The roles of culture and fairness in maintaining relationships: A comparison of romantic partners in Malaysia, Singapore, and the United State

Culture, Equity, and Relationship Maintenance

1

The Roles of Culture and Fairness in Maintaining Relationships: A Comparison of Romantic

Partners from Malaysia, Singapore, and the United States

Abstract

The present study concerns how culture connects to perceptions of equity and relational

maintenance behavior in the United States (US), Malaysia, and Singapore. In doing so, this

study extends findings that employed cultural modernization theory (CMT) and equity theory to

explain cultural and individual variations in relational maintenance behavior. Sex differences

were also examined. Three countries were selected for their proximity in Traditional (vs.

Rational) Values and divergence in Survival (vs. Self Expression) Values, according to the World

Values Survey (WVS) cultural map. Consistent with CMT assumptions, participants in the

United States and Malaysia (i.e., countries that espouse self expression values) reported greater

use of relational maintenance strategies than did those in Singapore (i.e., a country endorsing

survival values). As hypothesized, curvilinear associations between equity and relational

maintenance strategies were found for the US participants only. This finding concurs with CMT-

grounded assumptions and facts that romantic partners in Western (vs. Eastern), high-income

societies (e.g., the US) seek equitable relationships. Sex differences also emerged but only for

the US participants.

Keywords: relational maintenance strategies, cultural values, equity, sex differences


2

The Roles of Culture and Fairness in Maintaining Relationships: A Comparison of

Romantic Partners in Malaysia, Singapore, and the United States

People invest resources, time, and effort to sustain their personal relationships (e.g.,

Rusbult, 1987; Yum & Li, 2007). More precisely, people continuously enact relational

maintenance behaviors to keep their close relationships stable and satisfying (Ledbetter, 2009;

Stafford & Canary, 2006). People in postindustrial societies who prize emancipative values, for

instance, that emphasize individual rights, tend to exert energy to continue a fulfilling

relationship (Cherlin, 2010). For instance, in terms of maintenance strategies, Yum and Canary

(2009) found that equity applies to the US and other Westernized countries where individualistic

beliefs rule. Partners in equitable (balanced) relationships tend to give more effort to maintaining

their relationships than do people in inequitable relationships.

Our purpose concerns why people vary in different societies in their maintenance of

romantic relationships. Toward this end, we investigate whether equity theory explains use of

relational maintenance behaviors across national cultures, which has been supported in the West

but has yet to be applied to non-Western societies (excluding those included in previous studies).

We further investigate culture-relationship maintenance links, extending previous cross-cultural

comparisons. In particular, cultural modernization theory (CMT) provides a highly informative

and alternative basis to compare national cultures and members’ communication within

relationships. Cross-national comparisons regarding communication and relationships frequently

rely on the individualism-collectivism dimension (IND-COL). However, the inconsistency of

findings of IND-COL has been well documented (e.g., meta-analysis by Oyserman, Coon, &

Kemmelmeir, 2002). Directly relevant here, researchers have reported inconsistencies of findings


3

using IND-COL to explain relational maintenance behaviors (e.g., Yum & Canary, 2003).

Finally, we explore whether sex differences in relational maintenance behaviors found in the US

also occur in cultures where selection of sex role specific behaviors is more clearly prescribed.

This study adds to intercultural as well as relational maintenance research in several

ways, three of which we present here. First, examining relational maintenance strategies

separates communication behaviors from other structural factors that often operate to keep

relationships intact. Such factors, for example, include culture-specific norms and social values

underwritten by dominant religions and ideologies. How romantic partners in different countries,

embedded in a web of various layers of cultural values, norms, and practices, use relational

maintenance strategies remains largely unknown.

Second, this study advances theory on two fronts: (a) this study extends CMT. We test a

fundamental tenet of CMT, wherein cultural values combine to create four types of world

societies (elaborated below) that suggest how people engage in interpersonal behaviors.

Although people from three of the four world cultures participated in a similar study, data

regarding a fourth cultural type was not collected (Yum & Canary, 2009). We thus extend CMT

by investigating whether participants living in countries with Survival/Traditional Values

(Quadrant 3) and Self Expression/Traditional Values (Quadrant 4) (both elaborated below) differ

in their use of relational maintenance strategies. (b) We examine whether equity theory

explanations of relational maintenance behaviors that have been supported in Western societies

apply to other national cultures that might follow alternative rules of relational maintenance. In

particular, we investigate whether equity operates as a standard of fairness in societies dissimilar

to the US: Southeast Asia in this study.


4

Finally, we report how culture might affect sex differences in the use of relational

maintenance strategies. Research shows that women in the US engage in more positive and

proactive efforts to maintain their close relationships (Canary & Wahba, 2006). However, the

lion’s share of this research relies on participants from the US and other Western countries.

Whether sex differences in the use of relational maintenance strategies exist in cultures where

sex role norms operate differently regarding relational behavior remains oblique.

To accomplish the above, we first review relational maintenance strategies, cultural

modernization theory, equity theory, and sex differences in maintenance behavior. Hypotheses

derived from these sections are then offered. Next, we report a study designed to test the

hypotheses. Finally, we interpret the findings, present limitations, and propose avenues for

additional research.

1.1 Relational Maintenance

Relational maintenance refers to actions and activities that function to keep a relationship

stable and satisfying. Several studies show that the use of relational maintenance strategies

strongly and positively associates with relational quality indicators, such as commitment, love,

satisfaction, and stability (e.g., Canary, Stafford, & Semic, 2002; Guerrero, Eloy, & Wabnik,

1993; Weigel & Ballard-Reisch, 1999b; Yum & Canary, 2003). Conversely, relational stability

and quality tend to suffer without ongoing use of maintenance behaviors (Canary et al., 2002;

Guerrero et al., 1993).

The most widely accepted typology of relational maintenance behaviors is Stafford and

Canary’s (1991). These maintenance strategies are Positivity (being spontaneous and optimistic),


5

Openness (discussing the relationship), Assurances (statements that imply affection and

commitment), Social Networks (reliance on friends and families for support and enjoyment), and

Sharing Tasks (doing one’s share of responsibilities). Partners in personal relationships rely on

these maintenance strategies to sustain close relationships in various parts of the world (e.g., in

Russia by Ballard-Reisch, Weigel, & Zaguidoulline, 1999; in South Korea by Yum & Canary,

2003; and in the Czech Republic, Spain, Japan, & China by Yum & Canary, 2009). Moreover,

the most widely used measure of this typology, the Relationship Maintenance Strategy Measure

(RMSM), yields excellent reliability as well as face, predictive, and construct validity (Canary,

2011).

Yet, in most of the non-Western world, premarital dating remains largely unwelcomed,

and young Easterners know relatively little about the initiation and maintenance of romantic

relationships. In addition, cultural differences in relational development exist. For instance, in the

People’s Republic of China (mainland China), university students do not date, for example, by

having dinners and seeing films; instead, they “study together” at the library on a date. In a

survey of high school and university students in Taiwan, apprehension and traditional gender

roles typically informed people’s views about dating and love: 90% of men as well as women

indicated they did not know how to approach a love interest (China Daily, 2009, Feb 12).

Eastern economic development and modernization appear to have changed more than alterations

of beliefs and behaviors about personal relationships.

