A Many-Splendored Thing:
Intra-Ethnic Views of Romantic Love and its Evil Twin, Jealousy
Genaro Gonzalez
Berenice Martinez
University of Texas-Pan American
Introduction
The Role of Culture in Romantic Love
Psychological research that examines attitudes towards love has been somewhat ambiguous about the role, if any, that culture plays in the perception and expression of romantic love. Yet despite this ambivalence, when one views both its theoretical approaches and empirical evidence from a more historical perspective a general pattern does emerge. Early studies tended to take a relativist stance, arguing that the psychology of intimate relationships is primarily a cultural construct (de Rougemont, 1956; Hunt, 1959; Rubin, 1970). Therefore considerable cultural variation should exist in the perception and expression of these areas. Indeed many investigators at this time argued that love was essentially a Western invention, created and disseminated by medieval troubadours throughout the Mediterranean courts. This courtly love was originally intended as little more than a pastime for royalty and only later became reified. Cultural relativists argued that even after romantic love came to be seen as an essential and indispensable part of an individual’s life trajectory, its prevalence rarely extended beyond its cradle of Western civilization.
Later investigators began to promote an evolutionary and sociobiological perspective, arguing that perhaps the phenomenon is more universal—and thus less culturally influenced—than previously believed (Hatfield & Rapson, 1996; Cho & Cross, 1995). These researchers stressed that although other cultures, especially non-Western ones, may not explicitly acknowledge the importance of romantic love in an intimate, dyadic relationship—indeed, may even lack the proper vocabulary to label it—romantic love is nonetheless a universal experience. The evolutionary perspective argues that historically individuals have entered a marital (or comparable) relationship primarily to fulfill a biologically programmed goal—finding a way to pass on their genetic material into the next generation. Yet traditionally children, unlike infra-human offspring, have needed the presence of both parents to enculturate them properly and to maximize their odds of surviving early childhood. This in turn, these theorists argue, calls for biological mechanisms that encourage both parents to remain in a protracted and exclusive relationship. Thus romantic love serves as a critical biological bond, at least until the proverbial “seven-year itch”, at which time the child (i.e., genetic vessel) can function and flourish with only one caregiver. Indeed, this callous “selfish gene” perspective regards the emotional turmoil that often torments an individual in love--yearning, heartbreak, jealousy, even madness—(and that inspires investigators to examine these processes) as curious but ultimately inconsequential by-products of the genetic material’s inexorable march towards replication.
Current investigators generally acknowledge this pan-cultural approach. Yet many believe that specific cultures still play an important role in the way one views love (Brehm, Miller, Perlman, & Campbell, 2001; Dion & Dion, 1996).
Jealousy and Cultural Considerations
Sexual jealousy, at least in Western cultures, is often regarded as going hand in hand with romantic love. Erber and Erber (1991), along with Mullen (1991), agree with St. Augustine’s dictum, “He who is not jealous does not love.” However, although the two constructs may appear inextricable, a similar concern arises as does with romantic love: Is jealousy universal? For while jealousy corresponds to the dark side of love, one may still ask whether it is part of basic human experience.
An extensive examination of the full cultural parameters of sexual jealousy is beyond the scope of this review. Moreover, as with romantic love, the construct brings its own controversies with respect to its cultural prevalence. Among these is the question, as with romantic love, of whether the phenomenon is peculiar to Western civilization. Yet even if one views jealousy as uniquely occidental, a historical and meta-cultural analysis suggests that the earliest Western perceptions of jealousy did not even regard its etiology as properly psychological. Homer, instead of proposing an internal origin for jealousy, viewed its locus in much the same way as passionate love, as something inflicted externally by Cupid or the gods.
Nowadays, although discussions on the topic have moved from the forums of art and philosophy to the arena of the social sciences, one issues continues—the extent, if any, to which a given society mediates the experience and the expression of jealousy. (Bringle & Evenbeck, 1979). The literature on sexual jealousy has an interesting trajectory, similar in fact to that of romantic love. For instance, evolutionary psychology and sociobiology now emphasize its biological (i.e., pan-cultural) determinants in the concept of the selfish gene. Jealousy, particularly for the human male, exists as a mechanism to safeguard the continuity of his genetic material while simultaneously reducing the likelihood of unwittingly fostering the genes of a usurper. As with the above debate on romantic love, which weighs the role of evolution and culture, current research on sexual jealousy acknowledges the contributions of both variables (Buunk, Angleitner, Oubaid, & Buss, 1996).
