestyle, in reference to section 2.11 and Table 2.10, the

obsessive mania individual appears to struggle to achieve satisfaction, happiness and

stability in the realm of a romantic intimate long-term relationship. Freud (1905, 1912,

1914, 1925) may advocate that South African mania individuals do not possess the

capacity to enjoy an enduring relationship but will instead be encumbered with neurotic

love, an unresolved Oedipal complex and a narcissistic model of love. Perhaps Fromm

(1956) would recognise the mania individual as having a neurotic disturbance with

508

respect to love; an infantile relatedness to the mother and or the father; and an inability

to achieve mature love, erotic love or self love. Attachment theorists may propose that

mania lovestyles are insecurely attached (Bartholomew, 1990; Bowlby, 1969; Ainsworth

et al., 1978; Hazan & Shaver, 1987); research indeed confirms a strong association

between ludus and an insecure anxious / preoccupied attachment style (Feeney, 1999,

Fricker, 2006; Hendrick & Hendrick, 1989). The interdependence theorists may suggest

that mania will employ long-term communal exchanges at the expense of their own

needs and may over-engage in cognitive and behavioural maintenance mechanisms

(Clark & Mills, 1979; Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Mills & Clark, 1994, 2001; Rusbult, 1983).

Finally, evolutionary theorists may propose that mania individuals will more than likely

default to adopting a short-term sexual strategy (Buss, 1988, 1999, 2003, 2004).

In sum, in this study, the researcher‘s findings across love measures revealed

predictable patterns of intersections between love measures.

7.3 Limitations of the current study

While it is important to conduct cross-cultural research, the process is not without its

problems. There are several limitations and issues stemming from the current study that

warrant mention and discussion. Firstly, as with all cross-cultural studies, comparability

of meaning across cultural samples was a limitation of this study. This is particularly true

when utilising Western instruments developed in the United States. Factor analysis was

conducted in this study in order to circumvent this limitation and to ensure comparability

of meaning. Nonetheless this remains a challenge because the instruments employed

were Western; consequently unique beliefs about African, Coloured and Eastern love

may have been missed.

A second limitation was that the participants were recruited from a mature student

population and were therefore not necessarily representative of South Africa‘s larger

adult population. Individuals at different ages, life stages, relationship stages, family life

stages, marital status and social backgrounds may have generated interesting and

509

possibly alternative findings, which might have provided a richer understanding of how

South Africans conceptualise romantic love. In addition, it could be argued that the

university sample in general could be viewed as the ―elite‖ of South Africa as well as

being more likely to have been exposed to globalisation and can therefore not be

generalised to other young adults not at university. It might also be argued that as a

subculture, Black, White, Coloured and Indian/Asian university students are more

homogeneous and similar to each other because of the impact of vertical globalisation

and socioeconomic status than their respective Black, White, Coloured and Indian/Asian

rural or low socioeconomic status counterparts (Alexander, 2006; Arnett, 2002; Husted,

2003). Although the overall sample size was satisfactory (395), when divided into racial

groups the sample size was fairly small (Black =110, White = 113, Coloured = 82 and

Indian/Asian = 82); thus the findings should be considered tentative and exploratory.

A third limitation was that the study rests on a global self-report survey. Perhaps future

research that utilises peer and partner love attitudes will yield more fertile

understandings.

According to Hendrick and Hendrick (1989), LAS has been ―criticised for not measuring

love at all, but rather some combination of love constructs and non-love constructs‖ (p.

792). Should there be truth in this criticism, it would serve as a fourth limitation to this

study.

A possible fifth limitation is that the individualism-collectivism instruments employed

were not sufficiently sensitive to pick up on the nuances and subtleties that exist in this

dimension when investigating romantic love. Or perhaps these instruments need to be

further developed in order to differentiate between, and the extent of, bicultural

identities.

Finally, the fact that race is utilised synonymously with culture can be viewed as a

limitation to this study.

510

7.4 Recommendations – Future Research

A research endeavour can investigate only a limited segment of a phenomenon.

Although this investigation furnishes a fruitful starting point for unravelling how South

Africans conceptualise romantic love across broad cultural groups, further research

could lead in many rich and fruitful directions. Firstly, it would be very useful and

informative to obtain a sample that is representative of the entire South African

population – a broad spectrum of South Africa‘s melting pot of racial and cultural groups

across age, marital status, life stages, education, socioeconomic status, geographic

location and sexual orientation.

Secondly, a longitudinal study may highlight continuity or change of love experiences,

attitudes around love and marriage, romanticism, attachment styles and lovestyles over

lifespan and circumstances. Thirdly, this study could be replicated across universities in

Africa to encompass a full African cross-cultural research endeavour, with the view of

teasing out the nuances and subtleties of the continent‘s conceptualisation of and

attitudes toward romantic love. Fourthly, perhaps the effect of the partner‘s attitude on

an individual‘s conceptualisation of love might produce interesting findings.

Fifthly, the scales and measures employed were originally developed by primarily

American theorists; it is possible that by collaborating with other cross-cultural

researchers and by devising measures that are more appropriate for the diverse South

African cultures, fresh and more nuanced results may emerge when testing future love

hypotheses. In addition, conceivably an attachment scale that takes into account the

fact that few individuals show a purely prototypical attachment style and also

conceptualises attachment in terms of dimensions rather than styles (Bartholomew et

al., 2001; Fraley & Waller, 1998) may yield more accurate findings.

Sixthly, possibly vertical globalisation could be more clearly identified by undertaking a

study of South African young adults that compares urban, university students from

511

middle and upper classes with their rural, less educated, lower socioeconomic status

racial / cultural counterparts. Finally, by adding a qualitative section to the study, this

may yield a more nuanced understanding of how love is conceptualised across cultural

groups in South Africa.

7.5 Contribution of the study

The significance of the study consists of a number of elements. Firstly, it added

knowledge to the sparse research pool with regards to ―how South Africans

conceptualise romantic love across cultures‖. It attests to the complexity of romantic

love and the importance of considering gender and cultural differences and similarities

in order to gain a more complete understanding. Secondly, the study added insight and

psychological understanding of South African cross-cultural love nuances, needs,

experiences and beliefs. Thirdly, owing to the additional knowledge, insight and

understanding gained as regards the inner workings of romantic love amongst young

South Africans, it opens avenues of therapeutic intervention in couple counselling

situations with regards to dating and married couples as well as therapeutic intervention

in averting and managing the HIV / AIDS pandemic in this vulnerable and high risk

group of individuals. For example, an individual with a ludus lovestyle will be at greater

risk to contracting HIV due to their preference for multiple partners.

Fourthly, the study increases understanding and awareness in order for educators,

researchers and therapists to become culturally sensitive to how young adults from

different cultures understand and accord varied meanings to romantic love. Fifthly, the

four instruments that were subjected to factor analysis can be employed with relative

confidence utilising a South African university sample. Sixthly, the results of the study

were compared with the results of the many similar international studies, thus adding

the South African voice of love to the international body of knowledge regarding

romantic love.

512

Finally, attachment has historically been difficult to measure. The researcher utilised a

combination of methodologies and previous findings (Bartholomew, 1990; Griffith &

Bartholomew, 1994b; Kurdek, 2002; Simpson et al., 1992) as an initial exploratory step

towards measuring attachment in what appears to be a valid and useful manner.

7.6 Concluding remarks

This study attempted to gain greater understanding of the nuances of romantic love

across the four primary cultural groups in South Africa. A thorough love and culture

literature review was undertaken and the results that emerged from this investigation

revealed that both love and culture are nebulous and ever-changing constructs.

Although these constructs can be placed into models, those models need to have the

flexibility to change and undergo metamorphosis as these constructs change. This

study has rendered romantic love more knowable through the integration of the love

theories, it has added to the knowledge of how South Africans experience romantic love

cross-culturally and furnished greater clarity concerning the subtle nuances that exist

cross-culturally. Consequently, this study has certainly contributed to the academic

body of knowledge. However, love is greater than the sum of its academic and

researchable parts: it also embodies an ethereal and mysterious component that is

difficult to capture academically. The question remains: is it possible to gain absolute

knowledge and a holistic integration regarding a subject that by its very nature resists

being known in its totality?

513

References

Abraham, K. (1925). Character formation on the genital level of libido. In selected

papers on psychoanalysis (pp 407-417). London: Hogarth Press.

Adhikari, M. (2005). Not white enough, not black enough: Racial identity in the South

African Coloured community. Cape Town: Double Storey Books.

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of

attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, New Jersey:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

Alexander, P. (2006). Globalisation and new social identities: A jigsaw puzzle from

Johannesburg. In P. Alexander, M.C. Dawson & M. Ichharam (Eds.), Globalisation and

new identities: A view from the middle (pp. 13-65) Johannesburg: Jacana Media.

Allen, J. G., Stein, H., Fonagy, P., Fultz, J., & Target, M. (2005). Rethinking adult

attachment: A study of expert consensus. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 69(1), 59-80.

Altman, L. (1977). Some vicissitudes of love. Journal of the American Psychoanalytical

Association, 25(1), 35-52.

Anderson, H., & Goolishian, H. (1992). The client is the expert: A not-knowing approach

to therapy. In S. McNamee & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Therapy as social construction (pp.

25-39). London: Sage.

Arlow, J. A. (1980). The revenge motive in the primal scene. Journal of the American

Psychoanalytical Association, 28(3), 519-541.

514

Arnett, J. (2001). Adolescence and emerging adulthood: A cultural approach. New York:

Prentice Hall.

Arnett, J. J. (2002). The psychology of globalization. American Psychologist, 57(10),

774-783.

Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R. M. (2005). Social psychology: Media and

research update (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice-Hall.

Ashmore, R. D., & Longo, L. C. (1995). Accuracy of stereotypes: What research on

physical attraction can teach us. In Y-T. Lee, L. J. Jussim & C. R. McCauley (Eds.),

Stereotype accuracy: Toward appreciating group difference (pp. 63-86). Washington

DC: American Psychological Association.

Atkins, R. J. (2003). A bluffer's guide to using self-report adult attachment measures in

your research project. Retrieved June 23, 2008 from the World Wide Web:

http://www.richardatkins.co.uk/atws/page/52.html.

Aube, J., & Koestner, R. (1995). Gender characteristics and relationship adjustment:

Another look at similarity-complementarity hypotheses. Journal of Personality, 63(4),

879-904.

Avis, P., Pauw, A., & Van der Spuy, I. (2000). Psychology perspectives: an introductory

workbook. Parow: Pearson Education South Africa.

Backman, C. (1990). Attraction in interpersonal relationships. In M. Rosenberg & R.

Turner (Eds.), Social psychology: Sociological perspectives (pp. 235-268). New

Brunswick, New York: Transaction.

Bafana, B. (2009, March 20). Mesmerising mistresses. The Mail and Guardian, p. 11.

515

Baize, H. R., & Schroeder, J. E. (1995). Personality and mate selection in personal

advertisements: Evolutionary preferences in a public mate selection process. Journal of

Social Behavior and Personality, 10(3), 517-536.

Barrett, K. C. (2000). The development of the self-in-relationships. In S. L. Mills & S.

Duck (Eds.), The development psychology of personal relationships (pp. 91-108).

Chichester: John Wiley.

Bartels, A., & Zeki, S. (2000). The neural basis of romantic love. NeuroReport, 11, 1-6.

Bartels, A., & Zeki, S. (2004). The neural correlates of maternal and romantic love.

NeuroImage, 21(3), 1155-1166

Bartholomew, K. (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Journal of

Social and Personal Relationships, 7(2), 147-178.

Bartholomew, K. & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A

test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226-

244.

Bartholomew, K., Kwong M. J., & Hart, S. D. (2001). Attachment. In W. J. Livesley (Ed.),

Handbook of personality disorders: Theory, research and treatment (pp. 196-230). New

York: The Guilford Press.

Bartlett, M. S. (1954). A note on the multiplying factors for various chi-square

approximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 16 (Series B), 296-298.

Beall, A. E., & Sternberg, R. J. (1995). The social construction of love. Journal of Social

and Personal Relationships, 12(3), 417-438.

516

Bell, J. (1995). Notions of love and romance among the Taita of Kenya. In W.

Jankowiak (Ed.), Romantic passion (pp. 152-165). New York: Columbia University

Press.

Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting

and Clinical Psychology, 42, 153-162.

Bem, S. L. (1981). Bem Sex Role Inventory: Professional manual. Palo Alto, CA:

Consulting Psychologists Press.

Ben-Ze‘ev, A. (2004). Love online: Emotions on the internet. Cambridge: University

Press.

Bergmann, M. (1980). On the intrapsychic function of falling in love. Psychoanalytical

Quarterly, 49, 56-76.

Bergmann, M. (1987). The anatomy of loving: The story of man’s quest to know what

love is. New York: Columbia University Press.

Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation and adaptation. International Journal of

Applied Psychology, 46, 5-34.

Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (1992). Cross-cultural

psychology: Research and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Berscheid, E. (1988). Some comments on love‘s anatomy: Or, whatever happened to

old-fashioned lust? In R. J. Sternberg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love

(pp. 359-374). New Haven: Yale University Press.

