Is the Romantic/Sexual Kiss a Near Human Universal?

Abstract

Scholars from a wide range of human social and behavioral

sciences have become interested in the romantic/sexual kiss. This

research, and its public dissemination, often includes statements

about the ubiquity of kissing, particularly romantic/sexual

kissing, across cultures. Yet, to date there is no evidence to

support or reject this claim. Employing standard cross-cultural

methods, this paper is the first attempt to use a large sample

set (eHRAF and ethnographer survey) to document the presence or

absence of the romantic/sexual kiss. We defined kissing as lip-

to-lip contact lasting long enough for exchange of saliva.

Despite frequent depictions of kissing in a wide range of

material culture, we found no evidence that the romantic/sexual

kiss is a human universal or even a near universal. The

romantic/sexual kiss was present in a minority of cultures

sampled (45.8%). Moreover, there is strong correlation between

the frequency of the romantic/sexual kiss and a society’s

1

relative social complexity: the more socially complex the higher

frequency of romantic kissing. Putative biobehavioral responses

to romantic/sexual kissing are likely contingent on cultural

contexts that have come to enjoy, and not reject in disgust, the

romantic/sexual kiss as a pleasurable experience.

Introduction

Despite frequent depiction in a wide range of art,

literature, and media, there is no consensus concerning whether

or not romantic/sexual kissing (here after kissing) is a human

universal. Some evolutionary psychologists (Hughes, Harrison, &

Gallup, 2007; Wlodarski and Dunbar, 2013, 2014) and

anthropologists (Fisher 1983, 1992) argue that lip kissing may be

a tacit, albeit adaptive, means to assess a potential mate’s

health and genetic compatibility, in addition to testing a

potential partner’s romantic interest and socio-sexual

2

attunement. These arguments often include support from the

primate behavior literature, where affiliative gestures including

open mouth and tongue kissing have been noted in chimpanzees and

bonobos (de Waal, 1990, 2000). Several scholars also make claims

such as “[m]outh-to-mouth romantic kissing is… common in over 90%

of known cultures” (Wlodarski and Dunbar, 2013:1415).

The universality position receives support from research

conducted among United States college students, which has found

sex/gender differences in patterns of romantic kissing (Hughes et

al., 2007). In one such study, young women reported using the

kiss as a mate-assessment tactic, whereas young men reported

using the kiss to seemingly arouse a partner’s sexual interest

(Hughes et al., 2007). In another, U.S. college students rated

kissing as more intimate than other non-sexual affiliative

interactions such as cuddling, holding hands, hugging, or massage

(Gulledge, Gulledge, & Stahmann, 2003). Other studies with U.S.

adolescents have noted the importance of kissing in establishing

romantic and sexual relationships, as an early part of ordered

sexual experiences (Welsh et al., 2005; O’Sullivan, et al.,

2007). In many westernized social settings the romantic kiss is

3

part of the hierarchical sexual script (Gergersen 1983, Danesi,

2013; Kirschenbaum, 2011), and may be an important biobehavioral

means of partner assessment (Fisher, 1992; Author, 2013). But,

what evidence is there that the kiss may be a human universal,

rather than a culturally variable display of affection?

Existing literature points to the role of kissing as part of

a romantic, emotionally intimate experience (Wlodarski and

Dunbar, 2013); however, this may only be the case in particular

social-cultural contexts. The representation of the kiss in a wide

range of art and literature does suggest, however, that when part

of a cultural sexual repertoire, kissing takes on special

meaning. For instance, one study of middle aged and older couples

from five countries (Brazil, Germany, Japan, Spain, and United

States) found that affiliative touch, including kissing and

cuddling, in long-term romantic relationships predicted

relationship satisfaction among both sexes/genders, and predicted

sexual satisfaction among men (Heiman et al., 2011). Some initial

findings even suggest that kissing with romantic partners may

improve a variety of health outcomes (Floyd et al., 2009; Hendrie

& Brewer, 2010). These patterns are consistent with biocultural

4

models that integrate specific sociocultural context and practice

with material human biology, and might imply that, for some,

kissing can be arousing and pleasurable – and perhaps even

adaptive – but need not imply a human universal.