A final clarification: Although jealousy is at times used interchangeably with envy, and although a tenuous overlap exists between the two terms, there is nonetheless a basic distinction, as important conceptually as for the creation of an operational definition. Envy involves the coveting of something that someone else already has. The experience of jealousy, on the other hand, implies that one already possesses something (or someone) but fears that he or she may lose it to someone else (who, as the conceptual carryover suggests, is probably envious).
Purpose of Study
The debate continues with respect to inter-cultural differences (or similarities, as the universalists would argue) in the realm of romantic love and jealousy (Marston, Hecht & Robers, 1987; Contreras, Hendrick & Hendrick, 1996). The proposed study, however focuses on the question of whether intra-cultural variations on these measures can be found in certain populations; that is, a single ethnic group where individuals show varying degree of cultural orientation to Mexican and mainstream American culture were selected. Cultural comparisons could then be made within the same group. Mexican-American subjects, who may vary in terms of traditional Mexican and mainstream American cultural orientation, would be a logical population to study in this regard.
Subjects and Method
Subjects
Subjects were selected from three introductory psychology classes at UT-Pan American. They were informed that while participation in the study was voluntary, their cooperation in the completion of a three-page survey exploring cultural orientation, romantic love and sexual jealousy would be much appreciated. They were also instructed to put no name or any information on the survey that would identify them, in order to ensure anonymity.
Of the 139 respondents who participated in the study, 14 answered that they were not of Mexican ancestry. The responses from these fourteen subjects were not included in the analysis, leaving 125 subjects whose data was used in the study.
Procedure
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between subjects’ cultural orientation and their attitudes regarding romantic love and jealousy, and to this end the questionnaire used in the anonymous survey consisted of three main components. The first area examined cultural background and orientation. Subjects provided a brief demographic background (male or female; whether they had Mexican ancestry; and generational status or nationality of subject, parents and grandparents). They then answered a 12-item scale, the Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican-Americans-Revised (ARSMA-II) developed by Cuellar, Harris, & Jasso (1980) and subsequently modified (Cuellar, Arnold, and Maldonado, 1995). Each item (e.g., “I enjoy Spanish language TV”) is answered on a five-point scale, from “Not at all” to “Always”. The scale assesses the levels of two independent cultural orientations—Anglo orientation (AO) or Mexican orientation (MO). Thus, for example, an individual’s score could demonstrate a high level of one orientation and a low level of the other (either traditional or assimilated), high levels of both (bicultural) or low levels of both (marginalized).
The measurement of attitudes toward romantic love included one complete scale and representative items from another. The former scale was “Measurement of Romantic Love”, developed by Rubin (1970), and included statements such as “I feel very possessive toward him (her)” and “I would forgive him (her) for practically anything”. Statements were evaluated on a nine-point scale, from “Agree completely” to “Disagree completely”. Although previous research shows that the 13 items cluster into three factors—need, helping and absorption—a single, composite score can be obtained as well, and the latter computation was used for this study. The second scale on romantic love was an abridged version of an instrument developed by Dion and Dion (1973). It examines three views of love—idealistic, cynical and pragmatic. Subjects were asked to agree or disagree with the items, such as “True love leads to almost perfect happiness”.
The final scale explored a phenomenon that often goes hand-in-hand with romantic love: jealousy. Here a Self-Report Jealousy Scale (Bringle, Roach, Andler, and Evenbeck, 1979) assessed each subject’s reaction to ten imagined scenarios. These are social situations that have the potential to elicit jealous reactions; they ranged from “Someone flirts with your partner” to “Your partner has sexual relations with someone else”. Each item could be scored from 1 (“Pleased”) to 5 (“Extremely upset”).
Results
Demographic Variables and Cultural Orientation
Of the 125 respondents who stated that they were of Mexican ancestry, 70% were female. Only 16% were not born in the U.S.; slightly over half (53%) of their fathers were native-born, with a similar percentage (58%) of mothers born in the U.S. However, only 18% of the respondents said that all four grandparents were born in the U.S., and 38% said that all four grandparents were foreign-born.
