Making and keeping friends: Strategy matters
Friendships can be tough work. Whether it’s making them or maintaining them, friendships usually require effort. If you’re from a Western country, this likely involves trusting and relying on others, and confidently communicating your strengths and your struggles. Let’s call these your strategies for relational success: Let people know what sort of friend you are, and you’ll increase your chances of finding and keeping a desirable friend.
For a moment, however, imagine you’ve been shipped off to another country like Japan. Suddenly you’re in a new, unfamiliar environment, and it’s time to make new friends. Right away, you would probably begin your tried-and-true techniques for making friends. Unfortunately, your efforts may not go down too well: You may find yourself not liked much, and you may only end up offending and alienating people around you. Suddenly you’re alone, unhappy, and rather confused. Why have your tried-and-true strategies for friendship success failed?
We argue this is because your personal strategy for relational success is only valid under social contexts common in your country. In particular, your typical strategy – being confident and forward – is only effective in social contexts where people have an abundance of opportunity and freedom to select who they interact with, which is a characteristic of many Western societies. That is, societies where there is a high level of relational mobility. Let’s take a closer look at why this is the case, and, more importantly, what alternative strategies exist.
The force behind which relational strategies work, and when: Socio-ecology
First, the fundamental concept at play here is the general idea that what kind of behavior is optimal – or, adaptive – in any particular situation depends on the nature of the social context in which a person finds themselves. This idea is called the socio-ecological approach to human behavior and psychology. And yes, the ecology bit has some parallels with natural science.
Think back to high-school biology class for a moment. In nature, plants and animals adapt and respond to their natural environment (their ecology) in order to flourish. In a similar way, the socio-ecological approach to variation in human behavior states that in order to flourish, humans adapt their behavior (both consciously and unconsciously) according to their surrounding physical and social environment (Oishi & Graham, 2010).
Historically, of course, a broad body of research has already uncovered cultural differences in mindsets and shared beliefs that impact how people in different countries feel, think, and behave. Examples of these differences in cultural mindsets and beliefs include individualism and collectivism (e.g. Triandis, 1995) independent vs. interdependent cultural self-construals (Markus & Kitayama, 1991), and analytic vs. holistic modes of thought (Nisbett, Peng, Choi, & Norenzayan, 2001). However, behind the recent resurgence in the interest in the socio-ecological approach is a growing subset of researchers who feel that something has been left out from many of the current mainstream theories of cultural differences.
How does the socio-ecological approach differ? Recent researchers who take a socio-ecological approach (see Yuki & Schug, 2012, for a review) acknowledge that mental processes and shared beliefs (what goes on inside people’s minds) are important for understanding cultural differences in behavior. However, they also argue that the ‘lost’ tradition of acknowledging the impact of objective social and physical ecologies outside of people’s minds have been put by the wayside in recent decades (see Oishi, 2010), despite a rich history in earlier years of cross-cultural psychology (e.g, Berry, 1976). They argue that realities outside people’s minds might directly affect how people behave as well as impact internal mental processes – sometimes referred to as ‘mental shortcuts’ to the most beneficial behavior in any given situation (see Yamagishi, 2011).
Relational mobility: A socio-ecological concept
As mentioned above, we argue that relational mobility is a key factor in determining what friendship strategies will be effective in any particular social environment. And here it is important to note that relational mobility is a socio-ecological concept – an external social reality – which refers to “thedegree to which a particular society or group provides individuals with opportunities to choose relational partners based on their personal preferences” (Yuki & Schug, 2012, p. 137). Let’s unpack that mouthful.
Characteristics of LOW relational mobility social environments
Traditionally, human societies – such as small-scale tribal societies – tended to be low in relational mobility, characterized by relatively ‘closed’ interpersonal networks and stable group memberships. In social circumstances like these, interpersonal relationships (friends and acquaintances etc.) are generally defined by existing social network structures (like hierarchies and histories of social groups, and work, school, and community groups in more recent times). In short, in a low relational mobility environment, people tend to stay in long-standing relationships and groups, and it is hard to change them if they want to.