1.2 Cultural Modernization Theory

Cultural modernization theory (CMT) holds that people in countries with similar cultures

share indicators of quality of life and wellbeing (Inglehart & Welzel, 2005). Economic and


6

technological modernization, which implies urbanization and Westernization, alone does not

fulfill people’s basic needs and the spread of liberal ideals such as rationalism and freedom of

self-expression. Exploring the manner in which nations vary according to their cultural distance

and proximity, Inglehart and Welzel examined cultural values. Inglehart and Welzel conducted

the World Values Survey (WVS) to identify major indices of cultural modernization,

encompassing political, religious, economic, and social concerns. From the multi-wave WVS

data sets, a cultural map emerged that represents cultural proximity and distance among

numerous countries (see Inglehart & Welzel, 2005, p. 63; Inglehart & Welzel, 2010, p. 554).

CMT uses the WVS data collected from approximately 100 nations and over 165,000 people

over the course of more than two decades between 1981 and 2007 (Inglehart, 1997; Inglehart &

Welzel, 2005, 2010).

Two value dimensions from the WVS account for over 70% of cross-national variance in

cultural modernization: Secular-Rational Values versus Traditional-Religious Values; and Self-

expression Values versus Survival Values (Inglehart & Welzel, 2010). Secular-rational values

(rational values, henceforth) emphasize reason, scientific truth, and self-reliance. In a different

manner, traditional values reflect preindustrial, conventional beliefs manifested in adherence to

clan loyalty, religion, and authorities in power. Self-expression values represent postindustrial,

liberal mindsets prevailing in affluent, democratic societies that support the preservation of one’s

quality of life and individual rights, especially the right to freedom of expression. Alternatively,

survival values tend to dominate countries where physical security and material necessities

remain primary concerns (Goodwin, 1999). Accordingly, in survival values societies, common

economic and practical concerns often outweigh symbolic, individual concerns such as freedom

of choice, expression, and privacy.


7

Figure 1 (Appendix A) depicts these four cultural types in the four quadrants of the WVS

map. Using the WVS map coordinates, six countries were examined earlier: Japan, Czech

Republic, China, South Korea, Spain, and the US (Yum & Canary, 2009). Malaysia and

Singapore were included in the present study because Malaysia and Singapore adopt traditional

values in near identical ways to the US. At the same time, as Figure 1 shows, Singapore—and to

some extent, Malaysia—rely more on survival values, whereas the US clearly espouses self-

expression values. Comparing nations along Inglehart and Welzel’s self-expression vs. survival

values axis was not possible in Yum and Canary because they did not sample participants in

Quadrant 3 (i.e., people in survival/traditional values countries). These comparisons are made

here.1

As demonstrated by the WVS cultural map, cultural proximity between countries,

primarily due to shared religious or historical paths, does not always coincide with geographic

proximity. Historically, most countries in Europe and the Americas have been dominated by

Christianity and espouse self-expression values (Quadrants 2 and 4 on the cultural map). For

example, the US and the UK are cultural cohorts, linked by common religious beliefs

(Christianity) and historical paths (Anglo-Saxon dominance), and hence their modernization

paths coincide (path dependence in Inglehart & Welzel's [2005] terms). Moreover, Inglehart and

Welzel’s traditional values and survival values do not necessarily indicate a country’s affluence

or economic development. The following section discusses two societies other than the US for

their cultural distance despite geographical closeness and path dependence: Singapore and

Malaysia.


8

1.3 Singapore and Malaysia

Singapore exemplifies that cultural values can differ from economic modernization and

wealth. Singapore is a small but affluent city-state, ranked 7th in the world in terms of GDP per

capita, according to the 2014 CIA World Factbook (the US = 14th). Yet, on the WVS cultural

map, Singapore adheres to survival and traditional values (Quadrant 3). Importantly,

Confucianism-influenced countries (China and Korea) cherish survival values and so bear

cultural proximity on the cultural map (Quadrant 1). So does Singapore.

Located on the Malay Peninsula in Southeast Asia, Singapore shares history with her

neighbors, particularly with the contiguous Malaysia. Yet, Singapore remains culturally distinct

from Malaysia according to CMT. Both Singapore and Malaysia share history as British colonies

and, following independence in 1963, Singapore joined the Malaysian Federation. Yet, in 1965,

Singapore seceded from Malaysia. Since then, Singapore achieved modernization and

globalization faster than Malaysia did. As opposed to their more religious and conservative peers

in Malaysia, Singaporeans typically prioritize pragmatism. The ethnic composition of Singapore

is predominantly Chinese (77%; Malay 14%, Indian 8%, and other 1%), according to the 2012

CIA World Factbook. According to Hayashida (cited in Soontiens, 2007), Chinese presence still

prevails in Singapore’s cultural heritage: most Chinese Singaporeans, young and old, maintain

traditional Chinese values and connections.

Unlike Singapore, Malaysia is predominantly Muslim. Malaysians tend to judge other

people by “how well and to what extent a person adheres to certain ideals of speech and action”

as dictated by Islamic tradition (Goddard, 1997, p. 186). Malaysian “ideals of speech and action”

(including relational conduct) are reinforced by strict cultural norms and guidelines. Under the


9

Malaysian Constitution, being Malay means practicing Islamic laws and adat (customary Islamic

norms and practices). The UK-colonized Malaysia retains a modern political system that still

emulates the British one and still uses English as a language of commerce and education.

Nevertheless, its Constitution states Islam as the official religion of the state and assumes that all

Malays are Muslim (Nagata, 1994).

Malaysia has long been influenced by traditional cultures such as China, India, and other

Asian societies, instead of the West, especially in their reliance on social networks (e.g., family

and relationship rules) (Kling, 1995). Recently, some Malaysian groups have tried to counteract

modern, progressive beliefs in hopes to eradicate presumed influence of the West and to restore

Islamic practices over personal choice, free love marriage, and gender equality within the family

(Stivens, 2006). According to the 2010 cultural map, Malaysia is located in Quadrant 4, a self-

expression/traditional values zone. Malaysia and the US both lie in Quadrant 4, although the US

espouses self-expression values more strongly (Figure 1).

1.4 Culture and Relational Maintenance

Relational maintenance behaviors are probably much more relevant and effective in self-

expression values societies versus survival values societies. Self-expression values societies

emphasize individuals’ freedom of speech and subjective wellbeing, as average members feel

secure and do not worry about daily physical survival (Inglehart & Welzel, 2005). On the

contrary, in a survival values society, people perceive that they struggle to achieve physical

security for their extended family and relationships to which they feel obliged. Ordinary

members in survival values countries tend to accept social inequality due to status, sex, and age

as status quo and attribute it to a function of enduring structural factors. In addition, members of


10

survival countries do not expend much energy on fulfilling personal needs, such as developing

romantic bonds, unlike their self-expression values counterparts. This description of self-

expression values societies indicates that, theoretically, a country’s level of cultural

modernization affects how people enter and maintain their romantic relationships. CMT suggests

that romantic partners within those countries adopt behaviors congruent with self-expression

values and are more likely to employ relational maintenance strategies than do those living in

survival values countries.

The connection between cultural modernization and relational maintenance strategies

found support in Yum and Canary (2009). Recruiting participants from six countries across East

Asia, North America, and Europe, Yum and Canary used CMT to explain relational maintenance

strategies across cultures. These authors also relied on equity theory to predict the use of

maintenance strategies within each country. Two findings appear most salient to this study.