Adopting a broad definition, Kirshenbaum asserts that the

kiss is a human universal. She does not, however, document

whether this applies specifically to the romantic/sexual kiss.

Advocates of the kiss’s universality often cite Eibl-Eibesfeldt’s

(1972) pioneering ethological research and claim it documents the

romantic/sexual kiss’s universality. Eibl-Eibesfeldt, however,

did not make this claim. Instead, he suggested that some forms of

human kissing (e.g., adult to child, or child to adult) may be

universals. Thus an important distinction is made about the

behavior of kissing and the supposed erotic intentionality in the

kiss (such as among lovers) as a context removed from a more

generalized affiliative gesture (such as among kin). Because

Eibl-Eibesfeldt never systematically documented the cross-

cultural presence of the romantic/sexual kiss, its relative

ubiquity remains undocumented.

5

In contrast, Marcel Danesi’s (2013) historical review of

ancient and modern European societies, including an occasional

non-European ethnographic report (Crawley 2005), found the

romantic/sexual kiss was not a human universal. Danesi’s

overview, like earlier researchers Ford and Beach (1951) and

Gregersen (1983), did not attempt a systematic cross-cultural

investigation. Ford and Beach’s (1951) “cross-cultural survey”

was composed of only thirteen cultures: five cultures with

kissing and eight cultures without kissing . A few decades later,

Gregersen (1983) observed that the romantic kiss appeared to be

universal in Europe, Middle East, and contemporary North America,

while not being present in three cultures (also noted by Ford and

Beach). Based on these three negative cases he concluded the

romantic kiss is not a human universal. While informative, these

data are limited in their ability to conclude much about cross-

cultural patterns of kissing.

To date, there is no systematic cross-cultural survey that

follows established sampling practices to identify the relative

frequency of the romantic/sexual kiss. The absence of a solid

rigorous investigation into the relative frequency of the

6

romantic kiss contributes to the contradictory positions found in

scientific and popular literature. To this end, the present study

is the first attempt to methodically document the presence or

absence of the romantic/sexual kiss around the world.

Methods

The current study used the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample

(SCCS) to conduct ethnographic analysis (Murdock & White, 1969).

The SCCS contains a subset of the 1,250 societies listed in the

Ethnographic Atlas (Murdock 1967), focusing on the most well-

described and representative societies for a total of 186

societies that are relatively independent from one another in

several dimensions. The SCCS provides a sample of world societies

that attempts to reduce the problem of non-independence due to

common cultural derivation (Galton’s problem).

We employed SCCS ethnographic methods to sample a variety

of societies and code the range and types of kissing behavior

present. We used eHRAF (Electronic Human Relations Area Files)

as our primary data source. We searched nine cultural areas

(Africa, Asia, Europe, Middle America, Caribbean, Middle East,

North America, Oceania, and South America) for the keywords

7

“kiss” and “kissing.” See Table 2 for a distribution of the

presence or absence of kissing for each cultural area.

We supplemented our eHRAF findings with unpublished data

obtained from historical sources and ethnographers. We contacted

eighty-eight ethnographers, the majority selected from Ember and

Ember’s Encyclopedia of Sex and Gender (2004), asking “Did you observe

or hear of people kissing on the mouth in a sexual, intimate

setting?”. Twenty-eight ethnographers responded to our email

inquiry. Fourteen ethnographers acknowledged they had not studied

or focused on couple intimacy and thus could not respond.

Fourteen others responded they had never observed a single

instance of romantic/sexual kissing within their studied culture.

In addition, given the paucity of eHRAF data, four other

ethnographers who worked with horticultural or foragers were

contacted through our personal networks. With the exception of

five cultures (which we removed to prevent duplication bias),

none of the other thirteen cultures were listed in the eHRAF

sample. This left us with thirteen additional cultures, which we

combined with the 155 eHARF sample set for a total of 168

cultures.

