facebook advertisements for cross - cultural survey recruitment · 2020. 3. 3. · facebook...

Facebook advert isem ent s for cross-cu lt u ra l survey recru itm ent :

Insights from the 46-country World Relationships Study

2020/3/24 1

Dr. Mie Kito , Meiji Gakuen University; Dr. Joanna Schug, College of William & Mary; Dr. Christ opher Kavanagh , Oxford University;Dr. Taciano Milfon t , Victoria University of Wellington; Ms. Mariko Visserman , VU University Am sterdam ; Mr. Mihkel Joasoo, University of Tartu; Dr. Ma ja Becker, Université Toulouse Jean Jaurès; Dr. Ju lia Becker, University of Osnabrueck; Ms. Ruth ie Pliskin , Tel Aviv University and the Interdiscip linary Center Herzliya; Dr. Purn ima Singh , Indian Institute of Technology Delhi; Dr. Mart a Fulop , Hungarian Academ y of Sciences; Dr. Claud ia Manzi, UniversitàCattolica del Sacro Cuore; Dr. Jona than Jong, University of Oxford; Dr. Ci-Yue Ch iu , Chinese University of Hong Kong; Dr. Urszula Marcinkowska , Collegium Medicum of the JagiellonianUniversity; Dr. Fe lix Neto, University of Porto; Dr. Alva ro San Mart in , IESE Business School; Ms. Ana Maria Hough ton Ille ra , Colegio Colom biano de Psicólogos; Ms. Ca rolina Maria Ferre ira Colmenero, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia; Dr. Ma ja Becker, Université Toulouse Jean Jaurès; Ms. Pe lin Gul, University of Kent; Dr. Dmyt ro Khutkyy, Higher School of Econom ics; Dr. Nour Sami Kte ily, Northwestern University

Robert Thomson and Masaki Yuki, Hokkaido University, Japan

Presented at the 2nd 3MC International Conference, Chicago, USA, 21st July 2015

Collaborators:

I wish t o convince you t ha t :

• Facebook ads are great for multi -count ry surveyparticipant recruitm ent• Including difficult to reach developing-country populations

• Reasonable data quality

• But there are som e im portant caveats• Us Facebook users, we’re t he re t o be en t e rt a ined

2020/3/24 2

Overview

The World Re la t ionsh ips St udy

• Core purpose: validate re la t iona l m obilit y• Opportunity and freedom to choose interpersonal

relationships based on personal preference (Yuki et al., 2007; Yuki & Schug, 2012)

• Explains societal differences in behavior and psychology• Interpersonal similarity1, self-disclosure2, self-enhancement 3, shame4,

self-esteem5, general trust6, desire for uniqueness7 etc.

• Need studies beyond East -West dichotomy• Validation as a concept and• The 12-item relational mobility scale (Yuki et al. 2007)

as a measurement tool

2020/3/24 3

Background

1 Schug et al., 20092 Schug et al., 20103 Falk et al., 20094 Sznycer et al., 20125 Sato et al., 2014

6 Yuki et al., 2007; Thomson et al., 20157 Takemura, 2014

Nth. Am ericaHIGH

rela t iona l mobilit yOpen m arke t for

interpersonal relationships

East -AsiaLOW

rela t iona l mobilit yClosed m arke t for

interpersonal relationships

The World Re la t ionsh ips St udy

• Let ’s do a m ult i-count ry survey – 40 countries (n = 300 per country)

• Japan-based data solutions company quote: US$186,000 ba ll-pa rk

• What about Facebook?• 70 count rie s with > 30% penetration (June 2013)

• Includes Middle East, North Africa, South Am erica, South-east Asia

• Cost-per-click US$0.10 (Tunisia ) – US$1.52 (Japan)

• Response rates 10% to 40% (Ram o et al., 2012; Tan et al, 2012; Kito, 2010)

2020/3/24 4

Background

2020/3/24 5

I’ve t ried Facebook ads be fore(and fa lied )

Before The World Re la t ionsh ips St udy (see Thomson & Ito, 2014 for published paper)

• Masters thesis p roject (2012)• Internet p rivacy concern survey

(18 countries)• Recruited via Facebook ads• $50 Am azon voucher draw

• Externa l m ot iva tor

• Survey design was default Qualtricslayout

• Spend: US$2,099 (7 days) Total valid N = 399 (90 fem ale)

2020/3/24 6

Background

English Japanese

French Arabic

Before The World Re la t ionsh ips St udy

2020/3/24 7

Background

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

02468

101214

Internet privacy concern survey response Rate (%) and Reward Value (as 1/100% of GDP per capita)

Response ra t e (%) Reward Va lue (% of GDP per cap it a )

r = .89, p < .001

02468

101214

Internet privacy concern survey response Rate (%) and Reward Value (as 1/100% of GDP per capita)

Response ra t e (%)

2020/3/24 8

Let ’s t ry Facebook ads aga in(and not fa il)

World Re la t ionsh ips Survey• 1st wave: 46-countries (21

languages)• 5-min survey via Facebook

ads• Countries with >30%

Facebook penetration• Two versions

• Romance and friendsh ip

9

Variab les

• Rela t iona l m obilit y (Yuki et al.’s 2007 12-item scale)

