Residential mobility moderates preferences for egalitarian versus loyal helpers

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48 (2012) 291–297

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jesp

Reports

Residential mobility moderates preferences for egalitarian versus loyal helpers Janetta Lun a,⁎, Shigehiro Oishi b, Elizabeth R. Tenney c a b c

Department of Psychology, 1147 Biology-Psychology Building, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, 102 Gilmer Hall, P.O. Box 400400, Charlottesville, VA 22904–4400, USA Hass School of Business, University of California, Berkeley, 545 Student Services Building #1900, Berkeley, CA 94720-1900, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 30 March 2010 Revised 24 July 2011 Available online 10 September 2011 Keywords: Residential mobility Interpersonal preferences Egalitarian helpers Loyal helpers

a b s t r a c t The present research examines whether the experience and the expectation of residential mobility related to the type of helpers whom people wanted to befriend and work with. We predicted and found that people who moved more frequently before college (Studies 1 and 2) preferred those who were likely to extend a helpful hand to those outside their immediate social circles. By contrast, people who had not moved preferred those who prioritized helping in-group members over strangers. Study 3 tested the hypothesis by priming the expectation of residential mobility versus stability and replicated the findings with residential mobility but did not find difference in the stability condition. These results suggest that residential mobility does not merely change people's living environments but also affects interpersonal preferences and with whom people would like to associate. © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction Social relationships are fundamental to human survival. Berscheid (2003) succinctly summarized this point by stating that “our ancestors survived and we survive today only with the aid of other humans” (p. 44) and that humans' greatest strength is “other humans” (see also Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Buss & Kenrick, 1998; Caporael & Brewer, 1995 for similar views). In other words, finding someone on whom one can rely is an important survival task even today. For example, people who lost power for days after a major snow storm received help from neighbors who provided them with shelter and hot meals; frantic parents found their young child who had wandered off with the help of kind mall shoppers. Because of survival importance, we are inclined to form relationships with those who would be likely to provide assistance and help when we need it. In three studies, we investigated such interpersonal preferences from a socio-ecological perspective (Oishi, 2010; Oishi & Graham, 2010). We propose that the type of helpers with whom a person wants to associate varies depending on the person's residential mobility history or the person's expectation of future moves. Specifically, we suggest that helping behavior that reflects in-group loyalty and commitment might be more favored by people of low than high residential mobility. However, helping behavior that reflects concerns for individual needs regardless of in-group and out-group status may be more favored by people of high than low mobility. This prediction suggests that different types of pro-social behavior would be valued depending on socio-ecological conditions.

⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Lun). 0022-1031/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.09.002

Residential mobility and related constructs, such as relational mobility and job mobility, are associated with factors that are expected to affect interpersonal preferences ranging from in-group loyalty (Oishi, Ishii, & Lun, 2009; Oishi et al., 2007), to similarity seeking (Schug, Yuki, Horikawa, & Takemura, 2009), to self-presentation (Chen, Chiu, & Chan, 2009), to experience in social interactions (Oishi, Lun & Sherman, 2007; see Oishi, 2010 for a review). Much of this research focuses on how mobility affects existing social structures or individual perceptions but not much about how people form social relationships. The present research expands previous work by demonstrating that residential mobility directly affects whom we want to befriend and work with. Residential mobility not only affects the structure of our social networks (e.g., transient, openness; Oishi, 2010) but also affects whom we decide to include in our networks. We predict that the experience and the expectation of residential mobility will increase one's appreciation for those who extend a helpful hand to others regardless of whether the others are outside or inside of their immediate social circles (i.e., egalitarian helpers). By contrast, we expect that the experience and the expectation of residential stability will increase one's appreciation for those who are more likely to help in-group members or close others than strangers (i.e., loyal helpers). There are several reasons that movers would gravitate toward egalitarian helpers whereas non-movers would gravitate toward loyal helpers. For practical reasons, frequent residential moves raise social support concerns that make egalitarian helpers more appealing than loyal helpers who only help in-group members. A newcomer in a neighborhood has fewer social ties than people who have lived in that community for an extended period (Logan & Spitze, 1994; Miner & Uhlenberg, 1997). Therefore, the newcomer has an increased chance of having to seek out and rely on a stranger's help when in need. As

