How You Talk About It Matters: Cultural Variation in Communication Directness in Romantic Relationships

Abstract

Communication plays an integral role in shaping romantic relationship quality. Yet, little is known about whether people from different cultural backgrounds communicate differently in their romantic relationships. Here, we addressed this issue by examining (a) whether the extent to which individuals communicate directly or indirectly in their romantic relationships varies by culture, (b) what mechanism underlies these cultural differences, and (c) how the fit between culture and communication style contributes to expected relationship satisfaction. Three key findings emerged across three studies (total N = 1,193). First, Chinese preferred indirect (vs. direct) communication more than European Americans, and this effect was more strongly pronounced in positively (vs. negatively) valenced situations (Studies 1–3). Second, interdependent (vs. independent) self-construal mediated the cultural difference in indirect communication both in positive and negative situations (Study 3). Finally, both cultural groups anticipated greater relationship satisfaction when they imagined their partner using the culturally preferred mode of communication—that is, indirect communication for Chinese and direct communication for European Americans (Study 3). These findings advance theory on culture and romantic relationship processes by demonstrating cultural differences in preferred communication styles across different situational contexts, identifying self-construal differences underlying these preferred communication styles, and highlighting the importance of congruence between culture and communication style for the quality of relationships.

Keywords

culture communication directness interdependence versus independence romantic relationships relationship quality

Imagine your partner has developed a habit that you do not like and you want to address this issue with him or her. In this situation, how would you go about communicating? Are you likely to directly tell your partner about your thoughts and feelings? Alternatively, are you likely to find opportunities to raise the topic gently (e.g., using analogies), expecting that your partner will get your point? Which way of communication—direct or indirect—would be more beneficial for your relationship?

The answers to these questions may seem obvious to people from Western cultures, where directly expressing personal preferences is valued and linked to relational benefits (Cameron & Overall, 2018; Chervonsky & Hunt, 2017; Laurenceau et al., 1998; Overall & McNulty, 2017; Reis & Shaver, 1988). Yet, whether such directness is equally valued for those living in non-Western cultures remains largely unexplored. The present work integrates work on close relationships and cultural psychology to address two questions. First, does the degree to which romantic partners prefer direct or indirect communication vary by cultural contexts, and if so, what factors account for these cultural differences? Second, are these cultural differences linked to people’s expectations about how satisfying their relationships will be?

Cultural Variation in Communication Directness

Our work is built on the premise that the extent to which direct or indirect communication is valued in romantic relationships varies by cultural contexts, depending on the culture’s emphasis on independence or interdependence of the self (Markus & Kitayama, 1991), and in turn, on which of two interpersonal goals—influence or adjustment—take precedence in that respective culture (Morling et al., 2002; Tsai et al., 2007; Weisz et al., 1984).

Western cultures, including the US, emphasize independence and separateness of the self from surrounding interpersonal contexts (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Park et al., 2016). In such cultures, the self is primarily defined based on internal attributes such as personal goals, desires, and preferences, and thus, individuals from these cultures tend to place their own needs and desires over those of others (Triandis, 1995). Accordingly, these individuals are strongly motivated to change and influence their social environments to satisfy their own needs, rather than changing themselves to fit in the environments (Morling et al., 2002; Weisz et al., 1984). To influence others, people must articulate their arguments in a clear and persuasive manner. Thus, individuals with independent selves may be apt to use direct communication to facilitate the goal to influence others (Tsai, 2007).

In contrast, East Asian cultures, such as Chinese, Korean, and Japanese societies, emphasize interdependence and connectedness of the self with others (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Park et al., 2016). In cultures where belonging to social groups and maintaining harmonious relationships are integral to the sense of self, individuals are expected to subordinate their own needs and desires to those of others (Triandis, 1995). Accordingly, these individuals are strongly motivated to adjust their behaviors to fit with others’ needs and expectations (Morling et al., 2002; Weisz et al., 1984), including close others (Cross & Lam, 2018). To adjust to others, one must be attentive to others’ needs and feelings, for example, by leaving space for others to speak or softening one’s tone. Therefore, individuals with interdependent selves may communicate indirectly to facilitate adjustment to social environments (Tsai, 2007).

Consistent with this theoretical perspective, research primarily on non-close relationships in work settings has revealed differences in communication preferences between cultures varying in independence/interdependence. In higher context societies (e.g., China, Japan), communication often is subtle, implicit, and guided by contextual cues, whereas in lower context societies (e.g., US, Great Britain), communication often is explicit and direct (Hall, 1976, 1983). For example, to resolve interpersonal conflict, Americans use more solution-oriented strategies, which involve direct communication about the conflict and confrontation of the issue, whereas East Asians use more non-confrontational methods, such as indirectly handling a conflict and concealing ill feelings (Chua & Gudykunst, 1987; Holtgraves, 1997). It remains unclear, however, whether this evidence of cultural variation, primarily based on non-close, work relationships, generalizes to romantic relationships.

Generalizability to Romantic Relationships

Limited work has examined cultural differences in communication patterns in romantic relationships, and moreover, the findings so far are mixed (Bello et al., 2010; Halford et al., 2018). In research conducted in Australia, no differences were found between Chinese, White, and interracial couples in their indirect and direct communication behaviors during problem-solving interactions (Halford et al., 2018). Contrary to this finding, another study showed that when people express gratitude or appreciation to close others such as friends or romantic partners, Chinese prefer indirect expressions more than Americans who typically prefer direct expressions (Bello et al., 2010). To our knowledge, no other work has tested couples’ communication directness across different cultural groups. Given the scarcity and inconsistency of such evidence, we first sought to examine cultural variation in communication directness by testing three alternative sets of predictions.

On the one hand, the previously documented cultural differences in work relationships might be attenuated in romantic relationships, if adjustment, rather than influence, is a more salient goal within romantic relationships even among Westerners. Unlike organizational settings, romantic relationships are likely characterized by high levels of acceptance, interdependence, and support (Clark & Mills, 2012). In such intimate relationships, people might be generally motivated to adjust to expectations of their partner, regardless of their cultural backgrounds, thereby attenuating cultural differences in communication directness. Consistent with this view, cultural differences in attentiveness to indirect communication cues were more strongly pronounced in business contexts where Americans showed reduced relational concern compared to Chinese; in contrast, this cultural difference was attenuated in non-work settings in which both cultural groups showed heightened sensitivity to indirect cues (Sanchez-Burks et al., 2003). This prediction would also be in line with the general lack of cultural differences in indirect communicative behaviors observed during problem-solving discussions in the aforementioned study conducted in Australia (Halford et al., 2018).

