Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (4)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Yum, Y.-o.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Culture and self-construal as predictors of responses to accommodative dilemmas in dating relationships

Young-ok Yum

Kansas State Universityyoungok{at}ksu.edu

The present study tests and extends existing research about the effects of culture and self-construal on reports of accommodative dilemmas in dating relationships. Data were collected from members of three different regional cultures: U.S. mainland, Hawaii, and South Korea. Using a four-factor self-construal model, two hypotheses were posited: (i) members of collectivistic cultures tend to enact accommodation (loyalty, voice) more and nonaccommodation (neglect, exit) less than do their individualistic counterparts; and (ii) bicultural self-construal is more strongly associated consistently with accommodation than are the other three self-construal types. These hypotheses received support. Collectivism–individualism was related consistently with the type of accommodation, and the four self-construal types also displayed a reliable pattern of associations with accommodation and nonaccommodation. Post-hoc assessments revealed that the four-factor model predicted self-reported accommodation better than did the two-factor model used in previous research. Small effect sizes in the present study, however, suggest that other factors (e.g., industrialization) may have a considerable bearing on responses to accommodative dilemmas.

Key Words: culture • responses to accommodative dilemmas • self-construal

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, Vol. 21, No. 6, 817-835 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/0265407504047839
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Journal of Social and Personal RelationshipsHome page
J. Farrer, H. Tsuchiya, and B. Bagrowicz
Emotional expression in tsukiau dating relationships in Japan
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, February 1, 2008; 25(1): 169 - 188.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 International Journal of Behavioral DevelopmentHome page
B. T. Lam
Self-construal and socio-emotional development among Vietnamese-American adolescents: An examination of different types of self-construal
International Journal of Behavioral Development, January 1, 2006; 30(1): 67 - 75.
[Abstract] [PDF]