Three studies examined cultural perceptions of self-change in romantic relationships. In Study 1 (N = 191), Chinese participants perceived hypothetical couples who changed for the sake of the relationship to have better relationship quality than couples who did not, compared to European American participants. In Study 2 (N = 396), Chinese individuals in a dating relationship were more likely to perceive that they had changed in the relationship, and self-change was a stronger predictor of relationship quality for them than for American dating individuals. In Study 3 (N = 115 dyads), Chinese married couples perceived greater self-change, and their perceived self-change was due in part to higher endorsement of dutiful adjustment beliefs than American couples. Self-change was a stronger predictor of relationship quality for Chinese married couples than American couples. Our studies provide support for cultural differences in the role of self-change in romantic relationships, which have implications for partner regulation and relationship counseling across cultures.
AmodioD. M.ShowersC. J. (2005). “Similarity breeds liking” revisited: The moderating role of commitment. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(6), 817–836.
2.
AronA.AronE. N.TudorM.NelsonG. (1991). Close relationships as including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(2), 241–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.2.241
3.
BauerD. J.PreacherK. J.GilK. M. (2006). Conceptualizing and testing random indirect effects and moderated mediation in multilevel models: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 11(2), 142–163. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.142
4.
BoucherH. C. (2010). Understanding Western-East Asian differences and similarities in self-enhancement. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(5), 304–317. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00266.x
5.
BrewerM. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475–482. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167291175001
6.
BuchtelE. E.NgL. C. Y.NorenzayanA.HeineS. J.BiesanzJ. C.ChenS. X.BondM. H.PengQ.SuY. (2018). A sense of obligation: Cultural differences in the experience of obligation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(11), 1545–1566. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218769610
7.
CaoH.FangX.FineM. A.JuX.LanJ.ZhouN. (2017). Sacrifice, commitment, and marital quality in the early years of Chinese marriage: An actor–partner interdependence moderation model. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34(7), 1122–1144. https://doi.org//10.1177/0265407516670041
8.
ChiuC.HongY.DweckC. S. (1997). Lay dispositionism and implicit theories of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.19
9.
CohenJ. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Academic Press.
10.
CrossS. E.LamB. C. P. (2017). Cultural models of self: East-West differences and beyond. In ChurchA. T. (Ed.), The Praeger handbook of personality across cultures (pp. 1–34). ABC-CLIO.
11.
DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49(3), 182–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012801
12.
EnglishT.ChenS. (2011). Self-concept consistency and culture: The differential impact of two forms of consistency. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(6), 838–849. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211400621
13.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA. G. (2013). G* Power Version 3.1. 7 [Computer software]. Uiversität Kiel.
14.
FinchamF. D.BradburyT. N. (1987). The assessment of marital quality: A reevaluation. Journal of Marriage and Family, 49(4), 797–809. https://doi.org/10.2307/351973
15.
FletcherG. J. O.SimpsonJ. A.ThomasG. (2000). The measurement of perceived relationship quality components: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(3), 340–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200265007
16.
GudykunstW. B.MatsumotoY. (1996). Cross-cultural variability of communication in personal relationships. In GudykunstW. B.Ting-ToomeyS.NishidaT. (Eds.), Communication in personal relationships across cultures (pp. 19–56). SAGE.
17.
HalfordW. K.LizzioA.WilsonK. L.OcchipintiS. (2007). Does working at your marriage help? Couple relationship self-regulation and satisfaction in the first 4 years of marriage. Journal of Family Psychology, 21(2), 185–194. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.21.2.185
18.
HeineS. J.KitayamaS.LehmanD. R.TakataT.IdeE.LeungC.MatsumotoH. (2001). Divergent consequences of success and failure in Japan and North America: An investigation of self-improving motivations and malleable selves. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 599–615. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.4.599
19.
HeineS. J.LehmanD. R.MarkusH. R.KitayamaS. (1999). Is there a universal need for positive self-regard?Psychological Review, 106(4), 766–794. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.766
HiraS. N.OverallN. C. (2011). Improving intimate relationships: Targeting the partner versus changing the self. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28(5), 610–633. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407510388586
22.
ImpettE. A.GereJ.KoganA.GordonA. M.KeltnerD. (2014). How sacrifice impacts the giver and the recipient: Insights from approach-avoidance motivational theory. Journal of Personality, 82(5), 390–401. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12070
23.
ImpettE. A.JavamL.LeB. M.Asyabi-EshghiB.KoganA. (2013). The joys of genuine giving: Approach and avoidance sacrifice motivation and authenticity. Personal Relationships, 20(4), 740–754. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12012
24.
JackD. C. (1991). Silencing the self: Women and depression. Harvard University Press.
25.
KashyD. A.KennyD. A.ReisH. T.JuddC. M. (2000). The analysis of data from dyads and groups. In ReisH. T.JuddC. M. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (pp. 451–477). Cambridge University Press.
26.
