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

There are a few issues which still need to be addressed in future research into relational mobility. First is the measurement of relational mobility. Some possible indicators (such as residential mobility, number of recent new friends etc) exist, but these indicators measure actual movement, rather than potential movement. They also confuse personal mobility with societal relational mobility: For example, an extrovert might more frequently make new friends than an introvert. One solution is Masaki Yuki and colleagues’ relational mobility scale (Yuki et al., 2007). This scale asks people their perceptions of how relationally mobile others are around them. Also, researchers are not 100% sure about what causes variation in relational mobility. Is it due to recent histories of residential mobility as alluded to above? Or is it due to changes in technology (such as railways, communications etc)? Furthermore, in what way do people notice and adapt to changes in relational mobility (see Zhang & Li, 2014)? Questions such as these make this an exciting area of current research.

Conclusion

In this article, we have reviewed research which suggests that to understand which relational strategies work in what social context, it is important to understand the characteristics of external social environments which surround individuals, in particular relational mobility. This is called the socio-ecological approach to cultural and regional differences in mind and behavior, an approach which complements previous cross-cultural research. North American societies, as well as urban areas, are high in relational mobility, which means there are an abundance of options for interpersonal relationships. In such a social ecology, people tend to be more confident in their abilities, trust strangers, and be more open about sensitive personal matters. Behaving this way helps them in their goals of acquiring and keeping beneficial friendships. The social environments in East Asia and rural areas, however, tend to be low in relational mobility. Interpersonal relationships are generally pre-determined, and there are fewer options to meet new people. In a social ecology like this, it appears wise to avoid offending others. Doing so will help to maintain harmony in those long-lasting, hard to replace relationships. To put it in a nutshell: Sure, friendships can be tough, but they’re easier to manage if you’re aware of the rules of the game.

References

Adams, G., & Plaut, V. C. (2003). The cultural grounding of personal relationship: Friendship in North American and West African worlds. Personal Relationships, 10(3), 333–347.

Berry, J. W. (1976). Human ecology and cognitive style: comparative studies in cultural and psychological adaptation. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Falk, C. F., Heine, S. J., Yuki, M., & Takemura, K. (2009). Why do Westerners self-enhance more than East Asians? European Journal of Personality, 23(3), 183–203.

Kim, H., & Markus, H. R. (1999). Deviance or uniqueness, harmony or conformity? A cultural analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(4), 785–800.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253.

Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108(2), 291–310.

Oishi, S. (2010). The Psychology of Residential Mobility Implications for the Self, Social Relationships, and Well-Being. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(1), 5–21.

Oishi, S., & Graham, J. (2010). Social ecology: Lost and found in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 356–377.

Sato, K., & Yuki, M. (2014). The association between self-esteem and happiness differs in relationally mobile vs. stable interpersonal contexts. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1113. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01113

Schug, J., Yuki, M., Horikawa, H., & Takemura, K. (2009). Similarity attraction and actually selecting similar others: How cross-societal differences in relational mobility affect interpersonal similarity in Japan and the USA. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 12(2), 95–103.

Schug, J., Yuki, M., & Maddux, W. (2010). Relational mobility explains between- and within-culture differences in self-disclosure to close friends. Psychological Science : A Journal of the American Psychological Society APS, 21(10), 1471–8.

Sznycer, D., Takemura, K., Delton, A. W., Sato, K., Robertson, T., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2012). Cross-cultural differences and similarities in proneness to shame: An adaptationist and ecological approach. Evolutionary Psychology, 10(2), 352-70.

Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism And Collectivism. Westview Press.

Wang, C. S., & Leung, A. K.-Y. (2010). The cultural dynamics of rewarding honesty and punishing deception. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(11), 1529–1542.

Yamagishi, T. (2011). Micro-Macro dynamics of the cultural construction of reality. In M. Gelfand, C. Chiu, & Y. Hong (Eds.), Advances in Culture Psychology Vol.1. Oxford University Press. pp.251-308.