8

The following colleagues graciously provided data for this

project: Janet Chemela (Wanano), Alyssa Crittenden (Hadza),

Shanshan Du (Lahu), Liam Fink (Northern Alaskan), Russell Graves

(Pume and 1990s Maya), Tom Gregor (Mehinku), Michael Gurven

(Tsimane), Barry Hewlett and Bonnie Hewlett (Aka), Robert

Jarvenpa (Chipewyan), Karen Kramer (Pume and 1990s Maya), Frank

Marlow (Hadza), Pierre Lierard (Turkana), David Lipset (Sepik),

Pamela Feldman-Savelsbeg (rural Bamiléké), Susan Seymour

(Northern India, Odish), Pamela Stern (Inuit), Charles Lindholm

(Pukhtun), and Cuncun Wu (Han and Ming dynasty).

Coding

Sheril Kirshenbaum’s (2011) review applied a broad

definition of what constitutes a kiss: “the rubbing or patting of

the arms, breasts, or stomachs to striking one’s face or the feet

of another.” We adopted a more restrictive, albeit conventional,

definition that defines the romantic/sexual kiss as lip-to-lip

contact lasting long enough for the exchange of saliva. In other

words, the romantic/sexual kiss is not a passing glance of the

lips but touching that is more focused and thus prolonged.

9

We did not code for frequency, as little data on this is

present. Therefore, we coded kissing as “1=present” or “2=not

present” within a culture. “Not present” coding was determined

two ways: 1) the ethnographer specifically stated they never

witnessed romantic kissing or that kissing was taboo or

“disgusting” to that culture, or 2) the ethnographer discussed

the presence of other types of kissing (e.g., parent-child

kissing or adult greetings) but then did not discuss or mention

couples kissing. The oceanic kiss (sometimes referred to as a

Malay kiss or face rubbing) is more associated with smelling, and

therefore we only included this as romantic/sexual kissing if it

was also specifically noted that lovers did this. (The oceanic

kiss appears to be about greetings that emphasize mutuality

through smelling).

Additionally, we coded for the presence of stratification

within a culture. We initially coded “1= Egalitarian,” “2=Simple

Stratified,” “3=Complex Stratified,” and “4=Commercial Economy.”

As we only had nine societies with “Commercial Economies,” we

collapsed those into “Complex Stratified.” Further, we collapsed

the 15 distinct U.S. data points, separated by ethnic groups,

10

into one “U.S.” data point in an effort to be conservative with

our interpretations. We remained with three cultural

stratification types: Egalitarian, Simple, and Complex.

Stratified societies have a hierarchical system based on rank

positions with or without a centralized political authority. We

defined simple stratification as having a hierarchical system

based on rank positions that lack a centralized political

authority; whereas complex societies have more dense populations,

social classes, and centralized political leadership (Fried,

1967; Service, 1962, 1971).

Our database was created in a Microsoft Excel 2013

spreadsheet, and imported into IBM’s SPSS V.22 for analysis.

Results

We collected data from 168 cultures from a wide range of

geographical locations, historical backgrounds, and social

structures. Within this sample, we found that 77 cultures (45.8%)

had evidence of the romantic/sexual kiss, and 91 cultures (54.2%)

did not. Therefore, our data suggests that the romantic/sexual

kiss is neither a human universal nor near universal. We suspect

that perhaps western ethnocentrism, that is “the belief that a

11

behavior currently deemed pleasurable must be a human universal”,

may be driving the common misconception that romantic/sexual

kissing is a (near) universal.

[Insert Table 1 About Here]

Analysis with simple percentages revealed a correlation

between position on the scale of social complexity and reporting

of romantic/sexual kissing as present. In support of our findings,

reporting of romantic/sexual kissing as not present decreases with

social complexity (see Table 1). Even with the dismissal of

cultures for which no data could be confirmed, the relationship

between the presence of kissing and social complexity remained.

In light of the appearance of this visible correlation, we

ran a chi-squared Test of Independence across the stratification

groups. This test showed significant results for the relationship

between presence or absence of kissing and social complexity (x2 =

33.573, df = 2, n = 168, p > .000). Based upon these results, we

find the frequent citation that more than 90% of cultures kiss,

particularly when referring to a romantic/sexual context, to be

arbitrary and factually incorrect, necessitating further critical

examination and research.

