Interpersonal Relationships in Diverse Cultural Contexts

Social Support

• Social support is defined as assistance or comfort accessible to an individual through social ties to other individuals, groups, and the larger community to cope with various stressors (Lin et al., 1979, p. 109).
• It can be perceived (perceived availability) or actual (actually received and used).

Forms of Support

• Emotional support: providing warmth and nurturance to another person, reassuring their value (e.g., comfort, reassurance, compassion) (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Cutrona & Russell, 1990; Taylor, 2012).
• Instrumental support: problem-solving and provision of tangible resources for coping with a stressor (e.g., financial assistance, services, specific aids or goods) (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Cutrona & Russell, 1990; Taylor, 2012).
• Informational support: Helping someone understand a stressful event and ascertain necessary resources and coping strategies (e.g., advice, guidance) (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Cutrona & Russell, 1990; Taylor, 2012).

Benefits of Social Support

Psychological Health

• Reduces psychological distress, such as depression or anxiety, during stressful times (Lin et al., 1999).
• Promotes psychological adjustment to chronically stressful conditions like diabetes (Strom & Egede, 2012), HIV (Turner-Cobb et al., 2022), and cancer (Stone et al., 1999).
• Protects against cognitive decline in older adults (Seeman et al., 2001).

Physical Health

• Reduces the likelihood of illness and speeds up recovery (e.g., common colds; Cohen et al., 1997).
• Reduces mortality risk (Berkman & Syme, 1979).

Culture and Social Support

• Most past research on social support has been conducted using Western samples, particularly European Americans.
• Cultures differ in specific goals and norms that govern interpersonal relationships.
• These goals foster or inhibit normative relationship behaviors relevant to social support and determine the types of support that are common and effective in a culture.
• One cultural framework is Individualism vs. Collectivism.

Culture and Emotional Support

• Cultures vary in the valuation of emotional expression.
• In individualistic, Western cultures, freely expressing emotion is encouraged as it is deemed authentic and reflects autonomy.
  • Emotional expression is associated with better psychological outcomes.
• In collectivistic, East Asian cultures, emotional expression may disrupt relationship and group harmony; indeed, suppressing emotion for the concern of others is more appropriate.
  • Emotional expression has fewer psychological benefits (Butler et al., 2007; Matsumoto et al., 2008; Schunk et al., 2022).
• Emotional support is more common and effective in Western than in East Asian cultural contexts.
  • In Western cultural contexts:
    • It is one of the most desired support provided in close relationships.
    • Plays a primary role in friendship formation and maintenance.
    • Assures willingness of others to help and the availability of more tangible support.
    • Promotes one’s self-worth and express and validate the self.
  • In East Asian cultural contexts:
    • Individuals are reluctant to disclose to avoid causing emotional burden (relational concern).
    • Disclosure may lead to additional exposure to stressors, resulting in emotional disturbance (Burleson, 2003; Wong & Lu, 2017; Wu et al., 2021).
• Chinese American breast cancer survivors (Wong & Lu, 2017):
  • Emotional support was measured (e.g., “I have someone to confide in or talk to about myself or my problems”) as well as other forms of support, mental and physical health, and level of acculturation.
  • Among those highly acculturated, emotional support was related to better physical health, fewer physical symptoms, better well-being, and less concern about breast cancer.
  • No such benefits were found for less acculturated individuals.
• Cultural fit hypothesis: The type of support that fits cultural norms is more effective in reducing stress and promoting health (Wu et al., 2021).

Culture and Instrumental Support

• Instrumental support is more common and effective in East Asian than in Western cultural contexts.
  • In Western cultural contexts:
    • It may potentially undermine self-esteem, autonomy, and personal agency.
    • It is viewed as cold and emotionless.
  • In East Asian cultural contexts:
    • It solves problems and conveys affection and care without drawing too much attention to the self.
    • It is more normative and welcomed (Wong & Lu, 2017; Wu et al., 2021).
• Japanese provided equal amounts of or more instrumental support than emotional support compared to European Americans (Chen et al., 2012).
• Chinese American breast cancer survivors (Wong & Lu, 2017):
  • Instrumental support was more beneficial for less acculturated individuals but detrimental for highly acculturated individuals.

