Relationship ideals in Japan: What women wish from a partner

(1)

Degree Thesis

Bachelor’s level

Relationship ideals in Japan

What women wish from a partner

Author: Janne Haimilahti

Supervisor: Mariya Aida Niendorf Examiner: Herbert Jonsson

Subject/main field of study: Japanese studies Course code: GJP23Y

Higher education credits: 15 Date of examination: 15.1.2021

At Dalarna University it is possible to publish the student thesis in full text in DiVA. The publishing is Open Access, which means the work will be freely accessible to read and

download on the internet. This will significantly increase the dissemination and visibility of the student thesis.

Open Access is becoming the standard route for spreading scientific and academic information on the internet. Dalarna University recommends that both researchers as well as students publish their work Open Access.

I give my/we give our consent for full text publishing (freely accessible on the internet, Open Access):

Yes ☑ No ☐

Dalarna University – SE-791 88 Falun – Phone +4623-77 80 00

(2)

i

Abstract

Relationship formation is full of uncertainty. Triggered by the uncertainty about proper conduct in social relationships, I was drawn to understand the ideals that guide our behavior. With the intention of using the results in the future to aid analysis of anime, a focus on Japanese women was chosen.

In order to study the relationship ideals of Japanese women, two surveys were conducted using convenience sampling. The surveys were shared on Facebook groups, on Twitter, and through personal contacts. The first survey was open-ended and asked about actual relationship experiences and how they could have been better. The second survey was closed-ended and had the participants rate 63 preferred partner traits on a 7-point Likert scale. Statistical descriptions of the second survey data were calculated and t-tests conducted to find significant differences in ideal partner preferences between three different age groups of women and between women and men. Upon reflecting on the data, it was interpreted that both genders have the same core relationship ideals in Japan. The relationship ideals are trust, love and connection. Both genders prefer a partner who is reliable, pleasant, similar, and kind and understanding. Physical attractiveness and wealth and generosity are the least important traits for both women and men. These hold true for different age groups, except for physical attractiveness being more valued among the youngest.

Keywords: Relationships; Ideals; Japan

(3)

ii

1. Introduction

We all have some ideas on how we would like to be treated. Wishes we would like to see come true in our prospective partners. Behaviors we would rather not face. The initiation of a relationship is full of uncertainty. We may be plagued by uncertainty of the feelings and qualities of the other and uncertainty of how we should behave ourselves. What do we expect and what is expected of us by our prospective partners? Coming from the premise that ideals guide our behavior and selection of partners, this study attempts to detail these fuzzy conceptions of ideals. It tries to answer what these guiding relationship ideals are and how they differ between genders and age groups in a Japanese sample, focusing especially on women. Relationship ideals are studied qualitatively from an exploratory perspective and quantitatively from the perspective of partner preference traits.

1.1 Purpose, definitions and research questions

The purpose of this research is to investigate Japanese women’s relationship ideals, in order to create a better understanding of the basis of proper social conduct in romantic relationship

formation. Additionally, this research will provide material for a sexuality related lecture to be held at an anime convention in the future.

In this study sexual or relationship ideals are defined as imagined behaviour that is related to sexual activity and is highly valued and wished for by a person. The word sexual is used in the broad sense, to refer to all activity motivated by romantic or sexual drive that aims to increase intimacy.

The research was guided by the following research questions:

RQ1. How would Japanese women between ages 20-34, ideally have their sexual or romantic relationships, and the intimacy within those relationships, begin and develop?

RQ2. What are the preferred partner qualities for all Japanese women in the sample and how do they differ from those of the men?

RQ3. Is there a difference in preferred partner qualities between different age groups of Japanese women in the sample?

(5)

2

2. Background and previous studies

2.1 Relationship initiation and development

Why do we start relationships? In their paper on relationship initiation, Clark, Beck and Aragón (2019) have defined an optimal relationship and argued that the aim of starting a relationship is to strengthen security and cohesion. They state that security and cohesion are built from the subgoals of presenting oneself as a good partner, protecting oneself from the pain of rejection and evaluating the partner. These goals form what the authors called “the dance of relationship initiation”, and they disappear when a strong healthy relationship is successfully achieved. In Levinger’s (1980) model, relationship development begins with awareness of the other person. From this first stage, we move into the second stage of surface contact, which then develops to the third stage, mutuality.

The area of interest for this study is from the point where the awareness stage ends to the point where mutuality stage begins. It investigates what kind of behavior is wanted and wished for from a relationship partner – the preferred qualities determining mate selection.

2.2 Gendered sexual scripts

Sexual behaviour is not the same for everyone. It is gendered. Seabrook et al. (2017) have argued that in heterosexual relations there exists a social construction of gendered sexuality, where men are portrayed as the active half responsible for initiating sexual contact, and women as the passive half, choosing mates from the initiators. This is often called the traditional sexual script. From our surrounding culture we absorb these sexual scripts that guide our sexual behaviour. The Media floods us with messages on how to behave sexually (de Ruyter & Spiecker, 2008). Often in the media we see two people kiss, and often the kiss is spontaneous and undiscussed. These give us normative models on how to act sexually. There is evidence that those who watch a lot of TV or believe it to be realistic, endorse the gendered sexual scripts shown on TV, which is associated with diminished sexual agency in women (Seabrook et al., 2017).