• Self-disclosure (Schug et al., 2010)

• Intimacy (Sternberg, 1986)

• Interpersonal similarity (Schug et al., 2009)

• Others (no. of romantic partners etc)

• Demographics

2020/3/24 北海道大学 10Robert Thomson

Advert se t t ings• Object ive : clicks to website• Targeting: Country of residence

• Underperform ing count ries on ly: Targeted based on interests –rom ance, friendships, boy/girlfriend, m arriage etc (those countries not part of m ain dataset)

• Placem ent : Desktop /m obile news feed, desktop right colum n• NOT “Audience Network” – copious clicks, few responses• Instagram now availab le – haven’t tried it yet

• Bidd ing: Autom atic• Budget based on m id-m arket p rices

• Schedule : Continuous for approx. one week (x 3 waves)


2020/3/24 12

2020/3/24 14

2020/3/24 15

Did t he Facebook ads work?

2020/3/24 16

N = 800

N = 450

N = 250

N = 70

Part icipan t s（ N = 18,707, 46 coun t ries（ Fem ale percent: 85% (SD= 13%)Age (yrs): 29 (SD= 6)

Averages

2020/3/24 17

Click-th rough-ra t e (M = 2.8%, SD = 1.4%)

8.5%

4.8%

3.3%

1.8%

Percent of people disp layed an ad who actually clicked on it

↓

2020/3/24 18

40%

20%

10%

3%

Response ra t e (M = 15.2%, SD = 10.8%)

Percent of people who clicked on an ad who

validly com pleted survey↓

2020/3/24 19

$3.50

$1.80

$0.90

$0.30

Cost pe r va lid response (M = US$1, SD =US$0.86)

Cost per valid response↓

2020/3/24 20

Were t he da t a OK?

2020/3/24 21

Measurement modelRe la t iona l m obilit y m easurem ent m ode l

Our general relational mobility measurement model (first proposed by Yuki et al., 2007) – 12 item s, 1-6 Likert

RM1 RM2 RM4r RM3RM5r RM8 RM6 RM7r RM9r RM10 RM11r RM12r

COMMON METHOD

BIAS*

RELATIONAL MOBILITY

MEETING CHOOSING

1 1

1 1

12 it em s, 1-6 Likert

11 1-1 -1 -1

-111 1 -1 -1

* CFA Common method bias control strategy as outlined in Biliet & Cambre (2003), Billiet & McClendon (2000) and Weijterset al. (2010)

2020/3/24 22

.32

.12

.07

.04

Acquiescen t response style (van Dijk et al., 2009) Corre la t ion with UNDP Educa t ion Index

r = -.50, p < .01

Proportion of acquiescent to non-acquiescent

responses in relational m obility scale item s

↓

2020/3/24 23

Rela t iona l m obilit y sca le re liab ilit y

.88

.70

.60

.55

Cronbach’s alpha

2020/3/24 24

Rela t iona l m obilit y sca le m easurem ent inva riance

.99

.96

.93

.89

Identity Coefficient (via Procrustes Factor

Analysis)↓

2020/3/24 25

Rela t iona l m obilit y scores by count ry Rela t iona l m ob ilit y la t en t m eans

LOW HIGH

High corre la t ions (r > .50)

with:

✔ Self-disclosure✔ Intim acy✔ Interpersonal sim ilarity✔ Tightness-looseness✔ National-level external-

and internal-threats etc.

2020/3/24 26

Wrapping up

Can you he lp?

Key insigh t s

• Facebook ads were very cost effective in m ost countries

• An engaging survey is essential• In t rinsic reward is im portant (it’s only fair)

• Self-se lect ion b ia s at its finest• Courtesy of Facebook’s targeting algorithm

• Provided us with extrem ely strong supportive data• Next step : cross-validate with ‘traditional’ sam ple

2020/3/24 27

2020/3/24

Q & AKeep in touch: www.rob thom o.com

References (1)

2020/3/24 29Robert Thomson Hokkaido University/JSPS

APPENDIX II-a

Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecological Psychology: Concepts and Methods for Studying the Environment of Human Behavior. Stanford University Press.Craik, K. H. (1973). Environmental Psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 24(1), 403–422. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.24.020173.002155Davies, N. B., Krebs, J. R., & West, S. A. (2012). An Introduction to BehaviouralEcology (4 edition). Oxford; Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Ellis, J. B., & Wittenbaum, G. M. (2000). Relationships Between Self-Construal and Verbal Promotion. Communication Research, 27(6), 704–722.

doi:10.1177/009365000027006002Falk, C. F., Heine, S. J., Yuki, M., & Takemura, K. (2009). Why do Westerners self-enhance more than East Asians? European Journal of Personality, 23(3), 183–203.

doi:10.1002/per.715Fischer, R., & Fontaine, J. R. J. (2011). Methods for Investigating Structural Equivalance. In D. R. Matsumoto & F. J. R. van de Vijver(Eds.), Cross-cultural research

methods in psychology (pp. 179–215). New York: Cambridge University Press.Kelly, J. G. (1971). Qualities for the community psychologist. American Psychologist, 26(10), 897–903. doi:10.1037/h0032231Kitayama, S., & Cohen, D. (2010). Handbook of Cultural Psychology. Guilford Press.KIto, M., Yamada, J., & Yuki, M. (2015). Intimacy as an adaptive psychological process: Intimacy and social support in a high relationally mobile society.