Another strong possibility is that cultural differences documented in work relationships will similarly emerge in romantic relationship contexts, if influence (rather than adjustment) remains a salient motive for Westerners. Consistent with this view, evidence suggests that influence is a common motive even within close relationships in Western cultures (Simpson et al., 2015). For example, during a relationship problem-solving discussion, partners from Western cultures emphasize the importance of the relationship in order to strategically influence their partner to change and accommodate their needs (Oriña et al., 2002). Similarly, partners often use influence strategies such as rational reasoning to improve relationship quality (Overall et al., 2009). This prediction would then be in line with research on culture and communication in non-intimate relationships (Chua & Gudykunst, 1987; Holtgraves, 1997) as well as the aforementioned work showing that Chinese are more indirect in expressing gratitude or appreciation to close others than are Americans (Bello et al., 2010).

In testing these predictions, we considered one important feature of the communication context that may serve as a potential moderator of cultural differences—that is, whether a situation is positively or negatively valenced. Our focus on situation valence could help reconcile the disparate findings from previous research, documenting significant cultural differences in communication directness in positive situations (Bello et al., 2010), but the lack of such differences in negative situations (Halford et al., 2018). In general, having influence goals would motivate Westerners to use direct communication more, whereas having adjustment goals would motivate East Asians to use indirect communication more. However, directly discussing negative aspects of one’s partner may be less desirable in certain contexts as it can jeopardize the relationship by hurting the partner’s feelings. In the context of negative conversations, even Westerners might prefer not to use direct communication (see Overall, 2018 for similar arguments). In contrast, in the context of positive conversations, concerns about the potential, relationship-harming effects of direct communication would be mitigated, and thus, both cultural groups should prefer to act more in alignment with their cultural ideals, thereby yielding stronger cultural differences. Thus, a third possibility, which guided the current work, was that if we observe the expected cultural differences in communication directness, the differences may be more pronounced in positively valenced situations than in negatively valenced situations. Our first aim was to test this prediction.

Implications for Expected Relationship Outcomes: The Cultural-Fit Hypothesis

The second aim was to examine whether culture moderates the interpersonal consequences of direct or indirect communication. Is direct or indirect communication destructive or benign in relational contexts? We suggest that the answer to this question varies by cultural context, guided by a cultural-fit hypothesis.

The cultural-fit hypothesis suggests that individuals’ adherence to their respective cultural mandates can promote better health and adjustment. For example, when individual characteristics are congruent (vs. incongruent) with the normative values or practices within a given culture, this cultural fit or attunement is associated with better health and well-being (Kitayama et al., 2010; Levine et al., 2016). In romantic relationship contexts, the cultural-fit hypothesis predicts that individual characteristics that encourage patterns of behaviors that are congruent with cultural norms will be associated with better relationship adjustment. For example, individuals high in attachment avoidance, characterized as more emotionally distant and overly self-reliant, report higher levels of relationship satisfaction if they are from individualistic cultures that value independence and self-sufficiency than in collectivistic cultures that value social belonging and interpersonal connectedness (Friedman et al., 2010). Additionally, seemingly identical communicative behaviors in couple interactions can yield divergent relationship outcomes depending on their fit with socio-cultural contexts. For example, withdrawing in response to a partner’s request for change harms relationship satisfaction among middle-class couples, but benefits it among socioeconomically disadvantaged couples, where limited resources may make it difficult to comply with such requests (Ross et al., 2019).

Building on this literature, we predicted that when congruence exists between individuals’ dominant cultural norms and the partner’s communication style, individuals will expect greater relationship satisfaction. Specifically, we predicted that Westerners will expect direct communication to benefit their relationships because it fits with their culture’s emphasis on independence and associated interpersonal goals to influence their partner. Consistent with this prediction, previous Western-based studies have shown that direct communication among couples was generally associated with better relationship quality, whereas more indirect communication (e.g., avoiding the expression of feelings and emotions) was associated with poorer relationship quality (Overall, 2018; Overall et al., 2009). However, little is known about the link between communication directness and relationship adjustment for individuals from East Asian cultures. Guided by the cultural-fit hypothesis, we predicted that East Asians will view indirect communication as more adaptive, given their culture’s emphasis on interdependence and associated adjustment goals, and therefore, they will expect more satisfying relationships when partners communicate indirectly. As we hypothesized a stronger cultural difference in communication directness in positive (vs. negative) situations, we also examined whether situation valence would moderate the hypothesized cultural differences in anticipated relationship satisfaction, such that both cultural groups would anticipate greater relationship satisfaction when they imagined their partner using the culturally preferred mode of communication, primarily in positive, rather than negative, situations.

Research Overview

We tested these predictions across three studies based on comparisons between European Americans and Chinese. As an initial step to examine cultural variation in communication patterns in romantic relationships, we examined individuals’ communication preferences—that is, how they would choose to communicate in various situations that involve interactions with a romantic partner. Study 1 tested whether the two cultural groups differentially prefer direct or indirect communication with romantic partners in hypothetical couple interactions in both positive and negative situations. Study 2 conceptually replicated Study 1 using a different self-report method. Study 3 tested whether individuals would expect greater relationship satisfaction when their partner communicated in the culturally preferred manner both in positive and negative situations. Finally, Study 3 also examined whether interdependent (vs. independent) self-construal mediates the cultural difference in indirect (vs. direct) communication and its subsequent impact on expectations for relationship satisfaction.

Study 1

Study 1 examined whether European Americans and Chinese differ in the degree to which they prefer direct or indirect communication in romantic relationships. The two cultural groups read vignettes describing both positive and negative situations that could occur in romantic relationships and indicated the degree to which they would use direct or indirect communication in each situation. We predicted that, compared to Chinese, European Americans would prefer direct (vs. indirect) communication and that this difference would be more pronounced in positive than in negative situations.

Method

Participants

Participants were 380 European American undergraduates at a US university (70 men, 310 women; M_age = 19.83 and SD_age = 1.16) and 116 Chinese undergraduates at a Chinese university (52 men, 63 women, 1 unidentified; M_age = 22.30 and SD_age = 1.65).¹ To maximize a cultural contrast with Chinese, the study focused on Americans of European descent, who are more independent (or less interdependent) than other Americans (Oyserman et al., 2002). Americans received course credit for their participation, and Chinese received a 6-yuan notebook in all studies. Because the sample size was unbalanced between the two cultural groups, we conducted a sensitivity power analysis based on the size of the smaller sample (= 116 × 2, assuming an equal size for both groups) to avoid a potential problem of power analysis using an overestimated effect size. The sensitivity power analysis using G*Power (Faul et al., 2009) showed that the total sample allowed us to detect the Culture × Communication Style × Situation Valence interaction with a small effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.08) (power of 0.80 and α = .05).