292

J. Lun et al. / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48 (2012) 291–297

such, people who are likely to extend a helping hand to strangers or those who are outside of their in-group (i.e., egalitarian helpers) should be especially welcomed by frequent movers. By contrast, people who live in a residentially stable community for an extended period of time can rely on family members and long-term neighbors for help and social support, and they rarely need to rely on strangers. In exchange for help from family and neighbors when they need it, however, people in stable communities also have reciprocal obligations to help their family members and neighbors when they are in need (Adams & Plaut, 2003). In such an interdependent community, helping in-group members becomes a moral duty (Haidt, 2007; Miller, 1994). As a result, someone who is loyal and prioritizes in-group members' needs over those of out-group members (i.e., loyal helpers) may be deemed more desirable in such a context. Preferences to form relationships with egalitarian versus loyal helpers might also be due to differences in valuing need-based helping (helping whoever is in need) versus target-based helping (helping in-group members). Frequent residential moves are likely to increase relational mobility in one's social network and reduce the distinction between in-group versus out-group and familiar versus non-familiar others in one's schema of social relationships (Yuki, 2011). This suggests that, when residential mobility is high, what constitutes the appropriate helping behavior will be less influenced by group memberships and more influenced by an obligation to help whoever is in need. In other words, movers may consider need-based helping more acceptable than target-based helping. By contrast, residential stability reinforces group boundaries and makes the contrast between familiar versus non-familiar others more prominent. For non-movers, who are residentially stable, the obligation to help other in-group members is stronger. Therefore, non-movers might find loyal helpers more likable than egalitarian helpers. We conducted three studies to test our hypotheses that the experience and the expectation of residential mobility increase preference for egalitarian helpers whereas those of residential stability increase preference for loyal helpers. In Studies 1 and 2, we assessed participants' personal history of residential moves and its relationship to their preference for egalitarian versus loyal helpers. In Study 3, we manipulated the expectation for residential mobility and stability by asking people to think about the possibility of future moves or stability and examined its effect on people's preference toward these two types of helpers. Study 1 method Participants Sixty-three undergraduate students (32 women) at the University of Virginia participated in this study in exchange for partial credit for a psychology course.

the morning.” Thus, Kathy and Alex were both helpful but distributed their help in different ways (see Appendix for complete scenarios). After reading each scenario, participants made a forced-choice decision as to whether they liked the loyal or egalitarian helper more. The dependent measure was the number of times participants selected the egalitarian helpers over the loyal helpers across the four scenarios. A higher number indicated greater preference for egalitarian helpers and a lower number indicated greater preference for loyal helpers. One participant did not complete all four scenarios and the person's data was not included in the analysis. At the end of the questionnaire, participants reported demographic information including places where they had lived before coming to college. Research assistants coded how many times participants had moved to a different city or town before college after age 5 (cf. Oishi, Lun & Sherman, 2007). According to this criteria, thirty-five (55.6%) had never moved, 14 (22.2%) had moved once, 5 (7.9%) moved twice, and 9 (14.3%) moved three times or more. Results and discussion According to our hypothesis, people who experienced more residential moves should like the egalitarian helpers more than the loyal helpers but those who experienced fewer moves should like the loyal helpers more than egalitarian helpers. To examine this, we regressed the number of moves on the frequency of choosing egalitarian helpers over loyal helpers while adjusting for participants' sex (female = 0, male = 1). The number of moves variable was transformed with the natural log function to adjust for the skewed distribution. Preferences for the type of helpers did not differ by participants' sex in this study, b = –.09 (SE = .239), p N.70. As predicted, participants who had moved often reported choosing the egalitarian helpers over the loyal helpers more than those who had moved less often, b = .47 (SE= .21), t(59) = 2.24, p = .029. This result also suggests that people who were relatively more residentially stable preferred loyal helpers over egalitarian helpers. Study 2 In this study, we used a behavioral measure instead of self-report liking to investigate whether the preference for egalitarian versus loyal helpers was related to personal history of residential mobility. We also explored what qualities participants perceived in egalitarian and loyal helpers that might influence their decisions. Specifically, we expected that those who chose loyal helpers would appreciate the helpers' loyalty and commitment to friends or in-groups, whereas those who chose egalitarian helpers would appreciate the helpers' generosity and helpfulness because they also helped people outside of their immediate social circle. Method

Procedure and materials Participants After providing informed consent, participants completed a questionnaire about interpersonal perception by which their preference for egalitarian helpers or loyal helpers was assessed. To do so, participants read four situations in which a stranger and a friend were in need of help. After reading each situation, participants read about two people who either offered help to both the friend and the stranger (egalitarian helper) or just the friend but not the stranger (loyal helper). To equate the overall effort expended by the two types of helpers, the act of helping a stranger came at the expense of help for a friend. For example, in the school scenario, participants chose between the following helpers, Kathy (egalitarian) and Alex (loyal): “Kathy decided to help the classmate but because of that she was only able to help her best friend for only half an hour.” as opposed to “Alex decided that she cannot help her classmate but she ended up helping her best friend until 2 am in

