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

Abstract

SignificanceBiologists and social scientists have long tried to understand why some societies have more fluid and open interpersonal relationships—differences in relational mobility—and how those differences influence individual behaviors. We measure relational mobility in 39 societies and find that relationships are more stable and hard to form in east Asia, North Africa, and the Middle East, while they are more fluid in the West and Latin America. Results show that relationally mobile cultures tend to have higher interpersonal trust and intimacy. Exploring potential causes, we find greater environmental threats (like disease and warfare) and sedentary farming are associated with lower relational mobility. Our society-level index of relational mobility for 39 societies is a resource for future studies.

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

“…We argue that disidentification can have positive consequences when relational mobility is low and collectivistic norms are salient (Hamstra et al, 2015). People from collectivistic societies are less likely to form new relationships and to enter new groups compared to people from individualist societies (e.g., Thomson et al, 2018). Thus, when they have an unpleasant group membership, it is rather difficult for people in collectivistic cultures to physically leave this group.…”

“…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).…”

“…In these societies, those who assert themselves or express anger are likely to be perceived by other members as deviants from the group norm and can face exclusion from the ingroup (Ohbuchi & Atsumi, 2010). The degree of opportunities in a given society to select groups and relationship partners according to one's own preferences is called relational mobility (Thomson et al, 2018;Yuki & Schug, 2012;Yuki, Schug, Horikawa, Takemura, Sato, Yokota & Kamaya, 2007). The degree of opportunities in a given society to select groups and relationship partners according to one's own preferences is called relational mobility (Thomson et al, 2018;Yuki & Schug, 2012;Yuki, Schug, Horikawa, Takemura, Sato, Yokota & Kamaya, 2007).…”

“…Social exclusion from one's ingroup is problematic because, in collectivist cultures, relationships are long-lasting and difficult to change. The degree of opportunities in a given society to select groups and relationship partners according to one's own preferences is called relational mobility (Thomson et al, 2018;Yuki & Schug, 2012;Yuki, Schug, Horikawa, Takemura, Sato, Yokota & Kamaya, 2007). Whereas people in highmobility societies, such as the US or Germany, are frequently faced with opportunities to form new relationships and are more likely to change groups and partners, individuals in low-mobility societies, such as Japan, rarely change their groups or partners and tend to be firmly embedded in their social network (Schug, Yuki, Horikawa, & Takemura, 2009).…”

Culturally valued facial expressions enhance loan request success.

“…National levels of ideal and actual affect. We used the ideal affect and actual affect data reported in Tsai et al (2016), Table 2 (Hofstede et al, 2010) and relational mobility (Thomson et al, 2018;Shi, Morris, Talhelm, & Yang, in press) from previous work to examine whether ideal affect predicted excited (vs. calm) borrowers above and beyond these cultural factors.…”