Procedure and Materials

Participants read seven vignettes describing hypothetical positive (two vignettes) or negative (five vignettes) situations in romantic relationships.² A sample vignette depicting a negative situation is, “Your partner has developed a habit that you do not like and you want to address the issue with him (or her). How would you go about communicating?” (see Supplemental Appendix 1 for all vignettes). Afterwards, participants were presented with two options, one based on direct communication (e.g., Tell your partner your thoughts and feelings as clearly as possible) and one based on indirect communication (e.g., Find opportunities to raise the topic gently, expecting your partner will get your point). Participants then rated the likelihood they would use each option in the situation. For this measure and all Study 1 measures, Americans responded using a slider scale, ranging from Not at all likely to Very likely, without numerical indicators; responses were recorded on a 7-point scale, with higher numbers indicating greater agreement. Chinese responded using a 9-point scale (1 = Not at all likely, 9 = Very likely), and their scores were re-scaled on a 7-point scale for comparison across groups (This procedural limitation is rectified in Studies 2–3). Participants’ ratings were averaged for situation valence by response options, yielding four scores: direct-positive, indirect-positive, direct-negative, and indirect-negative. Participants next rated how much each option represented a direct response to each situation, which served as a manipulation check.³

In all three studies, Americans completed the questionnaire online, while Chinese completed a paper questionnaire in class. The questionnaire was created in English, translated into Chinese by a bilingual Chinese and English speaker, and back-translated into English by another bilingual speaker to ensure semantic equivalence across cultures (see Supplemental Appendix 2 for the back-translated materials for all studies). The Institutional Review Board at the US University approved all procedures and materials for all three studies.

Results

Both cultural groups rated the direct response options as more direct than the indirect options for both positive and negative situations, Fs > 91.28, ps < .001, η_p²s > .45, indicating the success of our manipulation.

Next, we performed a 2 Culture (Americans vs. Chinese) × 2 Communication Style (direct vs. indirect) × 2 Situation Valence (positive vs. negative) mixed analysis of variance (ANOVA) on participants’ use of each communication style, with culture as a between-participants factor and communication style and situation valence as within-participant factors. All main effects and two-way interactions were significant, Fs > 7.40, ps < .007, η_p²s > .02 (see Table 1 for full statistics). Importantly, these effects were qualified by a significant three-way interaction between culture, communication style, and situation valence, F(1, 493) = 45.63, p < .001, η_p² = .09, 90% Confidence Interval (CI) [.05,.13].

Table 1.

Mixed ANOVA Results on Communication Preference in Study 1.

Predictor variable	F	p	η_p ²	90% CI
Culture	9.60	.002	.02	[.00, .04]
Communication style	42.08	<.001	.08	[.05, .12]
Situation valence	53.15	<.001	.10	[.06, .14]
Culture × Communication Style	93.01	<.001	.16	[.11, .21]
Culture × Situation Valence	7.40	.007	.02	[.00, .04]
Communication Style × Situation Valence	34.13	<.001	.07	[.03, .10]
Culture × Communication Style × Situation Valence	45.63	<.001	.09	[.05, .13]

Note. N = 495. 90% CI indicates 90% confidence interval of η_p².

To understand the pattern of the three-way interaction effect, we examined the simple interaction effects between culture and communication style within positive and negative situations, separately. The two-way interaction was significant in positive situations, F(1, 493) = 111.58, p < .001, η_p² = .19, 90% CI [.14, .23]. As displayed in Figure 1A, Americans, compared to Chinese, reported greater use of direct communication in positive situations, F(1, 493) = 56.71, p < .001, η_p² = .10, 90% CI [.06, .15], whereas Chinese indicated greater use of indirect communication than did Americans, F(1, 493) = 63.76, p < .001, η_p² = .12, 90% CI [.07, .16]. The two-way interaction between culture and communication style was also significant in negative situations, F(1, 493) = 14.21, p < .001, η_p² = .03, 90% CI [.01, .06]. Similar to the pattern for positive situations, Chinese preferred indirect communication more than Americans, F(1, 493) = 34.02, p < .001, η_p² = .07, 90% CI [.03, .10]. However, the two cultural groups did not differ in their preference for direct communication, F(1, 493) = 0.22, p = .636 (see Figure 1B).⁴

Figure 1.

Cultural differences in preference for direct and indirect communication in (A) positive situations and (B) negative situations in Study 1. Error bars indicate standard errors. Statistical significance is indicated by asterisks (***p < .001).

Discussion

Study 1 provided initial support for our prediction that individuals’ preference for communication directness in romantic relationships varies by culture. European Americans showed a greater preference for direct communication in hypothetical interactions with romantic partners than Chinese who showed a greater preference for indirect communication. These results suggest that the prior evidence of cultural variation in communication directness, which has been examined primarily in business or organizational settings (Chua & Gudykunst, 1987; Holtgraves, 1997), generalizes to more intimate social contexts.

Importantly, these cultural differences were more pronounced in positive than in negative situations. While Chinese showed a greater preference for indirect communication regardless of situation valence, the two cultural groups did not differ in their preference for direct communication in negative situations. Despite their strong tendency to favor directness, European Americans may be reluctant to communicate too directly in certain contexts where doing so can jeopardize relationships by hurting their partner’s feelings. In the absence of such a concern, a stronger cultural difference emerged in positive situations.

An important limitation of Study 1 was that the two cultural groups used different rating scales, which could have contributed to the observed cultural differences. In Study 2, we rectified this limitation and used a different measure to test the robustness of the Study 1 findings.

Study 2

Study 2 sought to conceptually replicate the Study 1 findings using a different self-report methodology. Whereas in Study 1 participants responded to hypothetical scenarios, in Study 2 they responded to questionnaire items about their preference for indirect communication in their relationships using a newly developed scale. As in Study 1, we examined communication styles in both positively and negatively valenced situations to test the robustness of the moderating effect of situation valence.

Method

Participants

The sample included 186 European American students at a US University (40 males, 146 females; M_age = 19.98 and SD_age = 1.21) and 116 Chinese students at a Chinese university (59 males, 56 females, 1 unidentified; M_age = 21.10 and SD_age = 3.82). A sensitivity power analysis showed that our primary analysis (i.e., the Culture × Situation Valence interaction on preference for indirect communication) based on the total sample (116 × 2 = 232) is sufficient to detect a small effect (Cohen’s d = 0.09) (power = 0.80 and α = .05).