Berscheid, E. (1999). The greening of relationship science. American Psychologist,

54(4), 260-266.

517

Berscheid, E., & Reis, H. T. (1998). Attraction and close relationships. In D.T. Gilbert,

S.T. Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, 4th ed., pp.

193-281). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Berscheid E., & Walster E. (1974). A little bit about love. In T. Huston (Ed.), Foundations

of interpersonal attraction (pp. 355 -381). New York: Academic Press.

Bhawuk, D. P. S. (2008). Globalization and indigenous cultures: Homogenization or

differentiation? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(4), 301-304.

Bhugra, D., & Mastrogianni, A. (2004). Globalisation and mental disorders: Overview

with relation to depression. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 184, 10-20.

Birnbaum, D. (2003). Attachment theory and psychoanalysis. American

Imago, 60(2), 241-246.

Bikitsha, N. (2009, March 20). The second wife‘s wedding. The Mail and Guardian, p.

20.

Blasi, C. H., & Bjorklund, D. F. (2003). Evolutionary developmental psychology: A new

tool for better understanding human ontogeny. Human Development, 46(5), 259-281.

Bogaert, A. F., & Sadava, S. (2002). Adult attachment and sexual behaviour. Personal

Relationships, 9(2), 191-204.

Bond, M. H. (1988). Finding universal dimensions of individual variation in multi-cultural

studies of values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(6), 1009-15.

Borrello, G. M., & Thompson, B. (1990). A note regarding the validity of Lee‘s typology

of love. The Journal of Psychology, 124(6), 639-644.

518

Bowes, B., & Pennington, S. (2003). South Africa: The good news. Johannesburg: The

Good News.

Bowlby, J. (1958). The child‘s tie to his mother: Review of psychoanalytical literature.

Journal of Psychoanalysis, 39, 424-443.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. London: Hogarth.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1979). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. London: Tavistock.

Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss, sadness and depression. New

York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base. New York: Basic Books.

Boyer, P., & Heckhausen, J. (2000). Introductory notes. American Behavioral Scientist,

43, 717-925.

Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult

attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.),

Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46-76). New York: Guilford.

Brennan, K. A., Shaver, P. R. & Tobey, A. E. (1991). Attachment styles, gender, and

parental problem drinking. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8(4), 451-466.

Bretherton, I. (1991). The roots of growing points of attachment theory. In C. M. Parkes,

J. Stevenson-Hinde & P. Marris (Eds.), Attachment across the life cycle (pp. 9 -32).

London: Routledge.

519

Bretherton, I. (1992). The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary

Ainsworth. Developmental Psychology, 28(5), 759-775.

Brehm, S. S., Miller, R. S., Perlman, D., & Campbell, S. M. (2002). Intimate

relationships (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Brindley, M. (1976). Western Coloured township: Problems of an urban slum. Ravan

Press.

Britton, P. C., & Fuendeling, J. M. (2005). The relations among varieties of adult

attachment and the components of empathy. The Journal of Social Psychology, 145(5),

519-530.

Brown, J. (2005). The compelling nature of romantic love: A psychosocial perspective.

Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society, 10(1), 23-43.

Budlender, D., Chobokoane, N., & Simelane, S. (2004). Marriage patterns in South

Africa: Methodological and substantive issues. Southern African Journal of

Demography, 9(1), 1-26.

Bui, K. V. T., Peplau, L. A., & Hill, C. T. (1996). Testing the Rusbult model of

relationship commitment and stability in a 15-year study of heterosexual couples.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(12), 1244-1257.

Burleson, B. R. (1994). Friendship and similarities in social-cognitive and

communicative abilities: Social skill bases of interpersonal attraction in childhood.

Personal Relationships, 1, 371-389.

Burston, D. (1991). The legacy of Erich Fromm. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

javascript:void(0);

/pqdweb?RQT=318&pmid=66078&TS=1236322199&clientId=57200&VInst=PROD&VName=PQD&VType=PQD

520

Buss, D. M. (1988). Love acts: The evolutionary biology of love. In R. J. Sternberg & M.

L. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love (pp. 100-118). New Haven: Yale University

Press.

Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary

hypothesis testing in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12(1), 1-49.

Buss, D. M. (1994). The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York:

Basic Books.

Buss, D. M. (1995). Evolutionary psychology: A new paradigm for psychological

science. Psychological Inquiry, 6(1), 1-30.

Buss, D. M. (1998). Evolutionary psychology. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Buss, D. M. (1999). Adaptive individual differences revisited. Journal of Personality,

67(2), 259-264.

Buss, D. M. (2000). The dangerous passion: Why jealousy is as necessary as love or

sex. London: Bloomsbury.

Buss, D. M. (2003). The evolution of desire. New York: Basic Books.

Buss, D. M. (2004). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind (2nd ed.).

Boston: Pearson.

Buss, D. M., & Dedden, L. A. (1990). Derogation of competitors. Journal of Social and

Personal Relationships, 7(3), 395-422.

521

Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary

perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100(2), 204-232.

Buunk, B. P., & Dijkstra, P. (2000). Extradyadic relationships and jealousy. In C.

Hendrick & S.S. Hendrick (Eds.), Close relationships: A sourcebook (pp. 316-329).

Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Byrne, D. (1997). An overview (and underview) of research and theory within the

attraction paradigm. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14(3), 417-431.

Caplan, P. (1997). African voices, African lives. London: Routledge.

Caporael, L. R. (2001). Evolutionary psychology: Toward a unifying theory and a hybrid

science. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 607-628.

Carver, C. S. (1997). Adult attachment and personality: Converging evidence and a new

measure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(8), 865-883.

Catell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral

Research, 1, 245-276.

Chappell, K. D., & Davis, K. E. (1998). Attachment, partner choice, and perception of

romantic partners: An experimental test of the attachment-security hypothesis. Personal


Chisholm, J. S. (1995). Love‘s contingencies. In W. Jankowiak (Ed.), Romantic passion

(pp. 42-56). New York: Columbia University Press.

Chisholm, J. S. (1996). The evolutionary ecology of attachment organisation. Human

Nature, 7, 1-38.

522

Cho, W., & Cross, S. E. (1995). Taiwanese love styles and their association with self-

esteem and relationship quality. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs,

121(3), 283-309.

Clark, M. S. (1984). Record keeping in two types of relationship. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 47(3), 549-577.

Clark, M. S. (1986). Evidence of the effectiveness of manipulations of communal and

exchange relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12(4), 414-425.

Clark, M. S., & Mills, J. S. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal

relationships. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 37(1), 12-24.

Cohen, J. (2001, January 18). On the internet, love really is blind. New York Times, pp.

E1, E7.

Cohen, J.W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.).

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Collins, N. L. & Read, S. J. (1990). Adult attachment, working models, and relationship

quality in dating couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(4), 644-663.

Contreras, R., Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1996). Perspectives on marital love and

satisfaction in Mexican American and Anglo-American couples. Journal of Counseling

and Development, 74(4), 408-415.

Coontz, S. (2005). What‘s love got to do with it? A brief history of marriage.

Psychotherapy Networker, 29(3), 56-74.

Coontz, S. (2007). The origins of modern divorce. Family Process, 46(1), 7-16.


523

Corey, G. (2005). Theory and practice of counseling and psychotherapy (7th ed.).

Belmont: Brooks/Cole-Thomson Learning.

Cowley, G. (1996, June 3). The biology of beauty. Newsweek, 61-66.

Cox, C. L., Wexler, M. O., Rusbult, C. E., & Gaines, S. O. Jr. (1997). Prescriptive

support and commitment processes in close relationships. Social Psychology, 60(1), 79-

90.

Cunningham, M. R. (1986). Measuring the physical in physical attractiveness: Quasi-

experiments on the sociobiology of female facial beauty. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 50(5), 925-935.

Cunningham, J. D., & Antill, J. H. (1981). Love in developing romantic relationships. In

S. W. Duck & R. Gilmour (Eds.), Personal relationships: vol. 2. Developing personal

relationships (pp. 27-51). New York: Academic Press.

Cunningham, M. R., Barbee, A. P., & Pike, C. L. (1990). What do women want?

Facialmetric assessment of multiple motives in the perception of male facial physical

attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(1), 61-72.

Cunningham, M. R., Roberts, A. R., Wu, C-H, Barbee, A. P., & Druen, P. B. (1995).

Their ideas of beauty are, on the whole, the same as ours: Consistency and variability in

the cross-cultural perception of female attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 68(2), 261-279.

Curtis, R. C., & Miller, K. (1986). Believing another likes or dislikes you: Behaviours

making the beliefs come true. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(2), 284-

290.

524

Davila, J. & Cobb, R. J (2004). Predictors of change in attachment security during

adulthood. In W. S. Rholes & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Adult attachment: Theory, research

and clinical implications (pp.133-156). New York: The Guilford Press.

Davis, H. B. (2003). Erich Fromm and postmodernism. Psychoanalytic Review,

90(6), 839-853.

Davis, K. E. (1985). Near and dear: Friendship and love compared. Psychology Today,

19, 22-30.

Davis, K. E., & Latty-Mann, H. (1987). Love styles and relationship quality: A

contribution to validation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4(4), 409-428.

Dawson, M. C. (2006). Students, activism and identity. In P. Alexander, M. C. Dawson &

M. Ichharam (Eds.), Globalisation and new identities: A view from the middle (pp. 13-65)

Johannesburg: Jacana Media.

Diener, E., & Lucas, R. (2000). Subjective emotional well-being. In M. Lewis & J. M.

Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd ed.) (pp. 325-337). New York: The

Guilford Press.

Dinna, M. (2005). Marital satisfaction in autonomous and arranged marriages: South

African Indian sample. Unpublished MA dissertation. University of Pretoria.

Dion K. L., & Dion K. K. (1988). Romantic love: Individual and cultural perspectives. In

R. J. Sternberg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of love (pp. 264-289). New

Haven: Yale University Press.

Dion, K. L., & Dion, K. K. (1993a). Gender and ethnocultural comparisons in styles of

love. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 17(1993), 463-473.

525

Dion, K. L., & Dion, K. K. (1993b). Individualistic and collectivistic perspectives on

gender and the cultural context of love and intimacy. Journal of Social Issues, 49(3), 53-

69.

Dion, K. L., & Dion, K. K. (1996). Cultural perspectives on romantic love. Personal

Relationships, 3, 5-17.

Dion, K. L., & Dion, K. K. (2005). Culture and relationships: The downside of self-

contained individualism. In R. M. Sorrentino, D. Cohen, J. M. Olson & M. P. Zanna

(Eds.), Cultural and social behavior: The Ontario symposium, Volume 10 (pp.77-94).

New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dion, K. L., Pak, A. W-P., & Dion, K. I. (1990). Stereotyping physical attractiveness: A

sociocultural perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21(2), 158-179.

Doherty, N. A., & Feeney, J. A. (2004). The composition of attachment networks

throughout the adult years. Personal Relationships, 11(4), 469-488.

Doherty, R. W., Hatfield, E., Thompson, K., & Choo, P. (1994). Cultural and ethnic

influences on love and attachment. Personal Relationships, 1, 391-398.

Douglas, M. (1970). Natural symbols. London: Barrie and Rockliffe.

Douglas, M. (1982). Introduction to grid / group analysis. In M. Douglas (Ed.), Essays in

the sociology of perception (pp. 1-8). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani M. G., & Longo, L. C. (1991). What is beautiful

is good, but…: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness

stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110(1), 109-128.

526

Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (1999). The origins of sex differences in human behaviour.

American Psychologist, 54(6), 408-423.

Ember, C. R., Ember, M., & Peregrine, P. N. (2002). Anthropology (10th ed.). Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Erasmus, Z., & Pieterse, E. (1999). Conceptualising coloured identities in the Western

Cape Province of South Africa. In M. Palmberg (Ed.), National identity and democracy in

Africa (pp.167-187). Western Cape: Human Sciences Research Council.

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.

Etcoff, N. (1999). Survival of the prettiest: The science of beauty. New York: Doubleday.

Featherstone, M. (1990). Global culture: An introduction. In M. Featherstone (Ed.),

Global culture: Nationalism, globalization and modernity. London: Sage.

Feeney, J. A. (1999). Adult romantic attachment and couple relationships. In J. Cassidy

& P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical

applications (pp. 355-377). New York: Guilford.

Feeney, J. A. (2004). Transfer of attachment from parents to romantic partners: Effects

of individual and relationship variables. Journal of Family Studies, 10(2), 220-228.

Feeney, J. A., & Noller, P. (1990). Attachment style as a predictor of adult romantic

relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(2), 281-291.

Feeney, J. A., & Noller, P. (19936). Adult attachment. London: Sage.

Feeney, J. A., Noller, P., & Hanrahan, M. (1994). Assessing adult attachment:

Developments in the conceptualization of security and insecurity. In M.B. Sperling & W.




527

H. Berman (Eds.), Attachment in adults: Theory, assessment and treatment (pp. 128 –

152). New York: Guilford.

Feeney, J. A., Noller, P., & Patty, J. (1993). Adolescent‘s interactions with the opposite

sex: Influence of attachment style and gender. Journal of Adolescence, 16(2), 169-186.