Thirty-five students (23 female) at the University of Maryland participated in this experiment to fulfill partial course requirement. Procedure and materials Upon arrival at the lab, participants were led to individual rooms. The experimenter greeted participants in their individual rooms and welcomed them to a study about “first impressions.” The experimenter explained that the main goal of the study was to test a new questionnaire measure and that there were also two other participants who were currently in the session. Among the three participants, two would be randomly selected to be “candidates” and the other to be the “reviewer” of the group. The reviewer would review the two

J. Lun et al. / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48 (2012) 291–297

candidates' judgments on the measure and would then choose one of the candidates to be their work partner for a task in the second half of the study. The remaining candidate would be working alone. The experimenter then held out a cup with folded pieces of paper to the participants and asked them to pick a number to determine which role they would play, candidate or reviewer. Unbeknownst to them, all participants were assigned to the “reviewer” role regardless of what number they selected from the cup. The participants were then asked to do a pilot writing task in the meantime (i.e., write about their dream job) while the experimenter gave the questionnaire to the other two participants. After approximately 10–15 min, the experimenter returned with two completed questionnaire packets ostensibly completed by the other two participants. The questionnaire packet consisted of four scenarios that were identical to those administered in Study 1. However, in this study, the participants read that the “candidates” were asked to imagine themselves being the protagonists in the scenarios. The “candidates” had to choose one of the two responses: One response option would be to help the friend as much as they could but because of this the “candidate” would not be able to help the stranger (i.e., being the loyal helper). The other response option would be to help the friend and the stranger (i.e., being the egalitarian helper) but because of this the “candidate” would not be able to help the friend as much as they could have otherwise. These questionnaires were filled out such that one “candidate” would always prefer to respond like an egalitarian helper and the other “candidate” would always prefer to respond like a loyal helper. The experimenter then asked the participants to review the scenarios and the “candidates'” decisions. Participants then chose which candidate they wanted to work with as a partner in an upcoming task and provided a brief written justification of their choice. Participants then completed a demographic questionnaire in which they listed places they had lived since birth until they came to college. Like Study 1, we counted the number of moves between the age of 5 and before college. Eighteen participants (51.4%) did not move, 8 (23%) moved once, 3 (9%) moved twice, and 6 (17%) moved three or more times.

293

whether participants mentioned loyalty and/or commitment to friends and in-groups in their justification (1 = mentioned, 0 = did not mention) and the other variable indicated whether participants mentioned generosity and/or helpfulness (1 = mentioned, 0 = did not mention). We then performed a logistic regression analysis on each of these variables with the number of moves and sex as predictors. In concordance with the findings of participants' preferences, the number of moves was associated with increased probability of mentioning generosity and helpfulness as reasons for participants' choice, b = 2.21 (SE = 1.01), W 2 (1) = 4.83, p = .028, Exp (b) = 9.11. In addition, the number of moves was associated with decreased probability of mentioning loyalty and commitment as reasons for participants' choice, b = −3.92 (SE = 1.59), W 2 (1) = 6.08, p = .014, Exp (b) = .02. In other words, loyalty and commitment was mentioned more often among those who were more residentially stable than those who were more residentially mobile. These open-ended responses provide additional insight into the qualities that movers and non-movers weighted when reaching their decisions. Non-movers valued loyalty and commitment to friends and in-groups whereas movers valued generosity and helpfulness. Study 3 The first two studies confirmed our hypothesis. In both studies, we measured personal history of residential mobility. In this study, we experimentally manipulated the expectations of residential mobility by asking people to think about moving or settling permanently and then measured their liking toward egalitarian versus loyal helpers. First, this experimental approach tests whether the preference for egalitarian versus loyal helpers is related to the expectations of future moves regardless of personal residential mobility history. Second, this approach allows us to test the causal relationship between residential mobility and interpersonal preferences above and beyond potential third variable explanations that might be related to personal history of residential mobility (e.g., socio-economic status, parents' occupations, and personality traits). Method