Procedure and Materials

We developed a scale, Romantic Relationship Communication Style (RRCS), to assess preferences for indirect (vs. direct) communication in 10 positive (e.g., “I tend to directly show my affection for a romantic partner”) and 13 negative (e.g., “I tend to be indirect and subtle when conveying that I disagree with a romantic partner”) situations within romantic relationships (see Supplemental Appendix 3 for all items). Participants rated how well each statement described them (1 = Not at all, 7 = Very well). We evaluated the psychometric properties of the original scale and excluded several items that showed a low-corrected item-total correlation (smaller than .20; e.g., Rief & Hiller, 1999), which resulted in five items for positive situations (Americans: α = .80; Chinese: α = .73) and six items for negative situations (Americans: α = .79; Chinese: α = .68) (see Supplemental Materials for the results from an exploratory factor analysis). This version of the scale after item exclusion was used for our primary analysis, but the results were no different when we tested the original version. For both subscales, several items were reverse-scored before averaging, such that a higher score reflects a preference for indirect communication.^5,6

Results

We performed a 2 Culture (Americans vs. Chinese) × 2 Situation Valence (positive vs. negative) mixed ANOVA on the RRCS ratings, with culture as a between-participants factor and situation valence as a within-participants factor. The main effect of situation valence was not significant, F(1, 300) = 1.73, p = .189, but a significant main effect of culture emerged, F(1, 300) = 23.46, p < .001, η_p² = .07, 90% CI [.03, .12]. Regardless of situation valence, Chinese preferred indirect communication (M = 2.97 and SE = 0.08) more than Americans (M = 2.49, SE = 0.06). Importantly, the two-way interaction between culture and situation valence was also statistically significant, F(1, 300) = 12.28, p = .001, η_p² = .04, 90% CI [.01, .08]. As displayed in Figure 2, Chinese showed a greater preference for indirect communication than Americans, but this cultural difference was stronger in positive situations, F(1, 300) = 32.13, p < .001, η_p² = .10, 90% CI [.05, .15], than in negative situations, F(1, 300) = 8.03, p = .005, η_p² = .03, 90% CI [.01, .06].

Figure 2.

Cultural differences in preference for indirect communication in positive situations (left) and negative situations (right) in Study 2. Error bars indicate standard errors. Statistical significance is indicated by asterisks (**p < .01 and ***p < .001).

Discussion

Study 2 conceptually replicated Study 1, using a newly developed scale of communication styles in romantic relationships. As predicted, Chinese preferred indirect communication more than European Americans. Notably, this cultural difference was more pronounced in positive than in negative situations. Similar to the pattern observed in Study 1, this moderation effect emerged because European Americans showed a decreased preference for direct communication in negative situations presumably because of its potential social costs.

Study 3

The primary goal of Study 3 was to examine the implications of direct and indirect communication preferences on relationship outcomes. How might partners’ direct or indirect communication contribute to relationship satisfaction? Guided by the cultural-fit hypothesis, we hypothesized that participants would expect to be more satisfied with their romantic relationship when their partner used a culturally preferred communication style (direct for European Americans and indirect for Chinese). To test this prediction, participants first completed an abbreviated version of the RRCS to assess their preference for indirect communication and then read two vignettes depicting hypothetical situations in romantic relationships (one positive situation and one negative situation). For each situation, participants estimated how satisfied they would be in each situation when their partner communicated either directly or indirectly in response to the situation. As expected, the cultural difference in preference for indirect communication was stronger in positive than in negative situations both in Studies 1 and 2, and thus, we further tested the moderating role of situation valence in Study 3.

The second goal was to test interdependent (vs. independent) self-construal as a mediating mechanism underlying the cultural differences in indirect communication. We proposed that cultural differences in communication directness are likely shaped by the extent to which direct (vs. indirect) communication is conducive to fulfilling the goal of influencing (vs. adjusting to) others in independent (vs. interdependent) cultural contexts (Tsai, 2007). Thus, we tested whether participants’ self-construal mediates the cultural difference in indirect communication and its subsequent impact on relationship satisfaction. We predicted that because Chinese are more interdependent (and less independent) than Americans, Chinese would prefer indirect communication more, and as a consequence, they would be more satisfied with their relationships when they imagined their partner communicating with them in a more indirect way.

Method

Participants

The sample included 173 European American students at a U.S. university (23 males, 149 females, 1 unidentified; M_age = 19.98 and SD_age = 1.47), and 222 Chinese students at a Chinese university (71 males, 145 females, 6 unidentified; M_age = 21.44 and SD_age = 2.02). A sensitivity power analysis indicated that we had 0.80 power to detect the three-way interaction effect between culture, communication style, and situation valence on relationship satisfaction ratings with the total sample (173 ×2 = 346) with a small effect (Cohen’s d = 0.06) (α = .05).

Procedure and Materials

Participants first completed the measures of self-construal and communication styles. They then read two vignettes, which we adopted from Study 1, describing hypothetical situations in their romantic relationships and rated their anticipated levels of relationship satisfaction in each situation.

Interdependent versus independent self-construal

First, participants completed the Singelis self-construal scale (Singelis, 1994) to assess interdependence (12 items; e.g., “I will sacrifice my self-interest for the benefit of the group I am in”; Americans: α = .72; Chinese: α = .67) and independence (12 items; e.g., “I try to do what is best for me, regardless of how that might affect others”; Americans: α = .74; Chinese: α = .65), using a 7-point scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree). For Chinese participants, we used a Chinese version developed by Ma et al. (2014). Following previous research (Kitayama et al., 2009; Park & Kitayama, 2014), we subtracted independence scores from interdependence scores to yield a single index of interdependence (vs. independence).

Romantic relationship communication styles

Participants next completed an abbreviated version of the RRCS, which was created after removing several items that yielded the low item-total correlations. The remaining 20 items assessed preference for indirect communication in positive, negative, and neutral situations. The average of the total items indexed preference for indirect communication (Americans: α = .90; Chinese: α = .78). As we were interested in examining how individuals’ self-construal predicted preference for indirect communication in general, we created a composite index by collapsing all three subscales, including the items for neutral situations. Notably, the results did not depend on whether the items for neutral situations were included in the composite index or not.