Culture-Gene Interaction

• How do cultural norms affect the phenotypic expression of genes in support-seeking?
• OXTR rs53576 is a polymorphic site in the oxytocin receptor gene:
  • G allele vs. A allele (GG, GA, AA genotypes).
• The G allele is associated with:
  • Sensitive parenting behavior (Bakermans-Kranenburh & van Ijzendoorn, 2008).
  • Feeling less lonely (Lucht et al., 2009).
  • Showing more empathy (Rodrigues et al., 2009).
  • Prosociality (Kogan et al., 2011).
  • Social and emotional sensitivity.
• Americans and Koreans reported distress in response to a recent stressor and emotional support and were genotyped for OXTR (Kim et al., 2010).
• Among those high in distress, Americans with the OXTR G allele were more likely to seek emotional support.
  • Emotional support seeking fits with cultural norms.
• This was not the case among Koreans.
• Gene expression is sensitive to cultural contexts.

Explicit vs. Implicit Support

• Explicit support: (emotional or instrumental) support directly recruited from others via disclosure of one’s needs.
• Implicit support: emotional comfort derived indirectly from close others without discussing or disclosing one’s problems (e.g., being in the company of close others, reminding oneself of close others) (Kim et al., 2008; Wu et al., 2021; Taylor, 2012).
• Explicit support is viewed as a resource for meeting personal needs.
  • It is beneficial as it increases the likelihood of needs being met.
• Actually using a social support network can be associated with increased stress (Bolger et al., 2000).
  • E.g., Couples who reported receiving more support experienced poorer adjustment.
  • When explicit support effects are recognized, there are relational costs to the support recipient (Kim et al., 2008; Wu et al., 2021; Taylor, 2012).
• Cultural differences exist in people’s willingness to use explicit vs. implicit social support for dealing with stressors.
• Asians/Asian Americans are less likely to seek support explicitly than Euro-Americans (Taylor et al., 2004).
• Maintenance of harmony in relationships is an important goal in collectivistic cultures.
  • Making inappropriate demands on a social network undermines harmony.
• There is concern about potential relational costs:
  • Burdening others, disrupting group harmony (“If something were bothering me, I would not want to disrupt my social group by sharing it”).
  • Losing face (“It is better to keep one’s concerns to themselves rather than lose face in front of people I am close to”).
  • Telling others would make the problem worse.
  • Sharing problems could result in criticism from others.
  • Solving personal problems is one's own responsibility (Taylor et al., 2004).
• Cultural fit hypothesis: Does the effectiveness of explicit/implicit support on reducing stress depend on culture?
• Asians/Asian Americans vs. Euro-Americans were asked to do a mental-arithmetic task and a speech task, inducing stress (Taylor et al., 2007).
• Psychological stress and cortisol level in saliva (indicates biological responses to stress) were measured pre- and post-test.
  • Implicit support condition: Participants wrote about important aspects of a group close to them.
  • Explicit support condition: Participants wrote a letter directly seeking advice and support from a close person.
  • No support condition: Participants wrote about campus landmarks for a campus tour (Taylor et al., 2007).
• Asians/Asian Americans were buffered against stress more by implicit support; explicit support (a culturally inappropriate form of support) may increase stress (Taylor et al., 2007).
• Explicit support is associated with feelings of shame and guilt in Japanese individuals (vs. feelings of self-esteem and pride in Euro-Americans; Ishii et al., 2017).
• In high-quality relationships, there is a provision for explicit, emotional support in Euro-Americans but implicit support in Japanese individuals (Chen et al., 2015).

Solicited vs. Unsolicited Support

• Solicited support: provided in response to an expressed need or request.
• Unsolicited support: provided spontaneously or proactively in response to a perceived or anticipated need (Chentsova-Dutton & Vaughn, 2012; Wu et al., 2021).

Culture and Solicited vs. Unsolicited Support

• Unsolicited support is more common and acceptable in collectivistic cultures.
  • In individualistic cultures:
    • Unsolicited support is viewed as unresponsive, threatening sense of autonomy, personal control, and competency.
    • E.g., Couples provided unsolicited support by partners found it less helpful compared to receiving solicited support.
  • In collectivistic cultures:
    • Support providers are expected to care about others’ welfare and be attentive and know others’ needs (Chentsova-Dutton & Vaughn, 2012; Wu et al., 2021).

