All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

Relational Models and Horizontal & Vertical Individualism-Collectivism:
Unformatted Document Text:  Relational Models 19 relationships were characterized by a dominance of CS and AR. This hypothesis was partially supported for friendships, which were dominated by CS and EM, but not for acquaintanceships, which were dominated by EM and MP. Relational Models and Intimacy H3a predicted that intimacy correlated positively with CS in relationships of both Americans and Singaporeans, whereas H3b predicted that intimacy correlated negatively with MP use in relationships of both Americans and Singaporeans. Correlation coefficients between intimacy level and use of four relational models were computed (see Table 5). For both Japanese and Americans the use of CS was associated with increased intimacy levels in both Friendships and Acquaintanceships. Thus, H3a was supported by the data. H3b, on the other hand, was only partially supported. Specifically, it was supported for Americans in friendships, and for Singaporeans in acquaintanceships. Other interesting correlations between intimacy and relational models that were observed but not predicted are the positive correlations between intimacy and EM for acquaintanceships for Americans and for friendships for Singaporeans. Discussion The main purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between Singelis’ et al’s (1995) cultural typology and Fiske’s (1991, 1992) relational models. As the results show, Fiske’s relational models are indeed related to Singelis et al’s cultural typology, although not exactly in the way suggested by Singelis et al. and Triandis (1995). They suggested that each cultural type is characterized by the use of two relational models in interpersonal relationships. Results from this study suggest that each cultural type is associated with one relational model. Specifically, HC is associated with CS, VC with AR,

Authors: Koerner, Ascan.
first   previous   Page 19 of 32   next   last



background image
Relational Models
19
relationships were characterized by a dominance of CS and AR. This hypothesis was
partially supported for friendships, which were dominated by CS and EM, but not for
acquaintanceships, which were dominated by EM and MP.
Relational Models and Intimacy
H3a predicted that intimacy correlated positively with CS in relationships of both
Americans and Singaporeans, whereas H3b predicted that intimacy correlated negatively
with MP use in relationships of both Americans and Singaporeans. Correlation coefficients
between intimacy level and use of four relational models were computed (see Table 5). For
both Japanese and Americans the use of CS was associated with increased intimacy levels
in both Friendships and Acquaintanceships. Thus, H3a was supported by the data. H3b, on
the other hand, was only partially supported. Specifically, it was supported for Americans
in friendships, and for Singaporeans in acquaintanceships. Other interesting correlations
between intimacy and relational models that were observed but not predicted are the
positive correlations between intimacy and EM for acquaintanceships for Americans and
for friendships for Singaporeans.
Discussion
The main purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between Singelis’
et al’s (1995) cultural typology and Fiske’s (1991, 1992) relational models. As the results
show, Fiske’s relational models are indeed related to Singelis et al’s cultural typology,
although not exactly in the way suggested by Singelis et al. and Triandis (1995). They
suggested that each cultural type is characterized by the use of two relational models in
interpersonal relationships. Results from this study suggest that each cultural type is
associated with one relational model. Specifically, HC is associated with CS, VC with AR,


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 19 of 32   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.