Anticipated relationship satisfaction

Finally, participants read two vignettes (one positive, one negative) about hypothetical interactions with their romantic partners (e.g., Your partner wants to express appreciation for your kind behavior) and then read two possible response options—direct (e.g., Directly telling you how thankful he/she is about what you did for him/her) and indirect (e.g., Expressing his/her appreciation indirectly through subtle kind gestures and behaviors without explicitly acknowledging what you did for him/her) (see Supplemental Appendix 4 for both vignettes). Vignette order and response options were counterbalanced in both cultures, which did not influence the results. For each option, participants rated how much they would feel accepted, connected, understood, cared for, supported, satisfied, and happy with the partner’s response using a 7-point scale (1 = Not at all, 7 = Very much). Ratings were averaged, separately for positive and negative vignettes, to index expected relationship satisfaction for the direct and indirect options (Americans: αs = .95–.97; Chinese: αs = .93–.95).

Results

Anticipated Relationship Satisfaction

To test the cultural-fit hypothesis and moderating effect of situation valence, we performed a 2 Culture (Americans vs. Chinese) × 2 Communication Style (direct vs. indirect) × 2 Situation Valence (positive vs. negative) mixed ANOVA on anticipated relationship satisfaction, with culture as a between-participants factor and communication style and situation valence as within-participant factors. All main effects and two-way interactions were significant, Fs > 11.01, ps < .001, η_p²s > .03 (see Table 2 for full statistics). Importantly, these effects were qualified by a significant three-way interaction effect, F(1, 377) = 4.55, p = .034, η_p² = .01, 90% CI [.00, .04].

Table 2.

Mixed ANOVA Results on Anticipated Relationship Satisfaction in Study 3.

Predictor variable	F	p	η_p ²	90% CI
Culture	138.26	<.001	.27	[.21, .33]
Communication Style	123.73	<.001	.25	[.19, .30]
Situation Valence	410.89	<.001	.52	[.47, .57]
Culture × Communication Style	247.42	<.001	.40	[.34, .45]
Culture × Situation Valence	105.31	<.001	.22	[.16, .28]
Communication Style × Situation Valence	11.01	.001	.03	[.01, .06]
Culture × Communication Style × Situation Valence	4.55	.034	.01	[.00, .04]

Note. N = 379. 90% CI indicates 90% confidence interval of η_p².

When we examined the effects of culture and communication style separately for each situation type, the Culture × Communication Style interaction was significant in the positive situation, F(1, 377) = 187.60, p < .001, η_p² = .33, 90% CI [.27, .39]. As predicted and also shown in Figure 3A, Chinese anticipated greater satisfaction when their partner expressed their appreciation more indirectly rather than directly, F(1, 377) = 4.09, p = .044, η_p² = .01, 90% CI [.00, .03]. In contrast, Americans anticipated greater relationship satisfaction when their partner expressed their appreciation directly than indirectly, F(1, 377) = 279.71, p < .001, η_p² = .43, 90% CI [.37, .48]. A similar but attenuated pattern of cultural differences was found in the negative situation, F(1, 377) = 95.32, p < .001, η_p² = .20, 90% CI [.14, .26]. Chinese anticipated greater satisfaction when their partner communicated more indirectly than directly, F(1, 377) = 8.88, p = .003, η_p² = .02, 90% CI [.00, .05], whereas this effect was reversed for Americans, F(1, 377) = 110.50, p < .001, η_p² = .23, 90% CI [.17, .28] (see Figure 3B).

Figure 3.

Cultural differences in anticipated relationship satisfaction from partners’ use of direct or indirect communication in the (A) positive and (B) negative situations in Study 3. Statistical significance is indicated by asterisks (*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001).

Self-Construal as a Mediating Mechanism

Next, we tested whether self-construal mediates cultural differences in preference for indirect communication and its subsequent effect on anticipated relationship satisfaction. We tested this prediction by performing a path analysis among the four variables—that is, Culture (0 = Americans, 1 = Chinese) → Interdependence (vs. independence) → Preference for indirect communication → Anticipated relationship satisfaction from partners’ use of indirect (vs. direct) communication. Because anticipated relationship satisfaction was assessed twice, once for direct communication and once for indirect communication, we created a composite index by subtracting the scores for the direct options from the corresponding scores for the indirect options. Although situation valence moderated the cultural difference in anticipated relationship satisfaction (see above), given that the cultural difference was significant in both positive and negative situations, we collapsed these conditions for the path analysis. Notably, when we tested the path model for each situation separately, the results did not differ (see Supplemental Figure 2).

As expected, Chinese were more interdependent (and less independent) than Americans, b = 0.27, SE = 0.09, p = .002. Interdependence (vs. independence), in turn, was associated with greater preference for indirect communication, b = 0.24, SE = 0.05, p < .001. The enhanced preference for indirect communication, in turn, was associated with anticipating greater relationship satisfaction when the partner communicated indirectly (vs. directly), b = 0.36, SE = 0.08, p < .001. A subsequent mediational analysis with 5,000 bootstrap samples confirmed that the mediated path from culture to expected relationship satisfaction through the link from interdependence (vs. independence) to indirect communication as sequential mediators was statistically significant, 95% bias-corrected CI [0.01,0.05] (see Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Results of a path analysis examining the role of interdependent (vs. independent) self-construal in mediating the effect of culture on preference for indirect communication and its subsequent influence on relationship satisfaction in Study 3. Unstandardized coefficients are shown. Anticipated relationship satisfaction was computed by subtracting the relationship satisfaction scores for direct communication from the corresponding scores for indirect communication, such that a higher number indicates that participants anticipated higher levels of relationship satisfaction when the partner communicated indirectly (vs. directly). N = 395. Statistical significance is indicated by asterisks (**p < .01 and ***p < .001).

Discussion

Study 3 examined the implications of direct and indirect communication for relationship satisfaction. The two cultural groups anticipated higher relationship satisfaction when they imagined their partner using a communication style that is valued more in their respective culture both in positively and negatively valenced situations, thereby supporting the cultural-fit hypothesis. Prior work has shown that cultural misfit or incongruence between individual relational orientations and cultural values or practices is associated with relationship difficulties (Friedman et al., 2010). The current findings go beyond this work by demonstrating that incongruence between the partner’s method of communication and normatively sanctioned behaviors in their respective culture is associated with expecting to be less satisfied in the relationship. This finding suggests that this cultural misfit has the potential to damage relationships by violating individuals’ expectations about what is appropriate and desirable in their relationships. More broadly, this result is in line with growing evidence highlighting the importance of taking into account the role of situational contexts in which communication occurs to gain a more complete understanding about its relational consequences (Ross et al., 2019).