Feeney, J. A., Noller, P., & Roberts, N. (2000). Attachment and close relationships. In

C. Hendrick & S.S. Hendrick (Eds.), Close relationships: A sourcebook (pp. 184-201).

Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Fehr, B. (1988). Prototype analysis of the concepts of love and commitment. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 557-579.

Fehr, B., & Broughton, R. (2001). Gender and personality differences in conceptions of

love: An interpersonal theory analysis. Personal Relationships, 8, 115-136.

Feinberg, H. M. (1993). The demand for self-determination in the late 20th century:

Ethnic conflict in comparative perspective. Paper presented at the conference on

Ethnicity, Identity and Nationalism in South Africa: Comparative Perspectives. Rhodes

University, Grahamstown, South Africa, 20-24 April 1993.

Feingold, A. (1988). Matching for attractiveness in romantic partners and same-sex

friends: A meta-analysis and theoretical critique. Psychological Bulletin, 104(2), 226-

235.

Feingold, A. (1990). Gender differences in effects of physical attractiveness on romantic

attraction: A comparison across five research paradigms – physical attractiveness.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 981-993.

Fenton, S. (2003). Ethnicity. Cambridge: Polity Press.

528

Fernandez, D. R., Carlson, D. S., Stepina, L. P., & Nicholson, J. D. (1997). Hofstede‘s

country classification 25 years later. Journal of Social Psychology, 137(1), 43-54.

Fisher, H. E. (1998). Lust, attraction and attachment in mammalian reproduction.

Human Nature, 9(1), 23-52.

Fisher, H. E. (2000). Lust, attraction, attachment: Biology and evolution of the three

primary emotion systems for mating, reproduction and parenting. Journal of Sex

Education and Therapy, 25(1), 96-104.

Fisher, H. E., Aron, A., Mashek, D., Li, H., & Brown, L. L. (2002). Defining the brain

systems of lust, romantic attraction, and attachment. Archives of Sexual Behavior,

31(5), 413-420.

Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., & Thomas, G. (2000). The measurement of perceived

relationship quality components: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Personality

and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(3), 340-354.

Fonagy, P. (1998). An attachment theory approach to treatment of the difficult patient.

Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 62, 147-169.

Fonagy, P., Steele, H., & Steele, M., (1991). Maternal representations of attachment

during pregnancy predict organization of infant-mother attachment at one year of age.

Child Development, 62, 891-905.

Fonagy, P., & Target, M. (2006). The mentalization focused approach to self pathology.

Journal of Personality Disorders, 20(6), 544-576.


529

Fox, N. A. (1995). Of the way we were: adult memories about attachment experiences and

their role in determining infant–parent relationships: A commentary on Van IJzendoorn

(1995). Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 404-410.

Fox, K. (2005, December). Coming of age in the eBay generation: Life-shopping and

the new skills in the age of eBay. Paper presented at Social Issues Research Centre:

Oxford.

Fraley, R. C. (2002). Attachment stability from infancy to adulthood: Meta-analysis and

dynamic modeling of developmental mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology

Review, 6(2), 123-151.

Fraley, R. C., & Waller, N. G. (1998). Adult attachment patterns: A test of the

typological model. In J.A. Simpson & W.S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close

relationships (pp. 77-114). New York: Guilford.

Franklin, S., Lury, C., & Stacey, J. (2000). Global nature, global culture. London: Sage.

Freese, J., & Powell, B. (2001). Making love out of nothing at all? Null findings and the

Trivers-Willard hypothesis. The American Journal of Sociology, 106(6), 1776-1788.

Freud, S. (1905). Three essays on sexual theory. In S. Whiteside (Ed. & Transl.),

Sigmund Freud: The psychology of love (pp. 111-220). London: Penguin Books.

Freud, S. (1910a). Concerning a particular type of object-choice in men. In S. Whiteside

(Ed. & Transl.), Sigmund Freud: The psychology of love (pp. 241-249). London:

Penguin Books.

Freud, S. (1910b). Five lectures on psychoanalysis. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Transl.), The

standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol XI, pp. 3-

55). London: Hogarth Press.

530

Freud, S. (1912). On the universal tendency to debasement in the sphere of love. In J.

Strachey (Ed. & Transl.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of

Sigmund Freud (Vol XI, pp. 177-190). London: Hogarth Press.

Freud, S. (1913). The theme of the three caskets. In E. Jones (Ed. & Transl.), The

international psycho-analytical library: Sigmund Freud: Collected papers (Vol IV, pp.

244-256). London: Hogarth Press.

Freud, S. (1914). On narcissism: An introduction. In E. Jones (Ed. & Transl.), The

international psycho-analytical library: Sigmund Freud: Collected papers (Vol IV, pp. 30-


Freud, S. (1915). Instincts and their vicissitudes. In E. Jones (Ed. & Transl.), The

international psycho-analytical library: Sigmund Freud: Collected papers (Vol IV, pp. 60-


Freud, S. (1923). The ego and the id. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Transl.), The standard

edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol XIX, pp. 12-68).

London: Hogarth Press.

Freud, S. (1925). Some psychological consequences of the anatomical distinction

between the sexes. In E. Jones (Ed. & Transl.), The international psycho-analytical

library: Sigmund Freud: Collected papers (Vol V, pp. 186-197). London: Hogarth Press.

Freud, S. (1930). Civilization and its discontents. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Transl.), The

standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol XXI, pp.

57-145). London: Hogarth Press.

531

Freud, S. (1931a). Female sexuality. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Transl.), The standard edition

of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol XXI, pp. 221-243). London:

Hogarth Press.

Freud, S. (1931b). Libidinal types. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Transl.), The standard edition of

the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol XXI, pp. 215-220). London:

Hogarth Press.

Fricker, J. (2006). Predicting infidelity: The role of attachment styles, lovestyles and the

investment model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Swinburne University of

Technology.

Frie, R. (2003). Erich Fromm and contemporary psychoanalysis: From modernism to

postmodernism. Psychoanalytic Review, 90(6), 855-868.

Friske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified

theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99(4), 689-723.

Fromm, E. (1942). The fear from freedom. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Fromm, E. (1956). The art of loving. London: Unwin Paperbacks.

Fromm, E. (1976). To have or to be. New York: Continuum.

Funk, R. (1982). Erich Fromm: The courage to be human. New York: Continuum.

Furnham, A. (1984). Value systems and anomie in three cultures. International Journal

of Psychology, 19(1984), 565-579.

Gabbard, G. O. (2005). Psychodynamic psychiatry in clinical practice (4th ed.).

Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.

532

Gay, P. (1988). Freud: A life for our time. New York: Norton.

Gergen, K., & Gergen, M. (1988). It's a love story. Psychology Today, 22(12), 48-49.

Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Stanford: University Press.

Giddens, A. (1992). The transformation of intimacy: Sexuality, love, and eroticism in

modern societies. Stanford: University Press.

Gomez, L. (1997). An introduction to object relations. New York: New York University

Press.

Goodwin, R. (1999). Personal relationships across cultures. London: Routledge.

Goodwin, R., & Findlay, C. (1997). ―We were just fated together‖….Chinese love and

the concept of yuan in England and Hong Kong. Personal Relationships, 4, 85-92.

Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1992). Marital processes predictive of later

dissolution: Behaviour, physiology and health. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 63(2), 221-223.

Grace, C. R. (2001). The Pleistocene mind: A critical review of evolutionary psychology,

and an introduction to intelligent design psychology. Journal of Psychology and

Theology, 29(4), 289.

Graziano, W. G. (1995). Evolutionary psychology: Old music, but now on CDs.

Psychological Inquiry, 6(1), 41-44.

533

Griffin, D., & Bartholomew, K. (1994a). Metaphysics of measurement: The case of

adult attachment. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal

relationships, Vol. 5: Attachment processes in adulthood (pp.17-52). London: Jessica

Kingsley.

Griffin, D., & Bartholomew, K. (1994b). Models of the self and other: Fundamental

dimensions underlying measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 67(3), 430-445.

Griffin, E., & Sparks, E. E. (1990). Friends forever: A longitudinal exploration of intimacy

in same-sex pairs and platonic pairs. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7(1),

29-46.

Grobler, J. E. H. (1993). The ethnic factor in political violence in the Union of South

Africa, 1910-1960. Paper presented at the conference on Ethnicity, Identity and

Nationalism in South Africa: Comparative Perspectives. Rhodes University,

Grahamstown, South Africa, 20-24 April 1993.

Gross, R. (2003). Themes, issues and debates in psychology (2nd ed.). New York:

Oxford Press.

Gross, N., & Simmons, S. (2002). Intimacy as a double-edged phenomenon? An

empirical test of Giddens. Social Forces, 81(2), p. 531-555.

Gudykunst, W. B., & Ting-Toomey, S. (1996). Communication in personal relationships

across cultures: An introduction. In W. B. Gudykunst, S. Ting-Toomey & T. Nishida

(Eds.), Communication in personal relationships across cultures (pp. 3-16). California:

Sage.

534

Gustafsson, S., & Worku, S. (2006). Marriage markets and single motherhood in South

Africa. Paper presented: at the Tinbergen Institute, University of Amsterdam,

Amsterdam.

Hall, C. S., Lindzey, G., Loehlin, J. C., & Manosevitz, M. (1985). Introduction to theories

of personality. New York: John Wiley.

Hamilton, C. (2000). Continuity and discontinuity of attachment from infancy through

adolescence. Child Development, 71(3), 690-694.

Hammond-Tooke, D. (1993). The roots of black South Africa. Johannesburg: Jonathan

Ball

Harlow, H. F. (1958). The nature of love. American Psychologist, 13(12), 673-685.

Harris, H. (1995). Rethinking heterosexual relationships in Polynesia: A case study of

Mangaia, Cook Island. In W. Jankowiak (Ed.), Romantic passion (pp. 95-127). New

York: Columbia University Press.

Harris, C. R., & Pashler, H. E. (1995). Evolution and human emotions. Psychological

Inquiry, 6(1), 44-46.

Hart, K. (2007). Love by arrangement: The ambiguity of 'spousal choice' in a Turkish

village. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 13(2), 345-363.

Hartup, W. W., & Stevens, N. (1997). Friendships and adaptation in the life course.

Psychological Bulletin, 121(3), 355-370.

Haslam, N., & Friske, A. P. (1999). Relational models theory: A confirmatory factor

analysis. Personal Relationships, 6(2), 241-250.

535

Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R. L. (1996). Love and sex: Cross-cultural perspectives. Boston:

Allyn & Bacon.

Hazan, C., & Diamond, L. M. (2000). The place of attachment in human mating. Review

of General Psychology, 4(2), 186-204.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment

process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511-524.

Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Deeper into attachment theory. Psychological

Inquiry, 5(1), 70-79.

Hazan, C., & Zeifman, D. (1999). Pair bonds as attachments: Evaluating the evidence.

In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and

clinical applications (pp. 336-354). New York: Guilford.

Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (1986). A theory and method of love. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 50(2), 392-402.

Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (1989). Research on love: Does it measure up? Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(5), 784-794.

Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (1990). A relationship specific version of the Love

Attitudes Scale. Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, 5, 239-254.

Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. S. (2000). Romantic love. In C. Hendrick & S. S. Hendrick

(Eds.), Close relationships: A sourcebook, (pp. 203-216). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Hendrick, C., Hendrick, S. S., & Dicke, A. (1998). The Love Attitudes Scale: Short Form.

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(2), 137-142.

536

Hendrick, S. S. (2004). Close relationships research: A resource for couple and family

therapists. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 30(1), 13-28.

Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1993). Lovers as friends. Journal of Social and

Personal Relationships, 10(3), 459-466.

Hendrick, S. S., Hendrick, C., & Adler, N.L. (1988). Romantic relationships: Love,

satisfaction, and staying together. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6),

980-988.

Hendrix, H. (1995). Keeping the love you find: A single person’s guide to achieving

lasting love. London: Simon and Schuster.

Hermans, H. J. M., & Kempen, H. J. G. (1998). Moving cultures: The perilous problems

of cultural dichotomies in a globalizing society. American Psychologist, 53(10), 1111-

1120.

Hinkle, D. E., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (1988). Applied statistics for the behavioural

sciences. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Hoffman, L. (1992). A reflexive stance for family therapy. In S. McNamee & K.J. Gergen

(Eds.), Therapy as social construction (pp. 7-24) London: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related

values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1983). National cultures revisited. Behavior Science Research, 18(4),

285-305.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: Harper

Collins.

537

Hofstede, G. (1994a). Foreword. In U. Kim, H.C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. Choi, & G.

Yoon (Eds.). Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method and applications (pp. ix-

xiii). California: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1994b). VSM 94: Values Survey Module 1994-manual. Maastricht,

Netherlands: Institute for Research on Intercultural Cooperation.

Hofstede, G. (1998). Masculinity and femininity: The taboo dimension of national

cultures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (2002). Exploring culture: Exercises, stories and synthetic cultures.

Yarmouth, Maine: Intercultural Press.

Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to

economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16(4), 4-21.

Hsu, F. L. K. (1981). Americans and Chinese: A passage to difference (3rd ed.).

Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.

