Relational Mobility Explains Between- and Within-Culture Differences in Self-Disclosure to Close Friends

Abstract

The current research proposes a novel explanation for previously demonstrated findings that East Asians disclose less personal information to others than do Westerners. We propose that both between- and within-culture differences in self-disclosure toward close friends may be explained by the construct of "relational mobility" - the general degree to which individuals in the society have the opportunities to form new and terminate old relationships. In Study 1, we found that cross-cultural differences (Japan vs. U.S.) in self-disclosure toward a close friend were mediated by individuals' perceptions of relational mobility. In Study 2, two separate measures of relational mobility predicted self-disclosure within a single culture (Japan), and this relationship was mediated by the motivation to strengthen interpersonal relationships. We conclude that societies and social contexts high in relational mobility (where relationships can be formed and dissolved relatively easily) produce stronger incentives for self-disclosure as a social commitment device

Disclosure of sensitive behaviors across self-administered survey modes: a meta-analysis

“…For example, North Americans tend to disclose more than Chinese (Chen, 1995), Japanese (Schug, Yuki, &Maddux, 2010), or East Europeans (Maier, Zhang, & Clark, 2013) under face-to-face conditions. However, in computer-mediated environments self-disclosure increases for Asians, which has been attributed to the fact that members of collectivistic cultures are more reserved in face-to-face interactions to avoid violating social norms (Zhao, Hinds, & Gao, 2012).…”

The cultural contagion of conflict

“…Collectivistic societies tend to have low mobility (e.g. relationship, job and residential mobility) and thus it is very difficult to 'exit' the group and enter into other groups [26][27][28][29][30]. The lack of mobility and ability to exit the group has a number of important psychological implications.…”

Upper Classes and Immorality: Ecological Validation of 50 Years of Power Research

“…Because the strength and types of social bonds differ across cultures (Markus & Kitayama, 1991;Schug, Yuki, & Maddux, 2010), the characteristics of morality, as of the social contract, also vary across cultures (Rai & Fiske, 2011). For example, Confucianism, the founding moral philosophy in many Asian societies, treats the respect for hierarchy and authority as its highest virtue, at the apex of morality (Markus & Kitayama, 1991;Nisbett, 2003).…”