Study 3 further addressed why the two cultural groups differ widely in their pursuit of indirect or direct communication by testing individuals’ self-construal as a mediating mechanism. Our path analysis revealed that compared to European Americans, Chinese were more interdependent (and less independent), and because of this cultural difference, Chinese preferred indirect (vs. direct) communication more. Accordingly, Chinese anticipated higher levels of relationship satisfaction when they imagined their partner using indirect communication (reflecting a cultural fit) than using direct communication (reflecting a cultural misfit), whereas this effect was completely reversed for European Americans.

General Discussion

The present work integrated research on cultural psychology and close relationships to examine cultural variation in communication directness in romantic relationships. Our theoretical perspective follows from the idea that East Asians are embedded in interdependent cultural contexts that emphasize the interpersonal goal to adjust the self to one’s partner, whereas Westerners are embedded in independent cultural contexts that emphasize the interpersonal goal to influence one’s partner (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Morling et al., 2002; Tsai, 2007). We proposed that these cultural differences contribute to the extent to which individuals prefer to communicate indirectly or directly with romantic partners and their expectations about the relational consequences of communicating in a culturally congruent (or incongruent) manner.

Culture and Communication Directness in Romantic Relationships

Across three studies, we found that European Americans preferred direct (vs. indirect) communication with romantic partners more than did Chinese. These findings are in line with the theoretical perspectives that higher context societies are characterized by communication that is more indirect and subtle, whereas lower context societies are characterized by communication that is more direct and explicit (Hall, 1976, 1983). Our work extends this theorizing by demonstrating that previously observed cultural differences in non-close relationships generalize to romantic relationship contexts.

Our findings also align with prior evidence showing that Chinese prefer indirect expressions of gratitude, whereas Americans typically prefer direct expressions of gratitude (Bello et al., 2010). Note, however, that they are inconsistent with Halford et al. (2018), who found no cultural differences in communication patterns during problem-solving discussions among a sample of Chinese and White couples living in Australia. We proposed that one possible way to reconcile this discrepancy is to examine the moderating role of situation valence—that is, whether communication occurs in positively or negatively valenced situations. We reasoned that discussing negative aspects of one’s partner could pose a threat to the relationship, and therefore, even European Americans may prefer indirect communication to mitigate the potential threat of harming their partner. In the absence of such a concern, both cultural groups were expected to act more in alignment with their cultural ideals, thereby yielding a stronger cultural difference. Consistent with this prediction, we found that situation valence significantly moderated cultural differences in all three studies; European Americans preferred direct communication less when communicating negative (vs. positive) information, and therefore, the cultural difference was somewhat attenuated (but still significant) in negative than positive situations. This finding suggests that despite overall cultural differences in communication strategies, some situations may demand more indirect communication regardless of culture, underscoring the importance of examining both macro and micro-level socio-cultural conditions as predictors of communication strategies. These findings are also in line with previous cross-cultural studies that documented stronger cultural differences in positively valenced, rather than negatively valenced situations (e.g., Hui et al., 2009; Leu et al., 2010; Miyamoto et al., 2010; Sims et al., 2015). Positive situations may broaden individuals’ attentional scope and repertoires of thoughts and actions (Fredrickson, 2013), thereby allowing more room for cultural influences (see also Sims et al., 2015 for a similar argument).

Of course, other possibilities may account for the discrepancy between the Halford et al. (2018) and ours. For example, Chinese participants in Halford et al. (2018) had been living in the host country, Australia, on average for more than a decade, and thus, may have experienced some degree of acculturation to Western societies, whereas our participants spent their entire life in their country of origin. Future research should examine whether one’s level of acculturation to Western cultures modulates preference for indirect communication among Chinese immigrants. Yet, another difference is that we (and also Bello et al., 2010) tested communication preferences whereas Halford et al. (2018) tested actual communication behaviors. Individuals’ expectations and perceptions about close relationships in general have been shown to predict their responses and behavior in their actual relationships (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2007; Pietromonaco & Beck, 2015), and yet, future studies that observe behavior among couples from different cultures are needed to determine whether the patterns observed here translate into differences in couple members’ actual behavior and what role situation valence may play in such contexts.

Following from the first aim, we further examined the underlying mechanism for the cultural differences in communication directness in Study 3. We theorized that independent individuals are more likely to use direct communication as it is conducive to fulfilling the goal of influencing others while interdependent individuals are more likely to use indirect communication as a means to adjust to their partner’s needs, desires, and expectations (Morling et al., 2002; Tsai, 2007). In support of this prediction, our path analysis showed that interdependence (vs. independence) mediated cultural differences in preference for indirect communication and its subsequent impact on relationship satisfaction both in positive and negative situations. Building on this evidence, a more complete analysis of our theoretical model would be to test the mediating role of two interpersonal goals in this sequence—that is, Culture → Interdependence (vs. Independence) → Salience of adjustment (vs. influence) goals → Preference for indirect (vs. direct) communication. Our exploratory analysis⁶ provides initial evidence suggesting the link from two interpersonal goals to communication directness, but future research is needed to directly test whether these two goals account for cultural differences in communication directness both in positive and negative situations.

Implications for Relationships: The Cultural-Fit Hypothesis

Our second aim was to examine whether couple members expect to benefit more when their partners’ communication patterns are consistent with normatively sanctioned behaviors within a given cultural context. Study 3 provided support for this cultural-fit hypothesis; both cultural groups anticipated greater relationship satisfaction when a romantic partner communicated in the culturally preferred way. Just as research outside the area of close relationships has demonstrated the importance of cultural fit in predicting individuals’ adjustment (Kitayama et al., 2010; Levine et al., 2016), the present work highlights the importance of cultural fit in relationship adjustment within romantic relationships. In particular, our findings suggest that seemingly identical behaviors in couple interactions can have divergent consequences depending on their functional adaptiveness in a given cultural context, thereby highlighting the importance of considering the fit between characteristics of a person and the attributes of the situational and cultural context in studying well-functioning relationships (Pietromonaco & Beck, 2015; Pietromonaco & Collins, 2017). In doing so, our finding also points to the importance of developing couple-based interventions that are sensitive to cultural norms and preferences. Because communication strategies that function well in one cultural context may not be optimal in another cultural context, understanding and equipping couples with appropriate communication skills according to their cultural backgrounds would be an important first step toward a successful intervention.