Although there is innovation and change happening in sexual scripts on the level of the individual and couple, at the cultural level the traditional sexual scripts are still dominant (Masters et al., 2013).

Most women and men accept the traditional sexual script where men are the initiators and women decide if it will progress or not. There exists a double standard, where men see getting sex as

(6)

3

conquest, and women are seen as it’s gatekeepers (Jozkowski, 2013). This inequality is one aspect of culture that the media enforces, and it may do harm for women (Seabrook et al., 2017).

These sexual gender roles may contribute to an environment of sexual harassment and assault.

According to Jozkowki (2013), women can be seen as a “tease” if they discontinue sexual activity, or as a “slut” if they agree to sexual activity too fast or too often. A woman may also be seen as being responsible for a sexual assault if they do not resist enough as the gatekeeper. In these stereotypical gender roles the men are seen as always wanting sex. And in their role of conqueror, some men even see deceit as a valid method for getting what they want (Jozkowski, 2013).

2.3 Consent negotiations

On 24th October 2017, #metoo started to trend (Mendes et al., 2018). After the #metoo movement where masses of women came out about sexual harrasment, there has increasingly been opinions expressed in Twitter that consent should always be asked verbally before a kiss or a touch. This seemingly radical proposition, however, is not new. In the beginning of the 90’s, the Antioch College in Yellow Springs, Ohio, adopted a sexual consent policy where students were required to obtain verbal consent from their partners before any sexual contact, creating an international

controversy (Hickman & Muehlenhard, 1999). It has been found by Higgins et al. (2010) that about half of heterosexuals consented non-verbally at first intercourse, indicating that in actual sexual relationships, the ideal of affirmative consent has not yet become a reality.

The consent cues are said to be “ambiguous and vague” and “clear and obvious” at the same time.

The consent cues happen as “secret messages”, because being explicit in this matter is generally seen as socially improper and could create an unpleasant situation. Indirect coded communication may help “save face” and minimize shame when being turned down. Consent communication begins as implicit nonverbal communication in social settings, and progress to physically intimate behaviors, but the consent to sex is not assured until the situation in the bedroom. There are gendered differences in how the consent cues are interpreted, with men being more eager to interpret them as indicating willingness to sex, and women interpreting them as indicating sexual interest (Jozkowski, 2018).

There have also been opinions expressed, that asking for a permission would be unsexy and would kill the mood. Asking for consent can be seen as awkward, and therefore the consent is

communicated non-verbally. Consent inferred from nonverbal behavior can however easily lead to miscommunication (Muehlenhard, 1996). If consent is assumed unless a “no” is given, there is a risk for sexual harassment or assault, as a person can freeze upon sexual approach or otherwise be

(7)

4

unable to resist. However, Jozkowski (2018) has argued that there is no empirical support for the claim that clearer consent communication would reduce sexual assaults.

2.4 Assertiveness and power

As it is expected of the man to be the one to initiate contact, men use more active relationship initiation strategies than women. Where men are more often active and start the conversation, women’s strategies include being introduced by a friend, or being passive and waiting for the other to act. Shyness is associated with passivity, and the shyest ones might not use even nonverbal cues.

Because of the role expectations, shyness is a bigger problem for men than for women (Sprecher et al. 2019).

However, there is some evidence that women can be as willing as men to use direct relationship initiation strategies when their feeling of personal control is increased. (MacGregor & Cavallo, 2011). While women are less sexually assertive than men and have less sexual esteem, these attributes seem to be positively affected by social power (Lammers, Stoker, 2019).

There is mixed evidence on how women’s sexual assertiveness is viewed by others. Some evidence indicates that sexually assertive and agentic women are more attractive and viewed more positively (Fetterolf & Sanchez, 2015; Odom, 2012; Pendleton, 1982), while others indicate the opposite: That timid women are viewed more positively (Klein et al. 2019) and that men are less attracted to women who approach them (Finkel & Eastwick, 2009). Sexual agency has the benefit of increased sexual pleasure, but it is also associated with being perceived as having more previous partners and being selfish. While women may want to be seen as sexually agentic, because of stigma, they don’t like to be associated with these traits that come with it (Fetterolf & Sanchez, 2015). It seems,

however, that if assertive behavior is viewed negatively, it is not just towards women, but in general, and that both men and women overall view women more positively than they do men. Also, it

seems that timid men are seen more positively than assertive ones (Klein et al. 2019).

2.5 Japanese context

Farrer et al. (2012) claim, that in the dominant scenario of sexual scripts in Japan, a romantic relationship begins with an explicit confession of feelings, kokuhaku, and intimacy including sex is something that happens naturally as the relationship progresses. Sex happens in a relationship and is seen as a way of enhancing the relationship and expressing love. Many even see sex without

feelings or just for pleasure as morally wrong. Sexual relationships often begin during high school and sex may signify entering adulthood. Male students view not having had sex before turning

(8)

5

twenty as being shameful, and view their virginity as something that is thrown away. Also women expect losing one’s virginity before marriage, and as sex is not tied to marriage, losing virginity isn’t seen as a sacrifice. Sex is seen as something that is mutually agreed upon and based on free will, though some women feel sex to be a relationship duty. Pregnancy is feared and abortion is viewed as a moral dilemma. In case of a pregnancy, the man is responsible for paying the cost of the abortion, or marry the woman if the baby is born. Sexually transmitted diseases are not feared however, as the STD risk is associated with prostitution and casual sex, and not sex within a romantic relationship. For some men it is less important to use a condom with a casual partner than within a relationship, as it is viewed that there are less responsibilities with a casual partner. Casual sex is seen as an alternative scenario, as an option that is not a replacement for or in moral

contradiction with the dominant scenario (Farrer et al. 2012).