Culture and Unsolicited Advice

• Giving unsolicited informational support (e.g., advice) is more common in collectivistic (e.g., Russia) than in individualistic (e.g., USA) cultures.
  • Unsolicited advice is seldom well-taken in individualistic cultural contexts.
  • Advice is usually seen as supporting relationships in collectivistic cultural contexts.
• Advice giving in parenting forums (Chentsova-Dutton & Vaughn, 2012):
  • Online parenting forums in the USA and Russia.
  • Whether advice was requested or not in the initial post was observed.
  • The number of responses and the number of specific advice/recommendations were coded.
• There was more unsolicited parenting advice in Russian forums.
• Cultural fit hypothesis: Does the effectiveness of solicited/unsolicited support depend on culture?
• Asian Americans and Euro-Americans worked on a challenging math task and received solicited or unsolicited support (Mojaverian & Kim, 2013).
  • Solicited support: A confederate gave assistance if directly requested.
  • Unsolicited support: A confederate provided help without being asked.
• Receiving unsolicited (vs. solicited) support is more positive for Asian Americans, leading to higher performance, self-esteem, and viewing the task as less stressful.
• There was no difference for Euro-Americans.

Providing Help in Diverse Cultural Contexts

• What might be some options for someone with a Western background who wants to help a friend with an Asian background who is under stress?
  • Matching between support needed and support provided is the key.
• Implications for mental health services:
  • Underutilization among individuals with Asian backgrounds.
  • Mental health services rely on disclosure, which can be viewed as an additional stressor (Kim et al., 2008).

Face

• Face (mian zi/mien-tzu) is the amount of social value given by others if one fulfills obligations and expectations associated with position (Ho, 1976).
  • Concern about how one is being considered by others.
  • Socially conferred.
• People have face unless they lose it (e.g., a child expelled from school; the child and family lose face).
• Face is vulnerable, more easily lost than gained.
  • The main focus is on not losing face, i.e., saving face.
• Face can be threatened, leading to face loss and embarrassment.
  • To regain face, facework must occur.
• If others grant you face, you enjoy privileges that come with enhanced status and power (Kim et al., 2010).
• Three forms of face concerns (Ting-Toomey & Kurogi, 1998):
  • Self-face: concern for one’s own image.
  • Other face: concern for another’s image.
  • Mutual face: concern for both parties.
• In Western, individualistic cultures, self-face is most important.
• In East Asian, collectivistic cultures, other face and mutual face are important; self-face to a lesser degree.
  • E.g., protecting a higher-status individual’s face (other face).
• Face can be shared by a group.

Face Culture

• 3 Hs to understand face culture in East Asia: hierarchy, harmony, humility.
• Face exists in a stable hierarchy under which people are expected to be cooperative.
• Everyone in the hierarchy can have some face, but some may have more due to their position (e.g., CEO of a company vs. a typical employee) (Kim et al., 2010).
• People are obliged to work together to preserve each other’s face (mutual face).
• Direct conflicts are avoided, as this disrupts harmony and order of the system.
  • Individuals rely on the group or superior to punish the offender.
• One cannot effectively claim more face than others are willing to grant.
• One’s perception of oneself may be no greater than others’ perception and should probably be a little lower to avoid negative consequences.
  • Exercise humility (self-criticism) (Kim et al., 2010).

Face and Self-Improvement

• Self-improvement: identifying potential weaknesses and working to correct them.
• Helps minimize the risk of losing face (Hamamura & Heine, 2008; Kim et al., 2010).

Face Concerns and Conflict Styles

• Due to concerns about others’ face and to maintain relationship harmony, East Asians tend to use avoidance in interpersonal conflicts.
• In contrast, Westerners tend to use dominating, confronting, assertive styles (Oetzel & Ting-Toomey, 2003; Ohbuchi et al., 1999).

Aggression

• Aggression is any behavior enacted with the intention to harm another person who is motivated to avoid that harm (Anderson & Bushman, 2002).
• Types:
  • Physical vs. Verbal vs. Relational.
  • Indirect vs. Direct.
  • Reactive vs. Instrumental.

Value of Aggressiveness across Cultures

• Simbu of New Guinea (Brown, 1986):
  • Positive attitudes toward aggression.
  • High status is associated with being male, violent, competitive, and loyal to the men’s group.
  • There are frequent conflicts over the inequitable distribution of land.
• Semai of Malaysia (Robarchek, 1986):
  • Negative attitude toward aggression.
  • “Only bad people are violent”.
  • They have abundant resources in the rainforest and little frustration (Triandis, 1995).