First, individuals living in countries that promote self-expression values employ more

maintenance strategies than do their survival values counterparts. For instance, people in the US

and Spain used more maintenance strategies than did people in China, Japan, and Korea. Second,

extreme rational values likely discourage energies to maintain personal relationships. For

example, Japanese participants, who scored the highest on rational values, report the least use of

relational maintenance strategies (Figure 1). One can speculate that self-expression and

traditional values in combination promote the use of maintenance strategies. However, Yum and

Canary’s findings are limited because they only sampled US participants for the traditional

values zone. Yum and Canary’s results do not represent all types of cultural values. For example,

the inverse link between rational values and perceived use of relational maintenance strategies

was based on data only from countries in Quadrant 1 (rational/survival values), excluding those


11

in Quadrant 3 (survival/traditional values). At the same time, self-expressive participants were

sampled for both Quadrants 2 and 4 (traditional vs. rational values). Accordingly, one cannot

make strong inferences regarding participants who share traditional values but differ in their

survival/self-expression values.

One other study focused on rational values and relational quality (Kamo, 1993). Kamo

compared relational satisfaction factors between Japanese wives to US American wives and

found that, for Japanese wives, tangible material rewards (e.g., husbands’ income level) were

associated with marital satisfaction. American wives’ responses displayed a stronger connection

of intangible rewards (e.g., husbands’ emotional support) with marital satisfaction. Although

both Japan and the US rank highly on economic modernization, wealth, and self-expressive

values, the US defends traditional values while Japan champions rational values. Consistent with

Kamo, Yum and Canary found that Japanese participants rely the least on relational maintenance

communication than do their counterparts in the other five countries sampled.

Theoretically, people in survival/traditional values cultures (Quadrant 3) emphasize such

behaviors as traditional mate selection practices and specific sex role expectations (e.g.,

women’s chastity and good homemaking). In addition, in-group harmony constitutes a basis of

relationship maintenance (Buss, Abbot, Angleitner, Asharian, Biaggio, Biaagio-Villasenor et al.,

1990). According to Buss et al., among 37 countries from six continents, traditional values

cultures favor chastity more than rational values cultures do. According to CMT, relational

communication in survival/traditional values societies tends to be scripted, formal, and

inexpressive. Malaysia, Singapore, and the US are similar in their traditional values on the

cultural map; yet, they vary in self-expression values. Comparing Singapore, Malaysia, and the


12

US in their maintenance behaviors could offer new information regarding the influences of

tradition, religion, and social norms guiding relational maintenance communication.

One reviewer of this study suggested that relationships in alternative cultures vary in how

much freedom social actors have in maintaining them. S/he suggested that cultures promote two

types of relationship—relationships of choice or relationships of obligation. Clearly, this

suggestion can expand the conversation (e.g., in terms of underlying reasons for choice vs.

obligation). This speculation also complements the previous pages describing why partners in

self-expression, versus survival values, nations enjoy greater freedom in selecting, developing,

and maintaining romantic relationships. Relationships of choice more likely require ongoing

proactive and positive maintenance behaviors to remain satisfying and stable. Relationships of

obligation require little maintenance communication because such behaviors are probably moot

in terms of keeping a close relationship stable, situated within the larger extended family

network. Given the above material about the distinction between survival and self-expression

values, the first hypothesis follows:

Hypothesis 1: US and Malaysian participants report using more maintenance strategies

than do Singaporean participants.

1.5 Equity and Relational Maintenance

Equity provides a standard of fairness in both social and personal relationships, which has

been found to operate around the world (Hatfield, Rapson, & Aumer-Ryan, 2008). Equity

assesses fairness by comparing the perceived ratios of outcomes/inputs between the partners in

question (Adams, 1965; Walster, Walster, & Bersheid, 1978). Outcomes refer to benefits a


13

person receives from the relationship, and inputs refer to what one gives to the relationship (see

Hatfield et al., 2008, for various kinds of outcomes and inputs).

Equity theory proposes that partners can perceive themselves as experiencing three types

of relationships: equitable, overbenefited, or underbenefited (Hatfield, Traupmann, Sprecher,

Utne, & Hay, 1985; Sprecher, 2001). An equitable relationship emerges when both partners

perceive identical outcome/input ratios; that is, assessments of equal outcomes divided by inputs

indicates being fairly treated. Two types of inequity exist: overbenefited partners view their

outcome/input ratio to be higher than their partners’; whereas, underbenefited partners perceive

that their outcome/input ratio is lower than their partners’. Theoretically, relational satisfaction

and, by extension relational maintenance behavior, follows an inverted U pattern among equity

groups: overbenefited people are moderately satisfied but feel guilty due to their greater

outcomes per inputs; equitably treated people are highly satisfied given they are fairly treated;

and, underbenefited people are the most discontent, dissatisfied, and even sad and angry at their

situation (Guerrero, La Valy, & Farinelli, 2008; Hatfield et al., 1985, 2008).

People tend to use maintenance strategies in ways that equity theory predicts (Canary &

Stafford, 1992, 2001; Messman, Canary, & Hause, 2000; Stafford & Canary, 2006). That is,

partners’ assessments of fairness affect efforts to maintain their relationships. First, and

compared to the equitably treated people, overbenefited people employ a moderate amount of

maintenance strategies. Second, people in equitable relationships report that they use the most

maintenance strategies. Third, underbenefited individuals report the fewest attempts to maintain

their relationships. Connections among (in)equity and relational maintenance behaviors tend to

be culture-specific. Members of non-Western countries likely adhere to different rules of


14

fairness, such as equality (i.e., both partners deserve equal benefits, regardless of inputs) or need

(the person with the greater need deserves more benefits) (Powell, 2005). Partners in the US,

Spain, the Czech Republic, and Japan have curvilinear (inverted U) patterns in the equity-

maintenance behavior link (Yum & Canary, 2009). The common denominator among these

countries is that they all espouse self-expression values (e.g., egalitarianism and appreciation of

spontaneity and individuality) and encourage people to seek individual rights and fairness

(Inglehart & Welzel, 2005, 2010). For example, people in South Korea and China do not

conform to the curvilinear association predicted by equity theory (Yum & Canary). Instead, they

both espouse survival and rational values, and participants in these countries use maintenance

strategies most when they feel overbenefited, perhaps following the need standards of fairness.

The question remains regarding what the equity-maintenance connection looks like for

partners in countries with survival/traditional values. Two types of societies require exploration

to address this question. The first type of society adheres to a balance between survival and self-

expression values (e.g., Malaysia). These countries reside within but near the border of survival

and self-expression values on the cultural map. For these countries, one cannot determine

whether equity principles remain in force without clear post-materialistic transformation and a

strong set of modern values.

The second type of society espouses survival values (e.g., Singapore). Based on CMT,

the survival values countries might push relational partners to maximize their own rewards to

ensure equality (versus equity) between partners, or to assess fairness by complementing each

other’s basic needs (Powell, 2005). Theoretical differences in cultural values suggest that the

associations between equity and relational maintenance strategies will hold for self-expression


15

values countries versus survival values ones. Placed near the zero point of the self-expression

versus survival values axis, Malaysia is a self-expression values country in theory. According to

CMT, Malaysia and Singapore belong to the South Asian Cultures, the US to the English

Speaking Cultures.