Husted, B. W. (2003). Globalization and cultural change in international business

research. Journal of International Management, 9, 427-433.

Ingoldsby, B.B. (1995). Mate selection and marriage. In B.B. Ingoldsby & S. Smith

(Eds.), Families in multicultural perspective (pp. 143-60). New York: Guilford.

Jackson, T., Chen, H., Guo, C., & Gao, X. (2006). Stories we love by: Conceptions of

love among couples from the People‘s Republic of China and the United States. Journal

of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(4), 44-464.

Jankowiak, W. (1995). Romantic passion. New York: Columbia University Press.

538

Jankowiak, W. R., & Fischer, E. F. (1992). A cross-cultural perspective on romantic

love. Ethnology 31(2), 149-155.

Jensen, L. A. (2003). Coming of age in a multicultural world: Adolescent cultural identity

formation. Applied Developmental Science 7(3), 189-196.

Johnson, J. (2006). Introduction. In S. Whiteside (Ed. & Transl.), Sigmund Freud: The

psychology of love, (pp. vii-xxvi). London: Penguin.

Jones, D. J. (1993). Race, ethnicity, politics and social justice in the United States.

Paper presented at the conference on Ethnicity, Identity and Nationalism in South

Africa: Comparative Perspectives. Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa, 20-

24 April 1993.

Joyce. P. (2005). Best of South Africa: Globetrotter guide. London: New Holland

Publishers Ltd.

Kaiser, H. (1970). A second generation Little Jiffy. Psychometrika, 35, 401-415.

Kaiser, H. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31-36.

Kanazawa, S. (2003). Can evolutionary psychology explain reproductive behavior in

the contemporary United States? Sociological Quarterly Berkeley, 44(2), 291-302.

Kanemasa, Y., Taniguchi, J., Daibo, I., & Ishimori, M. (2004). Love styles and romantic

love experiences in Japan. Social Behaviour and Personality, 32(3), 265-291.

Kasser, T., & Sharma, Y. S. (1999). Reproductive freedom, educational equality and

females‘ preference for resource-acquisition characteristics in mates. Psychological

Science, 10(4), 374-377.

javascript:void(0);

javascript:void(0);

javascript:void(0);

javascript:void(0);

539

Katz, J., & Beach, S. R. H. (2000). Looking for Love? Self-verification and self-

enhancement effects on initial romantic attraction. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 26(12), 1526-1539.

Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence.

New York: Wiley.

Kenny, D. A., & Nasby, W. (1980). Splitting the reciprocity correlation. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 249-256.

Kenrick, D. T. (1995). Evolutionary theory versus the confederacy of dunces.

Psychological Inquiry, 6(1), 56-62.

Kenrick, D. T., & Trost, M. R (1997). Evolutionary approaches to relationships. In S.

Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and interventions (2nd

ed.) (pp. 151-177). Chichester: John Wiley.

Kenrick, D. T., Groth, G. E., Trost, M. R., & Sadalla, E. K. (1993). Integrating

evolutionary and social exchange perspectives on relationships: Effects of gender, self-

appraisal and involvement level on mate selection criteria. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 64(6), 951-969.

Kephart, W. (1967). Some correlates of romantic love. Journal of Marriage and Family,

29, 470-79.

Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioural research. New York: CBS College

Publishing.

Kim, U., Triandis, H. C., Kagitcibasi, C., Choi, S., & Yoon, G. (1994). Individualism and

collectivism: Theory, method and applications. California: Sage.

540

Kimmel, D. (2002). Adulthood and aging: An interdisciplinary, developmental view (3rd

ed.). New York: John Wiley.

Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1999). Individual differences in attachment and reproductive

strategies: Commentary on Buss and Greiling. Journal of Personality, 67(2), 245-258.

Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Hazan, C. (1994). Attachment styles and close relationships: A four

year prospective study. Personal Relationships, 1(2), 123-142.

Knox, D. H., & Sporakowski, J. J. (1968). Attitudes of college students toward love.

Journal of Marriage and the Family, 30, 638-642.

Kubitschek, W. N., & Hallinan, M. T. (1998). Tracking and students‘ friendships. Social

Psychology Quarterly, 61(1), 1-15.

Kunitz, S. J. (2000). Globalization, states, and the health of indigenous peoples.

American Journal of Public Health, 90, 1531–1539.

Kurdek, L. A. (2002). On being insecure about the assessment of attachment styles.

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19(6), 811-834.

Kurzban, R. (2002). Alas poor evolutionary psychology: Unfairly accused, unjustly

condemned. Skeptic, 9(2), 99-101.

Lacey, R. S., Reifman, A., Scott, J. P., Harris, S. M., & Fitzpatrick, J. (2004). Sexual-

moral attitudes, love styles, and mate selection. The Journal of Sex Research,

41(2), 121-128.

Lampert, A. (1997). The evolution of love. Westport: Praeger.

541

Landis, D., & O‘Shea, W. (2000). Cross-cultural aspects of passionate love: An

individual differences analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(6), 752-635.

Langlios, J. H., & Roggman, L. A. (1990). Attractive faces are only average.

Psychological Science, 1(2), 115-121.

Larsen, R. J., & Buss, D. M. (2002). Personality psychology: Domains of knowledge

about human nature. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Larson, R. W. (2002). Globalization, societal change, and new technologies: What they

mean for the future of adolescence. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 12(1), 1-30.

Larson, R. W., Wilson, S., Brown, B. B., Furstenberg, F. F., & Verma, S. (2002).

Changes in adolescents‘ interpersonal experiences: Are they being prepared for adult

relationships in the twenty first century? Journal of Research on Adolescence, 12(1),

31-68.

Larson, R. W., Wilson, S., & Mortimer, J. T. (2002). Conclusions: Adolescents‘

preparation for the future. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 12(1), 156-166.

Lasswell, T. E., & Lasswell, M. E. (1976). I love you but I‘m not in love with you. Journal

of Marriage and the Family, 38, 211-224.

Latty-Mann, H., & Davis, K. E. (1996). Attachment theory and partner choice:

Preference and actuality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13(2), 5-23.

Le, B., & Agnew, C. R. (2003). Commitment and its theorized determinants: A meta-

analysis of the investment model. Personal Relationships, 10(1), 37-57.

Le, T. N. (2005). Narcissism and immature love as mediators of vertical individualism

and ludic love style. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(4), 543-560.

542

Lee, G. R., & Stone, L. H. (1980). Mate-selection systems and criteria: Variation

according to family structure. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 42(2), 319-326.

Lee, J. A. (1976). The colors of love. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Lee, J. A. (1988). Lovestyles. In R.J. Sternberg & M.L. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology

of love (pp. 38-67). New Haven: Yale University Press.

Lee, K. (2000). The impact of globalization on public health: implications for the UK

faculty of public health medicine. Journal of Public Health Medicine, 22, 253–262.

Leon, J. J., Parra, F., & Cheng, T. (1995). Love-styles among Latino community college

students in Los Angeles. Psychological Reports, 77, 527-530.

Leonard, S. (1995). Love stories. Psychology, 28(6), 42-45.

Lester, D., & Philbrick, J. (1988). Correlates of styles of love. Personality and Individual

Differences, 9(3), 689-690.

Levin, J. (2000). A prolegomenon to an epidemiology of love: Theory, measurement and

health outcomes. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19(1), 117-136.

Levine, R., Sato, S., Hashimoto, T., & Verma, J. (1995). Love and marriage in eleven

cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26(5), 554-571.

Levinger, G. (1994). Figure versus ground: Micro and macro perspectives on the social

psychology of personal relationships. In R. Erber & R. Gilmour (Eds.), Theoretical

frameworks for personal relationships (pp.1-28). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

543

Lewis, M., Feiring, C., & Rosenthal, S. (2000). Attachment over time. Child

Development, 71(3), 707-720.

Lichtheim, M. (1976). Ancient Egyptian literature, a book of reading. The New Kingdom,

Vol 2. Berkeley: University of California Press

Little, K. (1973). African women in towns: An aspect of African’s social revolution.

London: Cambridge University Press.

Little, A. C., & Perrett, D. I. (2002). Putting beauty back in the eye of the beholder.

Psychologist, 15(1), 28-32.

Lock, M. (1993). The concept of race: an ideological construct. Transcultural

Psychiatric Research Review, 30(3), 203-227.

Maciejewski, F. (2008). Minna Bernays as "Mrs. Freud": What sort of relationship did

Sigmund Freud have with his sister-in-law? American Imago, 65(1), 5-22.

Maddi, S. R. (1989). Personality theories: A comparative analysis (5th ed.). Chicago:

The Dorsey Press.

Main, M. (1995). Recent studies in attachment: Overview, with selected implications for

clinical work. In S. Goldberg, R. Muir & J. Kerr (Eds.), Attachment theory: Social,

developmental, and clinical perspectives (pp. 407-474). Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.

Mallandain, I., & Davies, M. F. (1994). The colours of love: Personality correlates of

lovestyles. Personality and Individual Differences, 17(4), 557-560.

Marger, M. N. (1991). Race and ethnic relations: American and global perspectives (2nd

ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth.

http://0-proquest.umi.com.ujlink.uj.ac.za/pqdweb?index=0&did=1499709601&SrchMode=5&Fmt=3&retrieveGroup=0&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1238931808&clientId=57200

http://0-proquest.umi.com.ujlink.uj.ac.za/pqdweb?index=0&did=1499709601&SrchMode=5&Fmt=3&retrieveGroup=0&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1238931808&clientId=57200

544

Maslow, A. (1964). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row.

Matsumoto, D. (2000). Culture and psychology. Pacific Grove, California: Brooks/Cole.

Matsumoto, D., & Juang, L. (2004). Culture and psychology (3rd ed.). Belmont:

Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

May, J. C. (2005). Family attachment narrative therapy: Healing the experience of early

childhood maltreatment. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 31(3), 221-237.

McBride Murray, V., Phillips Smith, E., & Hill, N. E. (2001). Race, ethnicity, and culture in

studies of families in context. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63(4), 911-914.

McGraw, K. J. (2002). Environmental predictors of geographic variation in human

mating preferences. Ethology, 108, 303-317.

McLaughlin, N. (1992). The legacy of Erich Fromm. Society, 29(5), 92-94.

McNally, R. J. (2003). Human Evolutionary Psychology. The American Journal of

Psychiatry, 160(7), 1369.

McNamee, S., & Gergen, K. J. (1992). Introduction. In S. McNamee & K. J. Gergen

(Eds.), Therapy as social construction (pp. 25-39). London: Sage.

Mealey, L., Bridgstock, R., & Townsend, G. C. (1999). Symmetry and perceived facial

attractiveness: A monozygotic co-twin comparison. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 76(1), 151-158.

Meekers, D. (1995). Freedom of partner choice in Togo. Journal of Comparative Family

Studies, 26(2), 163-179.

545

Mellen, S. L. W. (1981). The evolution of love. Oxford: W.H. Freeman.

Meyer, W., & Viljoen, H. (2002). The psychoanalytical theory of Sigmund Freud (1856-

1939). In W. Meyer, C. Moore & H. Viljoen (Eds.), Personology: From individual to

ecosystem (3rd ed.) (pp.48-91). Sandown: Heinemann.

Michener, H.A., DeLamater, J.D., & Myers, D.J. (2004). Social psychology (5th ed.).

Belmont, California: Thomson Learning.

Miller, G. A. (1962). Psychology: The science of mental life. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Miller, L. C., Berg, J. H., & Archer, R. L. (1983). Openers: Individuals who elicit intimate

self-disclosure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(6), 1234-1244.

Mills, J., & Clark, M. S. (1994). Communal and exchange relationships: Controversies

and research. In R. Erber & R. Gilmour (Eds.), Theoretical frameworks for personal

relationships (pp. 29-42). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Mills, J., & Clark, M. S. (2001). Viewing close romantic relationships as communal

relationships: Implications for maintenance and enhancement. In J. Harvey & J. Wenzel

(Eds.), Close romantic relationships: Maintenance and enhancement (pp. 13-25).

Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Minuchin, P. (2002). Cross-cultural perspectives: Implications for attachment theory and

family therapy. Family Process, 41(3), 546-550.

Mkhize, N. (2004a). Psychology: An African perspective. In D. Hook (Ed.), Critical

Psychology (pp. 24-52). Lansdowne: UCT Press.

546

Mkhize, N. (2004b). Sociocultural approaches to psychology: Dialogism and African

conceptions of self. In D. Hook (Ed.), Critical Psychology, (pp. 53-83). Lansdowne: UCT

Press.

Mmusi, S. (1993, April). When am I Coloured, Black or African? Semantic shifts and the

politics of identity. Paper presented at the conference on Ethnicity, Identity and

Nationalism in South Africa: Comparative Perspectives. Rhodes University,

Grahamstown.

Montgomery, M., & Sorell, G. T. (1997). Differences in love attitudes across family life

stages. Family Relations, 46(1), 55-61.

Morgan, H. J., & Shaver, P. R. (1999). Attachment processes and commitment to

romantic relationships. In J. M. Adams & W. H. Jones (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal

commitment and relationship stability (pp 109-124). New York: Kluwer

Academic/Plenum.