Regional Differences in Aggression in US

• US North vs. South differences in gun deaths and homicide rates.
• S > N for homicides committed in the context of arguments (barroom brawls, lovers’ triangles, etc.).
• S > N endorsement of violence for self/family/property protection or in response to insult.
• No N-S differences in homicides committed in the course of felonies such as robbery.
• No differences in other types of homicides or in endorsement of violence in general.

How to Explain These Regional Differences?

• Hot temperatures.
• Higher poverty levels.
• Long history of slavery.
• One unique explanation for the North/South differences in aggression is the culture of honor (Cohen et al., 1996; Nisbett & Cohen, 1996).
  • People (especially men) strive to protect their reputation through aggression.

Early Research on Culture of Honour

• White male students from the North & South were either insulted (or not insulted) by a confederate.
• Aggressive tendencies/dominance were measured in multiple ways:
  • Changes in cortisol and testosterone levels.
  • Game of “chicken” with a large male (Cohen et al., 1996).
• Insulted Southerners responded more angrily and aggressively and behaved more dominantly.
• Southerners were more likely than Northerners to:
  • View an insult as damaging to status/reputation.
  • Be upset by the insult.
  • Be prepared to respond aggressively or with dominance (Cohen et al., 1996).

Culture of Honour in US South vs. North

• North:
  • Settled by farmers.
  • They needed to cooperate.
• South (and West):
  • Settled by herders, from Scotch-Irish borderlands of Britain.
  • They had to protect their livelihood by presenting themselves as tough and responding aggressively to threats.
  • They valued self-reliance in the pursuit of justice, with no strong central government (Cohen et al., 1996; Nisbett & Cohen, 1996).

Culture of Honour across the World

• The culture of honor is also prevalent in South Europe, the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia, and Central and South America (Uskul et al., 2019).
  • It is found in tough environments with weak central control, e.g., inefficient policing.
  • And in organized criminal gangs and inner cities.

Definition of Honour

• The culture of honor is a complex set of beliefs, attitudes, and norms about the importance of personal reputation (Nisbett & Cohen, 1996).
  • Such reputation or honor is socially conferred: “value of a person in his own eyes, but also in the eyes of his society” (Pitt-Rivers, 1965, p. 21).
• Honor must be claimed and must be paid by others.
  • It is precarious and can be easily lost.
  • Payback or reciprocity is central (Uskul et al., 2023).

Gendered Norms and Expectations of Honour

• Men have authority over women; women are to be loyal and sacrifice for the family.
• Men are to promote and protect their own and their family’s honor through aggressive retaliation.
• Women also endorse honor-related aggression and enact reactive relational aggression (Foster et al., 2022).
• Violence towards close others is justified if they threaten honor, e.g., through disobedience or infidelity (Vandello & Cohen, 2003; Vandello et al., 2009) (Uskul et al., 2023).

Honour and Interpersonal Behaviour

• People engage in behavior to maintain a good reputation based on morality and integrity.
  • Being polite and quick to be helpful and generous, showing hospitality (simpática/o), and not offending others.
• They respond quickly and assertively to any threat to honor.
  • Being hostile and aggressive to restore honor.
  • Not someone who can be disrespected and willing to retaliate against such a threat.
• Without an insult, individuals are constructive and polite when handling a conflict situation in the workplace (Harinck et al., 2013; Shafa et al., 2015).

Culture x Person x Situation (CuPS) Approach

• Not every individual from the same culture behaves in the same way, and an individual’s behavior also varies depending on the situation.
• Culture helps define psychological situations and provide specific meanings to behaviors.
• Individual differences reflect how people vary in the extent to which they internalize or endorse (or reject) a culture’s ideal.
• Situations provide psychological meanings to the actor (Leung & Cohen, 2011).

CuPS in the Study of Honour

• People from honor and non-honor cultures were recruited (Leung & Cohen, 2011).
• Effort was measured to return a lost computer disk to a confederate (0=did not help, 1=went to the basement, 2=went to the 8th floor, 3=waited at least 1 min on the 8th floor).
• Individual differences in the endorsement of honor-related violence were measured by watching some honor-related violence and rating endorsement.
• The situation was whether participants were offered candies by the confederate who later lost their disk (favor to repay condition).
• Those from an honor culture who endorse honor violence are more likely to pay back.
• Those NOT from an honor culture who DO NOT endorse violence are more likely to pay back.