Unlike the purely metric-based quadrants, CMT’s cultural clusters reflect the contact and

path dependence between the Malaysia and Singapore over the course of history. Yet the

implications of geographical proximity and cultural similarity between Malaysia and Singapore

in the context of relational maintenance from the perspective of equity theory have yet to be

examined. In a previous study, Inglehart and Welzel’s rational values orientation was not a

consistent indicator of the equity principle in practice (Yum & Canary, 2009). Geographically

close and culturally similar Confucian Cultures (China, Korea, and Japan) on the cultural map

showed divergent patterns of the equity-maintenance link in the empirical test: Japan (self-

expression culture) showed the equity-maintenance pattern congruent with that of the US and

equity theory; and China and Korea (survival cultures) displayed a similar pattern that countered

equity theory. Hence, arguing that Malaysia resembles the US more than Singapore due to her

self-expression values orientation indicates a clear and stringent test of CMT. Thus, we speculate

that the equity-maintenance link should hold in Malaysia as it does in the US.

Hypothesis 2: For US and Malaysian participants (but not Singaporean participants),

equitably treated people use more maintenance strategies than do overbenefited and

underbenefited people.


16

1.6 Sex Differences and Relational Maintenance

Women tend to be more attentive to relational transactions and spend more time

discussing relationships than do men (Acitelli, 1992). Women, versus men, in Western societies

also tend to view relationships in pragmatic terms (Frazier & Esterly, 1990). Women tend to be

more pragmatic because in a vast majority of cultures women assume the “social-emotional

specialists” role and hold higher standards to develop and maintain romantic relationships

(Frazier & Esterly, 1990). In Asian societies, women tend to be more pragmatic (than their

Western counterparts) because they value material needs over emotional needs (Kamo, 1993),

probably survival and self-esteem maintenance.

Women’s roles as relationship guardians would likely be presumed in countries such as

the US. Given their self-expression values orientation, US women likely assume greater agency

to sustain their relationships. However, strong cultural mores as found in survival values

societies prescribe both sexes how to behave. Although Malaysians in theory advocate self-

expression values (Inglehart & Welzel), other research shows that the Malaysian social structure

discourages premarital individuals from following their desires and nudges them to follow rigid

cultural scripts regarding romantic involvements and courtship (Kling, 1995; Stivens, 2006).

Such social pressures against premarital dating and gender role-specific norms prevalent in

Singapore and Malaysia would render the notion of diverse maintenance strategies moot. This

reasoning leads us to our last hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: Sex differences affect the use of maintenance strategies in the United States

to a greater extent than they do in Malaysia and Singapore.


17

Method

2.1 Procedure and Participants

Participants reported being in a romantic relationship that was at least 12 months in

duration. This included 325 participants from the US (80 men and 245 women), 190 from

Malaysia (59 men and 131 women), and 64 from Singapore (14 men and 50 women). The mean

age was 20.61 (SD=1.45, Range=18-55) for the US, 20.47 (SD = 1.38, Range=18-39) for

Malaysia, and 20.72 (SD=1.55, Range=19-29) for Singapore. A majority of the participants were

in a dating relationship (n=249, over 76.6%, for the US; n=185, 97.4%, for Malaysia; and n=61,

95.3%, for Singapore). The remaining participants were engaged (n=25 for the US), married (20

for the US and 4 for Malaysia), or cohabitating (31 for the US, 1 Malaysia, and 3 Singapore).

The average relationship length was 28.7 months (SD=19.0) for the US, 30.9 months (SD=25.4)

for Malaysia, and 31.6 months (SD=20.1) for Singapore. Most US participants identified as

White/European (n=277, over 85%), 19 (6%) as two or more races, 12 (4%) as Non-White

Hispanic/Latino, 11 as Black/African, and 4 as Other. A majority of participants from Malaysia

identified as Malay (n=103, 54%), 31 (16%) as Chinese, and 24 (13%) as Other. Singaporeans

consisted of Chinese (n=57, 87%), Malay (3, 4.7%), Indian (2, 3%), Mixed Race (1, 1.6%), and

Other (1, 1.6%).

Participants from the US were solicited from four in-person classes and one online class

at a large Midwestern, public university and a class at a small public university in the Southeast

US. Participants from Malaysia were recruited from eight classes at a large public university and

four classes at a large private university. The four on-campus classes in the US and the eight

classes in Malaysia were general education classes attended by students from a wide variety of

majors. Singaporean participants were college students in a large introductory-level class who


18

responded to an online survey delivered by Axio Survey (https://online.ksu.edu/Survey/).

English is one of the official languages in Singapore and constitutes the common language of the

nation for education, business, and government. Part of the Malaysian questionnaires were

written in English for private university students and collected in one online class and two in-

person classes. Although English is no longer an official language in Malaysia, the language of

delivery is English in this university and hence the students speak English with a native-level

fluency. All other Malaysian participants were recruited from a public university in Malaysia and

completed a hard-copy version of the survey in class, for whom a Malay language version of the

survey was developed by one of the authors and a Malaysian collaborator (both native speakers

of the Malay language and fluent bilinguals) using the back-translation method (Brislin, Lonner,

& Thorndike, 1973). Considering that part of the US and Malaysian data was collected online,

the potential disparity between on- and offline data was tested with t-tests. Results indicated no

significant differences for any of the dependent variables at p < .05.

2.2 Instruments

2.2.1 Relational Maintenance

The Relationship Maintenance Strategies Measure (RMSM, Canary & Stafford, 1992)

assesses maintenance communication in close relationships. Sample items include: “I have tried

to be romantic, fun, and interesting with him/her” (Positivity), “I have encouraged my partner to

disclose his/her thoughts and feelings to me” (Openness), “I have implied that our relationship

had a future” (Assurances), “I have included friends and family in our activities” (Social

Networks), and “I have done my fair share of the work that we had to do” (Sharing Tasks).

Participants responded to the statements by indicating their own behaviors within the preceding

two weeks using a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The


19

RMSM has demonstrated excellent reliability and validity (Canary, 2011). In this study,

reliability (α) coefficients of the scales for the US were .88 (Openness), .86 (Positivity), .82

(Assurances), .72 (Social Networks), and .89 (Sharing Tasks); for Malaysia: .86, .83, .80, .73,

and .81; and for Singapore: .88, .87, .82, .66, and .86.

2.2.2 Equity

The Hatfield Global Measure of Equity/Inequity (HGM: Hatfield, 1978) assessed

perceptions of relational equity. This standard measure of equity has shown excellent predictive

validity (Sprecher, 2001). The measure asks, “Considering what you put into your relationship,

compared to what you get out of it, and what your partner puts in, compared to what (s)he gets

out of it, how does your relationship ‘stack up’ or ‘measure up’?” using a 7-point scale: 1 (My

partner is getting a much better deal) to 7 (I am getting a much better deal than my partner).

Individuals who scored 1 to 3 are classified as underbenefited, people who scored 4 are equitably

treated, and participants who score 5 to 7 are overbenefited. Following Hatfield, scores were

reversed such that overbenefitedness was coded a 1, equity was coded a 2, and

underbenefitedness was coded a 3. Overall, 112 participants reported they were overbenefited,

312 were equitably treated, and 179 were underbenfited. These figures mirror other equity

research using Hatfield’s measure.