Results and discussion We used logistic regression analysis to test whether the number of moves was predictive of whether people chose an egalitarian helper (1) versus loyal helper (0) as a work partner while adjusting for the effect of participants' sex (female = 0; male = 1) in the model.1 As in Study 1, we transformed the number of moves variable with the natural log function to adjust for the skewed distribution. The model fit was significantly better than the intercept only model with no predictor, χ2 (2) = 6.61, p = .037. As expected, the chance of choosing the egalitarian helper was statistically significantly higher as the number of moves increased, b = 1.57 (SE= .79), W2 (1) = 3.98, p = .046, Exp (b) = 4.81. For simplicity sake, we interpreted the relationship between residential mobility and the probability of choosing an egalitarian helper as a work partner among females because the coefficient for sex would be 0. According to the model, people who had never moved chose the egalitarian helper about 10% of the time but this probability increased to 24% for those who had moved once and 38% for those who moved twice. To interpret the model in an other way, the probability of choosing a loyal helper as work partner was 90% for non-movers and it decreased to 76% for those who had moved once and to 62% for those who moved twice. To examine the rationale behind participants' choice, we coded the justifications participants provided for their choice for themes related to loyalty and commitment versus generosity and helpfulness. Two binary dependent variables were created: one variable indicated 1 There was an effect of participant's sex such that overall men were more likely to choose an egalitarian helper than loyal helper, b = 1.83 (SE = .94), W2 (1) = 3.78, p = .052, Exp (b) = 6.26.

Participants One-hundred-twenty-two students (81 women) at the University of Virginia participated in this experiment to fulfill partial course requirement. Procedure Participants were randomly assigned to only a mobile or stable condition before reading scenarios and answering questions about liking and desire to be friends with the individual described in the scenarios. Adopting the method of mindset priming (Bargh & Chartrand, 2000), participants were either asked to imagine being at a place where they would stay temporarily and thus engendering an expectation that they will be moving in the near future, or imagine being at a place where they would settle permanently and thus engendering a stability mindset (see also Oishi, Miao, Koo, Kisling, & Ratliff, in press for a similar priming). Participants read: “Please take a moment to think of a place (e.g., a city, country) you would like to visit and stay temporarily/live and settle permanently. Then, describe in as much detail as possible what it would be like if you had a chance to be there. For example, what do you think the environment would be like? What would you do? Try to put yourself in the situation and write about how you would feel being in that place.” Participants imagined themselves in the situation and wrote about their feelings and behaviors for five minutes. After they wrote about

J. Lun et al. / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48 (2012) 291–297

the expectation of staying temporarily or settling permanently at a place, they read three scenarios either about egalitarian or loyal helpers. The scenarios in Studies 1 and 2 tended to portray the loyal helpers slightly more favorably than the egalitarian helpers. For instance, on average, participants in Study 1 liked the loyal helpers over the egalitarian helpers 68% of the times, and 66% of the participants in Study 2 chose the loyal helper over the egalitarian helper. Although the overall preference did not affect the expected differential effect of residential mobility, in this study we created scenarios in which the egalitarian helpers would be seen more positively by excluding the detail that they had failed to help their friends because they were also helping the stranger. We also added a control scenario at the end that did not involve any helping behavior to examine whether or not the differences in residential mobility and interpersonal preferences were specific to helping situations. The control scenario would help us rule out the alternative explanation that residential mobility increases liking toward all kinds of people (see Appendix for complete scenarios). After reading each scenario, participants rated how much they liked the protagonist, wanted to meet him/her, and would want to be friends with someone like him/her on 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much) Likert scales. These ratings were averaged and combined across the helping scenarios to yield a single liking score (Cronbach's α = .91). The liking ratings of the protagonist in the non-helping scenarios were also averaged and combined in the same manner (Cronbach's α = .89). After reading the scenarios and rating the protagonists, participants provided demographic information including gender, ethnicity and personal history of residential mobility. Because we manipulated the expectations of mobility and stability, the analysis will only focus on the manipulated factor instead of personal history. Results and discussion Liking was submitted to a 2 × 2 (Mindset priming [mobile, stable])× Helpers [loyal, egalitarian]) between-subjects analysis of variance with participants' sex and ethnicity (white versus non-white) as well as their interaction terms as covariates (Yzerbyt, Muller, & Judd, 2004).2 There were no main effects of prime or helpers, F's b 1.93, p's N .16. This suggests that the priming did not affect liking by itself and that people found the egalitarian and loyal helpers equally likable overall. More important, as predicted, liking toward loyal versus egalitarian helpers was moderated by the mind-set priming, F(1, 110) = 3.91, p = .051, ηp2 = .034. Participants who were asked to think about a future move liked egalitarian helpers (M = 5.35, SE= .14) more than loyal helpers (M = 4.90, SE= .16), F (1, 110) = 4.38, p = .04, d = .40 (see Fig. 1). However, no significant difference in liking was found for those in a stable mindset (Megalitarian = 5.11, SE= .15 versus Mloyal = 5.30, SE= .20), F b 1, p N .40. This unexpected finding will be discussed further below. We repeated the foregoing analysis with liking toward the protagonist in the control scenario. The interaction between prime and types of helpers on liking was not significant for the control scenario, F(1, 110) F b 1, p N .60. Thus, the moderating effect of a mobility mindset was specific to the scenarios that manipulated the type of helping behaviors. With an experimental approach, we found consistent evidence that egalitarian helpers are preferred to loyal helpers for those who thought about a future move. By contrast, people who thought about settling at a place permanently did not find loyal helpers significantly more likable than egalitarian helpers. The lack of difference among 2 We adjusted for ethnicity in this study because there was a relatively large proportion of ethnic minorities in the sample (11.4% Black, 35% Asian, 2.4% Hispanic, 4% multiracial, 1.6% other non-white) due to their participation in a prior study. We had no prediction regarding this factor. The results showed that ethnic minorities generally reported higher liking ratings than White participants, F(1,110) = 6.18, p = .014, but this factor did not show any significant interaction effect with the type of prime or helpers, Fs b 1.8, ps N .17. There were no main or interaction effect of sex in this study, Fs b 1, ps N .30.