According to Cook (2014), traditionally there has been clear gendered marriage roles in Japan. The husband has been the breadwinner, working to sustain the family, and the wife has taken care of the house and the children. Communication between the partners was not traditionally important.

Expectations towards intimacy and marriage roles have since expanded, but while both genders wish for companionate marriage, in practice the men still hold on to traditional ideals that have roots in responsibility, obligation and duty. Work life becoming more equal has enabled women to not be economically dependent on getting married, but women are still expected to quit working when their first child is born. It is now common to delay marriage in order to prolong the carefree dating life and to avoid the traditional roles of husband and wife (Cook, 2014).

The change has not just been towards non-traditional relationships, but it seems to have also been towards sexlessness. Singlehood has steadily increased in Japan for the last three decades. There has happened a so called “herbivorization”, meaning that more and more people are not interested in romantic relationships. In 2015, around half of Japanese singles reported having no interest in heterosexual romantic relationships (Ghaznavi et al., 2020).

Also, the number of couples disinterested in sex has increased. This is argued by Pacher (2018) to be partly because of lacking communication between partners, which contributes to the partners’

lack of knowledge about each other’s sexual desires, but also because of inadequate sexual education and a social separation of family and romance. Pacher (2018) sees this sexlessness as a social problem stemming from the fact that discourse on sexual recreation does not exist in Japan.

As a part of the movement away from traditional gender roles, a new masculinity has emerged. The term “herbivore men (sōshoku danshi or sōshoku-kei danshi in Japanese)” became widespread in Japan from 2008 to 2009, because of a rise in “feminized” men who had seemingly lost their

(9)

6

“manliness” (Morioka, 2013). According to Morioka (2013), Fukasawa (2006) has described

“herbivore men” in her article as not unattractive, but not assertive or proactive in pursuit of sexual and romantic matters. Morioka has characterized “herbivore men” as having a gentle nature (Trying to understand those in a weaker position and building relationships with dialogue and confirmation of feelings), not being bound by manliness (Lacking in ability to fight, be relied upon and lead women aggressively), not being aggressive in romance (Building relationships over time instead of being driven by sexual desire), viewing women as equals (Naturally able to see women primarily as individual humans), and hating emotional pain (Difficulty in handling being hurt or hurting others).

2.6 Preferred partner qualities

There is claimed to be strong differences between genders in their preferred partner qualities.

Previous western studies (Schwarz & Hassebrauck, 2012) have indicated that heterosexual women prefer male partners that are older than them, and men prefer female partners that are younger than them. Women are generally more demanding in their preferences. Women prefer a partner who is kind and understanding, similar, reliable, pleasant, humorous, intellectual, wealthy and generous, dominant, cultivated, and sociable, while men prefer a domestic, creative and physically attractive partner (Schwarz & Hassebrauck, 2012). However, in a study on a Japanese sample, while the age and wealth preferences were the same, no significant difference between genders was found on the preference for physical attractiveness (Hiraishi et al., 2019). Fewer women than men can also imagine they could marry a person who is less educated than they are and who earns less than they do. These preferences stay relatively stable over the lifetime, with only the creative and domestic traits increasing in importance (Schwarz & Hassebrauck, 2012).

There are also similarities in the partner preferences between women and men. In a Japanese study on ideal partner morality, no significant gender differences were found. It was suggested that there is no absolute mate preference in morality, but that what is of primary importance is the agreement with one’s partner (Oda & Hayashi, 2020). A study of ten assessments from 1939 to 2020 has also shown that through the century, on average, for both women and men, the highest ranking mate characteristic is mutual attraction/love (Helm Jr et al., 2020). Of the 18 characteristics in the study, dependable character and emotional stability/maturity have also stayed in the top five across the assessments for both women and men.

Unlike in the west, in Japan also the family affects ones dating prospects. A study by Yu and Hertog (2018) revealed that the strong emphasis on family in the Japanese culture, makes singles less prone to accept partners that are from a large family, as a large family is stereotyped to be traditional. The

(10)

7

study also indicated that singles from a large family were even less preferred if they were the firstborn and had no brothers, as that made them the designated caretaker for the parents.

Though previous studies tend to emphasize the gender difference in mate selection preferences, showing that men prefer a physically attractive partner and women prefer a partner with status and resources, it is noted by Li et al. (2002) that these qualities are often rated neutral and are sometimes at the bottom of trait rankings. They proceed to show in their study, through a budget allocation task, that when people have a smaller budget to allocate to different ideal partner traits, men indeed do choose physical attractiveness and women social status most often, indicating the importance of these traits. They divide mate preferences into necessities and luxuries and convincingly show, that the necessities are primary.

3. Method and materials

3.1 Overview

Two surveys were conducted in Japanese using convenience sampling to gather data on relationship ideals of Japanese women. Qualitative and quantitative analysis was used to make sense of the data.