2.2.3 Culture

Culture was operationalized by three countries that vary in cultural values, as indicated in

Inglehart and Welzel’s (2005) WVS map (Figure 1): Traditional-Religious versus Secular-

Rational Values (traditional-rational, henceforth) and Survival versus Self Expression Values

(survival-self expression). As stated, the three countries selected for this study are very close to

one another in traditional values orientation (the indexes are -.81 for the US, -.73 for Malaysia,


20

and -.54 for Singapore); however, they vary considerably on the survival-self expression

continuum. Specifically, Malaysia and the US are placed in Quadrant 4 (traditional/self

expression) but are still significantly distant from each other on survival-self expression (the US

= 1.76, Malaysia = .09). Singapore, on the other hand, is located in Quadrant 3, with a survival-

self expression index of -.28. Malaysia and the US scores were from the 5th wave of the WVS

data collection (2005-7), whereas Singapore’s scores were from the 4th wave data collection

(1999-2004), because Singapore was included only in the 4th wave data collection, and Malaysia

was included only in the 5th.

2.3 Analysis Plan

Our analysis plan for all hypothesis tests entailed a three-pronged strategy. (1) First, we

use MANOVA for examining group differences in multivariate associations, or the linear

combination of all five maintenance strategies and their covariances. In this way, MANOVA F-

tests reveal whether country, equity, and/or sex differences affect the use of maintenance

strategies in general. (2) Next, to discover significant omnibus group differences at the univariate

level for each of the five maintenance strategies we relied on ANOVA F-tests. (3) Finally, if the

ANOVA F-tests were significant, then we used a priori planned contrasts to test whether culture

(H1), culture by equity (H2), and culture by sex (H3) affect the use of maintenance strategies as

predicted. Because our hypotheses are directional, a priori directional contrasts were used rather

than post hoc non-directional contrasts.

For Hypothesis 1, this meant comparing cultural group differences for each maintenance

strategy and then following the general tests using a priori contrasts. Hypothesis 2 proposes a

curvilinear association between equity and maintenance. Accordingly, polynomial contrasts test

linear as well as curvilinear (our prediction) connections between group differences and


21

individual maintenance strategies. Finally, Hypothesis 3 predicts sex differences but only in the

US. As before, MANOVA was employed and then ANOVAs were run for each maintenance

strategy. Differences between the sexes were also examined within each culture to test H3.

3.0 Results

Hypothesis 1 predicted differences in the use of relational maintenance strategies

according to culture: specifically, US and Malaysian participants, and the US respondents alone,

engage in more relational maintenance strategies than did Singaporeans. Table 1 (Appendix B)

reports the means and standard deviations of maintenance strategies by country and significant

contrasts between each country.

MANOVA yielded a significant F-value, F(2, 580) = 18.15, p < .001, which accounted

for 13 percent of the variance in maintenance strategies, η2 = .13. Moreover, ANOVAs revealed

significant differences occurred for all five maintenance strategies: positivity F(2,580) = 15.30, p

< .001; η2 = .05; openness F = 15.58, p < .001; η2 = .05; assurances F = 33.49, p < .001; η2 = .10;

social networks F = 24.40, p < .001; η2 = .08; and sharing tasks F = 15.58, p < .001; η2 = .09.

Hypothesis 1 was supported. The Malaysian and US participants (self-expression/

traditional, Quadrant 4) differed from Singapore participants (survival/traditional, Quadrant 3). A

series of a priori contrasts for the five maintenance strategies compared the US and Malaysia to

Singapore, the US to Singapore, and Malaysia to Singapore. A priori contrasts revealed that the

US and Malaysian participants used all five relational maintenance strategies significantly more

than did Singaporean participants: positivity t = 8.58, p < .001; openness t = 7.61, p < .001;

assurances t = 12.16, p < .001; social networks t = 10.30, p < .001; and sharing tasks t = 11.62, p

< .001. Also, US participants engaged in more maintenance strategies than did Singaporean

participants: positivity t = 7.95, p < .001; openness t = 7.21, p < .001; assurances t = 12.39, p <


22

.001; social networks t = 12.02, p < .001; and sharing tasks t = 10.48, p < .001. Next, Malaysians

reported greater use of maintenance strategies compared to Singaporeans, positivity t = 7.95, p <

.001; openness t = 7.21, p < .001; assurances t = 12.39, p < .001; social networks t = 12.02, p <

.001; and sharing tasks t = 10.48, p < .001. Finally, US and Malaysian participants reported

similar uses of positivity, openness, and sharing tasks, whereas US participants had higher self-

reports of assurances, t = 2.03, p < .05, and social networks, t = 4.51, p < .001, than did

Malaysians.

Hypothesis 2 predicted that culture moderates the connection between equity and

relational maintenance strategies. The second hypothesis was supported. MANOVA revealed a

significant interaction term involving equity and country, F(5, 587) = 2.84, p < .05, η2 = .02.

The theoretic curvilinear association between equity and relational maintenance behaviors was

found only for the US participants, as predicted. Table 2 (Appendix C) reports the means and

standard deviations for equity group by country.

Polynomial contrasts revealed univariate quadratic (but not linear) effects on four

maintenance strategies of US participants: positivity, F(1, 343) = 12.46; assurances, F(1, 343) =

18.40; social networks, F(1, 343) = 5.92, and sharing tasks, F(1, 343) = 14.18. A priori contrasts

revealed that equitably treated participants reported significantly greater use of positivity,

assurances, social networks, and sharing tasks than did overbenefited and underbenefited people

combined. In addition, equitably treated participants reported a significantly greater use of

positivity, assurances, social networks, and sharing tasks than did underbenefited people. And

equitably treated participants reported significantly greater use of positivity, assurances, and

social networks than did overbenefited people.2 For Malaysian participants, F-tests revealed only

one linear association, between assurances and equity groups, F(1, 194) = 5.05. Examination of


23

the means implicated a negative association between overbenefitedness and use of assurances.

For Singaporean participants, however, a significant quadratic effect due to equity emerged for

sharing tasks, F(1, 61) = 4.28. As well, equitably treated people in self expression cultures used

the most relational maintenance strategies, followed by people who feel overbenefited and

underbenefited.3

One interaction effect was disordinal, F(2, 176) = 23.79, p < .001. Overbenefited and

equitably treated US participants tended to use more assurances than did their Malaysian

counterparts. However, the reverse was true regarding Malaysian participants. Underbenefited

Malaysian participants reported using more assurances than did underbenefited US participants.

The projected equity-maintenance relationship was supported for the entire sample, F(5,

580) = 3.55, p < .01, η2 = .03. ANOVAs revealed that equity groups significantly (i.e., p < .05)

differed in the use of positivity, F(2, 604) = 7.26, assurances F(2, 604) = 11.00, social networks,

F(2, 604) = 4.01, and sharing tasks, F(2, 604) = 10.99. These F-tests indicated that differences

occur somewhere among the three cultural groups. To investigate which groups differ as H1

explicates, polynomial contrasts revealed that equity had a significant linear effect on assurances,

F(1, 604) = 6.09, and sharing tasks, F(1, 604) = 10.76. Analyses of the plots revealed that the

linear effects were due to increases in overbenefitedness; the overbenefited group had the lowest

scores on assurances and sharing tasks. At the same time, and consistent with equity theory, four

of the five maintenance strategies had significant higher-order quadratic effects: positivity, F(1,

604) = 14.49; assurances, F(1,604) = 18.96; social networks, F(1, 604) = 7.79; and sharing tasks,

F(1, 604) = 15.98.