6 Egalitarian helpers

5.8

Loyal helpers

5.6

Liking (1 to 7)

294

5.4 5.2 5 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.2 4 Stable

Mobile

Mindset priming Fig. 1. Mean liking score for loyal and egalitarian helpers by stable or mobile priming. Error bars represent standard errors of the means in Study 3.

those who were primed with the stability condition could be due to the adjustment in the scenarios in which we made the egalitarian helpers less dislikable by removing the insinuation that help for strangers came at the direct expense of help for friends. This suggests that interpersonal preferences of those who are residentially stable may be more affected when the egalitarian helpers are helping strangers at the expense of helping their friends, a clear violation of in-group loyalty. Another consideration is participants' interpretation of the stability mindset prime. When participants thought about settling down permanently, some participants might have focused on settling somewhere new, which could have reduced the intended stability effect. We surmise that this interpretation of the prime may be especially prevalent among college students who are in a transition period of their lives. Future research should examine this possibility in greater detail. General discussion Humans rely on each other to overcome survival challenges (Berscheid, 2003). This reliance suggests that the ways in which people help others can be an important dimension by which people evaluate with whom they want to form relationships. The present research investigated this hypothesis from a socio-ecological perspective (Oishi, 2010; Oishi & Graham, 2010). We hypothesized that residential mobility increases preference for egalitarian helpers over loyal helpers, whereas residential stability increases preference for loyal helpers over egalitarian helpers. We found consistent evidence for this hypothesis across three studies using correlational and experimental methods. People who had moved frequently (Studies 1 and 2) or who were primed to think about the expectation of moving (Study 3) liked and wanted to be friends or work with helpers who supported friends and strangers equally (egalitarian helpers), but those who had moved infrequently preferred to be friends or work with helpers who purportedly supported friends more than strangers (loyal helpers). These results suggest that such preferences apply to friendship and work domains and can affect partnership or hiring decisions. The current findings expand existing lines of research on culture and social relationships in several ways. First, the present findings demonstrate within-cultural variations in interpersonal preferences that vary along the emphasis of loose versus deep relational ties. The preference for egalitarian helpers suggests that one thinks of social networks as having a broader, looser social structure in which there is less distinction between in-group and out-group members, whereas the preference for loyal helpers suggests a stronger emphasis on in-group loyalty and a marked distinction between in-group and out-group members. This tight–loose difference in social structure has been observed cross-culturally in previous research (Adams & Plaut, 2003).

