Communication Behaviors between Close Friends and Romantic Partners in the U.S. and Russia

This study examined U.S. and Russian willingness to engage in communication behaviors for close friends and romantic partners. Students completed surveys and interviews on communication behaviors in the areas of disclosure, companionship, emotional support, conflict, and instrumental support. Interviews supported survey results for important qualities/behaviors for friends and romantic partners. U.S. and Russians students had more similarities than differences in communication behaviors for close friends and romantic partners. U.S. students perceived smaller differences between friends and romantic partners, but U.S. and Russians were more willing to engage in communication behaviors for romantic partners than close friends. Intercultural relationships offer unique and unexpected chall�nges. The definition of relationships across cultures, as well as what we call or name a relationship (i.e. close friend, friend, significant other, family or who we consider family) can vary. Cultural.beliefs, value dimensions, norms and social practices about such things as love, romance, and dating can be perceived quite differently when people are from different cultures. According to Gao (2001 ), even the meaning and function of terms such as love and romance may vary considerably from one relationship to another and from one culture to another. Such differing cultural orientations can cause disappointment and confusion within these relationships. As people move globally and become more interconnected, the opportunity for working together continues to increase. This highlights the importance of understanding the nature of relationships in such contexts to avoid misinterpretation of behaviors. Friendships and romantic relationships share some characteristics and behaviors and differ in significant behavioral ways. For example, what should one do or what is important for a romantic partner or close friend? Are these similar or different in various cultures? The purpose of this study was to examine communication behaviors in close friendships and romantic partners for the U.S. and Russia. Relationship Framework Henrick (1988) proposed that relationships are a set of processes with a social structure. Social behavior is rule governed (Harre & Secord, 1972). Rules are behaviors that members of a group or subculture expect should or should not be performed. Baxter and Bullis (1986) argue that rules keep relationships together and when rules are broken, deterioration and dissolution often occurs. These rules give relationships a sense of stability and predictability. (Furhman, Flannagan & Matamors, 2009). Scollo and Carbaugh (2013) stress the importance of culture in s�aping, understanding, and applying meaning to these behaviors (rules). One cultural lens used frequently in analyzing friendship and romantic relationships is Hofstede's collectivism/individualism (Dion & Dion, 1991; Dion &Dion 2005; Karandashev, 2011; DeMunch, Korotayev, deMunch, & Khaltourina 2011 ). Characteristics of individualism are attributes such as strong personal goals, autonomy, a loosely knit social framework, and looking after one's own immediate interests (Goodwin, 1999; Hofstede, 2001). Collectivism is characterized by a preference for group interaction as compared to individual achievement (Trandis, McCusker, & Hui, 1990) However, preference for group interaction is limited in that "collectivist societies are keen to protect and aid their in-group members, but they are not necessarily so helpful to those outside of the group" (Goodwin, 1999, p. 25). This cultural orientation helps people conceptualize themselves and what they experience or want from relationships. Individualists see themselves typically as a separate entity operating within a relatively loose social framework, while collectivists view themselves as part of more extended relationships in a smaller and more tightly held framework (Karandashev, 2011). This concept is related to Lim's (2009) construct of analytic and holistic. Analytic cultures like individualistic cultures are more apt to view the world independently and have many types of friends depending on the context while holistic cultures are more apt to have fewer friends and view a friend as a friend across contexts (Choi, Koo & Cjoi 2007). Russia U.S. Friendship Russians generally are rated as moderate in individualism/collectivism measures, but have many attributes of collectivism such as placing a high value on friendship and interdependence with a family group (Naumov & Puffer, 2000). The U.S. is considered highly individualistic and analytic on most measures and is more flexible in selections of social figures (friends) than collectivistic cultures (Realo & Allik, 1999). Sheets and Lugar (2005) found that the concept of friend may vary between U.S. and Russians. Using scenarios, they found that Russians were more sensitive to violations of betrayal by friends, less likely to confront a friend about an issue, and perceived themseives more in control of their emotions and emotional displays in relationships with friends than U.S. participants. Additionally, Russians reported having fewer friends, but expected more from them. Sheets and Lugar (2005) did not identify any types or categories of friends such as close, business, etc. in their study. While there is some research on Russia and U.S. friendship, much of the work to date is fragmentary and mainly focuses on cultural similarity, competence, personality and identity. (Gareis, 2012). Research by Schmidt, Uecker and Lau (2014) did identify types of friends ( close, business, and internet) and found differences between Russian, Croatian, and U.S. students in motivation for types of friends, noting that there were similarities in areas of emotional support, companionship, disclosure, advice and self-development. In forming close relationships, Russian students were significantly more motivated by material support than were U.S. students. By comparison, U.S. students were more motivated by trust and respect than Russian students. Russia U.S. Romantic Relationships Dion & Dion (1988) and Karandashev (2011) identify individualism/collectivism as a major cultural variable that influences similarities and differences in romantic relationships across cultures. For example, individualist cultures view being dependent on someone else as a negative. However, collectivist cultures view dependency as a sign of another persons' benevolence. They also found that the greater the level of individualism, the less love, care, and trust that was reported in romantic relationships (Dion & Dion, 1991). Furthermore, romantic love is less likely to be considered an important reason for marriage in collectivist cultures, but is considered the main reason to marry among individualists (Dion & Dion, 1993). Dion & Dion (2006) found that for collectivists love was more in what you did than in what you said. Most of the research on love has focused on perceptions and beliefs about love and love styles rather than communication behaviors (what one expects or will do for their romantic partner). Sprecher, Aron, Hatfield, Cortese, Potapova, & Levitskaya (1994) examined romantic beliefs' such as the importance of physical appearance, family/friend approval and beliefs about goals in the romantic relationship and found differences in love styles, falling in love predictors, and attachment types between Russian, U.S. and Japanese students. DeMunck, Korotayev, DeMunck, & Khaltourina (2011) focused on types of love (agape, ludus, pragma, mania) goals and beliefs rather than communication behaviors. They found that romantic love did exist for both Russian and U.S. students, but romance was defined differently. Collectivists (Russians) view love as more an unreal fairy tale that ends or is transferred while U.S participants viewed love as more realistic, less illusionary, including friendship as a necessary component of a successful love relationship. Pearce, Chuikova, Ramsey, & Galyautdinove (2010) focused on qualities desired in long term romantic partners including age, physique, and psychological traits such as forgiveness and gratitude. Limitations of Research One limitation of this research is that it has not studied close friendship and romantic partners in the same study which makes it difficult to compare results. As noted above friendship at least for the U.S. participants in De Munck et.al. (2011) was a critical component of love. An additional problem is that even when general categories for communication behavior are used such as forgiveness and disclosure, they are not well defined. It is not clear that the participants understood the communication concept being discussed. ·For example, in looking at friendship, Schmidt et al. (2014) found differences in general affective areas such as disclosure, emotional support, trust and respect, and companionship between Russia and the U.S. However, when analyzing specific communication behaviors (actions such as sharing information) between business and close friends, they discovered inconsistencies compared to earlier findings (Schmidt & Uecker, 2015). One example of incons_istency was found in the area of disclosure. Russians identified no significant differences between business and close friendships to the general category of disclosure, but when they were asked about specific disclosure behaviors there were differences in that U.S. students expected more forgiveness from their close friends than Russians and expected business friends to listen more than Russians did. Much ofthis research has also examined friendships and romantic relationships from a monocultural perspective, using scales and measures developed by U.S. researchers and primarily validated with U.S. participants. In examining friendship, Schmidt et al. (2014) relied on categories from the work of Fehr (1996) to create a U.S. survey. In exploring styles of love across cultures, Sprecher