12

[Insert Table 2 About Here]

Discussion

The current study serves as an important corrective to

claims that romantic/sexual kissing is a human universal. By

undertaking the first wide ranging cross-cultural assessment of

kissing, we find that this claim is factually inaccurate. We

found only 77 out of 168 (45.8%) cultures in which the

romantic/sexual kiss was present. Significantly, no ethnographer

working with African, New Guinea, or Amazonian foragers or

horticulturalists reported having witnessed any occasion in which

their study populations engaged in a romantic/sexual kiss.

However, kissing appears to be nearly ubiquitous among 6 of the 7

foragers living in the Arctic. The concentration of kissing among

Arctic foragers, for which we do not have a satisfactory

explanation, stands in stark contrast to its equally striking

absence in other cultural regions.

From an epistemological perspective, the absence of evidence

does not mean the behavior is truly absent; positive confirmation

is better than a negative finding in such situations.

Acknowledging this epistemological axiom, however, it is equally

13

valid to consider that when longtime field researchers with

extensive and diverse field experiences report that they have

never witnessed kissing or have been told specifically by members

of the culture that it does or does not occur, it is analytically

fruitful to accept the field ethnographers’ observations. These

researchers study sexual behavior in their respective cultures,

gathering information about individuals’ intimate lives. In these

cases the absence of an observation stands as likely evidence of

the absence of the behavior. This is especially so when the

literature perpetuates a claim without ethnographic evidence of

the presence of a behavior, arguing (with inaccurate referencing)

that romantic/sexual kissing is a human universal. In so doing,

the presence of universality claims in the literature also

highlight the intellectual dangers of western ethnocentrism.

Some scholars have used the universality position to further

link the exchange of saliva during kissing as a means, albeit

subconscious, to the assessment of reproductive viability of a

potential mate (Wlodarski and Dunbar, 2013, 2014). The argument

that kissing can be a cue of health and illness requires further

investigation. The potential for exposure to communicable disease

14

may actually be a case against kissing, rather than a reason to

kiss and risk exposure to potential pathogens. In societies that

lack advanced dental care and oral hygiene , kissing may in fact

be maladaptive. As an example, respiratory illness is a common

health concern globally, and kissing may result

in exchanging upper respiratory viruses and other diseases – that

is, by testing for a potential partner’s fitness one may

compromise their own (Tom Gregor, email correspondence, 2014).

Aversive breath smell and/or taste during kissing may also signal

communicable disease (Durham et al., 1993). In some societal

conditions, the potential risk of disease may outweigh the

potential benefits of kissing. As dental and medical care is

relatively recent in human history, it would stand to reason such

societies provide an example of the evolutionary norm not the

exception.

Interestingly, there is no correlation between leisure time

and the appearance of couples engaging in kissing. The Aka and

Hadza of central Africa, for instance, have an abundance of

leisure time and are intimately expressive societies (Hewlett and

Hewlett, 2008, 2010), yet do not engage in kissing. Clearly

15

something else is required to shift kissing from adult/infant

affiliative contact to adult/adult erotic contact, ultimately

being included in a seductive context. It is unclear at this time

the ways in which social constructions of gender may also

influence the occurrence of kissing. Recent studies with

westernized post-industrial samples have found moderate

sex/gender differences in attitudes toward kissing (Hughes,

Harrison, & Gallup, 2007). Further, in several contemporary

(heterosexually-focused) studies, women have reported higher

rates of forced kissing than men (China: So-Kum Tang, Critelli, &

Porter, 1995; India: Waldner, Vaden-Goad, & Sikka, 1999; U.S.:

Christopher, 1988), perhaps due to men attempting to seduce

partners (Hughes, Harrison, & Gallup, 2007), suggesting the kiss

may have ties to power and privilege quite removed from notions

of mutual eroticism.

There is a strong association between social complexity,

especially as it pertains to the development of social class, and

the increased presence of kissing. This pattern, it seems, does

not vary by cultural area or geographical region. We suspect the

romantic/sexual kiss’s emergence onto the world stage may be a

16

by-product of the rise of elite social classes that value, as a

sign of social distinction, the control of emotional displays.