Morrow, G. D., Clark, E. M., & Brock, K. F. (1995). Individual and partner love styles:

Implications for the quality of romantic involvements. Journal of Social and Personal


Murstein, B. I., Merighi, J. R., & Vyse, S. A. (1991). Lovestyles in the United States and

France: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 10(3),

537-546.

Mwamwenda, T. S. (1999). Culture and self: An African perspective. In M.M. Mboya,

(Ed.), Culture and self: Theory and research from an African perspective (pp. 1-18).

Pretoria: Ilitha.

Mwamwenda, T. S., & Monyooe, L. A. (1997). Status of bridewealth in an African

culture. Journal of Social Psychology, 137(2), 269-71.

547

Myers, D. G. (2002). Social psychology (7th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Neto, F. (1994). Love styles among Portuguese students. The Journal of Psychology,

128(5), 613.

Neto, F. (2007). Love styles: A cross-cultural study of British, Indian, and Portuguese

college students. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 38(2), 239-258.

Neto, F., Mullet, E., Deschamps, J-C., Barros, J., Benvindo, R., Camino, L., Falconi, A.,

Kagibanga, V., & Machado, M. (2000). Cross-cultural variations in attitudes toward love.

Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(5), 626-635.

Netting, N. S. (2006). Two-lives, one partner: Indo-Canadian youth between love and

arranged marriages. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 37(1), 129-147.

Nkuna, L. (2006). ‗Fitting-in‘ to a ‗classy place‘: The Zone and youth identity. In P.

Alexander, M. C. Dawson & M. Ichharam (Eds.), Globalisation and new identities: A

view from the middle (pp. 13-65). Johannesburg: Jacana Media.

Noller, P. (1996). What is this thing called love? Defining the love that supports

marriage and family. Personal Relationships, 3, 97-115.

Nsamenang, B. (2002). Adolescence in Sub-Saharan Africa: An image constructed from

Africa‘s triple inheritance. In B.B. Brown, R. Larson & T.S. Saraswathi (Eds.), The

world’s youth: Adolescence in eight regions of the globe (pp.61-104). New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Nsibsmbi, A. (2001, November). The effects of globalization on the state in Africa:

Harnessing the benefits and minimizing the costs. Paper presented at UN General

javascript:void(0);

http://0-proquest.umi.com.ujlink.uj.ac.za/pqdweb?RQT=318&pmid=21888&TS=1220526996&clientId=57200&VInst=PROD&VName=PQD&VType=PQD

javascript:void(0);

../../AppData/Local/pqdweb%3fRQT=318&pmid=21888&TS=1236321504&clientId=57200&VInst=PROD&VName=PQD&VType=PQD

548

Assembly, second committee: Panel discussion on globalization and the state: New

York.

Okonjo, K. (1992). Aspects of continuity and change in mate-selection among the Igbo

West of the River Niger. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 23(3), 339-60.

Oppong, C. (1980). From love to institution: Indications of change on Akan marriage.

Journal of Family History, 5(2), 197-209.

Oyserman, D., Coon, H., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002) Rethinking individualism and

collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological

Bulletin, 128(1), 3-72.

Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using

SPSS for Windows (Version 12) (2nd ed.).Berkshire: Open University Press

Panksepp, J., & Panksepp, J. B. (2000). The seven sins of evolutionary psychology.

Evolution and Cognition, 6(2), 108-131.

Pavlou, K. (2005). An exploration of black South African lovestyles. Unpublished MA

dissertation. University of Johannesburg.

Pawlowski, B., & Koziel, S. (2002). The impact of traits offered in personal

advertisements on response rates. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23(2), 139-149.

Peluso, P. R., Peluso, J. P., White, J. F., & Kern, R. M. (2004). A comparison of

attachment theory and individual psychology: A review of the literature. Journal of

Counseling and Development, 82(2), 139-145.

Pervin, L. A., & John, O. P. (1997). Personality: Theory and Research (2nd ed.). New

York: John Wiley.

../../AppData/Local/pqdweb%3fRQT=318&pmid=19058&TS=1236320269&clientId=57200&VInst=PROD&VName=PQD&VType=PQD

549

Philbrick, J., & Opolot, J. (1980). Lovestyle: Comparison of African and American

attitudes. Psychological Reports, 46, 286.

Plotnicov, L. (1995). Love, lust and found in Nigeria. In W. Jankowiak (Ed.), Romantic

passion (pp. 128-140). New York: Columbia University Press.

Ratner, C., & Hui, L. (2003). Theoretical and methodological problems in cross-cultural

psychology. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 33, 67-94.

Rebhun, L. A. (1995). The language of love in northeast Brazil. In W. Jankowiak (Ed.),

Romantic passion (pp. 239-261). New York: Columbia University Press.

Regan, P. C. (1998). Of lust and love: Beliefs about the role of sexual desire in romantic

relationships. Personal Relationships, 5, 139-157.

Regan, P. C., & Berscheid, E. (1997). Gender differences in characteristics desired in a

potential sexual and marriage partner. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 9,

25-37.

Reis, H. T., & Rusbult, C. E. (2004). Relationship science: A casual and somewhat

selective review. In H. T. Reis & C. E. Rusbult (Eds.), Close relationships: Key readings

(pp. 1-20). New York: Psychology Press.

Richardson, D. R., Medvin, N., & Hammock, G. (1988). Love styles, relationship

experience, and sensation seeking: A test of validity. Personality and Individual

Differences, 9(3), 645-651.

Robert, C., Lee, W. C., & Chan, K. (2006). An empirical analysis of measurement

equivalence with the INDCOL measure of individualism and collectivism: implications for

valid cross-cultural inference. Personnel Psychology, 59(1), 65-100.

550

Rose, H. (2000). Colonizing the social sciences. In H. Rose & S. Rose (Eds.), Alas,

poor Darwin: Arguments against evolutionary psychology (pp. 127-153). New York:

Harmony Books.

Rotenberg, K. J., & Korol, S. (1995). The role of loneliness and gender in individuals‘

love styles. Journal of Social Behaviour and Personality, 10(3), 537-546.

Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love and attractiveness. Journal of


Rudnick, H. (1997). Lovestyles and marital satisfaction. Unpublished MA dissertation.

Rand Afrikaans University.

Rudnick, H. (2002). The links between Western psychotherapy and traditional healing.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Rand Afrikaans University.

Ruiz, P. (2004). Addressing culture, race, and ethnicity in psychiatric practice. Psychiatric

Annals, 34(7), 526-532,561.

Rusbult, C. E. (1980) Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: A test of

the investment model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16(2), 172-186.

Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development

(and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 101-117.

Rusbult, C. E., Olsen, N., Davis, J. L., & Hannon, P. A. (2001) Commitment and

relationship maintenance mechanisms. In J. Harvey & J. Wenzel (Eds.), Close romantic

relationships: Maintenance and enhancement (pp. 87-113). Mahwah, New Jersey:

Lawrence Erlbaum.

551

Rushton, J. P. (1988). Genetic similarity, mate choice and fecundity in humans.

Ethology and Sociobiology, 9, 329-335.

Sadock, B. J., & Sadock, V. A. (2003) Kaplan and Sadock’s synopsis of psychiatry:

Behavioral sciences/clinical psychiatry (9th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and

Wilkins.

Sandhya, S. (2009). The social context of marital happiness in urban Indian couples:

Interplay of intimacy and conflict. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 35(1), 74-97.

Schapera I., & Comaroff, J. L. (1991). The Tswana: Revised edition. London:

International African Institute.

Scheib, J. E. (2005). Context specific mate choice criteria: Women‘s trade-offs in the

contexts of long-term and extra-pair mateships. Personal Relationships, 8(4), 371-389.

Schmitt, D. P., Alcalay, L., Allensworth, M., Allik, J., Ault, L., Austers, I. et al. (2004).

Patterns and universals of adult romantic attachment across 62 cultural regions: Are

models of self and of other pancultural constructs? Journal of Cross-Cultural

Psychology, 35(4), 367-402.

Schore, A. (2002). Advance in neuropsychoanalysis, attachment theory and trauma

research: Implications for self psychology. Psychoanalytic Inquiry, 22(3), 433-484.

Schwartz, S. (1997). Values and culture. In D. Munro, S. Carr & J. Schumaker (Eds.),

Motivation and culture (pp. 69-84). New York: Routledge.

Segall, M. H., Dasen, P. R., Berry, J. W., & Poortinga, Y. H. (1999). Human behaviour

in global perspective (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.


552

Shaver, P. R., & Hazan, C. (1988). A biased overview of the study of love. Journal of

Social and Personal Relationships, 5(4), 473-501.

Shaver, P. R., & Hazan, C. (1993). Adult romantic attachment: Theory and evidence. In

D. Perlman & W.H. Jones (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships: A research

annual (Vol 4) (pp. 29-70). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Shaver, P., Hazan, C., & Bradshaw, D. (1988). Love as attachment: The integration of

three behavioural systems. In R.J. Sternberg & M.L. Barnes (Eds.), The psychology of

love (pp. 68-99). New Haven: Yale University Press.

Shaver, P. R., Morgan, H. J., & Wu, S. (1996). Is love a ‗basic‘ emotion? Personal


Shulruf, B., Hattie, J., & Dixon, R. (2003). Development of a new measurement tool for

individualism and collectivism. Paper presented at the NZARE/AARE joint conference:

Auckland.

Siegel, D. J. (1999). The developing mind: How relationships and the brain interact to

shape who we are. New York: Guilford Press.

Sigelman, C. K., & Rider E. A. (2003). Life span human development (4th ed.). Belmont:

Wadsworth / Thomson.

Simmons, C. H., Vomkolke, A., & Shimizu, H. (1986). Attitudes toward romantic love

among American, German, and Japanese students. Journal of Social Psychology,

126(3), 327-37.

Simpson, J.A. (1990). Influence of attachment styles on romantic relationships. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(5), 971-980.

553

Simpson, J. A., Campbell, B., & Berscheid, E. (1986). The association between

romantic love and marriage: Kephart (1967) twice revisited. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 12(3), 363-372.

Simpson, J. A., & Gangestad, S. W. (1992). Sociosexuality and romantic partner choice.

Journal of Personality, 60(1), 31-51.

Simpson, J. A., Rholes, W. S., & Nelligan, J. S. (1992). Support seeking and support

giving within couples in an anxiety provoking situation. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 62(3), 434-446.

Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995). Horizontal and

vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement

refinement. Cross-Cultural Research: The Journal of Comparative Social Science, 29,

240-275.

Singh, D., & Luis, S. (1995). Female judgement of male attractiveness and desirability

for relationships: Role of waist-to-hip ratio and financial status. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 69(6), 1089-1101.

Slade, A. (1999). Attachment theory and research: Implications for the theory and

practice of individual psychotherapy with adults. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.),

Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 575-594). New

York: Guilford.

Smith, C. (2006, November). Attachment theory course. Paper presented at the Institute

for Psychodynamic Child Psychotherapy – In association with the Tavistock Clinic:

Johannesburg.

Smith, D. J. (2001). Romance, parenthood, and gender in modern African society.

Ethnology, 40(2), 129-151.




http://www.richardatkins.co.uk/atws/journal/101.html

http://www.richardatkins.co.uk/atws/journal/101.html

554

Smith, P. B., & Bond, M. H. (1998). Social psychology across cultures (2nd ed.). London:

Prentice Hall.

Sokolski, D. M., & Hendrick, S. S. (1999). Fostering marital satisfaction. Family

Therapy, 26(1), 39-49.

South African Information. (2006). General Information. Retrieved September 19, 2006

from the World Wide Web:

http://www.safrica.info/ess_info/sa_glance/demographics/population.htm.

South African Tourism. (2006). Rainbow Nation. Retrieved October 1, 2006 from the World

Wide Web: http://www.southafricantourism.co.za.

South African Venues. (2006). General Information. Retrieved October 1, 2006 from the

World Wide Web: http://www.sa-venues.com/general_info_nationwide.htm.

Spangler, G., & Grossmann, K. E. (1993). Biobehavioural organization in securely and

insecurely attached infants. Child Development, 64, 1439-1450.

Sprecher, S. (1998). Insiders‘ perspectives on reasons for attraction to a close other.

Social Psychology Quarterly, 61, 287-300.

Sprecher, S., Aron, A., Hatfield, E., Cortese, A., Potapova, E., & Levitskaya, A. (1994).

Love: American style, Russian style and Japanese style. Personal Relationships, 1,

349-369.

Sprecher, S., & Metts, S. (1989). Development of the ‘Romantic Beliefs scale‘ and the

examination of the effects of gender and gender-role orientation. Journal of Social and

Personal Relationships, 6, 387-411.

http://www.southafricantourism.co.za/

http://www.sa-venues.com/general_info_nationwide.htm

555

Sprecher, S., & Metts, S. (1999). Romantic beliefs: Their influence on relationships and

patterns of change over time. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16(6), 834-

851

Sprecher, S., & Regan, P. (1998). Passionate and companionate love in courting and

young married couples. Sociological Inquiry, 68(2), 163-185.

Sprecher, S., & Toro-Morn, M. (2002). A study of men and women from different sides

of earth to determine if men are from Mars and women are from Venus in their beliefs

about love and romantic relationships. Sex Roles, 46(5/6), 131-147.