It was intended for the data to be gathered from only one survey with open-ended questions and analysed using thematic analysis, guided by the book “Laadullinen tutkimus ja sisällönanalyysi”

(Translation: “Qualitative research and content analysis”) by Tuomi and Sarajärvi (2017), and the methodological papers of Vaismoradi et al. (2016) and Nowell et al. (2017). However, due to a lack of participants in the first survey, a second, more simple and quantitative questionnaire with closed- ended questions was developed and distributed.

3.2 Data

3.2.1 Survey 1

The first survey was anchored on past relationship experiences and data on ideal behaviour was collected by asking for fantasies of how those experiences could have been better. The survey had open questions asking for detailed narratives from past relationship experiences (eg. How the first kiss happened), and how those behaviours might have been more ideal. The questions were developed based on the research question and the chosen definition of ideal. Demographic data

(11)

8

(gender, sexuality, relationship status, age, nationality, living environment, religion, education, political view) was also gathered. Google Forms was used for creating the questionnaire. The survey was shared on two Facebook groups, shared with two personal contacts, and sent to 34 chosen Japanese twitter users by a direct message.

3.2.2 Survey 2

The second survey gathered data on relationship ideals from the perspective of partner preferences.

64 items describing qualities of a preferred partner were translated into Japanese from a previous study on mate-selection preferences by Schwarz & Hassebrauck (2012). 63 items were used in the final survey. The items, their translations and the item categories they load into, can be seen in Table 1. The items were mixed in the questionnaire so that similar items were not adjacent and would not influence each others ratings as much. The participants were asked to rate the qualities on a 7-point Likert scale, where “1” meant that the quality was totally unimportant and “7” meant that the quality was very important. There was also a possibility to write additional qualities at the end.

Demographic data (gender, sexuality, relationship status, age, nationality, living environment, religion, education, political view) was also gathered in the survey. Google Forms was used for creating the questionnaire. The survey was shared on personal Twitter and Facebook feed with appropriate hashtags, and through personal, course mates and the supervisors contacts.

Table 1. Items and item categories from Schwarz & Hassebrauck (2012), and the Japanese translations used in the survey 2

Kind and understanding

◦ Affectionate (可愛がる)

◦ Emotional(感情的)

◦ Loving(愛情深い)

◦ Empathetic (共感してくれる)

◦ Romantic (ロマンチック)

◦ Warmhearted (暖かい人)

◦ Understanding (物分かりがいい)

◦ Considerate (親切)

Dominant

◦ Self-confident (自信を持っている)

◦ Assertive (積極的)

◦ Has a mind of their own (自分の考えを持つ)

◦ Goal-orientated (目標達成に重点をおいている)

◦ Critical (批判的)

◦ Ambitious (野心的)

◦ Individual (個人主義)

◦ Able to face conflicts (争いに立ち向かえる人)

◦ High-principled (意思を貫く) Pleasant

◦ Pleasant (一緒にいて気楽)

◦ Straightforward (正直)

◦ Friendly (フレンドリー)

◦ Willing to compromise (妥協できる人)

Intellectual

◦ High level of education (高学歴者)

◦ Educated (インテリ)

◦ Intelligent (頭がいい)

◦ Literate (文芸的)

(12)

9

◦ Helpful (力になる)

◦ Kind (優しい)

◦ Well-balanced (バランスのとれた)

◦ Able to adapt (馴染める人)

◦ Ingenious (巧妙)

◦ Tolerant (寛大)

Wealthy and generous

◦ Wealthy (裕福)

◦ Rich (金持ち)

◦ Has a high status (身分の高い)

◦ Successful in their career (出世している)

◦ Generous (気が大きい)

Physically attractive

◦ Good looks (カッコイイ)

◦ Sexy looks (セクシー)

◦ Attractive (外見が魅力的)

◦ Erotic (Not used)

◦ Exciting (エキサイティング) Cultivated

◦ Neat (きれい好き)

◦ Has good manners (行儀がいい)

◦ Polite (丁寧)

◦ Industrious (勤勉)

◦ Well-dressed (お洒落上手)

◦ Well-tended (おしゃれ)

Humorous

◦ Witty (奇警)

◦ Funny (面白い)

◦ Humorous (ユーモラス)

Sociable

◦ Venturesome (冒険心)

◦ Spontaneous (自発的な人)

◦ Outgoing (外向的)

◦ Interested in a wide range of things (色んなことに興味を持つ)

Creative and domestic

◦ Good cook (料理が得意)

◦ Musical (音楽的)

◦ Creative (クリエーティブ)

◦ Domestic (家庭的)

Reliable

◦ Honest (誠実)

◦ Faithful (忠実)

◦ Reliable (頼れる人)

Similar

◦ Similar in interests (同様の興味を持つ)

◦ Similar in opinions (価値観が同じ)

◦ Similar ideas of a relationship (交際について考えが同じ)

3.3 Data analysis

Survey 1 data was read and parts were colored that contained information on the following:

Meeting, falling in love, relationship initiation, intermediate steps, reasons, ideals, acts, actors, and time. The findings were written down. Due to the meager amount of data, no more thorough analysis was needed nor necessary.

(13)

10

In the second survey, there was one anomalous participant that seemed to often make choices that were opposite of all the others. It might have been that they had misinterpreted the scale inversely, but since there is no certainty of this, the anomaly was included in the data analysis. There was also partially missing data from a couple of participants. This partial data was also included in the analysis.