What is remarkable, given the pleasures many people find in

kissing, is that it came so late in human history. How then did

kissing become so common in some places? It cannot simply be

copying the behaviors of the global elites. In 1890 when the

South African Thonga (Junod, 1962) and one hundred years later

the Mehinku of Amazonia (Gregor, email correspondence, 2014)

observed Europeans kissing, their first reaction was one of

disgust at such “gross” behavior. Like other romantic and sexual

behaviors, while kissing may be a way to communicate intimacy in

some societies, or function as a specific eroticized activity in

others, it is important to note that for others, kissing is seen

as unpleasant, unclean, and unusual (Danesi, 2013; Ford & Beach,

1951; Author, 2013; Hatfield & Rapson, 2005).

Conclusion

There is no support that the romantic/sexual kiss is a human

universal. Claiming that the kiss in some form is present in most

cultures is different from the claim that the romantic/sexual

kiss is present in the vast majority of cultures. To claim

17

something is a universal, it must be present in the majority of

cross-cultural records and in both egalitarian and stratified

societies. Our survey found weak evidence that foragers kiss in

this potentially romantic/sexual manner. We also found a positive

correlation between social stratification, especially the

appearance of distinct social classes, and the presence of

kissing.

The romantic/sexual kiss is often co-opted, and perhaps

ritualized, as part of romantic and sexual performance. In these

cultural instances, kissing may well serve to bolster the pair-

bond relationship, by way of biobehavioral partner assessment

and/or by way of conforming to the imagined cultural sexual

script. The evidence from westernized samples is compelling that

in some instances kissing does directly impact the function of

romantic relationships; in such cases, it is possible that

kissing may even serve as a culturally specific adaptation.

However, we implore scholars to avoid characterizations of the

romantic/sexual kiss as a human universal, and as such to

critically examine the purported likelihood of kissing as a

specific adaptation derived to promote human survival and

18

reproduction via mate-choice. Rather, the kiss may be a seemingly

pleasurable part of sexual repertoires which vary across place

and time, but anchors on the truly universal human capacity for

romantic love (Fisher, 1992; Author, 2013; Author, 2008).

Acknowledgements

We thank our colleagues noted above for their invaluable feedback

and contribution of thoughts, observations and data to our

analysis.

References

Christopher, F.S. 1988. An initial investigation into a continuum

of premarital sexual pressure. Journal of Sex Research, 25 (2): 255-

266.

Crawly, E. 2005. Primitive Marriage and its System. Kila, MT: Kessinger

Publications Reprint.

Danesi, M. 2013. The History of the Kiss! The Birth of Popular Culture. New

York, NY: Palgrave, MacMillan.

de Waal, F.B.M. 1990. Sociosexual behavior used for tension

regulation in all age and sex combinations among Bonobos. In

19

J.R. Feierman (Ed.), Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions, pp 378-393. New

York, NY: Springer.

de Waal, F.B.M. 2000. The first kiss: Foundations of conflict

resolution research in animals. In F. Aureli & F.B.M. de Waal

(Eds.), Natural Conflict Resolution, pp. 15–33. Berkely, CA:

University of California Press.

Durham, T.M., T. Malloy, & E.D. Hodges. 1993. Halitosis: Knowing

when “bad breath” signals systemic disease. Geriatrics, 48 (8): 55-

59.

Eibl- Eibesfeldt, I. 1972. Love and Hate: The natural history of behavior

patterns. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Ember, M. and C. Ember. Eds. 2004. Sex and Gender Encyclopedia, Vol. I

and II. New York: Kluwer Academic.

Fisher, H.E. 1982. The Sex Contract: The evolution of human behavior. New

York, NY: William Morrow.

Fisher, H.E. 1992. Anatomy of Love: A natural history of mating, marriage, and

why we stray. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

Floyd, K., J.P. Boren, A.F. Hannawa, C. Hesse, B. McEwan, & A.E.

Veksler. 2009. Kissing in marital and cohabiting

relationships: Effects on blood lipids, stress, and

20

relationships satisfaction. Western Journal of Communication, 73 (2):

113-133.

Fried, M.H. 1967. The evolution of political society: An essay in political

anthropology. (Random House studies in anthropology, AS 7). New

York, NY: Random House.

Ford, C.S. & F.A. Beach. 1951. Patterns of Sexual Behavior. New York,

NY: Harper and Row.

Gregersen, E. 1983. Sexual Practices. New York: Franklin Watts.