J. Lun et al. / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48 (2012) 291–297

For instance, Adams and Plaut (2003) found that Americans have more friends and positive images about having many friends than Ghanaians do. Ghanaians rely on friends for practical support to a greater extent than do Americans, and Ghanaians also have negative views about having a lot of friends. This suggests that Ghanaians emphasize in-group loyalty whereas Americans' social relationships are more open, with less differentiation between in-group and out-group members (see also Granovetter, 1973). The current findings show that even within America, there are important individual and situational variations in preference given to egalitarian persons over loyal persons, along the dimension of residential mobility. In addition, the current results suggest that the previously observed cultural differences could be explained in part by societal differences in residential mobility. Second, the present findings also suggest that residential mobility could create different cultural trust patterns. The preference for egalitarian helpers reflects a sense of generalized trust toward strangers because people will help regardless of closeness or group membership. The preference for loyal helpers, on the other hand, reinforces the importance of in-group loyalty and mistrust of out-group members because they may not help everyone. This distinction may breed and reinforce trust patterns observed in different cultures. Indeed, people in more mobile countries such as the United States report trusting others more than people in low mobility countries such as Japan (e.g., Yamagishi & Yamagishi, 1994). Assuming residential mobility increases opportunity to interact with strangers (e.g., relational mobility; Yuki, 2011), research also suggests that people in these relationally mobile societies are more trusting and cooperative with strangers (Henrich et al., 2005). Therefore, residential mobility may increase generalized trust due to frequent exposure to new people. There are a few limitations of the current research. First, although our findings across the three studies are generally consistent in that movers or those expecting to move prefer egalitarian helpers to a greater extent than non-movers, it was unclear whether the effects were driven by residential mobility leading to increased liking or to increased disliking of one type of helper over another (Study 3). For example, does moving make egalitarian helpers more appealing or does it make loyal helpers less appealing? We suspect that the answer may depend on the situations. Perhaps when movers need immediate help they increase their liking toward egalitarian helpers; however, when they do not experience an immediate need they may show less liking toward loyal helpers because they evaluate them based on their beliefs about social relationships and pro-social orientation (i.e., loyalty versus individual needs). Second, our participants were convenient samples of American college students. Thus, generalizability of the current findings needs to be examined further. Finally, future investigation should also examine the reciprocal nature of relationship beliefs and residential mobility. Those who see relationships as relatively free from mutual obligations may find it easier to leave an existing social network whereas those who place higher value on such obligations might be more reluctant to leave. Despite these limitations, the current research has demonstrated for the first time that residential mobility (a) increases preference for egalitarian helpers over loyal helpers, and (b) affects strategy for relationship- or coalition-formation. Although residential mobility has declined slightly over the last few years, a sizable US population— particularly people in their 20s to early 30s—is still on the move (US census, 2008). People seek new job opportunities, creative inputs, and social inspirations by moving from one place to another (Florida, 2002). The nature of our social interaction and social network is deeply affected by the distance to which, and frequency with which people move. The current work suggests that residential mobility does not merely change people's living environments and self-concepts but also affects relationship formations. The societal condition associated with residential mobility shapes individual psyche as it introduces new challenges and cultural demands that people must face (Oishi, 2010; Oishi, Lun, & Sherman, 2007).

295

Appendix A. Scenarios in Studies 1 and 2 Scenario 1: Tutoring Person A has a midterm paper due in a few days for her seminar. She also has another test the day before the paper is due. When Person A was in class the other day, her classmate sitting next to her whom she doesn't really talk to asked if she could meet with her to go through some of the articles they read for the class. Person A feels reluctant because she has already agreed to tutor her best friend for a stats exam because she had taken that class before. Egalitarian versus loyal helper in Study 1 Kathy decided to help the classmate but also because of that she was able to help her best friend for only half an hour. (Egalitarian helper) Alex decided that she cannot help her classmate but she ended up helping her best friend until 2 am. (Loyal helper) Egalitarian versus loyal helper in Study 2 If I were Person A, I would split the time so that I will help the person in class and my friend. This means I won't be able to help my friend as much as I could have otherwise. (Egalitarian helper) If I were Person A, I would spend all my time, if not more, to help my friend as much as I can. This means I won't be able to help the person in class. (Loyal helper) Scenario 2: Social events When Person B is walking to class one day, he sees a classmate posting flyers about a charity event. The classmate approaches Person B and tells him that he is putting on the event; he also wonders if Person B can come and help out for a good cause. Person B recalls that his close friend's soccer championship game happens to be the same night as the charity event. Egalitarian versus loyal helper in Study 1 Ryan decided to go to the charity event for a little while but because of that he missed his close friend's winning goal. (Egalitarian helper) Andrew decided that it was more important to go to the soccer game and he brought everyone he knew at the dormitory with him to cheer for his friend's team. (Loyal helper) Egalitarian versus loyal helper in Study 2 If I were Person B, I would help the classmate with the charity event and then go to my friend's soccer game. This means that I will miss part of the game and there is a chance my friend may get subbed out and that I may not get to see him play at all. (Egalitarian helper) If I were Person B, I would go to my friend's soccer game. This means I won't be able to help the classmate with the charity event. (Loyal helper) Scenario 3: Taking care of others Person C receives news that her best friend is sick at the hospital. When she is leaving her house, a neighbor who just moved into her neighborhood approaches her and asks if she can help baby sit her child for a little while because her work schedule got changed suddenly and she really needs someone's help. Egalitarian versus loyal helper in Study 1 Chris agreed to help the neighbor but because of that she was only able to see her friend briefly. (Egalitarian helper)