From the second survey data, mean, standard deviation (SD), median, mode and coefficient of variation (CV) was calculated for all partner quality items for the Japanese women (n=28) in the sample. The mean and standard deviation for all separate item categories was then calculated from all the values of included items. Coefficient of variation was also calculated. Same was done for the items and item categories for the men (n=8) in the sample. Response frequency was also calculated for the answers to each item and item category, in order to visualize the distribution and any

possible anomalies that might affect the interpretation. T-test was used to help determine

significance of difference between the samples of men and women. Copies of the items and item categories were arranged according to their mean from the most preferred to least preferred. To compare different age groups of Japanese women, three age groups was formed: AG1: 15-29 year olds (n=10), AG2: 30-44 year olds (n=11), and AG3: 45-64 year olds (n=7). Item category means and standard deviations were calculated for the age groups and t-tests conducted to make sense of the significance of difference between them. The tables were compared and reflected upon.

While in the survey, only the end-values were explicitly defined, in the analysis the Likert values were defined as follows: 1 = totally unimportant, 2 = unimportant, 3 = somewhat unimportant, 4 = neutral, 5 = somewhat important, 6 = important, and 7 = very important. To aid perception,

colouring was used to illustrate the levels of importance of the traits, the highest values and significant differerence. In the trait listings, blue indicates very important traits, green indicates important traits, orange indicates somewhat important traits, and red indicates unimportant traits.

The numbers are colored with a gradient from the highest value (blue) to the lowest value (orange), except in the mean values, where the lowest values are in red. In the significance tables, values of statistical significance are in indicated in blue, and following the above logic, least significant in red.

4. Results

(14)

11

4.1 Survey 1

4 people participated in the survey. All of the participants were heterosexual Japanese women between the ages 20 to 34. Three of the participants were married or living together as husband and wife without formal marriage, and one wasn't seeing anyone at the moment. Half reported living in an urban area and half in a rural area. One had graduated from high school and three from university.

Half identified as slightly liberal and half as slightly conservative.

There was not much the participants could imagine to make the beginnings of their relationships and intimacy more ideal. The most common answer was that what happened was good and didn’t need changing. The few reported changes were as follows:

It was reported that they would be happy if they had been approached directly rather than through introduction by friends (”人を介さずに、直接話しかけてくれると嬉しい”), and that they had talked with and heard the opinion of third parties (“友達、家族などと交流して、第三者の意見を聞けば良い”). From this I interpret that openness is ideal in relationship initiation. Openness as being courageously direct and honest, but also as being open to the opinions and views of those close to you.

A more assertive self at the beginning of relationship intimacy and more assertive partner at a later point of a relationship was also mentioned (“初めから私がもっと積極的になれれば良かった。

また、今はもっと彼からスキンシップをしてほしい”). From this I interpret that a relationship would ideally develop towards a balance, where both partners are able express themselves and get their needs met.

While being drunk was seen as a prerequisite to the initiation of intimacy to one person (“二人ともお酒が好きで良い雰囲気になったから起こった”), being in a healthy state would have been more ideal for the first kiss of the relationship to one person who experienced it during sickness (“あまり覚えていないので、健康なときにするべきでした”). From this I make the

interpretation that relationship intimacy would ideally begin in a good mental state, be it sober and healthy or intoxicated out of anxieties.

4.2 Survey 2

4.2.1 Participants

(15)

12

37 responses were received, of which 1 was removed due to being from a non-Japanese person. Of the 36 Japanese participants, 8 (=22,2%) were men and 28 (=77,8%) were women. 33 (=91,7%) were heterosexual, 2 (=5,6%) were bisexual, and 1 (=2,8%) was pansexual. Age group range of the participants was from 15-19 to 60-64. 22 (=61,1%) lived in an urban area and 14 (=38,9%) in a rural area. 1 had only graduated from middle school, 12 had graduated from high school, 4 from vocational school, 2 from junior college, 10 had Bachelor’s degree, 7 had Master’s degree and 1 had a Doctoral degree. 3 identified Christianity as their religion, 3 Shinto, 16 Buddhism and 19 as Non- religious. Curiously, 2 of those with multiple religion selections, selected also Non-religious. 16 were somewhat liberal and 20 were somewhat conservative.

4.2.2 Preferred partner qualities for Japanese women and men

It should be noted that these are generalizations of the sample. While for the most important items consensus was mostly good, even they were rated as unimportant by some. The same applies to the relatively unimportant items: There was often some who would rate them as important. The

standard distribution for the items ranged from 0,73 to 1,80 for women, and from 0,46 to 2,05 for men. The higher the standard deviation, the more dispersed the answers. The distribution of answers made it difficult to give clear word categorizations for the items, but this was done despite the difficulty, based on the mean values. The middle-point value of 4,00 was set as the divider between what was interpreted as an important trait and what as an unimportant trait. All traits with mean values under 4,00 were interpreted as being relatively unimportant. Traits with values from 4,00 to 5,14 were interpreted as somewhat important, values from 5,15 to 5,99 as important, and 6,00 and above as very important.

In Table 2. we can see that of the single items, women rated pleasant, honest, warmhearted,

straightforward, loving, considerate, tolerant, similar in opinions, reliable, and similar in ideas of a relationship as the most important partner traits. In addition to these 10 very important traits, there was 16 important traits and 24 somewhat important traits. Of the 63 traits, 13 were relatively

unimportant. For men (Table 3.), the best rated partner qualities were nearly the same, with pleasant, loving, kind, straightforward, warmhearted, reliable, and similar in opinions at the top. Below these 7 very important traits, follow 13 important traits and 30 somewhat important traits. 13 of the 63 traits were relatively unimportant.