Sroufe, L. A., & Walters, E. (1977). Heart rate as a convergent measure in clinical and

developmental research. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 23, 3-28.

Statistics South Africa (2007). Marriages and divorces, 2007. Release P0307. Pretoria:

Statistics South Africa. Retrieved May, 3, 2008 from the World Wide Web:

http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/populationstats.asp.

Statistics South Africa, (2008). Mid year population estimates, South Africa 2008.

Release P0302. Pretoria: Statistics South Africa. Retrieved May, 3, 2008 from the World

Wide Web: http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/populationstats.asp.

Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93(2), 119-

135.

Sternberg, R.J. (1988). Triangulating love. In R. J. Sternberg & M. L. Barnes (Eds.), The

psychology of love (pp. 119-138). New Haven: Yale University Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (1995). Love as a story. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,

12(4), 541-546.

http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/populationstats.asp

http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/populationstats.asp

556

Sternberg, R. J. (2000). What‘s your love story? Psychology Today, 33(4), 52-59.

Sternberg, R. J., Hojjat, M., & Barnes, M. (2001). Empirical tests of a theory of love as a

story, European Journal of Personality, 15(3), 199-218.

Stoller, R. J. (1976). Primary femininity. Journal of American Psychoanalytic

Association, 24(suppl), 59-78.

Stones, C. R. (1986). Love styles revisited: A cross-national comparison with particular

reference to South Africa. Human Relations, 39(4), 379-382.

Stones, C. R., & Philbrick, J. L. (1989a). Love attitudes among Xhosa adolescents in

South Africa. The Journal of Social Psychology, 129(1), 131-132.

Stones, C. R., & Philbrick, J. L. (1989b). Attitudes toward love among Xhosa university

students in South Africa. The Journal of Social Psychology, 129(4), 573-575.

Swann, W. B., Jr., Stein-Seroussi, A., & McNulty, S. E. (1992). Outcasts in a white-lie

society: The enigmatic world of people with negative self-concepts. Journal of


Takahashi, K. (2005). Toward a life span theory of close relationships: The affective

relationships model. Human Development, 48(1-2), 48-66.

Tayeb, M. H. (1996). Hofstede. In M. Warner (Ed.), International encyclopaedia of

business and management (pp. 1771-6). London: Thompson Press.

Thompson, R. A. (2005). Multiple relationships multiply considered. Human

Development, 48(1-2), 102-107.

Thurstone, L. L. (1947). Multiple factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

557

Torok, M. (1970). The significance of penis envy in women. In J. Chasseguet-Smirgel

(Ed.), Female sexuality: New psychoanalytic views (pp. 135-170). Ann Arbor: University

of Michigan Press.

Triandis, H. C. (1994). Culture and social behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Triandis, H. (2001). Individualism and collectivism: Past, present, and future. In D.

Matsumoto, (Ed.), Handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 35-50). New York: Oxford

University Press.

Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.),

Sexual selection and the descent of man: 1871-1971 (pp. 136-179). Chicago: Aldine.

Trompenaars, F. (1993). Riding the waves of culture: Understanding cultural diversity in

business. London: Nicholas Brealey.

Truman-Schram, D. M., Cann, A., Calhoun, L., & Vanwallendael, L. (2000). Leaving an

abusive dating relationship: An investment model comparison of women who stay

versus women who leave. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19(2), 161-183.

Tuebingen, R. F. (2002). Psychoanalysis and human values. International Forum of

Psychoanalysis, 11(1), 18-26.

Udjo, E. O. (2001, August). Marital patterns and fertility in South Africa: The evidence

from the population census. [Poster (P43.1)] Displayed at the XXIVth IUSSP General

Population Conference: Salvador.

558

Van Dam, K. (2005). Employee attitudes toward job changes: An application and

extension of Rusbult and Farrell's investment model. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 78(2), 253-272.

Van der Vliet, V. (1991). Traditional husbands, modern wives? Constructing marriages

in a South African township. African Studies, 50(1-2), 219-241.

Van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1995). Of the way we are: On temperament, attachment, and

the transmission gap: A rejoinder to Fox (1995). Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 411-

415.

Van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2005). Attachment in social networks: Toward an evolutionary

social network model. Human Development, 48(1-2), 85-88.

Van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Sagi, A. (1999). Cross-cultural patterns of attachment:

Universal and contextual dimensions. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of

attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 713-734). New York:

Guilford.

Van Leeuwen, M. S. (2002). Of hoggamus and hogwash: Evolutionary psychology and

gender relations. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 30(2), 101-111.

Van Zyl, S. (2009). Freud theory course. Paper presented at the Institute for

Psychodynamic Child Psychotherapy – In association with the Tavistock Clinic:

Johannesburg.

Viljoen, H. (2002a). African Perspectives. In W. Meyer, C. Moore & H. Viljoen (Eds.),

Personology: From individual to ecosystem, (3rd ed.) (pp. 528-549). Sandown:

Heinemann.

559

Viljoen, H. (2002b). Eastern Perspectives. In W. Meyer, C. Moore & H. Viljoen (Eds.),

Personology: From individual to ecosystem, (3rd ed.) (pp. 499-527). Sandown:

Heinemann.

Viljoen, H. (2002c). The socially orientated psychoanalytical theories. In W. Meyer, C.

Moore & H. Viljoen (Eds), Personology: From individual to ecosystem (3rd ed.) (pp.152-

185). Sandown: Heinemann.

Waelder, R. (1930). The principle of multiple function: observations and

overdetermination. Psychoanalytical Quarterly, (1936), 45-62.

Wallin, D. J. (2007). Attachment in psychotherapy. New York: Guilford.

Walster, E., & Walster, G. W. (1978). A new look at love. Reading, MA: Addison-

Wesley.

Walster, E., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and research.

Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Wampler, K. S., Shi, L., Nelson, B. S., & Kimball, T. G. (2003). The adult attachment

interview and observed couple interaction: Implications for an intergenerational

perspective on couple therapy. Family Process, 42(4), 497-515.

Waters, E., Merrick, S., Treboux, D., Crowell, J., & Albersheim, L (2000). Attachment

security in infancy and early adulthood: A twenty-year longitudinal study. Child

Development, 71(3), 684-689.

Weaver, S. E., & Ganong, L. H. (2004). The factor structure of the Romantic Beliefs

Scale for African Americans and European Americans. Journal of Social and Personal


560

Webster, E., & Adler, G. (1999). Toward a class compromise in South Africa‘s ‘Double

Transition‘: Bargained liberalization and the consolidation of democracy. Politics and

Society, 27(3), 347-385.

Weinfield, N. S., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland B. (2000). Attachment from infancy to early

adulthood in a high risk sample: Continuity, discontinuity and their correlates. Child

Development, 71(3), 695-702.

Weiss, R. S. (1982). Attachment in adults. In C. M. Parkes & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.),

The place of attachment in human behaviour (pp. 171-184). New York: Basic Books.

Weiss, R. S. (1991). The attachment bond in childhood and adulthood. In C. M. Parkes,

J. Stevenson-Hinde & P. Marris (Eds.), Attachment across the life cycle (pp. 66-76).

London: Routledge.

Wenar, C., & Kerig, P. (2000). Development psychopathology: From infancy through

adolescence (4th ed.). Singapore: McGraw-Hill.

West, M. (1976). Abantu: An introduction to the black people of South Africa. Cape

Town: C. Struik Publishers.

White, J. K. (2003). The five-factor model personality variables and relationship

variables: A study of associations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Texas Technikon

University, Lubbock.

White, J. K., Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (2004). Big five personality variables and

relationship constructs. Personality & Individual Differences, 37(7), 1519-1530.

Williams, D., & Schill, T. (1994). Adult attachment, love styles and self-defeating

personality characteristics. Psychological Reports, 75, 31-34.

561

Woll, S. B. (1989). Personality and relationship correlates of loving styles. Journal of

Research in Personality, 23(4), 480-505.

Xiaohe, X., & Whyte, M. K. (1990). Love matches and arranged marriages: A Chinese

replication. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52(3), 709-722.

Yan, Y. (2003). Private life under socialism: love, intimacy and family change in a

Chinese village, 1949-1999. Stanford: University Press.

Yancy, G., & Berglass, S. (1991). Love styles and life satisfaction. Psychological

Reports, 68, 883-890.

You, H. S., & Malley-Morrison, K. (2000). Young adult attachment styles and intimate

relationships with close friends. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31(4), 528-534.

Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 9(Monograph Suppl. 2, pt. 2), 1-27.

Zeifman, D., & Hazan, C. (1997). A process model of adult attachment formation. In S.

Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and interventions (2nd

ed.), (pp. 179-195). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

562

Appendix A – Final Questionnaire Pack

Dear Participant 2007

Thank you for participating in this study. Please be assured that the information that you will provide,

will be kept confidential and generic feedback will be made available should you require it. The aim of

the study is to explore the nature of romantic love. The objective of this project is thus to add to the

existing body of love knowledge and specifically to discover how we love culturally in South Africa.

In the interest of science and research, please answer the questions independently and as honestly as

possible. Remember there are no wrong or right answers. The first spontaneous response is the

answer that is normally the truest; please do not ponder too long over any item. You are requested not

to turn back once you have answered a question. Although there is no time restriction, aim to work as

quickly as possible. Answering the questionnaire should take approximately 30-45 minutes. There are

7 sections to this questionnaire pack. There are questions on BOTH sides of the page, please ensure

you answer ALL the questions. If there are any questions regarding this project you are welcome to

contact me on [email protected].

Once again, many thanks,

Kety Pavlou

D.Litt et Phil (Psych) (University of Johannesburg)

____________________________________________________________________

Informed consent: Please read and sign

I hereby declare that my participation in this study on South African love is voluntary and can be

terminated at any time. I understand the purpose, procedure and time duration of the study. I

understand that confidentiality and anonymity is assured. Feedback will be given should I request it.

To the knowledge of the researcher, no harm or risk is associated with participation in this study.

Date:______________________ Sign:________________________________________

mailto:[email protected]

563

Please provide the following biographical information in full:

Date of birth: Age: Gender: Male Female

Race Black White Coloured Indian Asian Other:___________

Home

language

Zulu Xhosa Sotho Venda Pedi Tswana

English Afrikaans Other:___________________________

Ethnicity Zulu Xhosa Sotho Venda Pedi Tswana


What is your highest level of education?

No formal schooling completed some primary school

completed primary school completed some secondary school

completed secondary school post school diploma / degree

honours degree masters degree doctorate degree

What kind of job was your

most recent paid job? (tick only one)

No paid job (includes full-time students)

Unskilled or semi-skilled manual worker

Generally trained office worker or secretary

Vocationally trained craftsperson, technician, informatician, nurse, artist or

equivalent

Academically trained professional or equivalent (but not a manager of people)

Manager of one or more subordinates (non-managers)

Manager of one or more managers

Religious orientation

(tick all that are applicable)

Christianity African Ancestor Worship Islam Hindu Muslim

Buddhism Judaism Atheist Agnostic

Other__________________

Setting you grew up in

Rural Small Town Large Town Large City

Family social class growing up

Upper (family income more than R400 000 per annum(pa))

Upper Middle (R220-399 000 pa) Middle (R100-219 000 pa)

Lower Middle (R40-99 000 pa) Lower (less than R39 000 pa)

564

Setting you live in now

Rural Small Town Large Town Large City

Other_____________


Upper (family income more than R400 000 per annum(pa))

Upper Middle (R220-399 000 pa) Middle (R100-219 000 pa)

Lower Middle (R40-99 000 pa) Lower (less than R39 000 pa)

Should you want to receive feedback on the overall research findings, please provide your

E-mail Address: ___________________________________________________________

BEGIN!

565

Section 1: Love experiences

1. Are you currently in love with someone? Yes No

2. How many different people have you been in love with (not counting childhood crushes)?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 or more

3. Have you been in an intimate relationship in the past? Yes No

4. Are you currently in an intimate relationship? Yes No

5. What is your current romantic relationship status?

Not Involved Casual Dating Serious Dating

Engaged or Living Together Married Other_____________________

6. If you are currently in a romantic relationship, how long have you been in the relationship?

Less than 6 months between 6 months and 1 year between 1 and 2 years

between 2 and 3 years between 3 and 5 years more than 5 years

7. If you have been in an intimate relationship in the past, how long was your longest relationship?

Less than 6 months between 6 months and 1 year between 1 and 2 years

between 2 and 3 years between 3 and 5 years more than 5 years

8. If you are currently in a relationship, is the relationship: Monogamous or Open ?

9. What is your sexual orientation? Heterosexual Homosexual Bisexual

Section 2: Love as a basis for marriage

1. If a man or woman had all the other qualities you desired, would you marry this person if you were

not in love with him or her? Yes No

2. If love has completely disappeared from a marriage, I think it is probably best for the couple to

make a clean break and start new lives. Agree Disagree

3. In my opinion, the disappearance of love is not a sufficient reason for ending a marriage and

should not be viewed as such. Agree Disagree

566

Section 3: Romantic Beliefs Scale

Instructions:

Read each question carefully and then decide to what extent the statement is true for you. Note the

descriptions on both ends of the 7 point scale which follows each question, and then decide where to

place your response on the scale. Please use a clear X to mark the applicable answer. Remember to

give your first spontaneous response, it is the most reliable.