Presented at the 16th Annual Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Long Beach, USA.Li, L. M. W., Adams, G., Kurtiş, T., & Hamamura, T. (2014). Beware of friends: The cultural psychology of relational mobility and cautious intimacy. Asian Journal of

Social Psychology, n/a–n/a. doi:10.1111/ajsp.12091Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224.Matsumoto, D. (1999). Culture and self: An empirical assessment of Markus and Kitayama’stheory of independent and interdependent self -construals. Asian

Journal of Social Psychology, 2(3), 289–310. doi:10.1111/1467-839X.00042Oishi, S. (2014). Socioecological psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 581–609. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-030413-152156Oishi, S., & Graham, J. (2010). Social ecology: Lost and found in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 356–377.Rui, J., & Stefanone, M. A. (2013). Strategic self-presentation online: A cross-cultural study. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(1), 110–118.

doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.07.022

References (2)


APPENDIX II-b

Sato, K., & Yuki, M. (2014). The association between self-esteem and happiness differs in relationally m obile vs. stab le interpersonal contexts. Cultural Psychology, 5, 1113. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01113

Schug, J., Yuki, M., Horikawa, H., & Takemura, K. (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. doi:10.1111/j.1467-839X.2009.01277.x

Schug, J., Yuki, M., & Maddux, W. (2010). Relational mobility explains between- and within -culture differences in self-disclosure to close friends. Psychological Science: A Journal of the American Psychological Society APS, 21(10), 1471–8.

Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93(2), 119–135. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.119Sznycer, D., Takemura, K., Delton, A. W., Sato, K., Robertson, T., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2012). Cross-cultural differences and similarities in proneness to shame:

An adaptationist and ecological approach. Evolutionary Psychology. Retrieved from http://www.epjournal.net/articles/cross -cultural-differences-and-similarities-in-proneness-to-shame-an-adaptationist-and-ecological-approach/

Takemura, K. (2014). Being Different Leads to Being Connected On the Adaptive Function of Uniqueness in “Open” Societies. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 0022022114548684. doi:10.1177/0022022114548684

Wang, C. S., & Leung, A. K.-Y. (2010). The cultural dynamics of rewarding honesty and punishing deception. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(11), 1529–1542. doi:10.1177/0146167210385921

Yamagishi, T. (2011). Trust: The evolutionary game of mind and society. Tokyo; New York: Springer. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-53936-0

Yamagishi, T., Hashimoto, H., & Schug, J. (2008). Preferences versus strategies as explanations for culture-specific behavior. Psychological Science, 19(6), 579–584. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02126.x

Yamagishi, T., & Yamagishi, M. (1994). Trust and Commitment in the United States and Japan. Motivation and Emotion. , 18(2), 129.Yuki, M., & Schug, J. (2012). Relational mobility: A socio-ecological approach to personal relationships. In O. Gillath, G. Adams, & A. D. Kunkel (Eds.), Relationship

science: integrating evolutionary, neuroscience, and sociocultural approaches(pp. 137–152). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.Yuki, M., Schug, J., Horikawa, H., Takemura, K., Sato, K., Yokota, K., & Kamaya, K. (2007). Development of a scale to measure perceptions of relational mobility in

society. CERSS Working Paper 75, Center for Experimental Research in Social Sciences, Hokkaido University. Retrieved from http://lynx.let.hokudai.ac.jp/cerss/english/workingpaper/index.cgi?year=2007

Rela t iona l m ob ilit y sca le (Yuki et al., 2007; 12 items)


APPENDIX I

How m uch do you feel the following statem ents accurately describe people in the immediate socie ty in which you live (friends and acquaintances in your school, colleagues in your workplace, and residents in your town etc.)?

• They (the people around you) have m any chances to get to know other people.• It is com m on for these people to have a conversation with som eone they have never m et before.• They are ab le to choose, according to their own preferences, the people whom they interact with in their daily life .• There are few opportunities for these people to form new friendships. (reversed)• It is uncom m on for these people to have a conversation with people they have never m et before. (reversed)• If they did not like their current groups, they could leave for better ones.• It is often the case that they cannot freely choose who they associate with. (reversed)• It is easy for them to m eet new people.• Even if these people were not com pletely satisfied with the group they belonged to, they would usually stay with it anyway. (reversed)• They are ab le to choose the groups and organizations they belong to.• Even if these people were not satisfied with their current relationships, they would often have no choice but to stay with them . (reversed)• Even though they m ight rather leave, these people often have no choice but to stay in groups they don’t like. (reversed)

1 = Strongly disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Slightly disagree, 4 = Slightly agree, 5 = Agree, 6 = Strongly agree

adap t ive t a sks（ Oishi, Schug, Yuki, & Axt, 2015（

Socio-ecologica l approach

2020/3/24 32

Oishi & Graham , 2010

Socia l ecology

Physical environm ent

Interpersonal environm ent

Social environm ent

CultureSym bols, m eaning,

rituals etc.