(16)

13

Table 2. Hierarchical single item listing for all women in the sample

All women Item Mean CV SD Mode Median Percentage of answers

n=28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Pleasant 6,64 0,11 0,73 7 7 0 % 0 % 0 % 4 % 4 % 18 % 75 %

Honest 6,46 0,14 0,88 7 7 0 % 0 % 0 % 4 % 14 % 14 % 68 %

Warmhearted 6,32 0,13 0,82 7 6,5 0 % 0 % 0 % 4 % 11 % 36 % 50 %

Straightforward 6,29 0,17 1,05 7 7 0 % 0 % 4 % 0 % 21 % 14 % 61 %

Loving 6,29 0,20 1,24 7 7 4 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 11 % 29 % 57 %

Considerate 6,21 0,20 1,23 7 6,5 4 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 11 % 36 % 50 %

Tolerant 6,14 0,12 0,76 6 6 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 21 % 43 % 36 %

Similar in opinions 6,11 0,13 0,79 6 6 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 25 % 39 % 36 %

Reliable 6,07 0,15 0,94 6 6 0 % 0 % 4 % 0 % 18 % 43 % 36 %

Similar ideas of a relationship 6,04 0,21 1,26 7 6,5 0 % 0 % 7 % 7 % 11 % 25 % 50 %

Helpful 5,86 0,16 0,93 6 6 0 % 0 % 0 % 7 % 29 % 36 % 29 %

Funny 5,86 0,18 1,08 7 6 0 % 0 % 4 % 4 % 32 % 25 % 36 %

Kind 5,86 0,24 1,41 7 6 0 % 7 % 0 % 7 % 11 % 36 % 39 %

Empathetic 5,75 0,23 1,35 7 6 0 % 7 % 0 % 0 % 32 % 25 % 36 %

Has a mind of their own 5,71 0,19 1,08 5 6 0 % 0 % 4 % 7 % 32 % 29 % 29 %

Humorous 5,68 0,20 1,16 5 6 0 % 0 % 7 % 4 % 32 % 29 % 29 %

Domestic 5,64 0,24 1,34 6 6 0 % 4 % 7 % 7 % 11 % 46 % 25 %

Friendly 5,57 0,20 1,10 6 6 0 % 0 % 0 % 21 % 25 % 29 % 25 %

Has good manners 5,52 0,22 1,22 5 6 0 % 4 % 4 % 4 % 36 % 29 % 21 %

Faithful 5,50 0,29 1,58 7 6 4 % 0 % 11 % 4 % 29 % 18 % 36 %

Intelligent 5,46 0,23 1,26 5 5,5 0 % 0 % 11 % 7 % 32 % 25 % 25 %

Able to adapt 5,43 0,22 1,17 5 5 0 % 0 % 7 % 11 % 36 % 25 % 21 %

Spontaneous 5,36 0,25 1,34 5 5 0 % 0 % 14 % 7 % 32 % 21 % 25 %

Affectionate 5,32 0,20 1,06 5 5 0 % 0 % 4 % 14 % 46 % 18 % 18 %

Well-balanced 5,32 0,24 1,28 6 6 0 % 4 % 7 % 11 % 25 % 39 % 14 %

Assertive 5,25 0,18 0,93 5 5 0 % 0 % 0 % 21 % 43 % 25 % 11 %

Understanding 5,14 0,21 1,08 5 5 0 % 0 % 4 % 25 % 39 % 18 % 14 %

Attractive 5,14 0,24 1,24 5 5 0 % 0 % 11 % 18 % 36 % 18 % 18 %

Neat 5,11 0,29 1,47 4 5 0 % 7 % 4 % 25 % 21 % 21 % 21 %

Interested in a wide range of things 5,11 0,29 1,50 6 5,5 4 % 0 % 14 % 11 % 21 % 36 % 14 %