Gulledge, A.K., M.H. Gulledge, & R.F. Stahmann. 2003. Romantic

physical affection types and relationship satisfaction. The

American Journal of Family Therapy, 31 (4): 233-242.

Hatfield, E. & R.L. Rapson. 2005. Love and Sex: Cross-cultural

perspectives. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Hendrie, C.A. & G. Brewer. 2010. Kissing as an evolutionary

adaption to protect against Human Cytomegalovirus-like

teratogenesis. Medical Hypotheses, 74 (2), 222-224.

Heiman, J.R., J.S. Long, S.N. Smith, W.A. Fisher, M.S. Sand, &

R.C. Rosen. 2011. Sexual satisfaction and relationship

happiness in midlife and older couples in five countries.

Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40 (4): 741-753.

21

Hewlett, B.L. & B.S. Hewlett. 2008. A Biocultural approach to

sex, love and intimacy in central African forgers and farmers.

In W.R. Jankowiak (Ed.), Intimacies: Love and sex across cultures, pp 40-

64. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Hewlett, B.S. & B.L. Hewlett. 2010. Sex and searching for

children among Aka foragers and Ngandu farmers of Central

Africa. African Study Monographs, 31 (3): 107-125.

Horowitz, A. 2009. Inside of a Dog: What Dogs See, Smell, and Know. New

York, NY: Scribner.

Hughes, S.M., M.A. Harrison, & G.G. Gallup. 2007. Sex differences

in romantic kissing among college students: An evolutionary

perspective. Evolutionary Psychology, 5 (3): 612-631.

Junod, H.A. 1962. The Life of a South African Tribe. New York, NY:

University Books. (originally published in 1912)

Kirshenbaum, S. 2011. The Science of Kissing: What our lips are telling us. New

York, NY: Grand Central Publishing.

Murdock, G.P. 1967. Ethnographic Atlas: A summary. Pittsburgh, PA: The

University of Pittsburgh Press.

Murdock, G.P. & D.R. White. 1969. Standard cross-cultural

sample. Ethnology, 8 (4): 329-369.

22

O’Sullivan, L.F., M.M. Cheng, K.M. Harris, & J. Brooks-Gunn.

2007. I wanna hold your hand: The progression of social,

romantic and sexual events in adolescent relationships.

Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 39 (2): 100-107.

Service, E.R. 1968. Primitive Social Organization: An evolutionary perspective.

New York, NY: Random House.

So-Kum Tang, C., J.W. Critelli, & J.F. Porter. 1995. Sexual

aggression and victimization in dating relationships among

Chinese college students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 24 (1): 47-53.

Waldner, L.K., L. Vaden-Goad, & A. Sikka. 1999. Sexual coercion

in India: An exploratory analysis using demographic variables.

Archives of Sexual Behavior, 28 (6): 523-538.

Welsh, D.P., P.T. Haugen, L. Widman, N. Darling, & C.M. Grello.

2005. Kissing is good: A developmental investigation of

sexuality in adolescent romantic couples. Sexuality Research & Social

Policy, 2 (4), 32-41.

Wlodarski, R. & R.I.M. Dunbar. 2013. Examining the possible

functions of kissing in romantic relationships. Archives of Sexual

Behavior, 42(8): 1415-1423.

23

Wlodarski, R. & R.I.M. Dunbar. 2014. What’s in a kiss? The effect

of romantic kissing on mate desirability. Evolutionary Psychology,

12 (1): 178-199.

Table 1. Presence of Romantic/Sexual Kissing by Social Complexity

Present Not Present

24

Egalitarian 2029.0%

4971.0%

Simple Stratified

2037.0%

3463.0%

Complex Stratified

3782.2%

817.8%

All Cultures 7745.8%

9154.2%

25

Table 2. Presence of Romantic/Sexual Kissing by Cultural Area.

PresentNot

Present TotalNorth

America18

54.5%15

45.5%33

Oceania 743.8%

956.2%

16

Middle East 10100.0%

00.0%

10

SouthAmerica

419.0%

1781.0%

21

CentralAmerica

00.0%

10100.0%

10

Europe 770.0%

330.0%

10

Africa 412.9%

2787.1%

31

Asia 2773.0%

1027.0%

37

Total 77 91 168

26