Hum an psychology and behavior

Relational mobility

Similar to: Ecological (Barker, 1968), environmental (Craik,

1973), community (Kelly,

1971) cultural (Kitayama &

Cohen, 2007)

psychologies, behaviouralecology (Davies et al., 2012)

(Oishi 2014)

What is re la t iona l m ob ilit y?


High degree of personal choice in interpersonal

relationships・

Easy to change relationships

High re la t iona l m ob ilit y

Lower degree of personal choice in interpersonal

relationships（

Less ease in changing relationships

Low re la t iona l m ob ilit y

Nth . America

Japan

The degree to which there is the opportunity and freedom to form and sever – according to one’s preferences – relationships and group m em berships in a society or social context (Yuki et al. 2007, Yuki & Schug 2012)

Falk, Heine, Yuki, & Takemura, 2009; Schug, Yuki, Horikawa, & Takemura, 2009; Sznycer et al., 2012; Wang & Leung, 2010; Yuki et al., 2007

1st year uni

3rd year uni

Urban

Rural

Nth . America

Japan

Theory

In terpersonalenvironments

d iffer

Adapt ive t a sks inh igh re la t iona l m ob ilit y socia l con t ext s

Acquisit ion of desirab le re la t ionships/group memberships

• Positive self-regard (self-enhancement; Falk et al. 2009)

• Self-esteem (Sato & Yuki, 2014)

• General trust (Yamagishi & Yamagishi 1994; Yamagishi, 2011)

• Desire for uniqueness (Takemura, 2014)

Retention of desirable relationships/group memberships

• Self-d isclosure (Schug et al. 2010)

• In t im acy (Kito et al., 2015)


Theory

Consequence: In terpersonal sim ilarity (Schug et al., 2009)

Adapt ive t a sk inlow re la t iona l m ob ilit y socia l con t ext s

Maintenance of harmony• Avoiding offence (Yamagishi, Hashimoto, & Schug 2008)

• Rejection sensitivity (Sato, Yuki, & Norasakkunkit, 2014)

• Shame proneness (Sznycer et al. 2012)

• Caution about friends (Li et al., 2014)

2020/3/24 35

Theory

Rela t iona l m ob ilit ylim it a t ions/fu t ure d irect ions

• What about the rest of the world?• Measurement of relational mobility

• Yuki et al.’s (2007) 12-item relational mobility scale (1 -6 Likert)• How much do you feel the following statements accurately describe peop le

in t he im m edia t e socie ty in which you live (friends and acquaintances in your school, colleagues in your workplace, and residents in your town etc.)?

• They (the people around you) have m any chances to get to know other people.

• It is uncom m on for these people to have a conversation with people they have never m et before . (reversed)

• They are ab le t o choose the groups and organizations they belong to.• Even though they m ight rather leave, these people often have no choice but

to stay in groups they don’t like. (reversed)


Limitat ions/Future d irections

Opportun it ie s for m ee t ing new peop lefactor

Freedom of re la t iona l choicefactor

(socie ty-leve l const ruct )

Part icipan t s（ N = 18,939, 39 count ries（

37

WRS Results

Ave. Facebook penetrat ion rate : 46%Mean click-through rate : 3%Mean response rate : 16%

Mean age: 28 years oldMean female percentage: 87%

228 29

529

930

530

630

730

931

932

432

533

633

633

935

035

835

936

038

639

339

540

541

842

745

045

146

646

747

148

349

954

455

6 649

682

682

710 78

6 911

0

200

400

600

800

1000

N

Facebook ad cost pe r va lid response(JPY, over a ll waves)

38

WRS Results

5 13 15 15 19 24 25 27 32 32 36 37 38 38 38 40 46 49 57 68 84 85 8711

2 134

136

137

143

149

153

160 18

519

320

220

221

3 246 28

635

0

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

JPY

2020/3/24 39

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Facebook pene t ra t ion ra t e (2015)WRS Results

Facebook pene t ra t ion ra t e（(percent of population using Facebook at least once a m onth)

M = 46% (SD= 13%)

Can we expect representative exposure to ads?

http://www.allin1social.com/facebook/country_stats/

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

7.00%

8.00%

9.00%

2020/3/24 40

Click-t h rough ra t eWRS Results

Click-th rough ra t e(percent of users seeing ads who clicked on ad)

M = 3% (SD= 1%)

What percent of users who were displayed ads clicked on the ads?

Mdn =2%

2020/3/24 41

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Response ra t eWRS Results

Response ra t e (percent of users who clicked on ad and validly completed survey)

M = 16% (SD= 10%)

What percent of users who clicked on ads actually completed the survey?

2020/3/24 42

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Fem a le pe rcen t ageWRS Results

Percen t fem a le

M = 87% (SD= 9%)

What percent of respondents indicated female as gender?

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2020/3/24 43

Mean ageWRS Results

Mean age(yea rs)

M = 28 (SD= 5)

How old are the respondents in each country?

