Relational Mobility Scale--Modified

Yuki, Masaki; Sato, Kosuke; Takemura, Kosuke; Oishi, Shigehiro

doi:10.1037/t22836-000

Cited by 14 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The relational mobility scale (ref. 10 and SI Appendix , Table S1 ) showed high within-nation agreement [ M rwg(j) = 0.92, SD = 0.02, Min = 0.87], high variability between different societies [ ICC (1) = 0.09], and highly reliable society-level means [ ICC (2) = 0.98] ( Table 1 ). In short, these results suggest that people within each society tended to agree about how mobile their society is and that societies differ meaningfully in how relationally mobile they are.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Participants rated the relational mobility of their immediate society using the relational mobility scale of Yuki et al ( 10 ) ( SI Appendix , Table S1 ), reported the number of new acquaintances met in the last month and how many romantic partners they have had, and completed demographic questions. They also completed measures of interpersonal intimacy ( 34 ), self-disclosure ( 27 ), similarity ( 26 ), and social support in their relationship with either their closest friend or their romantic partner.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 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 ). Societies with low relational mobility have less flexible interpersonal relationships and networks; people form relationships based on circumstance rather than active choice.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

Thomson

Yuki

Talhelm

et al. 2018

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

Self Cite

273

402

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Thomson

Yuki

Talhelm

et al. 2018

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

Self Cite

273

402

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… Yuki and Schug (2020) explain the cultural difference in this psychological tendency via a social-ecological factor: relational mobility. Relational mobility is defined as the number of opportunities people have in a given society or social context to select new relationship partners when necessary ( Yuki et al, 2007 ). Some studies confirm that individuals in a low relational mobility society are likely to be more sensitive to interpersonal rejection ( Sato et al, 2014 ; Lou and Li, 2017 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-Interested Framed and Prosocially Framed Messaging Can Equally Promote COVID-19 Prevention Intention: A Replication and Extension of Jordan et al.’s Study (2020) in the Japanese Context

Miyajima

Murakami

2021

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How can we effectively promote the public’s prevention of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection? Jordan et al. (2020) found with United States samples that emphasizing either self-interest or collective-interest of prevention behaviors could promote the public’s prevention intention. Moreover, prosocially framed messaging was more effective in motivating prevention intention than self-interested messaging. A dual consideration of both cultural psychology and the literature on personalized matching suggests the findings of Jordan et al. (2020) are counterintuitive, because persuasion is most effective when the frame of the message delivered and the recipient of the message are culturally congruent. In order to better understand the potential influence of culture, the current research aimed to replicate and extend Jordan et al. (2020) findings in the Japanese context. Specifically, we examined the question (1) whether the relative effectiveness of the prosocial appeal is culturally universal and robust, (2) which types of ‘others’ especially promote prevention intention, and (3) which psychological mechanisms can explain the impact of messaging on prevention intention. In Study 1 (N = 1,583), we confirmed that self-interested framed, prosocially framed, and the combination of both types of messaging were equally effective in motivating prevention intention. In Study 2 (N = 1,686), we found that family-framed messaging also had a promoting effect similar to that from self-interested and prosocial appeals. However, the relative advantage of prosocial appeals was not observed. Further, a psychological propensity relevant to sensitivity to social rejection did not moderate the impact of messaging on prevention intention in both studies. These results suggest that since engaging in the infection control itself was regarded as critical by citizens after public awareness of COVID-19 prevention has been sufficiently heightened, for whom we should act might not have mattered. Further, concerns for social rejection might have had less impact on the prevention intentions under these circumstances. These results suggest that the relative advantage of a prosocial appeal might not be either culturally universal or prominent in a collectivistic culture. Instead, they suggest that the advantages of such an appeal depends on the more dynamic influence of COVID-19 infection.

show abstract

Partner choice does not predict prosociality across countries

Claessens

Kyritsis

2022

Evolut. Hum. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why does human prosociality vary around the world? Evolutionary models and laboratory experiments suggest that possibilities for partner choice (i.e., the ability to leave unprofitable relationships and strike up new ones) should promote cooperation across human societies. Leveraging the Global Preferences Survey (n = 27,125; 27 countries) and the World Values Survey (n = 54,728; 32 countries), we test this theory by estimating the associations between relational mobility, a socioecological measure of partner choice, and a wide variety of prosocial attitudes and behaviours, including impersonal altruism, reciprocity, trust, collective action, and moral judgements of antisocial behaviour. Contrary to our pre-registered predictions, we found little evidence that partner choice is related to prosociality across countries. After controlling for shared causes of relational mobility and prosociality — environmental harshness, subsistence style, and geographic and linguistic proximity — we found that only altruism and trust in people from another religion are positively related to relational mobility. We did not find positive relationships between relational mobility and reciprocity, generalised trust, collective action, or moral judgements. These findings challenge evolutionary theories of human cooperation which emphasise partner choice as a key explanatory mechanism, and highlight the need to generalise models and experiments to global samples.

show abstract

Relational Mobility Scale--Modified

Cited by 14 publications

References 0 publications

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

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

Self-Interested Framed and Prosocially Framed Messaging Can Equally Promote COVID-19 Prevention Intention: A Replication and Extension of Jordan et al.’s Study (2020) in the Japanese Context

Partner choice does not predict prosociality across countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About