Self-confident 5,07 0,25 1,27 5 5 0 % 4 % 4 % 25 % 36 % 14 % 18 %

Industrious 5,04 0,31 1,55 6 5 0 % 7 % 14 % 11 % 21 % 29 % 18 %

Polite 4,93 0,33 1,63 6 5 4 % 4 % 14 % 14 % 21 % 25 % 18 %

Outgoing 4,89 0,27 1,31 6 5 0 % 7 % 7 % 21 % 21 % 39 % 4 %

Similar in interests 4,89 0,30 1,45 5 5 7 % 0 % 7 % 11 % 36 % 36 % 4 %

Able to face conflicts 4,86 0,27 1,30 5 5 0 % 7 % 7 % 18 % 36 % 25 % 7 %

Good looks 4,79 0,33 1,57 5 5 7 % 4 % 4 % 18 % 36 % 21 % 11 %

Goal-orientated 4,68 0,27 1,28 5 5 4 % 0 % 14 % 18 % 39 % 21 % 4 %

Willing to compromise 4,64 0,19 0,87 4 5 0 % 0 % 7 % 39 % 36 % 18 % 0 %

High-principled 4,64 0,30 1,39 5 5 0 % 7 % 14 % 21 % 32 % 14 % 11 %

Good cook 4,54 0,37 1,69 5 5 7 % 4 % 18 % 14 % 25 % 21 % 11 %

Creative 4,39 0,37 1,64 5 5 4 % 11 % 18 % 14 % 29 % 14 % 11 %

Rich 4,25 0,35 1,51 5 5 4 % 11 % 18 % 14 % 39 % 7 % 7 %

Educated 4,25 0,37 1,55 5 5 7 % 7 % 14 % 18 % 39 % 7 % 7 %

Venturesome 4,18 0,37 1,54 4 4 7 % 4 % 21 % 25 % 25 % 11 % 7 %

Well-dressed 4,11 0,36 1,47 5 4,5 11 % 0 % 21 % 18 % 36 % 14 % 0 %

Well-tended 4,07 0,34 1,39 4 4 4 % 11 % 18 % 29 % 21 % 18 % 0 %

Generous 4,04 0,40 1,62 3 4 7 % 7 % 29 % 18 % 14 % 21 % 4 %

Romantic 4,00 0,38 1,52 4 4 7 % 11 % 14 % 29 % 25 % 11 % 4 %

Exciting 4,00 0,43 1,72 5 4 14 % 7 % 11 % 21 % 29 % 14 % 4 %

High level of education 3,93 0,46 1,80 4 4 18 % 4 % 11 % 29 % 21 % 11 % 7 %

Ambitious 3,89 0,39 1,52 4 4 14 % 4 % 11 % 32 % 29 % 11 % 0 %

Successful in their career 3,89 0,42 1,64 5 4 14 % 7 % 11 % 25 % 32 % 7 % 4 %

Wealthy 3,86 0,45 1,74 5 4 11 % 14 % 18 % 14 % 29 % 7 % 7 %

Musical 3,71 0,47 1,76 4 4 18 % 7 % 14 % 29 % 14 % 14 % 4 %

Literate 3,68 0,38 1,42 4 4 7 % 18 % 14 % 29 % 25 % 7 % 0 %

Individual 3,57 0,43 1,55 5 3 7 % 21 % 25 % 11 % 29 % 4 % 4 %

Sexy looks 3,46 0,47 1,64 2 3,5 11 % 25 % 14 % 21 % 18 % 7 % 4 %

Ingenious 3,32 0,46 1,54 2 3 11 % 25 % 18 % 25 % 14 % 4 % 4 %

Emotional 2,86 0,41 1,18 2 3 11 % 32 % 29 % 18 % 11 % 0 % 0 %

Witty 2,70 0,47 1,27 4 3 25 % 14 % 25 % 29 % 4 % 0 % 0 %

Has a high status 2,36 0,58 1,37 1 2 43 % 11 % 18 % 25 % 4 % 0 % 0 %

Critical 2,25 0,60 1,35 1 2 39 % 25 % 14 % 18 % 0 % 4 % 0 %

(17)

14

Table 3. Hierarchical single item listing for all men in the sample

Only men Item Mean CV SD Mode Median Percentage of answers

n=8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Pleasant 6,75 0,07 0,46 7 7 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 25 % 75 %

Loving 6,50 0,08 0,53 6 6,5 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 50 % 50 %

Kind 6,25 0,11 0,71 6 6 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 13 % 50 % 38 %

Straightforward 6,25 0,14 0,89 7 6,5 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 25 % 25 % 50 %

Warmhearted 6,13 0,14 0,83 6 6 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 25 % 38 % 38 %

Reliable 6,13 0,14 0,83 6 6 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 25 % 38 % 38 %

Similar in opinions 6,00 0,18 1,07 6 6 0 % 0 % 0 % 13 % 13 % 38 % 38 %

Tolerant 5,88 0,14 0,83 5 6 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 38 % 38 % 25 %

Honest 5,88 0,17 0,99 5 5,5 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 50 % 13 % 38 %

Helpful 5,75 0,15 0,89 6 6 0 % 0 % 0 % 13 % 13 % 63 % 13 %

Considerate 5,75 0,18 1,04 6 6 0 % 0 % 0 % 13 % 25 % 38 % 25 %

Empathetic 5,75 0,29 1,67 6 6 0 % 13 % 0 % 0 % 13 % 38 % 38 %

Understanding 5,50 0,17 0,93 5 5,5 0 % 0 % 0 % 13 % 38 % 38 % 13 %

Friendly 5,50 0,17 0,93 5 5,5 0 % 0 % 0 % 13 % 38 % 38 % 13 %

Similar ideas of a relationship 5,50 0,24 1,31 5 5,5 0 % 0 % 13 % 0 % 38 % 25 % 25 %

Self-confident 5,38 0,17 0,92 5 5 0 % 0 % 0 % 13 % 50 % 25 % 13 %

Has a mind of their own 5,38 0,17 0,92 5 5 0 % 0 % 0 % 13 % 50 % 25 % 13 %

Faithful 5,38 0,17 0,92 5 5 0 % 0 % 0 % 13 % 50 % 25 % 13 %

Willing to compromise 5,38 0,24 1,30 5 5 0 % 0 % 13 % 0 % 50 % 13 % 25 %

Spontaneous 5,25 0,09 0,46 5 5 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 75 % 25 % 0 %