Importance of the Connection between Culture and Close Relationship Processes

Close relationships, including romantic relationships, are tied to emotional and physical health and well-being (Pietromonaco & Collins, 2017), and cultural factors can moderate precisely how relationship processes contribute to these critical outcomes (Campos, 2015; Campos & Kim, 2017). Despite the importance of culture for understanding relationship processes, cultural psychologists and relationships scientists have not paid sufficient attention to the role of culture in close relationship processes, as evidenced by the fact that most close relationship theories are grounded in a Western worldview (Cross & Lam, 2018; Gaines & Hardin, 2018). Although there is certainly work within the relationship science literature examining culture in connection with close relationships (e.g., Endo et al., 2000; Friedman et al., 2010; Lam et al., 2016; Oishi et al., 2010), the role of cultural contexts needs to be incorporated more fully into relationship theories and research, and in particular, a more comprehensive understanding is needed of the mechanisms through which culture can modulate relationships dynamics.

In particular, our work points to the importance of culturally relevant self-construal as a potential explanatory factor, but a host of other factors would be important to consider as well. For example, relational mobility is one such factor that may account for the observed cultural differences, especially in positive situations. In Western cultural contexts, individuals perceive to have more freedom in initiating or terminating relationships, compared to those from East Asian cultural contexts (Schug et al., 2010; Yuki & Schug, 2020). In such societies of high relational mobility, individuals might be expected to directly express their affection toward their partner, as this form of communication may serve as an effective means to signal one’s commitment to the relationships, therefore, may be more conducive to fulfilling the desire to maintain one’s relationships. Future research is necessary to test this factor as an explanatory mechanism of our findings either independently or in tandem with other factors, such as self-construal and associated interpersonal goals.

Limitations and Future Directions

Several directions for future research warrant discussion. First, although a strength of the present work was the inclusion of two cross-national groups with large sample sizes (total N = 1,193), collecting cross-cultural data constrained our methods to the use of self-reported responses. As noted above, it is important to replicate our findings by comparing couple members’ actual communication behaviors across cultures. Second, in addressing this issue, it would also be important to examine how emotional displays during couples’ interactions may shape their communicative behaviors. For example, Tsai et al. (2006) found that compared to Chinese American couples, European American couples exhibit more positive emotional behaviors during conflict conversations. European Americans may express positivity when they want to be direct, possibly with an expectation that positivity can mitigate potential social costs of direct communication during negative conversations. Future research is necessary to examine how couples use emotions as a means to be direct or indirect and whether culture modulates this process. Third, although controlling for gender yielded the same pattern of results,⁴ the potential moderating role of gender needs to be tested in larger samples with equivalent proportions of men and women as all of the current studies included a larger proportion of women than men. Finally, to better specify the connection between culture and relationship dynamics, studies are needed that examine not only relationship processes among couples from the same culture, but also couples in which partners are from different cultures or differ in the extent to which they have become acculturated and adopted norms and perspectives of the host culture.

Conclusions

Our work demonstrates that the extent to which people prefer to communicate more directly or indirectly with romantic partners substantially varies by culture, depending on each culture’s emphasis on independence or interdependence. Furthermore, our findings suggest that neither direct nor indirect communication is advantageous in all romantic relationships; instead, the benefits of each communication style depend on the degree to which being indirect or direct fits with the norms and practices within a given cultural context. Accordingly, specifying the processes that contribute to adaptive functioning in romantic relationships will require a broader understanding of what is and what is not meaningful in a given culture.

Supplemental Material

sj-doc-1-jcc-10.1177_00220221221088934 – Supplemental material for How You Talk About It Matters: Cultural Variation in Communication Directness in Romantic Relationships

Supplemental material, sj-doc-1-jcc-10.1177_00220221221088934 for How You Talk About It Matters: Cultural Variation in Communication Directness in Romantic Relationships by Fiona Ge, Jiyoung Park and Paula R. Pietromonaco in Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Jiyoung Park

Paula R. Pietromonaco

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

References

Bello

R. S.

Brandau-Brown

F. E.

Zhang

Ragsdale

J. D.

(2010). Verbal and nonverbal methods for expressing appreciation in friendships and romantic relationships: A cross-cultural comparison. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 34(3), 294–302.

Cameron

L. D.

Overall

N. C.

(2018). Suppression and expression as distinct emotion-regulation processes in daily interactions: Longitudinal and meta-analyses. Emotion, 18(4), 465–480.

Campos

(2015). What is the role of Culture in the Association of relationships with health? Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9(12), 661–677.

Campos

Kim

H. S.

(2017). Incorporating the cultural diversity of family and close relationships into the study of health. American Psychologist, 72(6), 543–554.

Chervonsky

Hunt

(2017). Suppression and expression of emotion in social and interpersonal outcomes: A meta-analysis. Emotion, 17(4), 669–683.

Chua

E. G.

Gudykunst

W. B.

(1987). Conflict resolution styles in low- and high-context cultures. Communication Research Reports, 4(1), 32–37.

Clark

M. S.

Mills

J. R

. (2012). A theory of communal (and exchange) relationships. In Van Lange

P. A. M.

Kruglanski

A. W.

Higgins

E. T.

(Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology., Vol. 2. (pp. 232–250). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249222.n38.

Cross

S. E.

Lam

B. C. P.

(2018). Dialecticism in close relationships and marriage. In Spencer-Rodgers

Peng

(Eds.), The psychological and cultural foundations of East Asian cognition: Contradiction, change, and holism (pp. 353–381). Oxford University Press.

Endo

Heine

S. J.

Lehman

D. R.

(2000). Culture and positive illusions in close relationships: How my relationships are better than yours. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(12), 1571–1586.

10.

Faul

Erdfelder

Buchner

Lang

A.-G.

(2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160.

11.

Fredrickson

B. L.

(2013). Positive emotions broaden and build. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 47, pp. 1–53). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407236-7.00001-2

12.

Friedman

Rholes

W. S.

Simpson

Bond

Diaz-Loving

Chan

(2010). Attachment avoidance and the cultural fit hypothesis: A cross-cultural investigation. Personal Relationships, 17(1), 107–126.

13.

Gaines

S. O.

Jr. Hardin

D. P.

Jr. (2018). Ethnicity, culture, and close relationships. In Vangelisti

A. L.

Perlman

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal relationships (2nd ed., pp. 94–505). Cambridge University Press.

14.

Halford

W. K.

Lee

Hiew

D. N.

van de Vijver

F. J. R.

(2018). Indirect couple communication and relationship satisfaction in Chinese, Western, and Chinese-Western intercultural couples. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 7(3–4), 183–200.

15.

Hall

E. T.

(1976). Beyond Culture. Doubleday (Anchor).

16.

Hall

E. T.

(1983). The Dance of Life: The Other Dimension of Time. Anchor Press.

17.

Holtgraves

(1997). Styles of language use: Individual and cultural variability in conversational indirectness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 624–637.

18.