Mean scores on the Anglo Orientation component of the ARSMA were 24.1, while the mean Mexican Orientation score was 17.5; the theoretical median score for each would be 18. This suggests that the university sample, although living just a few miles from Mexico, with an almost equal probability of having a foreign-born mother or father, and although often classified as first-generation college students, is nonetheless already quite skewed toward mainstream American culture.
Cultural Orientation and Attitudes towards Love
Neither cultural orientation composite score correlated significantly with overall scores on the jealousy scale. On Rubin’s Love Scale, Anglo Orientation—but not Mexican Orientation—correlated significantly and negatively with the scale (r=-.294; significant at .001 level). Lower scores on the Love Scale indicate greater attachment; therefore, the more assimilated or anglicized the subject, the more intense the reported romantic relationship.
Since each of the six items of the abridged romance scale by Dion and Dion involved a dichotomous response (“yes” or “no”), subjects’ scores on Anglo and Mexican Orientation were assigned a category of high and low in order to perform a Chi-square analysis of the two variables. The Anglo category was not significant across any of the six items. The Mexican category, however, was significant for half of the six items. Specifically, those with less of a Mexican orientation were less likely to feel that love is an outmoded concept; that is, they were less cynical about romance (sig.level=.047). They were also more likely to believe that it is possible to love two romantic partners at the same time and that past romantic involvements could be just as genuine as a current one (sig. level= .036 and .013, respectively); since both items share a pragmatic factor, subjects who were not as “mexicanized” tended to have a more tolerant and realistic approach to romance. Although one would expect a lower level of “mexicanness” to be tantamount to Anglo attitudes, in fact a higher affinity to mainstream behavioral preferences did not translate into comparable discriminations (see above). Thus, a more complex cultural configuration appears to be operating with respect to attitudes towards love.
Having dichotomized each cultural orientation into a low versus high category, it was also possible to create a typology based on each subject’s behavioral commitment towards each cultural orientation. Four categories were thus created: marginalized [low level of both Mexican orientation (MO) and Anglo orientation (AO)], traditional (high level of MO, low level of AO), bicultural (high levels of both) and assimilated (low level of MO, high level of AO). A subsequent ANOVA, with these categories as levels of the independent variable and composite scores of the longer love scale as the dependent variable, yielded significant differences (F=2.82; sig. level=.042, with 3 and 115 d.f). Essentially, post-hoc multiple comparisons (LSD) revealed that the more traditional subjects were less likely to subscribe to romantic notions than either bicultural or assimilated subjects. The stereotype of the hyper-romantic Latin, then, was not borne out by the data.
Although a dichotomous category for each cultural orientation facilitated the above typology, it was felt that collapsing an orientation into low and high categories might not provide a nuanced portrait of cultural allegiance. Therefore, another category with three levels (low, medium and high) for AO and MO was created, even though this could not be readily made into a cultural typology. An analysis of variance with MO as the independent variable and Rubin’s Love Scale did not find significant differences. However a comparison of the three levels of AO with the same scale was significant (F=5.05; sig. level=.008). Specifically, those subjects with the highest level of AO also tended to have more romantic feelings toward their partners.
Cultural Orientation and Jealousy
Subjects’ attitudes towards jealousy was not the primary interest of the study, since only one scale was used, as opposed to two for romantic love. Still, because jealousy is a theme often associated with love, a few comparisons are in order.
An analysis of variance between acculturation type and composite scores on the jealousy scale revealed no significant differences. Neither did the tripartite classification (low, medium and high) for each cultural orientation discriminate among those categories with respect to the jealousy scale.
A more complex analysis involving views of sexual jealousy is described in the “Gender” section below. That finding suggests that higher levels of jealousy are related to higher levels of Anglo orientation or assimilation in both male and female subjects.
Subjects’ Nativity
Besides an acculturation scale, another useful, albeit less precise, method for assessing cultural orientation among Mexican-Americans involves their generational status, starting with foreign-born status (1st generation). However, the senior investigator’s previous experience has shown that even an ostensibly straightforward variable can reveal complexities. For instance even a native-born subject may be either truly second-generation or 2M (mixed). Because of the population’s proximity to Mexico and close contact with its citizens, similar generational permutations that apply to third- or fourth-generation subjects are not uncommon. For this reason a simpler categorization—foreign- or native-born was used in the study, even though a few foreign-born respondents may have spent almost all their lives in this country.