Researchers have pointed out that nowadays these characteristics are still prevalent in East Asian cultural regions such as Japan and China (Falk, Heine, Yuki, & Takemura, 2009; Schug, Yuki, Horikawa, & Takemura, 2009; Wang & Leung, 2010; Yuki & Schug, 2012) and also in Western Africa (Adams & Plaut, 2003). If we zoom in a little closer, however, some regions within a country may be lower in relational mobility than others: rural regions, for example, tend to be lower in relational mobility than big cities (Yamagishi, Hashimoto, Li, & Schug, 2012).
Characteristics of HIGH relational mobility societies
In contrast to low relational mobility societies, high relational mobility North American societies such as the US and Canada have histories which involve relatively recent and drastic movement of populations. Researchers tentatively suggest that all of that movement of people may have caused those North American societies to end up being higher in relational mobility (Oishi, 2010). Big city urban areas also tend to be higher in relational mobility, compared to rural areas. In such societies and social environments, opportunity and freedom abounds to select friendships based on personal preference (Adams & Plaut, 2003; Schug et al., 2009).
Put simply, a high relational mobility environment is an environment where people have a high degree of freedom to meet and freely associate with strangers, and can (relatively easily) leave their current relationships according to their own preferences. Note the emphasis here on freedom and ability to select and move between relationships; this emphasis makes it different to residential mobility (see this issue). Whereas residential mobility is all about the actual movement of people, relational mobility is primarily concerned with the potential or ability of movement between relationships. The two are related, but have different implications for behavior, as we describe below.
The effects of relational mobility on behavior and thinking
To date, scholars have shown that relational mobility can explain a host of cultural differences such as similarity between friends (Schug et al, 2009), what determines happiness (Yuki, Sato, Takemura, & Oishi, 2013; Sato & Yuki, 2014), levels of self-disclosure (Schug, Yuki, & Maddux, 2010), shame (Sznycer et al., 2012), confidence in one’s own abilities (Falk et al., 2009), and of trust in others in general (Yamagishi & Yamagishi, 1994; Yuki et al., 2007).
But how does this all relate to strategies for friendships? That is, how does relational mobility affect which friendship strategies will and won’t be optimal in a given social context? To answer this, we now need to look at what socio-ecological researchers refer to as ‘adaptive tasks (or goals)’ required for human flourishing in differing levels of relational mobility. After that, we will look at some of the strategies people use to achieve those adaptive goals.
Adaptive tasks and strategies in low relational mobility societies
Considering the closed, committed nature of interpersonal relationships in low relational mobility social contexts, the primary adaptive task in environments like these is to maintain harmony within one’s existing relationships. Why? Because disharmony means you’ll either: 1) be eternally stuck in an awkward disharmonious relationship or 2) be rejected and face the daunting task of having to form new friendships in a society where alternative options are scarce.
Research to date has uncovered a number of strategies people use to achieve the low relational mobility ‘adaptive task’ of maintaining harmony. People may be aware of these strategies and purposefully apply them in their everyday interactions with people. Or, people may just adopt these strategies unconsciously. Here, we will talk about one illustrative behavior, avoiding offence, and the emotion of shame.
A good strategy to employ in order to maintain harmony is to avoid offending others. Toshio Yamagishi and his colleagues (Yamagishi, Hashimoto, & Schug, 2008) argue this is because in low relational mobility societies, like Japan, people generally belong to long-lasting, tight-knit relationships, and they have a relative lack of opportunity to obtain new relationships. In such a society, they argue, it is in people’s interest to make sure they don’t ruffle feathers. After all, if you offend a friend, you may either end up stuck in a disharmonious relationship, or worse, get yourself rejected and struggle to make new friends.
Of course, offending others in a high relational mobility society is likely to elicit the same results: possible disharmony and rejection. But since there are an abundance of other relationship options in a high relational mobility social context, the cost of being rejected is lower. At least there is always the option to find some new friends.