296

J. Lun et al. / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48 (2012) 291–297

Susie apologetically declined her neighbor's request. Instead, she stayed with her friend at the hospital until the visiting hours ended. (Loyal helper)

moving in to the adjacent apartment and moving things slowly by herself. Stephanie offered a hand to the new neighbor although she was already quite exhausted.

Egalitarian versus loyal helper in Study 2 If I were Person C and the visiting hours at the hospital end in two hours and I won't be able to make it to the hospital in the next two weeks, I would help the neighbor and then try to get to my friend afterward. This means I won't be able to spend much time with my friend or may not be able to see her at all. (Egalitarian helper) If I were Person C and the visiting hours at the hospital end in two hours and I won't be able to make it to the hospital in the next two weeks, I would go see my friend at the hospital. This means I won't be able to help my neighbor. (Loyal helper)

Loyal helpers Kathy has a midterm paper due in a few days for her seminar. She also has another test the day before the paper is due. When Kathy was in class the other day, her classmate sitting next to her whom she doesn't really talk to asked if she could meet with her to go through some of the articles they read for the class. Kathy felt reluctant because she had also agreed to tutor her best friend for a stats exam because she had taken that class before. She told her classmate that she was quite busy, and she couldn't really help her. Later, Kathy stayed up until 2 am helping her roommate prepare for the stats test. Ryan is one of the few people among his friends who has a car on Grounds. Winter break was coming soon and everyone was looking forward to going home. Not long after he got back to his room after his first exam, he got a call from a close friend who asked if Ryan could give him a ride to the Dulles airport the next day. With another exam on the way, he did not quite look forward to the drive but he agreed to help. A minute later, the friend called him up again and asked if he could help another person who also needed a ride on a different day but to the Richmond airport instead. Ryan told his friend that it would be right after his last exam, and he would probably be exhausted at the time. In addition, he did not know that person very well. On the day when Ryan drove his friend to Dulles, his friend found out that the flight had a 3-hour delay; he stayed with his friend until he was ready to leave. Stephanie's friend, Mandy, was moving to a different apartment during summer. Stephanie was in town so she offered to help Mandy with the move. On the move-in date, the Mandy's new neighbor was also moving in to the adjacent apartment and moving things slowly by herself. Stephanie felt quite exhausted and felt bad for the new neighbor who was doing it all by herself. At the end of the day, Mandy said that she still needed to clean up the old apartment. Stephanie offered to help her although she was already quite exhausted.

Scenario 4: Lost and found Person F's roommate feels really sick one afternoon after having lunch at a new deli. After class that day, Person F receives a call from her roommate asking Person F to make a trip to the post office for her because she needs to mail a package by the end of the day. On the way to the post office not long before the closing time, Person F is stopped by a woman who has dropped her earring, and is frantically looking for it. Egalitarian versus loyal helper in Study 1 Amber helped the woman and found the earring but the post office was closed when she got there. (Egalitarian helper) Jen apologized to the woman that she could not help her. Jen managed to arrive at the post office in time and mailed off the package. She also went to a pharmacy afterward to find home remedies for her roommate's discomfort. (Loyal helper) Egalitarian versus loyal helper in Study 2 If I were Person F, I would help the women out and try to get the post-office as soon as possible. This means I may not get to the postoffice in time. (Egalitarian helper) If I were Person F, I would go to the post-office and get my friend's package mailed. This means I won't be able to help the woman to search for the earring. (Loyal helper) Scenarios in Study 3 Egalitarian helpers Kathy has a midterm paper due in a few days for her seminar. She also has another test the day before the paper is due. When Kathy was in class the other day, her classmate sitting next to her whom she doesn't really talk to asked if she could meet with her to go through some of the articles they read for the class. Kathy felt reluctant because she had also agreed to tutor her best friend for a stats exam because she had taken that class before. It seemed that her classmate was struggling, so she agreed to help her. Ryan is one of the few people among his friends who has a car on Grounds. Winter break was coming soon and everyone was looking forward to going home. Not long after he got back to his room after his first exam, he got a call from a close friend who asked if Ryan could give him a ride to the Dulles airport the next day. With another exam on the way, he did not quite look forward to the drive, but he agreed to help. A minute later, the friend called him up again and asked if he could help another person who also needed a ride on a different day but to the Richmond airport instead. It would be right after Ryan's last exam that day, and he would probably be exhausted at the time, but Ryan agreed to help even though he did not know that person very well. Stephanie's friend, Mandy, was moving to a different apartment during summer. Stephanie was in town, so she offered to help Mandy with the move. On the move-in date, Mandy's new neighbor was also