An analysis of variance revealed that even a non-elegant comparison between foreign-born subjects and everyone else revealed significant differences. On combined Mexican orientation, American-born respondents scored considerably lower (x= 16.50 versus 22.80; F= 16.62, 1/121 d.f.; sig. level= .000). By contrast they scored significantly higher on the Anglo orientation composite subscale, although not as markedly as on MO (x=24.30 versus 22.58; F= 4.72, 1/121 d.f.; sig. level= .032). This suggests that the process or rate of acculturation is not comparable for both groups: first generation students appear to be moving quite near to the native-born levels of AO without sacrificing much of their Mexican orientation. Native-born subjects, though, appear to have lost a good deal of their ancestral orientation yet have not replaced it with comparable levels of mainstream behaviors.
Using respondents’ nativity as a factor, there were no significant differences for either the love or the jealousy scale. However, a chi-square analysis of the six love items found that U.S.-born subjects were more likely to endorse both realistic (i.e., pragmatic) statements (sig. level= .007).
Parents’ Nativity
Responses were also analyzed according to birthplace of each parent (U.S.- or foreign-born). Nativity of the subjects’ fathers did not yield a significant difference for average scores on Rubin’s Love Scale; neither were there significant differences for the jealousy scale. Similarly, mother’s origin was also not a significant predictor for respondents’ composite scores on either the jealousy scale or the romantic love scale.
Because the six items on the abbreviated scale that examined romantic orientation entailed categorical (yes/no) responses, a chi-square test analyzed their relationship to parents’ nativity. Of the two items examining idealistic perceptions, one—“True love leads to almost perfect happiness”—was not significant for either of parental origin variables. The other item, though, (“There is only one real love for a person”) was significant (.002 level) when father’s nationality was taken into account: Specifically, subjects whose fathers were foreign-born took a more idealistic position.
In addition one of the two items measuring romantic cynicism was significant with respect to mothers’ origin (.047 level). Those with foreign-born mothers were more likely to agree with the notion that romantic love is outmoded and unrealistic.
Interestingly, the two items that assessed pragmatism were both significant, and for both parents’ nativity. On the idea of whether a previous love could have been the real thing, respondents who had American-born mothers and those who had American-born fathers were more likely to agree with the statement (.038 and .06 levels, respectively). Consistent with this finding, when asked whether it was possible to love two people at the same time, respondents with American-born mothers were significantly more likely to agree (.001 level); those with American-born fathers were also more likely to take a pragmatic stance (.002 level).
Gender
Comparing the means of composite scores on the jealousy inventory, females reported significantly higher levels of jealousy than did males (x= 38.01 versus 35.00; F=6.414, 1/119 d.f.; sig. level= .013). This finding somewhat contradicts the popular stereotype of the possessive Latin male. Equally interesting, the Love Scale scores of Mexican-American females did not differ significantly from those of their male counterparts.
In order to get a better grasp of the interplay between gender and cultural orientation, a univariate analysis of variance was carried out which looked at the relationship between gender, on the one hand, and the two types of cultural orientation categories. Using the scores on the jealousy scale as the dependent variable, the interplay of gender and Mexican orientation level (low, medium and high) approached significance (.08 level), but because the trend did not reach the .05 level, results are not reported. However the level of self-reported jealousy was significant when Anglo orientation and gender were considered simultaneously (.04 level). As men scored higher on the assimilation index they showed higher jealousy scores. On the other hand, while women with moderate assimilation scores showed less jealousy than females with low assimilation, jealousy rose again among the most assimilated women.
The same univariate analysis of variance was conducted on the Love Scale, with gender and the Mexican category with three collapsed levels (low, medium and high). Once more, although the Mexican (traditional) category was not a significant predictor, the Anglo (assimilated) category was significant at the .02 level. Specifically, scores dropped for both males and females as assimilation increased. Because a lower score on the Love Scale indicates greater romantic attachment, this means that higher assimilation goes hand in hand with increased romantic love.