Hypothesis 3 predicted that effects of sex differences on relational maintenance strategies

are moderated by culture, given that women in the US (vs. South Asia) tend to be more


24

relationally attuned. As predicted, only US women used more relational maintenance strategies

than did US men. MANOVA revealed a significant interaction effect involving sex differences

and country, F(5, 580) = 3.06, p < .05, η2 = .03 (see Table 3). Consistent with H3, planned

contrasts for each country showed that, for US participants only, sex differences were significant

for openness, t(344) = 5.30, assurances t(344) = 4.24, social networks, t(344) = 4.40, and sharing

tasks, t(344) = 2.07. For each test, women used more maintenance strategies than did men.

However, for Malaysian and Singaporean participants, no sex differences in the use of relational

maintenance strategies emerged. Although statistically insignificant, results showed a tendency

of Malaysian men to use all five strategies more than did women. In a similar vein, (although

insignificant) Singaporean men reported using three strategies slightly more than did women,

which were positivity, assurances, and sharing tasks.

MANOVA indicated a significant main effect due to sex differences, F(5, 579) = 2.43, p

< .05, η2 = .02. Follow-up contrasts revealed that women used three strategies significantly (p <

.05) more than did men: openness t = 3.82, assurances, t = 2.24, and social networks, t = 1.94.

Table 3 (Appendix D) reports the means and standard deviations of relational maintenance

strategies according to sex and country.

Discussion

The present study builds on research regarding the roles of culture and equity in

maintaining romantic relationships. Sex differences are also considered. Informed by cultural

modernization theory (Inglehart & Welzel, 2005, 2010), this study compares three countries that

converge on traditional values but diverge on self-expression values: Singapore, Malaysia, and

the US. The findings suggest that the use of relational maintenance strategies, equity (a Western

construct of fairness), and biological sex in relation to relational maintenance strategies tend to


25

change along the continuum of survival-self expression values. For instance, religious and

philosophical legacy represents a major factor in predicting maintenance strategies. Equity as an

indicator of fairness appears to be a product of modernization and strong liberalism. These

findings merit further discussion.

First, cultural differences in relational maintenance strategies can be explained by cultural

modernization theory. People in self-expression societies (the US and Malaysia) employed more

maintenance strategies than did those in survival societies (Singapore). The results support the

authors’ argument that self-expression is a main contributor to relational maintenance efforts. In

a previous study, Yum and Canary (2009) could not make this conclusion, because traditional

values were not controlled and no countries in Quadrant 3 (survival/traditional values) were

sampled. The participating countries in the present study are similar in their traditional values

orientation but diverge only along the survival-self expression values axis. The present study

enables a stronger conclusion that self-expression values promote the use of proactive and

constructive relational maintenance strategies and moderate the role of equity and sex in

maintaining relationships.

On the WVS cultural map, Malaysia (.09) lies near the low end of the self-expression

values zone (Quadrant 4) and is closer to Singapore (-.28) located in Quadrant 3 than to the US

(1.67) in Quadrant 4. Yet, findings support using categorical type, survival values versus self-

expression values, instead of distance. First, both the US and Malaysian participants self-

reported greater uses of relational maintenance strategies compared to the Singaporean

participants. Moreover, Malaysian participants exhibited negligible differences from Americans.

These findings support the idea that self-expressive countries share similar views regarding


26

maintenance strategies. On the other hand, a culture of survival values (Quadrant 3) discourages

use of maintenance strategies. Consistent with CMT, these findings indicate that different

cultural values create different relational realities for their residents. Historically, cultures have

prescribed how romantic partners should engage each other. As societies evolve beyond

prosperity and toward self-fulfillment, people in self-expression countries might remain

motivated not to rely on conventions and norms but to create the nature of their romantic

relationships and maintain their relationships with strategies that have proven effective.

Differences between Malaysia and the US also emerged, wherein US participants

reported greater use of two maintenance strategies — assurances and social networks. The use of

assurances by Americans represents the reality that individual choice is important to relationship

bonds. In Bellah’s terms, contemporary Americans subscribe to expressive individualism

(Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, & Tipton, 1985), which is similar to Inglehart and Welzel’s

self-expression values. Accordingly, use of assurances reflects expressive individualism—a dual

obligation to express oneself and to assure one’s partner of his/her affection and commitment. In

the US, people tend to express their love and exclusivity to anchor their relationships;

Malaysians, on the other hand, might feel discouraged from expressing their commitment, at

least through direct communication (e.g., self-disclosure), for they might feel more constrained

by religious codes and preexisting kin networks. Relatively speaking, commitment is probably

assumed in Malaysia, whereas it remains conditional in the US.

In addition, results regarding social networks reflect one way that US romantic partners

help cement their relationships, by relying on supportive friends and family members. However,

in Malaysia, couple relationships reflect a part of the grand kinship structure, which is


27

subordinate to religion and the state. As mentioned, Malaysians’ behaviors are prescribed by

norms and rituals deeply rooted in Islamic teachings (Goddard, 1997). Also, Malaysian romantic

couples are unlikely to go public in a purely dating stage. These couples typically wait until they

become serious before going public. This could be partly due to the fact that premarital dating is

discouraged for college students - for social and pragmatic reasons, a phenomenon common in

most Asian societies. Accordingly, the strategic use of social networks by dating couples is

simply not normative in Malaysia.

Overall, these findings extend our understanding of cultural influences on relational

maintenance communication. One can have a greater confidence to suggest that the use of

maintenance strategies positively connects to self-expression values that exist in the US and

other cultures that share these values. Modernization, Westernization, and relationship

maintenance comport with self-expression values (Inglehart & Welzel; see also Buss et al.,

1990). In other words, relational maintenance represents a social construct. The notion that

people use communication strategies to preserve their relationships is probably inappropriate or

even uneconomical to people who live in more utilitarian, survival-values countries. For

example, Singaporeans, although economically affluent yet socially constrained by their

Confucian tradition, expend less energy to maintain their relationships than do their Malaysian

and US counterparts. The implications for maintenance researchers become clear: (1) we should

limit generalizations about relational maintenance behaviors to countries with cultural values

similar to the West. At the same time, (2) we should promote research regarding how partners in

countries culturally dissimilar to the US maintain their relationships. Most likely, individuals in

different cultures rely on sets of alternative maintenance behavior.


28

Third, principles of equity are relevant to relational maintenance in societies with strong

self-expression values, where egalitarian beliefs are established and expected. In the present

study, only the US, which strongly espouses self-expression values according to the WVS-based

cultural map, exhibited the curvilinear maintenance patterns congruent with the equity standard

of fairness. Americans reported the greatest use of relationship maintenance strategies when they

perceive equity, versus feeling underbenefited or overbenefited. These results suggest that equity

provides a Western standard for fairness. Previously, the assumptions of equity theory did not

apply to the Confucian cultures of China and South Korea, both of which espouse survival values

(Yum & Canary, 2009). Malaysia affiliates with self-expression values but is clustered as a

South Asian culture, according to Inglehart and Welzel’s CMT. Accordingly, we believe that

social actors rely more on equity than other standards of fairness (e.g., equality and need) in the

societies culturally similar to the US. On the other hand, young Asians probably still view the

maintenance of relationship as enacting the status quo from a holistic and systemic perspective.