1. I need to know someone for a period of time before I fall in love with him or her.

Strongly Agree

Agree Moderately Agree

Neutral Moderately Disagree

Disagree Strongly Disagree

2. If I were in love with someone, I would commit myself to him or her even if my parents and friends

disapproved of the relationship.

Strongly Agree




3. Once I experience ‗true love‘, I could never experience it again, to the same degree, with another

person.

Strongly Agree




4. I believe that to be truly in love is to be in love forever.

Strongly Agree




5. If I love someone I know I can make the relationship work, despite any obstacles.

Strongly Agree




6. When I find my ‗true love‘ I will probably know it soon after we meet.

Strongly Agree




7. I‘m sure that every new thing I learn about the person I choose for a long-term commitment will

please me.

Strongly Agree




567

8. The relationship that I have with my ‗true love‘ will be nearly perfect.

Strongly Agree




9. If I love someone, I will find a way for us to be together regardless of the opposition to the

relationship, physical distance between us or any other barrier.

Strongly Agree




10. There will only be one real love for me.

Strongly Agree




11. If a relationship I have was meant to be, any obstacle (e.g., lack of money, physical distance,

career conflicts) can be overcome.

Strongly Agree




12. I am likely to fall in love almost immediately if I meet the right person.

Strongly Agree




13. I expect that in my relationship, romantic love will really last; it won‘t fade with time.

Strongly Agree




14. The person I love will make the perfect romantic partner; for example, he / she will be completely

accepting, loving and understanding.

Strongly Agree




15. I believe if another person and I love each other we can overcome any differences and problems

that may arise.

Strongly Agree




568

Section 4: Relationship Scales Questionnaire

Instructions: Please read each of the following statements and rate the extent to which you believe

each statement best describes your feelings about close relationships.

Not at all like me

Somewhat like me

Very much

like me

1 2 3 4 5

1. I find it difficult to depend on other people.

2. It is very important to me to feel independent.

3. I find it easy to get emotionally close to others.

4. I want to merge completely with another person.

5. I worry that I will be hurt if I allow myself to become too close to others.

6. I am comfortable without close emotional relationships.

7. I am not sure that I can always depend on others to be there when I need them.

8. I want to be completely emotionally intimate with others.

9. I worry about being alone.

10. I am comfortable depending on other people.

11. I often worry that romantic partners don't really love me.

12. I find it difficult to trust others completely.

13. I worry about others getting too close to me.

14. I want emotionally close relationships.

15. I am comfortable having other people depend on me.

16. I worry that others don't value me as much as I value them.

17. People are never there when you need them.

18. My desire to merge completely sometimes scares people away.

19. It is very important to me to feel self-sufficient.

569

Not at all like me

Somewhat like me

Very much like me

1 2 3 4 5

20. I am nervous when anyone gets too close to me.

21. I often worry that romantic partners won't want to stay with me.

22. I prefer not to have other people depend on me.

23. I worry about being abandoned.

24. I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others.

25. I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like.

26. I prefer not to depend on others.

27. I know that others will be there when I need them.

28. I worry about having others not accept me.

29. Romantic partners often want me to be closer than I feel comfortable being.

30. I find it relatively easy to get close to others.

570

Section 5: Love Attitude Scale

Instructions: If you are in a relationship please keep it in mind as you answer the questions. If you are

not in a relationship currently please answer the questions with your typical relationship in mind. Read

each question carefully and then decide to what extent the statement is true for you. Note the

descriptions at the top of the 5 point scale and then decide where to place your response on the scale.

Mark the applicable block on the scale with a clear cross (X). Remember to give your first

spontaneous response.

Strongly Agree

Moderately Agree


Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5

1. My partner and I were attracted to each other immediately after we first met.

2. My partner and I have the right physical ―chemistry‖ between us.

3. Our lovemaking is very intense and satisfying.

4. I feel that my partner and I were meant for each other.

5. My partner and I became physically involved very quickly.

.

6. My partner and I really understand each other.

7. My partner fits my ideal standards of physical beauty / handsomeness.

8. I try to keep my partner a little uncertain about my commitment to him/her.

9. I believe that what my partner doesn‘t know about me won‘t hurt him/her.

10. I have sometimes had to keep my partner from finding out about other partners.

571

Strongly Agree

Moderately Agree


Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5

11. I could get over my affair with my partner pretty easily and quickly.

12. My partner would get upset if he / she knew some of the things I‘ve done with other people.

13. When my partner gets too dependent on me, I want to back off a little.

14. I enjoy playing the ―game of love‖ with my partner and a number of other partners.

15. It is hard for me to say exactly when our friendship turned into love.

16. To be genuine, our love first required caring for a while.

17. I expect to always be friends with my partner.

18. Our love is the best kind because it grew out of a long friendship.

19. Our friendship merged gradually into love over time.

20. Our love is really a deep friendship, not a mysterious, mystical emotion.

21. Our love relationship is the most satisfying because it developed from a good friendship.

22. I considered what my partner was going to become in life before I commit myself to him/her.

572

Strongly Agree

Moderately Agree


Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5

23. I tried to plan my life carefully before choosing my partner.

24. In choosing my partner, I believed it was best to love someone with a similar background.

25. A main consideration in choosing my partner was how he/she reflected on my family.

26. An important factor in choosing my partner is whether or not he / she would be a good parent.

27. One consideration in choosing my partner is how he / she would reflect on my career.

28. Before getting very involved with my partner, I tried to figure out how compatible his / her hereditary background was with mine in case we ever had children.

29. When things aren‘t right with my partner and me, my stomach gets upset.

30. When my partner and I break up, I would get so depressed that I would even think of suicide.

31. Sometimes I get so excited about being in love with my partner that I can‘t sleep.

32. When my partner doesn‘t pay attention to me, I feel sick all over.

573

Strongly Agree

Moderately Agree


Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5

33. Since I‘ve been in love with my partner, I‘ve had trouble concentrating on anything else.

34. I cannot relax if I suspect my partner is with someone else.

35. If my partner ignores me for a while, I sometimes do stupid things to get his / her attention back.

36. I try to always help my partner through difficult times.

37. I would rather suffer myself than let my partner suffer.

38. I cannot be happy unless I place my partner‘s happiness before my own.

39. I‘m usually willing to sacrifice my own wishes to let my partner achieve his / hers.

40. Whatever I own is my partner‘s to use as he / she chooses.

41. When my partner gets angry with me, I still love him / her fully and unconditionally.

42. I would endure all things for the sake of my partner.

574

Section 6: Values Survey Module

Instructions: Read each question carefully and then decide to what extent the statement is true for

you. Note the descriptions at the top of the 5 point scale and then decide where to place your

response on the scale. Mark the applicable block on the scale with a clear cross (X). Once again,

please give your first spontaneous response.

Please think of an ideal job, disregarding your present job, if you have one. In choosing an ideal job, how important would it be to you to ... :

of utmost importance

very important

of moderate importance

of little importance

of very little or no

importance

1 2 3 4 5

1. Have sufficient time for your personal or family life.

2. Have good physical working conditions (good ventilation and lighting, adequate work space, etc.)

3. Have a good working relationship with your direct superior

4. Have security of employment

5. Work with people who cooperate well with one another

.

6. Be consulted by your direct superior in his/her decisions

575



very important




importance

1 2 3 4 5

7. Have an opportunity for advancement to higher level jobs

8. Have an element of variety and adventure in the job

In your private life, how important is each of the following to you?


very important




importance

1 2 3 4 5

9. Personal steadiness and stability

10. Thrift (cautious with money) 1 2 3 4 5

11. Persistence (perseverance)

12. Respect for tradition

never seldom sometimes usually always

1 2 3 4 5

13. How often do you feel nervous or tense at work?

14. How frequently, in your experience, are subordinates afraid to express disagreement with their superiors?

576

To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements?

strongly agree

agree undecided disagree strongly disagree

1 2 3 4 5

15. Most people can be trusted

16. One can be a good manager without having precise answers to most questions that subordinates may raise about their work

17. An organization structure in which certain subordinates have two bosses should be avoided at all costs

18. Competition between employees usually does more harm than good

19. A company's or organization's rules should not be broken - not even when the employee thinks it is in the company's best interest

20. When people have failed in life it is often their own fault

577

Section 7: Cultural Dimensions: Individualism and Collectivism


you. Note the descriptions on both ends of the 6 point scale which follows each question and then

decide where to place your response on the scale. Please use a clear X to mark the applicable

answer. Please give your first spontaneous response.

Never

or

almost

never

Always

1 2 3 4 5 6

1. I prefer to be self-reliant rather than depend on others.

2. I hate to disagree with others in my group.

3. In interacting with superiors, I am always polite.

4. I consult my parents before making an important decision.

5. I consider my self as a unique person separate from others.

6. I discuss job or study-related problems with my parents.

7. Even when I strongly disagree with my group members, I avoid an argument.

8. I enjoy being unique and different from others.

9. It is important to consider the needs of those who work above me.

10. It is my duty to take care of my family, even when I have to sacrifice what I want.

11. It is important for me to act as an independent person.

12. To me, pleasure is spending time with others.

578

Never

or

almost

never

Always

1 2 3 4 5 6

13. When faced with a difficult personal problem, it is better to decide for myself, than follow the advice of others.

14. It is important to make a good impression on one‘s manager.

15. I enjoy working in situations involving competition with others.

16. I see my self as ―my own person‖.

17. Competition is the law of nature.

18. I reveal personal things about myself.

19. I have the feeling that my relationships with others are more important than my own accomplishments

20. I like to live close to my good friends.

21. To me, pleasure is spending time with my superiors.

22. I consult my family before making an important decision.

23. I sacrifice my self-interest for the benefit of my group.

24. I help acquaintances, even if it is inconvenient.

25. Before taking a major trip, I consult with most members of my family and many friends.

26. It is important to consult close friends and get their ideas before making a decision.

27. I take responsibility for my own actions.

579

Never

or

almost

never

Always

1 2 3 4 5 6

28. I define myself as a competitive person.

29. Being able to take care of myself is a primary concern for me.

30. Without competition, it is not possible to have a good society.

THANK YOU ☺!

580

Annexure B – Pilot Questionnaire Pack

Dear Participant October 2006

Thank you for participating in this study. Please be assured that the information that you will provide,

will be kept confidential and feedback will be made available should you require it. The aim of the

study is to explore the nature of romantic love. The objective of this project is thus to add to the

existing body of love knowledge and specifically to discover how we love culturally in South Africa.

In the interest of science and research, please answer the questions independently and as honestly as

possible. Remember there are no wrong or right answers. The first spontaneous response is the

answer that is normally the truest; please do not ponder too long over any item. You are requested not

to turn back once you have answered a question. Although there is no time restriction, aim to work as

quickly as possible. Answering the questionnaire should take approximately an hour and fifteen

minutes. There are 8 sections to this questionnaire pack. There are questions on BOTH sides of the

page, please ensure you answer ALL the questions. If there are any questions regarding this project

you are welcome to contact me on [email protected].

Once again, many thanks,

Kety Pavlou

D.Litt et Phil (Psych) (University of Johannesburg)

____________________________________________________________________

Informed consent:

I hereby declare that my participation in this study on South African love is voluntary and can be

terminated at any time. I understand the purpose, procedure and time duration of the study. I

understand that confidentiality and anonymity is assured. Feedback will be given should I request to

receive it. To the knowledge of the researcher no harm or risk is associated with participation in this

study.

Date:______________________ Sign:________________________________________

mailto:[email protected]

581

Please provide the following biographical information in full:

Date of birth: Age: Gender: Male Female

Race Black White Coloured Indian Asian Other:___________

Home

language

Zulu Xhosa Sotho Venda Pedi Tswana


Ethnicity Zulu Xhosa Sotho Venda Pedi Tswana


How many years of education did

you complete (starting from primary school)?

10 years or less 11 years 12 years 13 years

14 years 15 years 16 years 17 years 18 years or over

If you have or have had a paid job, what kind of job is

it / was it?

No paid job (includes full-time students)

Unskilled or semi-skilled manual worker

Generally trained office worker or secretary

Vocationally trained craftsperson, technician, informatician, nurse, artist or

equivalent

Academically trained professional or equivalent (but not a manager of people)

Manager of one or more subordinates (non-managers)

Manager of one or more managers

Religious orientation

(tick all that are applicable to you)

Christianity African Ancestor Worship Islam Hindu Muslim

Buddhism Judaism Atheist Agnostic

Other___________________________

Setting you grew up in

Rural Small Town Large Town Suburb Large City

Family social

class

Upper Upper Middle Middle Lower Middle Working Lower

Current romantic relationship status

Not Involved Casual Dating Serious Dating

Engaged or Living Together Married Other_____________________

582

Should you want to receive feedback on the overall research findings, please provide your E-

mail Address: ____________________________________________

BEGIN!