Linked to this strategy of not offending others are cultural differences in how likely people are to experience the emotion of shame. Sznycer and colleagues define shame as “an emotion that evolved to deal with the risks and consequences of social devaluation” (Sznycer et al., 2012, p. 354). That is, if someone feels shame, they can immediately adjust their behavior to avoid being thought of badly by, or offending, their peers. Shame therefore acts as an ‘alarm bell’ of sorts, motivating the person to adjust their behavior. In high relational mobility environments, however, the emotion of shame is not as common. After all, people in high relational mobility environments can more easily replace relationships, so the cost of social devaluation in friendships is not as high.
Extra info box 1 – Pick a pen, any pen... People in low-relational mobility societies try not to offend others. Yamagishi and his colleagues demonstrated this nicely through a simple cross-cultural experiment (Yamagishi, Hashimoto, & Schug, 2008). By giving people in the US (high relational mobility society) and Japan (low relational mobility society) a choice between a relatively scarce and unique pen, and an ordinary pen, Yamagishi showed that when people didn’t know if they were the first or last to choose, Japanese people were more likely than Americans to choose the ordinary pen. This was despite Japanese actually having a preference for the unique pen (a finding in itself which contradicted previous research (see Kim & Markus, 1999)). Yamagishi and his colleagues argued that despite their preference for a unique pen, the people from low relational mobility Japan chose the ordinary pen because they were concerned they might prevent others from being able to indulge in their preference (and thus causing offence). |
Adaptive tasks and strategies in high relational mobility societies
This emphasis on maintaining harmony in low relational mobility societies may sound unappealing, especially to readers from high mobility worlds. The reality is, however, that people living in high relational mobility societies have challenges of their own.
Previously, we saw that in high relational mobility social environments, people have a high degree of freedom to choose friends and acquaintances based on their personal preference. In such social contexts, scholars argue the most important adaptive tasks are the acquisition and retention of beneficial relationships (Yuki & Schug, 2012).
The importance of acquiring and retaining beneficial relationships might be easier to understand if we think of a high relational mobility society as an open market for interpersonal relationships. Humor us for a moment and imagine that a group of your friends have dragged you along to a speed-dating gathering. In the group, however, is that friend whom you’ve secretly had a crush on but never had the nerve to ask out on a date. In that speed-dating situation – an open marketplace for potential romantic partners – there would be very few limitations on whom you can interact with. You might come in contact with any number of interesting, socially attractive people, some of whom might be even more appealing than your current secret crush. Remember, though, your secret crush is also coming into contact with a number of socially attractive people. In an open market like this, therefore, you should probably be focused on 1) keeping an eye out for potentially new and better relationship options (acquisition), and 2) making sure your secret crush doesn’t ditch you for someone else (retention).
This rather extreme example captures something of the social dynamics in a high relational mobility environment. It also demonstrates to an extent the difference between residential and relational mobilities: if your secret crush has to move cities because their new job requires it (an example of residential mobility), there’s likely little you can do about it. But if it’s just a matter of how much freedom your secret crush has to choose who they’ll end up hooking up with (relational mobility), now that’s something you can try to do something about. Note that the concept of relational mobility is not only limited to romantic relationships, but is also relevant to friendships, business contacts, group memberships etc.
Let’s now move on to strategies involved in the adaptive tasks of the acquisition and retention of beneficial relationships in a high relational mobility society. Here, we will briefly mention strategies in three domains: self-enhancement, general trust, and self-disclosure.
First, a high level of positive self-regard (a high level of self-enhancement) will help people in high relational mobility societies achieve their goal of acquiring desirable relationships (Falk et al., 2009). Think about if the opposite was true: If you think you’re not worthy of the attention of others around you, this is likely to affect your willingness to approach desirable others, and this might mean you miss valuable relationship opportunities. In an open market of interpersonal relationships, it’s better to have a positively biased perception of your self-worth – that is, better to self-enhance – as this will act as a booster for interacting with and making the most of all those opportunities to meet increasingly beneficial friends.
