The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cultural and ethnic influences on love and attachment
Abstract
Recently, theorists have begun to speculate about the nature of passionate and companionate love. Evolutionary psychologists have tended to emphasize the pan‐cultural nature of passionate love. Historians have stressed the fact that, in different historical eras, people's attitudes toward love, sex, and intimacy have varied widely. Cross‐cultural researchers contend that, even today, societies differ greatly in their attitudes toward love. In this study, 124 men and 184 women from four ethnic backgrounds were asked if they were currently in love and how passionately and companionately in love they were. The four groups differed, as predicted, in their general orientations toward life. European‐Americans were the most individualistic, Japanese‐Americans and Pacific Islanders were intermediate in individualism/collectivism, and Chinese‐Americans were the most collectivist. Nonetheless, in the specific area of love, the various American ethnic groups did not differ significantly in the likelihood of being in love, nor in the intensity of the passionate love (PL) or companionate love (CL) they felt. In all ethnic groups, men's and women's adult attachment styles predicted romantic feelings and experiences. The anxious were the most likely to be in a love relationship, and they scored the highest on the PL scale; avoidants scored lowest. The secure scored the highest on the CL scale; avoidants scored the lowest.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“As the concept of love is highly culturally specific (Doherty et al., 1994), future studies could explore cultural and ethnic differences in human-AI relationships and their impact on social well-being.”
From I love you, my AI companion! Do you? Perspectives from the Triangular Theory of Love and Attachment Theory (2026) · cites this paper as Doherty et al., 1994
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511 · Cited by 6,247
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 11
- Berry J. W., 1992, Cross‐cultural psychology: Research and applications
- 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1993.tb01168.x · DOI
- Hatfield E., 1993, Love, sex, and intimacy: Their psychology, biology, and history
- Hatfield E., Love and sex: A cross‐cultural perspective
- 10.1016/S0140-1971(86)80043-4 · DOI
- 10.1177/106939718301800403 · DOI
- Shaver P. R., 1993, Advances in personal relationships, 29
- 10.1146/annurev.ps.44.020193.002433 · DOI
- Smith P. B., 1994, Social psychology across cultures: Analysis and perspectives
- Sprecher S. Aron A. Hatfield E. Cortese A. Potapova E. &Levitskaya A.(1992 July).Love: American style Russian style and Japanese style. Paper presented at the Sixth International Conference on Personal Relationships Orono ME.
- 10.1037/0022-3514.59.5.1006 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Schmitt, D. P., Alcalay, L., Allensworth, M., Allik, J., Ault, L., Austers, I., Bennett, K. L., Bianchi, G., Boholst, F., Cunen, M. A. B., et al. (2004) · Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology · doi:10.1177/0022022104266105 · Cited by 350
The role of close relationships in terror management: a systematic review and research agenda
Plusnin, N., Pepping, C. A., & Kashima, E. S. (2018) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/1088868317753505 · Cited by 78
Ng, P. M. L., Wan, C., Lee, D., Garnelo-Gomez, I., & Lau, M. M. (2026) · Internet Research · doi:10.1108/intr-11-2024-1783 · Cited by 27
Metadata
- Authors
- DOHERTY, R. W., HATFIELD, E., THOMPSON, K., & CHOO, P.
- Venue
- Personal Relationships
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1994-12
- Volume
- 1
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 391-398
- ISSN
- 1350-4126
- 1475-6811
- Cited by
- 50
- References
- 1
- Language
- en
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review