Discussion
The view of traditional Mexican-Americans in popular culture as absorbed with interpersonal intimacy was generally not borne out by the data. Instead, the study suggests that non-traditional or assimilated Mexican-Americans are more likely to show more intense expressions of romantic love. Interestingly, when Mexican orientation did influence romantic views of love, the result was a more realistic and pragmatic perception, rather than the stereotypical, idealized attitude often attributed to Latin cultures.
One should remember, though, that the majority of subjects in this study had cultural orientation scores that were skewed somewhat toward the acculturated or assimilated end of the spectrum. Perhaps because the subjects as a group had a considerable affinity for mainstream society, the range of scores may have been more limited for the Mexican orientation measure. How well this university sample represents other Mexican-Americans then opens a discussion on matters of generalizability. Possibly a less educated or unassimilated sample might register more robust results in terms of cultural differences. Of course, one might then have the obverse concern. If such a sample now gravitates considerably towards Mexican cultural orientation, issues of heterogeneity and external validity would again need to be addressed. Having said all this, it should be noted that the sample’s cultural orientation, although somewhat biased towards the Anglo dimension, nonetheless yielded a number of significant differences.
It should also be noted that the main instrument used to determine cultural orientation, the ARSMA-II, is essentially a scale that assesses behaviors rather than cognitive components such as attitudes and perceptions. Although the instrument’s items are in fact related to cognitive cultural domains (Cuellar, Arnold, & Gonzalez, 1995), it application to attitudinal variables may have limitations.
On a final note, embedded in the study was the implicit assumption that, with respect to the dynamics of interpersonal intimacy, Mexican and American culture are, if not polar opposites, at least substantially distinct. However it is possible that both cultures, by virtue of pervasive European influences such as language and root values, may be more similar than is apparent at first glance.
References
Brehm, S.S., Miller, R., Perlman, D.,& Campbell, S.M.(2001). Intimate relationships (3rd Ed.).New York:McGraw-Hill.
Bringle, R.B., & Evenbeck, S. (1979). The study of jealousy as dispositional charactersitic. In M. Cook & G. Wilson (Eds.),
Love and attraction (pp. 201-204). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Bringle, R.B., Roach, S., Andler, C., & Evenbeck, S. (1979). Measuring the intensity of jealous reactions. Catalog of
Selected Documents in Psychology, 5, 23-24.
Buunk, B.P., Angleitner, A., Oubaid, V., & Buss, D.M. (1996). Sex differences in jealousy in evolutionary and cultural
perspective: Tests from the Netherlands, Germany and the United States. Psychological Science, 7 (6), 359-363.
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, 283-309.
Contreras, R., Hendrick, S. S., & Hendrick, C. (1996). Perspectives on marital love and satisfaction in Mexican American
and Anglo couples.Journal of Counseling and Development, 74, 408-415.
Cuellar,I., Arnold, B., & Gonzalez, G. (1995).Cognitive referents of acculturation: Assessment of cultural constructs in
Mexican Americans. Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 339-356.
Cuellar, I., Arnold, B.,& Maldonado, R. (1995). Acculturation rating scale for Mexican Americans-II: A revision of the
original ARSMA scale. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 17, (3), 275-304.
Cuellar, I., Harris, L. C., & Jasso, R. (1980). An acculturation scale for Mexican American normal and clinical populations.
Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 2, 199-217.
de Rougemnot, D. (1956). Love in the Western world. New York: Harper & Row.
Dion, K. K., & Dion, K. L. (1973). Correlates of romantic love. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 41, 51-56.
Dion, K.K.,& Dion, K.L. (1996). Cultural perspectives on romantic love. Personal Relationships, 3, 5-18.
Erber, R., & Erber, M. W. (2001). Intimate relationships: Issues, theories, and research Allyn and Bacon.
Hatfield, E., & Rapson, R.L. (1996). Love and sex:Cross-cultural perspectives. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Hunt, M.M. (1959). The natural history of love. New York: Knopf.
Marston, P. J., Hecht, M. L., & Robers, T. (1987). ‘True love ways’: The subjective experience and communication of
romantic love. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 4, 387-407.
Mullen, P.E. (1991). Jealousy: The pathology of passion. British Journal of Psychiatry, 158,593-601.
Rubin, Z. (1970). Measurement of romantic love. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 16, 265-273. |