In Asia, women can feel overbenefited relative to men, because dating couples often study

together and the male partners treat their women to meals on a regular basis. Both activities are

considered as routine and strategic maintenance in Asia, as premarital dating is discouraged.

However, US women are less likely to consider these joint activities as special or romantic.

Young Asian men, on the other hand, might feel underbenefited because they more typically

assess the financial cost of staying in a romantic relationship.

Fourth, the present study shows that relational maintenance strategies vary according to

sex differences across cultures. At the same time, however, sex differences were affected by

cultural values. Sex differences were significant only for US participants. US women engaged in

more maintenance strategies than did the US men (Table 3). This finding probably stems from


29

the fact that, in the US, women are more attentive to relational exchanges and spend more time

thinking about relationships than do men (Acitelli, 1992). Sensitivity to safeguarding close

relationships reflects US women’s tendency to adopt a more active role in maintaining

relationships. It appears that in a gender-egalitarian and individualistic culture such as the US,

romantic partners prefer mutually benefitting, equitable relationships, which encourages women

to express themselves freely and participate in various kinds of decision-making communication.

On the contrary, partners in survival values societies (e.g., Singapore) tend to perform gender-

role specific activities and duties, primarily according to the Confucian code for propriety and

face maintenance (e.g., Yum, 1988).

According to CMT, economic development through modernization not only garners

affluence but also emphasizes rationality, individuality, and emotional wellbeing in societies that

espouse self-expression values (Inglehart & Welzel, 2010). Asian college students might believe

in sexual equality although they are not yet culturally equipped to apply egalitarian norms in

their own involvements. University women who live in self-expression values societies (e.g., the

US) likely promote personal freedom and relational equity in their desire to lead a fulfilling life

within their romantic pursuits (Cherlin, 2010). Within that cultural context, women probably

discuss their (ongoing and imaginary) relationships, (re-)assure their partners of their

commitment (expecting a response in kind from them), and engage in other acts and activities to

keep the relationships in the way they want them to.

One interesting finding worthy of attention is a trend for Malaysian men to report greater

use of all five maintenance strategies than women. Malaysian men reported using maintenance

strategies as often as their US counterparts but more frequently than their Singaporean


30

counterparts, despite the fact that Malaysian men reported being most underbenefited of all

groups. This anomaly is not explained by theory. Perhaps Malaysian men as a group feel

underbenefited but still use constructive maintenance strategies out of religious duty, as the head

of the household and role model of the extended family network, regardless of the amount of

their counterparts’ inputs. Malaysian men expend more effort perhaps because maintaining

relationships to protect their women and extended family network remains part of their sex-role

specific expectation. All in all, this finding is an anomaly to the West-constructed theories such

as equity theory according to which underbenefited people tend to reduce their positive

contributions to the relationship and/or increase costs to their partner.

Conclusions

The present study presents a different picture of how cultural values affect relational

maintenance strategies, informed by Inglehart and Welzel’s (2005, 2010) cultural modernization

theory as well as equity theory. The study also offers insight as to whether differences in

survival-self expression values affect the meaning of fairness (equity) and subsequently the use

of relational maintenance strategies in romantic relationships. Findings largely support the

predictive power of cultural modernization theory and equity theory in the realm of relational

maintenance communication.

Still, this study contains limitations that need to be addressed in the future research. First,

although the societies might have a similar degree of traditional values, they most likely vary in

practices and religious teachings about relational maintenance and interpersonal communication.

The variation in this study primarily reflects Christianity (the US), Islam (Malaysia), and

Confucianism (Singapore). Accordingly, the concept of path dependence (i.e., a society’s


31

idiosyncrasy attributed to its history), which CMT postulates, merits a mention. That is, a path is

greater than select numeric values used to organize and signify cultural dimensions. Qualitative

research could help sort similarities from differences among societies that are dissimilar due to

history, religion, as well as social change. Also, qualitative researchers could investigate

differences between Singapore and other Confucian cultures, between Malaysia and other

Islamic cultures, and between the US and other Christian cultures. To separate the effects of

societal values from religion and historical legacy, researchers could collect data from countries

close to each other on the WVS map and make more exhaustive cross-national comparisons.

In addition, future studies should consider how relational maintenance patterns and

expectations vary according to indicators of the quality of life of a given country, such as

economic freedom, press freedom, civil liberties, and political rights. In the present study, the

three countries vary quantitatively and categorically on the Freedom in the World 2013

(Malaysia=partly free, Singapore=partly free, the US=free), 2013 Index of Economic Freedom

(moderately free, free, mostly free), 2013 Press Freedom Index (difficult situation, difficult

situation, good situation), and 2012 Democracy Index (flawed, hybrid regime, full) (in that

order).

Finally, we used a one-shot convenience sample from all three nations with unequal

sample sizes. This fact constrains our ability to make strong generalizations regarding

maintenance communication across countries with different cultural values. In the future,

researchers could attempt to include matched samples across countries. Although our research

also considers married populations, we should examine cohort effects and concomitant changes

in cultural trends with respect to relational maintenance behaviors over time. Even among

Chinese Singaporeans, value changes have already begun (Soontiens, 2007). Other societies


32

might grasp tighter onto their way of life in the face of cultural change, as witnessed in the

increased disagreement about arranged marriages in the Middle East (Khallad, 2005) and other

parts of the world.

Globalization affects relational beliefs and maintenance communication; for example, the

media coverage of Chinese college students’ anecdotes on relationship trends demonstrates a

slow yet dynamic infusion of modern values in traditional societies with different historical paths

or cultural legacies. Furthermore, the “rough justice” practiced on some lovers for their alleged

violations of the religious protocols (Healy, 2011, July, 30) indicate that country’s dominant

religion and its teachings should be taken into account, using both quantitative and qualitative

data. As the world continues integrating economically, politically, and socially, people in diverse

countries might consume the same cultural products but, as the present study shows, they still

think and act differently to maintain their close relationships.


33

References

Acitelli, L. K. (1992). Gender differences in relationship awareness and marital satisfaction

among young married couples. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 102-

110.

Adams, J. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advancing in experimental

social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). New York: Academic Press.

Ballard-Reich, D. S., Weigel, D. J., & Zaguidoulline (1999). Relational maintenance behaviors,

marital satisfaction and commitment in Tatar, Russian and mixed Russian/Tatar

marriages: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Family Issues, 20, 677–697.

Bellah, R., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (1985). Habits of the

heart: Individualism and commitment in America. Berkeley, CA: University of California

Press.

Brislin, R. W., Lonner, W. J., & Thorndike, R. M. (1973). Cross-cultural research methods.

New York, NY: Wiley.

Buss, D. M., Abbot, M., Angleitner, A., Asharian, A., Biaggio, A., & Blanco-Villasenor, A. et al.

(1990). International preferences in selecting mates: A study of 37 cultures. Journal of

Cross-Cultural Psychology, 21, 5-47. DOI: 10.1177/0022022190211001

Canary, D. J. (2011). On babies, bathwater, and absolute claims: Reply to Stafford. Journal of

Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 304-311. DOI: 10.1177/0265407510397523


34

Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1992). Relational maintenance strategies and equity in marriage.