2020/3/24 44

Assumptions

r = -.496*** *p < .01

Acquiescent response style（ (Van Dijket al., 2009; Fischer et al., 2009; Ram m stedtet al., 2010)Greater than 0 m eans acquiescence

Educat ion Index (UNDP HDI, 2000)

Assum pt ionsResponses are unbiased by response styles?

Australia

Brazil

CanadaChile

Colombia

Egypt

Estonia

France

Germany

Hong KongHungary

Israel

Japan

Jordan

Lebanon

Libyan Arab JamahiriyaMalaysia

Mauritius

Mexico

Morocco

Netherlands

New Zealand

Palestinian Territories

Philippines

Poland

Portugal

Singapore

Spain

Sweden

Trinidad and Tobago

Tunisia TurkeyUkraine

United Kingdom

USA

Venezuela

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

All subsequent analyses use within -subject means -only standardization (Fischer, 2004)

0.56

0.60

0.64

0.64

0.65

0.67

0.68

0.70

0.73

0.74

0.75

0.75

0.78

0.78

0.79

0.79

0.79

0.80

0.80

0.81

0.81

0.81

0.82

0.82

0.83

0.83

0.83

0.83

0.83

0.84

0.84

0.84

0.85

0.85

0.85

0.86

0.86

0.89

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

Rela t iona l m ob ilit y sca le re liab ilit y（ α （

45

α

WRS Results

Are people responding in a roughly consistent manner?

Rela t iona l m obilit y sca le m easurem ent inva riance (Multi-group CFA; Cheung & Rensvold, 1999)

2020/3/24 46

WRS Results

Does the tool work (measure relational mobility) well in every country?

Model S-Bχ 2 df *CFI *TLI *RMSEA Compare Δ *CFI Δ *TLI Δ *RMSEA

Configural (1) 4423.3 1950 .928 .905 .054 - - - - ✔Part ia l Metric (2) 5085.4 2292 .919 .909 .053 2 vs 1 .009 -.004 -.001 ✔Part ia l Scalar (3) 5506.3 2368 .909 .901 .055 3 vs 2 .010 .008 .002 ✔

• Configura l m ode l: Sam e structure as pooled sample across groups• Met ric inva riance : Sam e factor loadings as pooled sample across groups• Sca la r inva riance : Sam e item and 1st order factor intercep ts as pooled

sample across groups

N = 39 count rie sRho = .58 ~ .88

Means can bem eaningfu lly com pared across coun t ries

Cutoff points used: Metric vs. configural,Δ *CFI & Δ *TLI < .010, Δ *RMSEA < .015; Scalar vs. m etric, Δ *CFI & Δ *TLI < .010, Δ *RMSEA < .015 (Chen, 2007)

Relat ional Mobility Index

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

2.5 4.5 6.5 8.5 10.5 12.5

r = .433**

Sim

ilari

ty

Re lat ional Mobility Index

24.0

26.0

28.0

30.0

32.0

34.0

2.5 4.5 6.5 8.5 10.5 12.5

r = .581**

Self-

este

em

4.8

5.3

5.8

6.3

2.5 4.5 6.5 8.5 10.5 12.5

r = .340*


Inti

mac

y

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

4.4

2.5 4.5 6.5 8.5 10.5 12.5

r = .705***

Self-

disc

losu

re

Relational Mobility Index

East Asia ,MENA

Nth . Am erica

La t inAm erica

Europe

East Asia ,MENA

Nth . Am erica

La t inAm erica

Europe

East Asia ,MENA

Nth . Am erica

La t inAm erica

Europe

East Asia ,MENA

Nth . Am erica

La t inAm erica

Europe

2020/3/24 47

Pred ict ive va lid it y WRS Results

Story is supported

• Higher relational mobility requires strategies to acquire and re t a in desirab le relationships• Result is higher hom ophily in interpersonal relationships

Do previous East-West findings replicate across societies?

Relational Mobility andSelf-disclosure to close friend

Relational Mobility and Romantic Intimacy

Relational Mobility and Similarity

Relational Mobility and Self-esteem (Schmitt & Allick, 2005)

2020/3/24 48

Relational m obility and se lf-d isclosure t o a close friend

WRS Results

r = .705p < .001

Self-d isclosure to a close friend (scale: 1~ 5)

Rela t ional Mobility Index

AfricaAsiaEuropeLatin AmericaMENANorth AmericaOceania

Australia

Brazil

Canada

Chile

Colombia

Egypt

Estonia

France

Germany

Hong Kong

HungaryIsrael

Japan Jordan

Lebanon

LibyaMalaysia

Mauritius

Mexico

Morocco

NetherlandsNew Zealand

Philippines

Poland

Portugal

Singapore

Spain

Sweden

Trinidadand

TobagoTunisia

Turkey

Ukraine

United KingdomUSA

Venezuela

Taiwan

Puerto Rico

Palestine3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

4.4

3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0

2020/3/24 49

Relational m obility and rom ant ic in t im acy

WRS Results

r = .340p < .05

Intimacy with romant ic partner(scale: 1~ 7)