Control Michael has a quite busy schedule. He is taking 4 classes and works part-time. Most of his classes are on Tuesday and Thursday so that he has more time to work on the other days. On Tuesday, he got a call from his friend, telling him that one of his favorite bands is going to play in Washington, D.C. that weekend. He was a bit torn because he had a relatively important paper due the following Tuesday, and he didn't have a topic yet. He was planning to spend the weekend doing that. In addition, he had to change shifts with someone at work so that he could free up the weekend. He thought for a while and rationalized that he could try to come back early on Sunday and work on the paper for the rest of the Sunday. So, he agreed to go with his friends. References Adams, G., & Plaut, V. C. (2003). The cultural grounding of personal relationship: Friendship in North American and West African worlds. Personal Relationships, 10, 333–347. Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (2000). The mind in the middle: A practical guide to priming and automaticity research. In H. T. Reis, & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research method in social and personality psychology (pp. 253–285). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529. Berscheid, E. (2003). The human's greatest strength: Other humans. In L. G. Aspinwall, & U. M. Staudinger (Eds.), A psychology of strengths: Fundamental questions and future direction for a positive psychology (pp. 37–47). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Buss, D. M., & Kenrick, D. T. (1998). Evolutionary social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 982–1026). (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Caporael, L. R., & Brewer, M. B. (1995). Hierarchical evolutionary theory: There is an alternative, and it's not creationism. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 31–34.

J. Lun et al. / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48 (2012) 291–297 Chen, J., Chiu, C. -y., & Chan, S. F. (2009). The cultural effects of job mobility and the belief in a fixed world: Evidence from performance forecast. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(5), 851–865. Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class: And how it's transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. New York, NY: Basic Books. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380. Haidt, J. (2007). The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science, 316, 998–1002. Henrich, J., Boyd, R., Bowles, S., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Gintis, H., et al. (2005). ‘Economic man’ in cross-cultural perspective: Behavioral experiments in 15 small-scale societies. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 795–855. Logan, J. R., & Spitze, G. D. (1994). Family neighbors. The American Journal of Sociology, 100, 453–476. Miner, S., & Uhlenberg, P. (1997). Intragenerational proximity and the social role of sibling neighbor after midlife. Family Relations, 46, 145–153. Miller, J. G. (1994). Cultural diversity in the morality of caring: Individually oriented versus duty-based interpersonal moral codes. Cross-Cultural Research: The Journal of Comparative Social Science, 28(1), 3–39. Oishi, S. (2010). The psychology of residential mobility: Implications for the self, social relationships, and well-being. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 5–21. Oishi, S., & Graham, J. (2010). Social ecology: Lost and found in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 356–377. Oishi, S., Lun, J., & Sherman, G. D. (2007). Residential mobility, self-concept, and positive affect in social interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 131–141.

297

Oishi, S., Miao, F. F., Koo, M., Kisling, J., Ratliff, K. A. (in press). Residential mobility breeds familiarity seeking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/a0024949. Oishi, S., Rothman, A. J., Snyder, M., Su, J., Zehm, K., Hertel, A. W., et al. (2007). The socio-ecological model of pro-community action: The benefits of residential stability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 831–844. Oishi, S., Ishii, K., & Lun, J. (2009). Residential mobility and conditionality of group identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 913–919. 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. U.S. Census Bureau (2008). Geographic mobility: 2007–2008 Detailed Tables 1. Retrieved March 12, 2010, from http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/migrate/ cps2008.html Yamagishi, T., & Yamagishi, M. (1994). Trust and commitment in the United States and Japan. Motivation and Emotion, 18, 129–166. Yuki, M. (2011). Intragroup relationships and intergroup comparisons as two sources of group-based collectivism. In R. M. Kramer, G. J. Leonardelli, & R. W. Livingston (Eds.), Social cognition, social identity, and intergroup relations: A festschrift in honor of Marilynn B. Brewer. New York: Taylor & Francis. Yzerbyt, V. Y., Muller, D., & Judd, C. M. (2004). Adjusting researchers' approach to adjustment: On the use of covariates when testing interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 424–431.