Relational mobility and close relationships: A socioecological approach to explain cross‐cultural differences

Abstract

This article reviews how behaviors and psychological tendencies in close relationships differ between cultures, and proposes a socioecological framework to understand those differences. Our review of the literature finds that paradoxically, people in individualistic cultures are more actively engaged in close relationships (e.g., higher levels of social support, self-disclosure, intimacy, and love) than those in collectivistic cultures. From an adaptationist perspective, we argue that one reason for these differences is higher levels of relational mobility in individualistic cultures. In societies with high relational mobility, where relationships are relatively more fragile, more active engagement in close relationships helps individuals to impress potential, and retain current, partners. We emphasize the importance of examining socioecologies to better understand close relationships.The field of relationship research as a whole has experienced dramatic progress over the last four decades, incorporating increasingly thorough examinations of interpersonal behaviors and psychological processes in close relationships, 1 including romantic relationships, friendships, and family relationships (e.g.,

Relational mobility predicts social behaviors in 39 countries and is tied to historical farming and threat

“…Based on previous dual-country studies, we tested a number of confirmatory hypotheses about the psychological and behavioral outcomes of relational mobility in the 39-society dataset. We theorize that generalized trust ( 10 , 24 ) and self-esteem ( 25 ) should be higher in relationally mobile societies, because they give people confidence to approach new desirable people in an open and competitive interpersonal marketplace ( 3 , 7 , 8 ). Hence, trust and self-esteem help people achieve the task of acquiring desirable relationships ( 16 ).…”

“…Indeed, studies have found that differences in relational mobility can explain societal differences, such as generalized trust, self-enhancement, self-disclosure, intimacy, and need for uniqueness ( 7 ). In this way, previous studies have shown that relational mobility drives differences between societies in how people act, think, and feel ( 8 , 16 ).…”

“…Within this backdrop, we introduced the concept of relational mobility to quantify variance in partner choice in human societies (reviewed in refs. 7 and 8 ). Relational mobility is a socioecological variable ( 9 ) that represents how much freedom and opportunity a society affords individuals to choose and dispose of interpersonal relationships based on personal preference ( 7 , 10 ).…”

Does sharing memories make us feel closer? The roles of memory type and culture

“…Given the high relational mobility, active relationship maintenance is required in this cultural context, and sharing memory is considered an effective means to achieve the purpose (Chen, 1995;Kito, 2005;Wang, 2013). In comparison, in many Asian cultures, relationships are largely defined by geographical vicinity or circumstances of birth, and therefore tend to be more stable and require less maintenance through means such as memory sharing (Brint, 2001;Kito, Yuki & Thomson, 2017). Indeed, European American individuals report sharing memoriesparticularly specific autobiographical memories -more frequently than do Asians for social bonding purposes (Kulkofsky, Wang, & Hou, 2010;Kulkofsky, Wang, & Koh, 2009;Schug, Yuki, & Maddux, 2010).…”

Coping with unpleasant group memberships in Japan and Germany: Cultural differences in disidentification, confrontation and emotion regulation

“…Germany represents a rather individualistic country (score 67), whereas Japan characterizes a mid-range collectivistic country (score 46). Although Japan does not represent an extreme collectivistic country based on this dimension (and becomes more individualistic, Ogihara, 2017), there is a wide range of research showing the persistence of collectivism in Japan, especially the importance of collectivistic living (increased importance in social obligation, social harmony, and social contribution and decreased importance in individual rights; e.g., Hamamura, 2012;Kito, Yuki, & Thomson, 2017;Ogihara, 2017), and low levels of relational mobility (e.g., Thomson et al, 2018).…”