Australia

Brazil

Canada

Chile

Colombia

Egypt

EstoniaFrance

Germany

Hong Kong

Hungary Israel

Japan

Jordan

Lebanon

Libya

Malaysia

Mauritius

MexicoMorocco

NetherlandsNew ZealandPhilippines

PolandPortugal

SingaporeSpain

Sweden

Trinidadand

Tobago

Tunisia

Turkey Ukraine

United KingdomUSA

Venezuela

Taiwan

Puerto Rico

Palestine

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0

2020/3/24 50

Relational m obility and se lf-est eem

WRS Results

r = .581p < .01

Self-esteem(country-level data from Schm itt & Allick, 2005)



Australia

BrazilCanada

ChileEstonia

France

Germany

Hong Kong

Israel

Japan

Lebanon

Malaysia

Mexico

Morocco

Netherlands

New ZealandPhilippines

PolandPortugal

Spain

Turkey

UK

USA

Taiwan

23.0

25.0

27.0

29.0

31.0

33.0

35.0

3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0

2020/3/24 51

Relational m obility and in t e rpersona l sim ila rit y

WRS Results

r = .433p < .01

(without Japan r = .368, p < .05)

Interpersonal similaritywith close friend



Australia

Brazil

CanadaChile

Colombia

EgyptEstonia

FranceGermany

Hong Kong

HungaryIsrael

Japan

Jordan

Lebanon

LibyaMalaysia MauritiusMexicoMorocco

Netherlands

New Zealand

Philippines

PolandPortugal

SingaporeSpain

Sweden

Trinidad

TunisiaTurkey

Ukraine

UKUSA

Venezuela

Taiwan

Puerto Rico

Palestine

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0

3.00

5.00

7.00

9.00

11.00

-3.00 -1.00 1.00

r = -.511**

Demanding Geoclimate(Midrange temperature controlled for the

winter -summer variation in temperature; Van de Vliert, 2006)

3.00

5.00

7.00

9.00

11.00

-3.00 -1.00 1.00

r = -.413*Rela

tion

al M

obili

ty In

dex

Historical Prevalence of Pathogens

East Asia ,MENA

Lat inAmerica

EuropeNth . America

East Asia ,MENA

Lat inAmerica

EuropeNth . America

2020/3/24 52

Const ruct va lid it y: Anteceden t s t o Re la t iona l Mobilit y

WRS Results

Association with closed/open societies...are they associated with relational mobility?

Pathogen prevalence (McEvedy & Jones, 1978) and relational mobility

(N = 32)

Demanding geoclimate (Van de Vliert, 2006)and relational mobility

(N = 27)

Story

Such ecologies select for exclusive, closed social systems

• Closed societies to avoid pathogen ingress

• High reciprocation, cooperation, high mutual surveillance to avoid free-riding in demanding geoclimate

3.00

5.00

7.00

9.00

11.00

-2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00

r = .590***

Survival vs. self-expression

Surviva l vs. se lf-expression (Ingelhart et al., 2005) and relational

m obility (N = 34)

East Asia ,MENA

EastEurope

West EuropeNth . America

La t in America

2020/3/24 53

Pa t hogen p reva lence and relational mobility

WRS Results

r = -.279p < .10


Historica l p reva lence of pa thogens (Murray & Schaller, 2010)

AfricaAsiaEuropeLatin AmericaMENANorth AmericaOceaniaAustralia

BrazilCanada ChileColombia

Egypt

Estonia

France

Germany

Hong Kong

Israel

JapanJordan

LebanonLibyan Arab Jamahiriya

Mexico

Morocco

Netherlands

New Zealand

Philippines

Poland

Portugal

Singapore

SpainSweden

Trinidad and Tobago

Tunisia

Turkey

Ukraine

United KingdomUSA

Venezuela

Taiwan

Puerto Rico

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

-1.50 -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50

2020/3/24 54

Tubercu losis pe r 100,000 peop leand relational mobility

WRS Results

r = -.372p = .026

N = 36


Incidence of t ubercu losis per 100,000 peop le (log)(World Health Organization, 1990 to 2013 average)


Australia

BrazilCanada ChileColombia

Egypt

Estonia

France

Germany

Hong Kong

Hungary

Israel

JapanJordan

LebanonLibyan Arab Jamahiriya

Malaysia

Mauritius

Mexico

Morocco

Netherlands

New Zealand

Philippines

Poland

Portugal

Singapore

SpainSweden

Trinidad and Tobago

Tunisia

Turkey

Ukraine

United KingdomUSA

Venezuela

Puerto Rico

3.00

5.00

7.00

9.00

11.00

0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50

2020/3/24 55

Dem anding geoclim a t eand relational mobility

WRS Results

r = -.536p < .01


Demanding Geoclimate(Midrange tem perature controlled for the winter-sum m er variation in tem perature; Van de Vliert, 2006)


Aust ra lia

BrazilCanada

Colom bia

Egyp t

France

Germ any

Hong Kong

Hungary

Israe l

JapanMalaysia

Mexico

Morocco

Netherlands

New Zea land

Ph ilipp ines

Poland

Portuga l

Singapore

Spa inSweden

Turkey

Unit ed KingdomUSA

Venezue la

Ta iwan

3.0

5.0

7.0

9.0

11.0

-2.50 -2.00 -1.50 -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50

2020/3/24 56

Surviva l vs. se lf-expression (Ingelhart et al., 2005) and relational mobility (N = 33)