583

Section 1: Frequency of love experiences


you. Please use a clear X to mark the applicable answer. Remember to give your first spontaneous

response, it is the most reliable.

1. Are you currently in love with someone? Yes No

2. How many different people have you been in love with (not counting childhood crushes)?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 or more

3. Have you been in an intimate relationship in the past? Yes No

4. Are you currently in an intimate relationship? Yes No

5. If you are currently in a relationship, how long have you been in the relationship?

_______________________________________________________________

6. If you have been in an intimate relationship in the past, how long was your longest relationship?

____________________________________________________

Section 2: Love as a basis for marriage

Instructions: Read each question carefully and then decide to what extent the statement is most true

for you. Please use a clear X to mark the applicable answer. Remember to give your first spontaneous

response, it is the most reliable.

4. If a man (woman) had all the other qualities you desired, would you marry this person if you were

not in love with him (her)? Yes No

5. If love has completely disappeared from a marriage, I think it is probably best for the couple to

make a clean break and start new lives. Agree Disagree

6. In my opinion, the disappearance of love is not a sufficient reason for ending a marriage and

should not be viewed as such. Agree Disagree

584

Section 3: Romantic Beliefs Scale

Instructions:

Read each question carefully and then decide to what extent the statement is true for you. Note the

descriptions on both ends of the 7 point scale which follows each question, and then decide where to

place your response on the scale. Please use a clear X to mark the applicable answer. Remember to

give your first spontaneous response, it is the most reliable.

16. I need to know someone for a period of time before I fall in love with him or her.

Strongly Agree




17. If I were in love with someone, I would commit myself to him or her even if my parents and friends

disapproved of the relationship.

Strongly Agree




18. Once I experience ‗true love‘, I could never experience it again, to the same degree, with another

person.

Strongly Agree




19. I believe that to be truly in love is to be in love forever.

Strongly Agree




20. If I love someone I know I can make the relationship work, despite any obstacles.

Strongly Agree




21. When I find my ‗true love‘ I will probably know it soon after we meet.

Strongly Agree




22. I‘m sure that every new thing I learn about the person I choose for a long-term commitment will

please me.

Strongly Agree




585

23. The relationship that I have with my ‗true love‘ will be nearly perfect.

Strongly Agree




24. If I love someone, I will find a way for us to be together regardless of the opposition to the

relationship, physical distance between us or any other barrier.

Strongly Agree




25. There will only be one real love for me.

Strongly Agree




26. If a relationship I have was meant to be, any obstacle (e.g., lack of money, physical distance,

career conflicts) can be overcome.

Strongly Agree




27. I am likely to fall in love almost immediately if I meet the right person.

Strongly Agree




28. I expect that in my relationship, romantic love will really last; it won‘t fade with time.

Strongly Agree




29. The person I love will make the perfect romantic partner; for example, he / she will be completely

accepting, loving and understanding.

Strongly Agree




30. I believe if another person and I love each other we can overcome any differences and problems

that may arise.

Strongly Agree




586

Section 4: Relationship Scales Questionnaire

Instructions: Please read each of the following statements and rate the extent to which you believe

each statement best describes your feelings about close relationships.

Not at all like me

Somewhat like me

Very much

like me

1 2 3 4 5

1. I find it difficult to depend on other people.

2. It is very important to me to feel independent.

3. I find it easy to get emotionally close to others.

4. I want to merge completely with another person.

5. I worry that I will be hurt if I allow myself to become too close to others.

6. I am comfortable without close emotional relationships.

7. I am not sure that I can always depend on others to be there when I need them.

8. I want to be completely emotionally intimate with others.

9. I worry about being alone.

10. I am comfortable depending on other people.

11. I often worry that romantic partners don't really love me.

12. I find it difficult to trust others completely.

13. I worry about others getting too close to me.

14. I want emotionally close relationships.

15. I am comfortable having other people depend on me.

16. I worry that others don't value me as much as I value them.

17. People are never there when you need them.

18. My desire to merge completely sometimes scares people away.

19. It is very important to me to feel self-sufficient.

587

Not at all like me

Somewhat like me

Very much like me

1 2 3 4 5

20. I am nervous when anyone gets too close to me.

21. I often worry that romantic partners won't want to stay with me.

22. I prefer not to have other people depend on me.

23. I worry about being abandoned.

24. I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others.

25. I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like.

26. I prefer not to depend on others.

27. I know that others will be there when I need them.

28. I worry about having others not accept me.

29. Romantic partners often want me to be closer than I feel comfortable being.

30. I find it relatively easy to get close to others.

588

Section 5: Love Attitude Scale

Instructions: If you are in a relationship please keep it in mind as you answer the questions. If you are

not in a relationship currently please answer the questions with your typical relationship in mind. Read

each question carefully and then decide to what extent the statement is true for you. Note the

descriptions at the top of the 5 point scale and then decide where to place your response on the scale.

Mark the applicable block on the scale with a clear cross (X). Remember to give your first

spontaneous response.

Strongly Agree

Moderately Agree


Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5

43. My partner and I were attracted to each other immediately after we first met.

44. My partner and I have the right physical ―chemistry‖ between us.

45. Our lovemaking is very intense and satisfying.

46. I feel that my partner and I were meant for each other.

47. My partner and I became physically involved very quickly.

.

48. My partner and I really understand each other.

49. My partner fits my ideal standards of physical beauty / handsomeness.

50. I try to keep my partner a little uncertain about my commitment to him/her.

51. I believe that what my partner doesn‘t know about me won‘t hurt him/her.

52. I have sometimes had to keep my partner from finding out about other partners.

589

Strongly Agree

Moderately Agree


Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5

53. I could get over my affair with my partner pretty easily and quickly.

54. My partner would get upset if he / she knew some of the things I‘ve done with other people.

55. When my partner gets too dependent on me, I want to back off a little.

56. I enjoy playing the ―game of love‖ with my partner and a number of other partners.

57. It is hard for me to say exactly when our friendship turned into love.

58. To be genuine, our love first required caring for a while.

59. I expect to always be friends with my partner.

60. Our love is the best kind because it grew out of a long friendship.

61. Our friendship merged gradually into love over time.

62. Our love is really a deep friendship, not a mysterious, mystical emotion.

63. Our love relationship is the most satisfying because it developed from a good friendship.

64. I considered what my partner was going to become in life before I commit myself to him/her.

590

Strongly Agree

Moderately Agree


Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5

65. I tried to plan my life carefully before choosing my partner.

66. In choosing my partner, I believed it was best to love someone with a similar background.

67. A main consideration in choosing my partner was how he/she reflected on my family.

68. An important factor in choosing my partner is whether or not he / she would be a good parent.

69. One consideration in choosing my partner is how he / she would reflect on my career.

70. Before getting very involved with my partner, I tried to figure out how compatible his / her hereditary background was with mine in case we ever had children.

71. When things aren‘t right with my partner and me, my stomach gets upset.

72. When my partner and I break up, I would get so depressed that I would even think of suicide.

73. Sometimes I get so excited about being in love with my partner that I can‘t sleep.

74. When my partner doesn‘t pay attention to me, I feel sick all over.

591

Strongly Agree

Moderately Agree


Strongly Disagree

1 2 3 4 5

75. Since I‘ve been in love with my partner, I‘ve had trouble concentrating on anything else.

76. I cannot relax if I suspect my partner is with someone else.

77. If my partner ignores me for a while, I sometimes do stupid things to get his / her attention back.

78. I try to always help my partner through difficult times.

79. I would rather suffer myself than let my partner suffer.

80. I cannot be happy unless I place my partner‘s happiness before my own.

81. I‘m usually willing to sacrifice my own wishes to let my partner achieve his / hers.

82. Whatever I own is my partner‘s to use as he / she chooses.

83. When my partner gets angry with me, I still love him / her fully and unconditionally.

84. I would endure all things for the sake of my partner.

592

Section 6: Values Survey Module


you. Note the descriptions at the top of the 5 point scale and then decide where to place your

response on the scale. Mark the applicable block on the scale with a clear cross (X). Once again,

please give your first spontaneous response.



very important




importance

1 2 3 4 5

21. Have sufficient time for your personal or family life.

22. Have good physical working conditions (good ventilation and lighting, adequate work space, etc.)

23. Have a good working relationship with your direct superior

24. Have security of employment

25. Work with people who cooperate well with one another

.

26. Be consulted by your direct superior in his/her decisions

593



very important




importance

1 2 3 4 5

27. Have an opportunity for advancement to higher level jobs

28. Have an element of variety and adventure in the job

In your private life, how important is each of the following to you?


very important




importance

1 2 3 4 5

29. Personal steadiness and stability

30. Thrift (cautious with money) 1 2 3 4 5

31. Persistence (perseverance)

32. Respect for tradition

never seldom sometimes usually always

1 2 3 4 5

33. How often do you feel nervous or tense at work?

34. How frequently, in your experience, are subordinates afraid to express disagreement with their superiors?

594

To what extent do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements?

strongly agree

agree undecided disagree strongly disagree

1 2 3 4 5

35. Most people can be trusted

36. One can be a good manager without having precise answers to most questions that subordinates may raise about their work

37. An organization structure in which certain subordinates have two bosses should be avoided at all costs

38. Competition between employees usually does more harm than good

39. A company's or organization's rules should not be broken - not even when the employee thinks it is in the company's best interest

40. When people have failed in life it is often their own fault

595

Section 7: Cultural Dimensions: Individualism and Collectivism


you. Note the descriptions on both ends of the 6 point scale which follows each question and then

decide where to place your response on the scale. Please use a clear X to mark the applicable

answer. Please give your first spontaneous response.

Never

or

almost

never

Always

1 2 3 4 5 6

31. I prefer to be self-reliant rather than depend on others.

32. I hate to disagree with others in my group.

33. In interacting with superiors, I am always polite.

34. I consult my parents before making an important decision.

35. I consider my self as a unique person separate from others.

36. I discuss job or study-related problems with my parents.

37. Even when I strongly disagree with my group members, I avoid an argument.

38. I enjoy being unique and different from others.

39. It is important to consider the needs of those who work above me.

40. It is my duty to take care of my family, even when I have to sacrifice what I want.

41. It is important for me to act as an independent person.

42. To me, pleasure is spending time with others.

596

Never

or

almost

never

Always

1 2 3 4 5 6

43. When faced with a difficult personal problem, it is better to decide for myself, than follow the advice of others.

44. It is important to make a good impression on one‘s manager.

45. I enjoy working in situations involving competition with others.

46. I see my self as ―my own person‖.

47. Competition is the law of nature.

48. I reveal personal things about myself.

49. I have the feeling that my relationships with others are more important than my own accomplishments

50. I like to live close to my good friends.

51. To me, pleasure is spending time with my superiors.

52. I consult my family before making an important decision.

53. I sacrifice my self-interest for the benefit of my group.

54. I help acquaintances, even if it is inconvenient.

55. Before taking a major trip, I consult with most members of my family and many friends.

56. It is important to consult close friends and get their ideas before making a decision.

57. I take responsibility for my own actions.

597

Never

or

almost

never

Always

1 2 3 4 5 6

58. I define myself as a competitive person.

59. Being able to take care of myself is a primary concern for me.

60. Without competition, it is not possible to have a good society.

598

Section 8: Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI).

Instructions: Read each adjective carefully and then decide whether, in your culture, the adjective is

more frequently associated with men (M), more frequently associated with women (W); or not

differentially associated with gender (A). Note the descriptions at the top of the 7 point scale and then

decide where to place your response on the scale. Mark the applicable block on the scale with a clear

cross (M and or F or A). Remember to give your first spontaneous response, it is the most reliable.

Never or

almost

never

true

Always

or

almost

always

true

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Self-reliant

2. Yielding

3. Helpful

4. Defends own beliefs

5. Cheerful

6. Moody

7. Independent

8. Shy

9. Conscientious

10. Athletic

11. Affectionate

12. Theatrical

13. Assertive

14. Flatterable

15. Happy

16. Strong personality

599

Never or

almost

never

true

Always

or

almost

always

true

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

17. Loyal

18. Unpredictable

19. Forceful

20. Feminine

21. Reliable

22. Analytical

23. Sympathetic

24. Jealous

25. Has leadership abilities

26. Sensitive to the needs of others

27. Truthful

28. Willing to take risks

29. Understanding

30. Secretive

31. Makes decisions easily

32. Compassionate

33. Sincere

34. Self Sufficient

35. Eager to soothe hurt feelings

36. Conceited

37. Dominant

600

Never or

almost

never

true

Always

or

almost

always

true

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

38. Soft spoken

39. Likable

40. Masculine

41. Warm

42. Solemn

43. Willing to take a stand

44. Tender

45. Friendly

46. Aggressive

47. Gullible

48. Inefficient

49. Acts as a leader

50. Childlike

51. Adaptable

52. Individualistic

53. Does not use harsh language

54. Unsystematic

55. Competitive

56. Love children

57. Tactful

58. Ambitious

59. Gentle

601

Never or

almost

never

true

Always

or

almost

always

true

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

60. Conventional

How long did it take to complete the questionnaire? _____________________

THANK YOU ☺!

A cross-cultural study - University of Johannesburg

Documents

Transcript of A cross-cultural study - University of Johannesburg