We commend Wahring, Simpson, and Van Lange for their insightful article, “Romantic Relationships Matter More to Men than to Women.” The article proposes that romantic relationships take on a more important role for men than for women, and that men depend more heavily on their romantic partners for intimacy and emotional support since they often perceive fewer opportunities for such support from other social ties. The authors summarize an extensive amount of literature, and we applaud their effort to synthesize previous research into an innovative perspective on gender and close relationships.

As cultural psychologists, we are particularly drawn to the authors’ call for future cross-cultural work and their engagement with social role theory. While the article draws on multiple frameworks, we indeed believe that its emphasis on evolutionary explanations could benefit from greater integration with cultural theories in order to move beyond a reliance on Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) samples, as the authors acknowledge.

Firstly, relational concerns, self-disclosure, and support behaviors can be deeply shaped by socio-cultural contexts. For example, the authors cite evidence that emotional support predicts well-being more strongly in more interdependent societies (Uchida et al., Reference Uchida, Kitayama, Mesquita, Reyes and Morling2008) and propose that gender disparities in relationship dependence may be even stronger in these contexts. While we agree that interdependent cultures place a high value on close relationships, the role and shape of support and self-disclosure likely differ as well: For example, while cross-cultural similarities in self-disclosure seem to exist (e.g., higher disclosure to romantic partners than friends, to same-sex than cross-sex friends in both American and Japanese; Kito, Reference Kito2005), social support in Western cultures appears to be relatively explicit, emotion-focused, and centered around individual needs (e.g., self-esteem), whereas interdependent cultures show a greater tendency towards implicit, problem-focused, and primarily relationally motivated support (Ishii et al., Reference Ishii, Mojaverian, Masuno and Kim2017; Chen et al., Reference Chen, Kim, Mojaverian and Morling2012; Schouten et al., Reference Schouten, Boiger, Uchida, Ribbers, Uchida and Mesquita2023).

Relational mobility (Yuki & Schug, Reference Yuki, Schug, Gillath, Adams and Kunkel2012), or the degree to which individuals in a society have the opportunity to choose and replace their relationships, may be another promising dimension for expanding the theory cross-culturally. Reflecting its reliance on mostly WEIRD samples, the article’s assumptions often fit high relational mobility contexts, where people are relatively free to choose partners and dissolve relationships. In contrast, however, in low relational mobility societies (e.g., East Asia), relationships are generally more deeply ingrained in wider social structures, less freely chosen, and more difficult to exit. Consequently, high relational mobility contexts tend to foster proactive engagement in close relationships (e.g., self-disclosure, social support, intimacy) to acquire and retain partners, whereas low relational mobility contexts tend to prioritize relational harmony and the avoidance of conflict in existing, stable ties (Kito, Yuki, & Thompson, Reference Kito, Yuki and Thomson2017). Fittingly, Western couples were found to value intimacy and demonstrations of love and caring more than Chinese couples, who prioritized relations with extended family, harmony, face maintenance, and traditional gender roles (Hiew et al., Reference Hiew, Halford, Van de Vijver and Liu2015). Similarly, Japanese romantic relationships, while initially intimate, often evolve into prioritizing “smooth functioning” rather than ongoing emotional disclosure (Rothbaum et al., Reference Rothbaum, Pott, Azuma, Miyake and Weisz2000). In contexts where relationships are less fragile and intimacy is less emphasized, the gendered dependence in romantic relationships may be somewhat attenuated.

Furthermore, other cultural values – such as honor and masculinity values – may shape how emotional dependence in romantic relationships may differ across societies. Cultures emphasizing honor values (e.g., Mediterranean, Middle Eastern societies; Vignoles et al., Reference Vignoles, Kirchner-Häusler, Uskul, Cross, Rodriguez-Bailón, Bossom, Castillo, Gezici-Yalçın, Harb, Ishii, Karamaouna, Kafetsios, Kateri, Matamoros-Lima, Miniesy, Na, Özkan, Pagliaro, Psaltis and Wohl2025) promote highly gendered codes of behavior (Rodriguez-Mosquera, Reference Rodriguez Mosquera2016) that may exacerbate gender differences in vulnerability and self-disclosure, as men are supposed to uphold an image as tough and strong (Uskul et al., Reference Uskul, Cross, Sunbay, Gercek-Swing and Ataca2012). Similarly, norms that discourage emotional openness and valorize assertiveness and stoicism among men may be stronger in cultures with traditional masculinity values (e.g., Hofstede, Reference Hofstede2011), thus intensifying a gendered reliance on romantic relationships.

The post-retirement context in Japan exemplifies this issue: In Japan, men traditionally form strong ties within the workplace, which often serve as primary social support networks. Upon retirement, these ties may dissolve, leaving men with limited alternatives and increasing the risk of loneliness and distress. Some Japanese men cannot share these concerns even with family members, reflecting deeply internalized norms of emotional restraint and self-reliance (Ito, Reference Ito2018). This isolation is alarming given higher suicide rates among middle-aged and older Japanese men compared to women (Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, 2021) and substantially higher mortality risk for men experiencing marital disruption (e.g., divorce, widowhood) than their married counterparts, with no similar effects among women (Ikeda et al., Reference Ikeda, Iso, Toyoshima, Fujino, Mizoue, Yoshimura, Inaba and Tamakoshi2007). Yet, in more gender-egalitarian countries – e.g., Northern Europe, where some contradictory evidence in the manuscript originates – this restrictive effect of gender roles on network formation and emotional expression may be less severe: for example, greater societal gender equality predicted stronger general perceived social support (Łyś & Adamczyk, Reference Łyś and Adamczyk2024) and more frequent cross-gender friendships (Bailey et al., Reference Bailey, Johnston, Kuchler, Kumar and Stroebel2025). These patterns underscore the need to understand how cultural norms around masculinity and emotional expression contribute to men’s vulnerability in later life and relational dependence.

Beyond masculinity norms, community social bonds, or relational fluidity – the ease of shifting across support networks – also merit attention. In rigid and concentrated networks (e.g., workplace), loss of a single tie can have severe psychological consequences. However, communities with strong civic and neighborhood engagement (e.g., Japanese local communities) may offer alternative sources of support, and such communities tend to show higher well-being and lower loneliness, particularly in older adults (Uchida et al., Reference Uchida, Kanamori, Fukushima and Takemura2024). A future research agenda might investigate whether characteristics of and engagement in tight-knit, non-romantic communities may buffer the psychological impact of relationship dissolution or retirement on men in low-mobility, masculine cultures.

In conclusion, Wahring and colleagues’ article offers an important new perspective on gendered relational dependence. Our commentary aimed to highlight that this dependence is likely embedded in and shaped by characteristics of our sociocultural contexts. By integrating cultural theories into the model, future research can explore not only if men and women differ in romantic partner dependence cross-culturally, but also how cultural norms shape the meaning, expression, and experience of emotional reliance.