WRS Results

r = .587p < .001


Surviva l vs. se lf-expression (Ingelhartet al., 2005) and relational m obility


Brazil CanadaChileColombia

Egypt

Estonia

France

Germany

Hong Kong

Hungary

Israel

JapanJordan

Malaysia

Mexico

Morocco

Netherlands

New Zealand

Philippines

Poland

Portugal

Singapore

SpainSweden

Trinidad and Tobago

Turkey

Ukraine

United KingdomUSA

Venezuela

Taiwan

Puerto Rico

3.0

5.0

7.0

9.0

11.0

-1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

2.50 4.50 6.50 8.50 10.50

r = .568**

Just

ifiab

ility

of d

ivor

ce


0.00

4.00

8.00

12.00

2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00

r = -.417*


Tigh

tnes

s

Relational Mobility and Tigh tness (Gelfand et al., 2011) (N=22)

East Asia,MENA

Nth . Am erica

La t inAm erica

Europe

East Asia ,MENA

Nth . Am erica

La t inAm erica

Europe

2020/3/24 57

Const ruct va lid it y: Outcom es WRS Results

Expected associations with high/low relational mobility?

Relational Mobility andJustifiability of Divorce

(WVS w6, 2014) (N=26)

Story

Where choice abounds, so should excuses for divorce.

Closed com m itted social contexts should foster strong norm s; adherence of such should help avoid disharm ony within long-lasting relationships.

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

2.50 4.50 6.50 8.50 10.50

r = .471**

New

acq

uain

tanc

es in

last

mon

th


East Asia ,MENA

Nth . Am erica

La t inAm erica

Europe

Relational m obility and num ber of new acqua in t ances in la st m onth (log)

2020/3/24 58

Relational mobility and num ber of new acqua in t ances in la st m ont h (log)

WRS Results

r = .471p < .01

Number of new acqua in t ances in la st month(log)



Brazil

Canada

Chile

Colombia

Egypt

Estonia

France

Germany

Hong Kong

Hungary

Israel

Japan

JordanLebanonLibya

Malaysia

Mauritius

Mexico

Morocco

Netherlands

New Zealand

Philippines

Poland

Portugal

Singapore Spain

Sweden

Trinidadand

Tobago

Tunisia

Turkey

Ukraine

United Kingdom

USAVenezuela

Taiwan

Puerto Rico

Palestine

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0

2020/3/24 59

Const ruct va lid it y: Va lues and cu lt u re WRS Results

Associations with other cultural/value constructs?

0

50

100

3 5 7 9 11


Ind ividua lismr = .184

0

50

100

3 5 7 9 11


Power Dist ance

r = -.2500

50

100

3 5 7 9 11


Mascu lin it y

r = -.2340

50

100

3 5 7 9 11


Uncert a in ty Avoidance

r = .1240

50

100

3 5 7 9 11


Long Term Orien t a t ionr = -.189

3

4

4

5

3 5 7 9 11


Em beddedness

r = -.413†

3

3

4

4

5

3 5 7 9 11


Affect ive Autonom yr = .367 †

2

2

3

3

3 5 7 9 11


Hiera rchyr = -.444*

4

4

4

4

4

3 5 7 9 11


Mast e ryr = -.056

4

5

5

6

3 5 7 9 11


Ega lit a rian com m itm ent

r = .501*

(2001) HofstedeN = 32

Schwart z (1994)

N = 20

2020/3/24 60

Relational m obility and socia l cyn icism

WRS Results

r = -.460p = .04

Social Cynicism Index(Bond et al., 2004)“Represents a negative view of hum an nature, especially as it is easily corrupted by power;a b iased view against som e groups of people; a m istrust of social institutions; and a disregard ofethical m eans for achieving an end.”



Brazil

Canada

Eston ia

France

Germ anyHong Kong

Hungary

Israe l

Japan

Malaysia

Netherlands

New Zea landPh ilipp ines

Portuga l

SingaporeSpa in

Turkey

UK

USA

Venezue la

Ta iwan

48.0

53.0

58.0

63.0

3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

2020/3/24 61

Relational Mobility and Just ifiab ilit y of Divorce (WVS w6, 2014) (N=26)

r = .568p < .01



Aust ra lia

Brazil

Colom bia

Egyp t

Eston iaGerm any

Hong Kong

Japan

JordanMalaysia

Mexico

Morocco

NetherlandsNew Zea land

Ph ilipp ines

Poland

Singapore

Spa in

Sweden

Trin idad and Tobago

Tun isiaTurkey

Ukra ine

USA

Taiwan

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

2.50 3.50 4.50 5.50 6.50 7.50 8.50 9.50 10.50 11.50

Just ifiab le : Divorce(World Values Survey w6, V205)

Never justifiable↓

↑Always justifiable

2020/3/24 62

Relational Mobility and Tight ness (Gelfand et al., 2011) (N=22)

WRS Results

r = -.417p < .05

Tightness



Aust ra lia

BrazilEston ia

FranceGerm any

Hong Kong

Hungary Israe l

Japan

Malaysia

Mexico

Netherlands

New Zea land

Poland

Portuga l

Singapore

Spa in

Turkey

Ukra ine

UK

USA

Venezue la

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00

2020/3/24 63

Em beddedness (Schwartz, 1994)

WRS Results

r = -.413p = .07

N = 20

EmbeddednessConformity with norms, valuing tradition, security, obedience. Focus on social order.


