All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Relational Models and Horizontal & Vertical Individualism-Collectivism:
Unformatted Document Text:  Relational Models 18 differences in turn were different for friendships and acquaintances, and finally, these differences in turn were different for American and Singaporeans (see Table 1). To interpret these results, one has to consider the three-way interaction first before considering the main effects. To aid in this interpretation, the three-way interaction is presented graphically in Figure 1. Looking at Figure 1, it becomes immediately apparent that for Americans, there is almost no difference in relational models used in friendships and acquaintances. Both relationships are characterized by a dominance of the CS and EM relational models, a medium role of MP, and least use of AR. For Singaporeans, on the other hand, there is a big difference in the roles that relational models play in the two different relationships. Friendships for Singaporeans were similar to friendships for Americans in that CS and EM dominated. Unlike Americans, however, Singaporeans in friendship used AR equally as much as MP. The more important difference, however, was that whereas for Americans both friendships and acquaintanceships were very similar in regard to relational models, for Singaporeans acquaintanceships were characterized by a very different use of relational models that friendships. EM was the most dominant model used in acquaintanceships, followed by MP, CS, and AR respectively. In other words, whereas for Americans, friendships and acquaintanceships were very similar, for Singaporeans friendships and acquaintances were qualitatively very different. In regard to specific hypotheses, H2b predicted that for Americans, interpersonal relationships were characterized by a dominance of MP and EM and less use of CS and AR. Results were only partially supportive of this prediction, however, in that relationships were dominated by EM and CS. H2d predicted that for Singaporeans, interpersonal

Authors: Koerner, Ascan.
first   previous   Page 18 of 32   next   last



background image
Relational Models
18
differences in turn were different for friendships and acquaintances, and finally, these
differences in turn were different for American and Singaporeans (see Table 1). To
interpret these results, one has to consider the three-way interaction first before considering
the main effects. To aid in this interpretation, the three-way interaction is presented
graphically in Figure 1.
Looking at Figure 1, it becomes immediately apparent that for Americans, there is
almost no difference in relational models used in friendships and acquaintances. Both
relationships are characterized by a dominance of the CS and EM relational models, a
medium role of MP, and least use of AR. For Singaporeans, on the other hand, there is a big
difference in the roles that relational models play in the two different relationships.
Friendships for Singaporeans were similar to friendships for Americans in that CS and EM
dominated. Unlike Americans, however, Singaporeans in friendship used AR equally as
much as MP. The more important difference, however, was that whereas for Americans
both friendships and acquaintanceships were very similar in regard to relational models, for
Singaporeans acquaintanceships were characterized by a very different use of relational
models that friendships. EM was the most dominant model used in acquaintanceships,
followed by MP, CS, and AR respectively. In other words, whereas for Americans,
friendships and acquaintanceships were very similar, for Singaporeans friendships and
acquaintances were qualitatively very different.
In regard to specific hypotheses, H2b predicted that for Americans, interpersonal
relationships were characterized by a dominance of MP and EM and less use of CS and AR.
Results were only partially supportive of this prediction, however, in that relationships
were dominated by EM and CS. H2d predicted that for Singaporeans, interpersonal


Convention
All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 18 of 32   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.