Hui

C. M.

Fok

H. K.

Bond

M. H.

(2009). Who feels more ambivalence? Linking dialectical thinking to mixed emotions. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(4), 493–498.

19.

Kitayama

Karasawa

Curhan

K. B.

Ryff

C. D.

Markus

H. R.

(2010). Independence and interdependence predict health and wellbeing: Divergent patterns in the United States and Japan. Frontiers in Psychology, 1, 163.

20.

Kitayama

Park

Sevincer

A. T.

Karasawa

Uskul

A. K.

(2009). A cultural task analysis of implicit independence: Comparing North America, Western Europe, and East Asia. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(2), 236–255.

21.

Lam

B. C. P.

Cross

S. E.

T.-F.

Yeh

K.-H.

Wang

Y.-C.

J. C.

(2016). What do you want in a marriage? Examining marriage ideals in Taiwan and the United States. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(6), 703–722.

22.

Laurenceau

J.-P.

Barrett

L. F.

Pietromonaco

P. R.

(1998). Intimacy as an interpersonal process: The importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 1238–1251.

23.

Leu

Mesquita

Ellsworth

P. C.

ZhiYong

Huijuan

Buchtel

Karasawa

Masuda

(2010). Situational differences in dialectical emotions: Boundary conditions in a cultural comparison of North Americans and East Asians. Cognition & Emotion, 24(3), 419–435.

24.

Levine

C. S.

Miyamoto

Markus

H. R.

Rigotti

Boylan

J. M.

Park

Kitayama

Karasawa

Kawakami

Coe

C. L.

Love

G. D.

Ryff

C. D.

(2016). Culture and healthy eating: The role of independence and interdependence in the United States and Japan. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(10), 1335–1348.

25.

Markus

H. R.

Kitayama

(1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253.

26.

Wang

Zhang

Rao

Han

(2014). Does self-construal predict activity in the social brain network? A genetic moderation effect. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9(9), 1360–1367.

27.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

(2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. Guilford Press.

28.

Miyamoto

Uchida

Ellsworth

P. C.

(2010). Culture and mixed emotions: Co-occurrence of positive and negative emotions in Japan and the United States. Emotion, 10(3), 404–415.

29.

Morling

Kitayama

Miyamoto

(2002). Cultural practices emphasize influence in the United States and adjustment in Japan. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(3), 311–323.

30.

Oishi

Krochik

Akimoto

(2010). Felt understanding as a bridge between close relationships and subjective well-being: Antecedents and consequences across individuals and cultures. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(6), 403–416.

31.

Oriña

M. M.

Wood

Simpson

J. A.

(2002). Strategies of influence in close relationships. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(5), 459–472.

32.

Overall

N. C.

(2018). Does partners’ negative-direct communication during conflict help sustain perceived commitment and relationship quality across time? Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(4), 481–492.

33.

Overall

N. C.

Fletcher

G. J.

Simpson

J. A.

Sibley

C. G.

(2009). Regulating partners in intimate relationships: The costs and benefits of different communication strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 620–639.

34.

Overall

N. C.

McNulty

J. K.

(2017). What type of communication during conflict is beneficial for intimate relationships? Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 1–5.

35.

Oyserman

Coon

H. M.

Kemmelmeier

(2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 3–72.

36.

Park

Kitayama

(2014). Interdependent selves show face-induced facilitation of error processing: Cultural neuroscience of self-threat. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9(2), 201–208.

37.

Park

Uchida

Kitayama

(2016). Cultural variation in implicit independence: An extension of Kitayama et al. (2009). International Journal of Psychology, 51(4), 269–278.

38.

Pietromonaco

P. R.

Beck

L. A.

(2015). Attachment processes in adult romantic relationships. In Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

Simpson

J. A.

Dovidio

J. F.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

Simpson

J. A.

Dovidio

J. F.

(Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Volume 3: Interpersonal relations (pp. 33–64). American Psychological Association.

39.

Pietromonaco

P. R.

Collins

N. L.

(2017). Interpersonal mechanisms linking close relationships to health. American Psychologist, 72(6), 531–542.

40.

Reis

H. T.

Shaver

(1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In Duck

Hay

D. F.

Hobfoll

S. E.

Ickes

Montgomery

B. M.

Duck

Hay

D. F.

Hobfoll

S. E.

Ickes

Montgomery

B. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and interventions (pp. 367–389). John Wiley & Sons.

41.

Rief

Hiller

(1999). Toward empirically based criteria for the classification of somatoform disorders. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 46(6), 507–518.

42.

Ross

J. M.

Karney

B. R.

Nguyen

T. P.

Bradbury

T. N.

(2019). Communication that is maladaptive for middle-class couples is adaptive for socioeconomically disadvantaged couples. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(4), 582–597.

43.

Sanchez-Burks

Lee

Nisbett

. (2003). Conversing across ccultures: East-west communication styles and nonwork contexts in work. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 85(2), 363–372. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.363

44.

Schug

Yuki

Maddux

(2010). Relational mobility explains between- and within-culture differences in self-disclosure to close friends. Psychological Science, 21(10), 1471–1478.

45.

Simpson

J. A.

Farrell

A. K.

Oriña

M. M.

Rothman

A. J.

(2015). Power and social influence in relationships. In Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

Simpson

J. A.

Dovidio

J. F.

Mikulincer

Shaver

P. R.

Simpson

J. A.

Dovidio

J. F.

(Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology, Volume 3: Interpersonal relations (pp. 393–420). American Psychological Association.

46.

Sims

Tsai

J. L.

Jiang

Wang

Fung

H. H.

Zhang

(2015). Wanting to maximize the positive and minimize the negative: Implications for mixed affective experience in American and Chinese contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(2), 292–315.

47.

Singelis

T. M.

(1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 580–591.

48.

Triandis

(1995). Individualism and collectivism. Westview Press.

49.

Tsai

J. L.

(2007). Ideal affect: Cultural causes and behavioral consequences. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(3), 242–259.

50.

Tsai

J. L.

Levenson

R. W.

McCoy

(2006). Cultural and temperamental variation in emotional response. Emotion, 6(3), 484–497.

51.

Tsai

J. L.

Miao

F. F.

Seppala

Fung

H. H.

Yeung

D. Y.

(2007). Influence and adjustment goals: Sources of cultural differences in ideal affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1102–1117.

52.

Weisz

J. R.

Rothbaum

F. M.

Blackburn

T. C.

(1984). Standing out and standing in: The psychology of control in America and Japan. American Psychologist, 39(9), 955–969.

53.

Yuki

Schug

(2020). Psychological consequences of relational mobility. Current Opinion in Psychology, 32, 129–132.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.17 MB