magazine issue 6 2015 / Issue 26

How to win (and lose) friendships across cultures: Why relational mobility matters

• written by Robert Thomson & Masaki Yuki
• edited by Laysee Ong

Relational mobility: A socio-ecological concept

As mentioned above, we argue that relational mobility is a key factor in determining what friendship strategies will be effective in any particular social environment. And here it is important to note that relational mobility is a socio-ecological concept – an external social reality – which refers to “thedegree to which a particular society or group provides individuals with opportunities to choose relational partners based on their personal preferences” (Yuki & Schug, 2012, p. 137). Let’s unpack that mouthful.

Characteristics of LOW relational mobility social environments

Traditionally, human societies – such as small-scale tribal societies – tended to be low in relational mobility, characterized by relatively ‘closed’ interpersonal networks and stable group memberships. In social circumstances like these, interpersonal relationships (friends and acquaintances etc.) are generally defined by existing social network structures (like hierarchies and histories of social groups, and work, school, and community groups in more recent times). In short, in a low relational mobility environment, people tend to stay in long-standing relationships and groups, and it is hard to change them if they want to.

Researchers have pointed out that nowadays these characteristics are still prevalent in East Asian cultural regions such as Japan and China (Falk, Heine, Yuki, & Takemura, 2009; Schug, Yuki, Horikawa, & Takemura, 2009; Wang & Leung, 2010; Yuki & Schug, 2012) and also in Western Africa (Adams & Plaut, 2003). If we zoom in a little closer, however, some regions within a country may be lower in relational mobility than others: rural regions, for example, tend to be lower in relational mobility than big cities (Yamagishi, Hashimoto, Li, & Schug, 2012).

Characteristics of HIGH relational mobility societies

In contrast to low relational mobility societies, high relational mobility North American societies such as the US and Canada have histories which involve relatively recent and drastic movement of populations. Researchers tentatively suggest that all of that movement of people may have caused those North American societies to end up being higher in relational mobility (Oishi, 2010). Big city urban areas also tend to be higher in relational mobility, compared to rural areas. In such societies and social environments, opportunity and freedom abounds to select friendships based on personal preference (Adams & Plaut, 2003; Schug et al., 2009).

Put simply, a high relational mobility environment is an environment where people have a high degree of freedom to meet and freely associate with strangers, and can (relatively easily) leave their current relationships according to their own preferences. Note the emphasis here on freedom and ability to select and move between relationships; this emphasis makes it different to residential mobility (see this issue). Whereas residential mobility is all about the actual movement of people, relational mobility is primarily concerned with the potential or ability of movement between relationships. The two are related, but have different implications for behavior, as we describe below.

The effects of relational mobility on behavior and thinking

To date, scholars have shown that relational mobility can explain a host of cultural differences such as similarity between friends (Schug et al, 2009), what determines happiness (Yuki, Sato, Takemura, & Oishi, 2013; Sato & Yuki, 2014),  levels of self-disclosure (Schug, Yuki, & Maddux, 2010), shame (Sznycer et al., 2012), confidence in one’s own abilities (Falk et al., 2009), and of trust in others in general (Yamagishi & Yamagishi, 1994; Yuki et al., 2007).

But how does this all relate to strategies for friendships? That is, how does relational mobility affect which friendship strategies will and won’t be optimal in a given social context? To answer this, we now need to look at what socio-ecological researchers refer to as ‘adaptive tasks (or goals)’ required for human flourishing in differing levels of relational mobility. After that, we will look at some of the strategies people use to achieve those adaptive goals.

Adaptive tasks and strategies in low relational mobility societies

Considering the closed, committed nature of interpersonal relationships in low relational mobility social contexts, the primary adaptive task in environments like these is to maintain harmony within one’s existing relationships. Why? Because disharmony means you’ll either: 1) be eternally stuck in an awkward disharmonious relationship or 2) be rejected and face the daunting task of having to form new friendships in a society where alternative options are scarce.