AfricaAsiaEuropeLatin AmericaMENANorth AmericaOceaniaAust ra lia Brazil

Eston ia

France

Germ any

Hong KongHungary

Israe l

Japan

Malaysia

Mexico

Netherlands

New Zea land

Poland

Portuga l

Singapore

Spa in

Turkey

USA

Taiwan

3

4

4

5

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2020/3/24 64

Affect ive au t onom y (Schwartz, 1994)

WRS Results

r = .367p = .11

N = 20

Affective autonomyIndependent pursuit of pleasure, seeking enjoyment by any means



Aust ra lia

Brazil

Eston ia

France

Germ any

Hong Kong

Hungary

Israe l

Japan

MalaysiaMexico

Netherlands

New Zea land

Poland

Portuga l

Singapore

Spa in

Turkey

USA

Taiwan

3

3

4

4

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2020/3/24 65

In t e llect ua l au t onom y (Schwartz, 1994)

WRS Results

r = .231p = .33

N = 20

Intellectual autonomyAllowance for independent pursuit of ideas and thought (theoretical, political, etc,)



Aust ra liaBrazil

Eston ia

Germ any

Hong Kong

HungaryIsrae l

Japan

Malaysia

Mexico

NetherlandsNew Zea land

PolandPortuga l

Singapore

Spa in

TurkeyUSA

Taiwan

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2020/3/24 66

Mast e ry (Schwartz, 1994)

WRS Results

r = -.056p = .81

N = 20

MasteryIndividuals seeking success through personal action, even at expense of others. Need for independence, courage, ambition, drive, competence.



Aust ra liaBrazil

Eston ia

France

Germ any

Hong Kong

Hungary

Israe l

Japan

Malaysia Mexico

Netherlands

New Zea land

Poland

Portuga l

Singapore

Spa in

Turkey

USA

Taiwan

3.60

3.70

3.80

3.90

4.00

4.10

4.20

4.30

4.40

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2020/3/24 67

Harm ony (Schwartz, 1994)

WRS Results

r = .224p = .34

N = 20

HarmonyIndividuals are happy to accept their place in the world, with high emphasis on group.



Aust ra lia

Brazil

Eston ia

France

Germ anyHungary

Japan

Mexico

NetherlandsNew Zea land Poland

Portuga l

Singapore

Spa in

Turkey

USA

Taiwan

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2020/3/24 68

Hiera rchy (Schwartz, 1994)

WRS Results

r = -.444p = .05

N = 20

HierarchyClear social order, one’s place in hierarchy is accepted; modesty and self-control are expected



Aust ra lia

Brazil

Eston ia

France

Germ any

Hong Kong

Hungary

Israe lJapan

Malaysia

Mexico

Netherlands

New Zea landPoland

Portuga l

Singapore

Spa in

Turkey

USA

Taiwan

1.90

2.10

2.30

2.50

2.70

2.90

3.10

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2020/3/24 69

Ega lit a rian Com m it m ent (Schwartz, 1994)

WRS Results

r = .501p = .02

N = 20

Egalitarian commitmentExpectation that all are equal and mutual concern is important



Aust ra lia BrazilEston ia

FranceGerm any

Hong KongHungary Israe l

Japan

Malaysia

Mexico

Netherlands

New Zea land

Poland

Portuga l

Singapore

Spa in

TurkeyUSA

Taiwan

4.50

4.70

4.90

5.10

5.30

5.50

5.70

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

2020/3/24 70

TEMPLATEWRS Results

r = .581p < .001

Self-d isclosure to a close friend (scale: 1~ 5)



Aust ra lia

Brazil

Canada

Chile

Colom bia

Egyp t

Eston ia

France

Germ any

Hong Kong

HungaryIsrae l

JapanJordan

Malaysia

Maurit ius

Mexico

Morocco

Netherlands

New Zea land

Ph ilipp ines

Poland

Portuga l

Singapore

Spa inSweden

Trin idad and Tobago

Tun isia

Turkey

Ukra ine

UKUSA

Venezue la

Ta iwan

Puerto Rico

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

4.2

4.4

3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0

• Antecedents• Intant mortality 1960 -2014 average r = -.300, p < .10

• Adjusted r = -.358, p = .04

• A2012_death_disease_birth WHO r = -.295, p < .10• 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010 agriculture value added GDP percent World Bank

National accounts data and OECD National Account data files (perhaps make average)• 2010 r = -.405, p < .05

• 1500 real population density r = -.366, p < .10• Adjusted pathogen prevalence 9 item r = -.365, p = .04

2020/3/24 71

facebook advertisements for cross - cultural survey recruitment · 2020. 3. 3. · facebook...

Documents