In low relational mobility social contexts, however, high self-regard is only courting relational danger: It may end in unwanted status competition within groups, causing disharmony. Also, if a person starts thinking they’re the bearer of highly valued traits, they may just end up being dissatisfied with their current unambitious friends. Overall, in such contexts it is better to avoid offence by making sure that you downplay your greatness and stay out of the spotlight.
Secondly, in high relational mobility societies, a high belief in the benevolence and goodwill of strangers (a high level of general trust) will help people to approach potential new friends (Yamagishi & Yamagishi, 1994). Once again, think of the opposite for a moment: Every day you come in contact with people who could possibly be your new best friend wi
th great benefits, but you hold the belief that all strangers are out to harm you. With this mindset, how will you be able to approach those potentially great new friends? By developing a high level of general trust in others however (and a keen sense of who is trustworthy and who is not), a person can break free from safe, committed social relationships and explore other possibilities.
In contrast, research has shown that general trust is lower in low relational mobility societies. Scholars argue this is because people simply have no need to develop the ‘skill’ of general trust in low relational mobility societies (Yamagishi & Yamagishi, 1994). Relationships are long lasting and stable, with strong social rules within groups. Group members keep an eye on each other, making sure people pull their weight and don’t take advantage of others. In this sense, people can rest assured that in-group members won’t take advantage of them. There is, however, less need for trust in strangers (that is, general trust) in low relational mobility environments: Why develop a skill that just opens a person up to the potential of being taken advantage of by outsiders?
The two points above refer primarily to the acquisition of desirable relationships in high relational mobility societies. Our third point refers to the retention of current relationships: In high relational mobility societies, self-disclosure (revealing sensitive information about the self) appears to be a good strategy to retain current close friends (Schug et al., 2010). That is, by telling a close friend about your most embarrassing experience, for example, this demonstrates your willingness to be vulnerable with that friend. This in turn communicates your commitment to your friendship. And if your friend sees that you're committed to them, they’re more likely to respond in kind. Of course, there is the risk that your friend might be put off by your admission: “You did what?! What an idiot.” But even if a person’s self-disclosure leads to rejection, in a high relational mobility society, there are still plenty of options to make new friends. In this way, the benefit of self-disclosure (solidifying an otherwise unstable friendship) outweighs the potential cost (rejection) in high relational mobility societies. In low relational mobility societies, this cost-benefit situation is reversed: there are few opportunities to make new friends if you get rejected, so best to keep those potentially embarrassing admissions to yourself.
Extra info box 2 – Case closed? 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.
Yamagishi, T., Hashimoto, H., Li, Y., & Schug, J. (2012). Stadtluft Macht Frei (City Air Brings Freedom). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(1), 38–45.
Yamagishi, T., Hashimoto, H., & Schug, J. (2008). Preferences versus strategies as explanations for culture-specific behavior. Psychological Science, 19(6), 579–584.
Yamagishi, T., & Yamagishi, M. (1994). Trust and Commitment in the United States and Japan. Motivation and Emotion., 18(2), 129-166.
Yuki, M., Sato, K., Takemura, K., & Oishi, S. (2013). Social Ecology Moderates the Association between Self-Esteem and Happiness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(4), 741-746.
Yuki, M., & Schug, J. (2012). Relational mobility: A socio-ecological approach to personal relationships. In O. Gillath, G. Adams, & A. D. Kunkel (Eds.), Relationship science: integrating evolutionary, neuroscience, and sociocultural approaches (pp. 137–152). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Yuki, M., Schug, J., Horikawa, H., Takemura, K., Sato, K., Yokota, K., & Kamaya, K. (2007). Development of a scale to measure perceptions of relational mobility in society. CERSS Working Paper 75, Center for Experimental Research in Social Sciences, Hokkaido University. Retrieved from http://lynx.let.hokudai.ac.jp/cerss/english/workingpaper/index.cgi?year…
Zhang, R., & Li, L. M. W. (2014). The Acculturation of Relational Mobility: An Investigation of Asian Canadians. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(9), 1390–1410. doi:10.1177/0022022114542850