KennyD. A.KashyD. A.CookW. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. Guilford Press.
27.
KimM. (2002). Non-Western perspectives on human communication: Implications for theory and practice. SAGE.
28.
KitoM.YukiM.ThomsonR. (2017). Relational mobility and close relationships: A socioecological approach to explain cross-cultural differences. Personal Relationships, 24(1), 114–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12174
29.
KurmanJ.HuiC. M.DanO. (2012). Changing the world through changing the self. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(1), 15–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022110388565
30.
MacKinnonD. P.LockwoodC. M.WilliamsJ. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(1), 99–128. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4
31.
MarkusH. R.KitayamaS. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
32.
MarkusH. R.KitayamaS. (2010). Cultures and selves: A cycle of mutual constitution. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 420–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610375557
33.
MillerJ. G.DasR.ChakravarthyS. (2011). Culture and the role of choice in agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(1), 46–61. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023330
MorlingB.KitayamaS.MiyamotoY. (2002). Cultural practices emphasize influence in the United States and adjustment in Japan. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(3), 311–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202286003
36.
NortonR. (1983). Measuring marital quality: A critical look at the dependent variable. Journal of Marriage and Family, 45, 141–151. https://doi.org/10.2307/351302
37.
OverallN. C. (2012). The costs and benefits of trying to change intimate partners. In The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of couples and family relationships (pp. 234–247). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444354119.ch16
38.
PedersenP. B.LonnerW. J.DragunsJ. G.TrimbleJ. E.Scharron-del RioM. R. (2015). Counseling across cultures. SAGE.
39.
PreacherK. J.KelleyK. (2011). Effect size measures for mediation models: Quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychological Methods, 16(2), 93–115. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022658
RusbultC. E.VeretteJ.WhitneyG. A.SlovikL. F.LipkusI. (1991). Accommodation processes in close relationships: Theory and preliminary empirical evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(1), 53–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.1.53
42.
SchugJ.YukiM.HorikawaH.TakemuraK. (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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-839X.2009.01277.x
43.
SlabuL.LentonA. P.SedikidesC.BruderM. (2014). Trait and state authenticity across cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 45(9), 1347–1373. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022114543520
44.
SlotterE. B.DuffyC. W.GardnerW. L. (2014). Balancing the need to be “me” with the need to be “we”: Applying Optimal Distinctiveness Theory to the understanding of multiple motives within romantic relationships. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.01.001
45.
SlotterE. B.GardnerW. L. (2009). Where do you end and I begin? Evidence for anticipatory, motivated self–other integration between relationship partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(6), 1137–1151. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013882
46.
SlotterE. B.LucasG. M. (2013). Validating a measure of self and partner change in romantic relationships: The perceived change in relationships scale. Self and Identity, 12(2), 177–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2011.649860
47.
Spencer-RodgersJ.AndersonE.Ma-KellamsC.WangC.PengK. (2018). What is dialectical thinking? Conceptualization and measurement. In The psychological and cultural foundations of East Asian cognition: Contradiction, change, and holism (Vol. 1, pp. 1–34). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780199348541.003.0001
48.
Spencer-RodgersJ.BoucherH. C.MoriS. C.WangL.PengK. (2009). The dialectical self-concept: Contradiction, change, and holism in East Asian cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(1), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208325772
49.
Spencer-RodgersJ.WilliamsM. J.PengK. (2010). Cultural differences in expectations of change and tolerance for contradiction: A decade of empirical research. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(3), 296–312. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310362982
50.
SpybrookJ.BloomH.CongdonR.HillC.MartinezA.RaudenbushS. W. (2011). Optimal design plus empirical evidence: Documentation for the “Optimal Design” software. William T. Grant Foundation.
51.
SuhE. M. (2002). Culture, identity consistency, and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1378–1391. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1378
52.
ThomsonR.YukiM.TalhelmT.SchugJ.KitoM.AyanianA. H.BeckerJ. C.BeckerM.ChiuC.ChoiH.-S. (2018). Relational mobility predicts social behaviors in 39 countries and is tied to historical farming and threat. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(29), 7521–7526.
53.
WhiffenV. E.FootM. L.ThompsonJ. M. (2007). Self-silencing mediates the link between marital conflict and depression. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 24(6), 993–1006. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407507084813
54.
YehK.-H.YiC.-C.TsaoW.-C.WanP.-S. (2013). Filial piety in contemporary Chinese societies: A comparative study of Taiwan, Hong Kong, and China. International Sociology, 28(3), 277–296.
55.
YukiM.SchugJ. (2012). Relational mobility: A socioecological approach to personal relationships. In GillathO.AdamsG.KunkelA. (Eds.), Relationship science: Integrating evolutionary, neuroscience, and sociocultural approaches. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13489-007
56.
YumY. (2004). Culture and self-construal as predictors of responses to accommodative dilemmas in dating relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21(6), 817–835. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407504047839
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.