Communication Monographs, 59, 243-266. DOI: 10.1080/03637759209376268

Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (1993). Preservation of relational characteristics: Maintenance

strategies, equity, and locus of control. In P. J. Kalbfleisch (Ed.), Interpersonal

Communication: Evolving interpersonal relationships (pp. 237- 259). Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Canary, D. J., & Stafford, L. (2001). Equity in the preservation of personal relationships. In J.

Harvey & A. Welzel (Eds.), Close romantic relationships: Preservation and

enhancement (pp. 133–151). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.

Canary, D. J., Stafford, L., & Semic, B. A. (2002). A panel study of the association between

maintenance strategies and relational characteristic. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64,

395-406. DOI: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00395.x

Canary, D. J., & Wahba, J. (2006). Do women work harder than men at maintaining

relationships? In K. Dindia & D. J. Canary (Eds.), Sex differences and similarities in

communication (2nd ed.), pp. 359-377. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Cherlin, A. J. (2010). The marriage-go-round: The state of marriage and the family in America

today [Kindle Edition]. Vintage: New York, NY.

China Daily (2003, Aug 27). Dating: A tricky game for Chinese university women. Retrieved

from http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-08/27/content_258799.htm


35

China Daily (2009, Feb 12). Traditional courtship still fashionable. Retrieved from

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/hkedition/2009-02/12/content_7467580.htm

Frazier, P.A., & Esterly, E. (1990). Correlates of relationship beliefs: Gender, relationship

experience and relationship satisfaction. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7,

331-352.

Goddard, C. (1997). Cultural values and ‘cultural scripts’ of Malay (Bahasa Melayu). Journal of

Pragmatics, 27, 183-201. DOI: 10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00032-X

Guerrero, L. K., Eloy, S. V., & Wabnik, A. I. (1993). Linking maintenance strategies to

relationship development and disengagement: A reconceptualization. Journal of Social

and Personal Relationships. Special Issue: Relational Maintenance, 10, 273-283. DOI:

10.1177/026540759301000207

Goodwin, R. (1999). Personal relationships across cultures. London, UK: Routledge.

Guerrero, L. K., La Valley, A. G., & Farinelli, L. (2008). The experience and expression of

anger, guilt, and sadness in marriage: Any equity theory explanation. Journal of Social

and Personal Relationships, 25, 699-724.

Hatfield, E. (1978). The Hatfield Global Measure of equity/inequity. In E. Hatfield, G. W.

Walster & E. Berscheid, Equity: Theory and Research. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Hatfield, E., Rapson, R. L., & Aumer-Ryan, K. (2008). Social justice in love relationships:

Recent developments. Social Justice Research, 21, 413-431.


36

Hatfield, E., Traupmann, J., Sprecher, S., Utne, M., & Hay, M. (1985). Equity in close

relationships. In W. Ickes (Ed.), Compatible and incompatible relationships (pp. 91-117).

New York: Springer-Verlag.

Healy, J. (2011, July 30). In Afghanistan, rage at young lovers. The New York Times. Retrieved

from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/world/asia/31herat.html?pagewanted=all

Inglehart, R. (1997). Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic and political

change in 43 societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural change and democracy: The human

development sequence. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2010). Changing mass priorities: The link between modernization

and democracy. Perspectives on Politics, 8, 551-567. DOI: 10.1017/S1537592710001258

Kamo, Y. (1993). Determinants of marital satisfaction: A comparison of the United States and

Japan. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 551-568.

Khallad, Y. (2005). Mate selection in Jordan: Effects of sex, socio-economic status, and culture.

Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 155-168. DOI:

10.11777/0265407505050940

Kling, Z. (1995). The Malay family: Beliefs and realities. Journal of Comparative Family

Studies, 26, 43-49.

Ledbetter, A. M. (2009). Family communication patterns and relational maintenance behavior:

Direct and mediated associations with friendship closeness. Human Communication

Research, 35, 130–147.


37

Messman, S., Canary, D. J., & Hause, K. (2000). Motives to remain platonic, equity, and the use

of maintenance strategies in opposite-sex friendships. Journal of Social and Personal

Relationships, 17, 67-94. DOI: 10.1177/0265407500171004

Nagata, J. A. (1994). How to be Islamic without being an Islamic state. In A. Ahmed & H.

Donnan (Eds.), Islam, globalization and postmodernity (pp. 63–90). London, UK:

Routledge.

Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeir, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and

collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analysis. Psychological

Bulletin, 128, 3–72.

Powell, L. A. (2005). Justice judgments as complex psychocultural constructions: An equity-

based heuristic for mapping two- and three-dimensional fairness representations in

perceptual space. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 48–73.

Rusbult, C. E. (1987). Responses to dissatisfaction in close relationships: The exit-voice-loyalty-

neglect model. In D. Perlman & S. W. Duck (Eds.), Intimate relationships: Development,

dynamics, and deterioration (pp. 209–237). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Soontiens, W. (2007). Chinese ethnicity and values: A country cluster comparison. Cross

Cultural Management: An International Journal, 14, 321-335. DOI:

10.1108/13527600710830340


38

Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship type,

gender and relational characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8,

217-242. doi:10.1177/0265407591082004

Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (2006). Equity and interdependence as predictors of relationship

maintenance strategies. Journal of Family Communication, 6, 227-254. DOI:

10.1207/s15327698jfc0604_1

Stivens, M. (2006). ‘Family values’ and Islamic revival: Gender, rights and state moral projects

in Malaysia. Women’s Studies International Forum, 29, 354-367.

DOI:10.1016/j.wsif.2006.05.007

Walster, E., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and research. Boston, MA:

Allyn & Bacon.

Weigel, D. J., & Ballard-Reisch, D. S. (1999a). All marriages are not maintained equally: Marital

type, marital quality, and the use of maintenance behaviors. Personal Relationships, 6,

291–303. DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1999.tb00193.x

Weigel, D. J., & Ballard-Reisch, D. S. (1999b). Using paired data to test models of relational

maintenance and marital quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16, 175–

191. DOI: 10.1177/0265407599162003relat

Yum, Y., & Canary, D. J. (2003). Maintaining ionships in Korea and United States: Features


39

of Korean culture that affect relational maintenance beliefs and behaviors. In D. J. Canary

& M. Dainton (Eds.), Maintaining relationships through communication: Relational,

contextual, and cultural variations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Yum, J. O. (1988). The impact of Confucianism on interpersonal relationships and

communication patterns in East Asia. Communication Monographs, 55, 374-388.

Yum, Y., & Canary, D. J. (2009). Cultural differences in equity theory predictions of relational

maintenance strategies. Human Communication Research, 35, 384-406.

Yum, Y, & Li, H. Z. (2007). Associations among attachment style, maintenance strategies, and

relational quality across cultures. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 36,

71-89.


40

Author Notes 1 Cultural modernization theory provides one way to examine cultural values.

Accordingly, we use the formal theoretic terms interchangeably with the adjectives “self-

expressive,” “survival,” “traditional,” “rational,” and so forth

2Please contact the lead author for t-tests for these contrasts.

3Please contact the lead author for F-tests and t-tests for these contrasts.

Documents

The roles of culture and fairness in maintaining relationships: A comparison of romantic partners in Malaysia, Singapore, and the United State