Goal-orientated 5,13 0,19 0,99 5 5 0 % 0 % 0 % 25 % 50 % 13 % 13 %

Has good manners 5,00 0,15 0,76 5 5 0 % 0 % 0 % 25 % 50 % 25 % 0 %

Humorous 5,00 0,26 1,31 4 5 0 % 0 % 13 % 25 % 25 % 25 % 13 %

Similar in interests 5,00 0,26 1,31 4 5 0 % 0 % 13 % 25 % 25 % 25 % 13 %

Generous 4,88 0,13 0,64 5 5 0 % 0 % 0 % 25 % 63 % 13 % 0 %

Interested in a wide range of things 4,88 0,23 1,13 4 4,5 0 % 0 % 0 % 50 % 25 % 13 % 13 %

High-principled 4,88 0,30 1,46 5 5 0 % 13 % 0 % 13 % 50 % 13 % 13 %

Industrious 4,88 0,30 1,46 5 5 0 % 13 % 0 % 13 % 50 % 13 % 13 %

Creative 4,75 0,31 1,49 5 5 0 % 13 % 0 % 25 % 38 % 13 % 13 %

Able to adapt 4,75 0,35 1,67 5 5 0 % 13 % 13 % 13 % 25 % 25 % 13 %

Domestic 4,75 0,39 1,83 4 5 13 % 0 % 0 % 25 % 25 % 25 % 13 %

Able to face conflicts 4,63 0,16 0,74 4 4,5 0 % 0 % 0 % 50 % 38 % 13 % 0 %

Outgoing 4,63 0,16 0,74 4 4,5 0 % 0 % 0 % 50 % 38 % 13 % 0 %

Assertive 4,63 0,26 1,19 4 4,5 0 % 0 % 13 % 38 % 38 % 0 % 13 %

Affectionate 4,63 0,36 1,69 5 5 0 % 25 % 0 % 0 % 38 % 38 % 0 %

Funny 4,63 0,36 1,69 4 4,5 0 % 13 % 13 % 25 % 13 % 25 % 13 %

Literate 4,50 0,27 1,20 5 5 0 % 13 % 0 % 25 % 50 % 13 % 0 %

Neat 4,50 0,31 1,41 4 4 0 % 13 % 0 % 50 % 0 % 38 % 0 %

Intelligent 4,50 0,34 1,51 4 4 0 % 13 % 0 % 50 % 13 % 13 % 13 %

Venturesome 4,50 0,39 1,77 4 4,5 13 % 0 % 0 % 38 % 25 % 13 % 13 %

Well-balanced 4,38 0,17 0,74 5 4,5 0 % 0 % 13 % 38 % 50 % 0 % 0 %

Polite 4,25 0,30 1,28 5 4,5 0 % 13 % 13 % 25 % 38 % 13 % 0 %

Attractive 4,25 0,43 1,83 5 5 13 % 13 % 0 % 13 % 38 % 25 % 0 %

Good looks 4,25 0,48 2,05 5 5 13 % 13 % 13 % 0 % 38 % 13 % 13 %

Educated 4,13 0,16 0,64 4 4 0 % 0 % 13 % 63 % 25 % 0 % 0 %

Individual 4,13 0,24 0,99 4 4 0 % 13 % 0 % 50 % 38 % 0 % 0 %

Good cook 4,13 0,30 1,25 4 4 0 % 13 % 13 % 38 % 25 % 13 % 0 %

Rich 4,00 0,27 1,07 4 4 0 % 13 % 13 % 38 % 38 % 0 % 0 %

Ambitious 4,00 0,30 1,20 5 4,5 0 % 13 % 25 % 13 % 50 % 0 % 0 %

Sexy looks 4,00 0,35 1,41 4 4 0 % 13 % 25 % 38 % 0 % 25 % 0 %

Musical 3,88 0,26 0,99 4 4 0 % 13 % 13 % 50 % 25 % 0 % 0 %

Successful in their career 3,88 0,35 1,36 3 3,5 0 % 13 % 38 % 13 % 25 % 13 % 0 %

Ingenious 3,75 0,19 0,71 4 4 0 % 0 % 38 % 50 % 13 % 0 % 0 %

Emotional 3,75 0,24 0,89 3 3,5 0 % 0 % 50 % 25 % 25 % 0 % 0 %

Wealthy 3,75 0,37 1,39 4 4 0 % 25 % 13 % 38 % 13 % 13 % 0 %

Well-tended 3,75 0,42 1,58 4 4 13 % 13 % 0 % 50 % 13 % 13 % 0 %

Has a high status 3,63 0,39 1,41 2 3,5 0 % 25 % 25 % 25 % 13 % 13 % 0 %

Romantic 3,50 0,40 1,41 2 3,5 0 % 38 % 13 % 13 % 38 % 0 % 0 %

Well-dressed 3,38 0,39 1,30 4 4 13 % 13 % 13 % 50 % 13 % 0 % 0 %

Exciting 3,38 0,57 1,92 1 3,5 25 % 13 % 13 % 13 % 25 % 13 % 0 %

Witty 3,25 0,56 1,83 1 3,5 25 % 13 % 13 % 25 % 13 % 13 % 0 %

High level of education 3,13 0,40 1,25 3 3 13 % 13 % 38 % 25 % 13 % 0 % 0 %

Critical 2,88 0,39 1,13 4 3 13 % 25 % 25 % 38 % 0 % 0 % 0 %

Relationship ideals in Japan: What women wish from a partner

Degree Thesis

Bachelor’s level