Abstract
Relational mobility is a socio-ecological factor that shapes our interpersonal behaviors. Across four studies involving three countries (N = 2,874), we tested the hypothesis that low relational mobility increases sensitivity to social rejection, which in turn fosters decision avoidance and difficulty in interpersonal situations (i.e., interpersonal indecision). Study 1 showed that countries with low relational mobility reported more subjective difficulties in interpersonal decision-making. Studies 2a and 2b demonstrated that cross-country differences in interpersonal indecision can be mediated by relational mobility and concerns about rejection. Study 3 further revealed that this mechanism is driven by heightened concerns and evaluations of negative relationship outcomes. Study 4 replicated the proposed mechanism using a scale that assesses the general tendency to experience interpersonal indecision. Our findings highlight the importance of socio-ecological context in shaping experiences when navigating interpersonal relationships.
Making decisions in interpersonal situations is a difficult but essential task in human society. These decisions can be fraught with ambiguity, conflicts, and uncertainties, preventing individuals from making fast and stable decisions. Although previous research has primarily considered indecisiveness as a trait (Rassin et al., 2007), individuals may experience different levels of indecision depending on the situation and socio-cultural context. For instance, people in Japan are characterized as being indecisive especially in social situations (Newman et al., 2018; Oishi et al., 2014), and at a group level, Japanese organizations have been described as having slow decision-making processes and less decisiveness compared with those in Western countries (Watanabe, 1998; Watanabe & Yamaguchi, 1995). Despite these apparent cross-country differences in social situations, no comprehensive theoretical framework exists to explain variations in indecisive tendencies during interpersonal interactions (for discussions on general indecisiveness across countries, see Li et al., 2014, Li, Masuda, & Jiang, 2016; Yates et al., 2010).
Growing literature on socio-ecological psychology may provide some valuable insights into this phenomenon. Studies have demonstrated that social ecologies—such as relational and residential mobility—substantially influence how we navigate social interactions, including how we interpret social cues, present ourselves, and interact with others (Kito et al., 2017; Oishi, 2014; Oishi & Graham, 2010). Building on the observations that people living in Japan are more indecisive in interpersonal situations than those in other countries, we explored how these cross-country differences can be explained by a socio-ecological framework. We propose that low relational mobility increases sensitivity to social rejection, which in turn fosters decision avoidance and difficulty in interpersonal situations (i.e., interpersonal indecision). Understanding the impacts of interpersonal indecision is crucial due to its substantial effects on our interpersonal relationships (Newman et al., 2018), organizational behaviors (Watanabe & Yamaguchi, 1995), and well-being (Rassin et al., 2007; Rassin & Muris, 2005a).
Relational Mobility and Interpersonal Decision-Making
Socio-ecological psychology proposes that variations in human psychology and behaviors across societies reflect how individuals adapt to their social environments or ecologies (Oishi, 2014; Oishi & Graham, 2010; Yamagishi & Yamagishi, 1994). Relational mobility is an aspect of social ecology that has received substantial attention in recent years. It refers to the flexibility of interpersonal relationships within a society (Oishi et al., 2015; Yuki & Schug, 2012). In societies with high relational mobility, individuals have more opportunities and freedom to build new social relationships and leave old ones (Oishi et al., 2015; Thomson et al., 2018). Conversely, in low-mobility environments, people have less freedom in choosing their relationships and are equipped to maintain close connections with a small number of people, largely determined by geographical, institutional, or biological constraints (Oishi et al., 2015; Yuki & Schug, 2012).
Relational mobility has a substantial impact on our interpersonal relationships and behaviors (Kito et al., 2017; Yuki & Schug, 2012, 2020). Social relationships in highly mobile societies operate in a system resembling a “free market,” where individuals need to devote more resources to relationship-building and maintenance strategies (Falk et al., 2009; Schug et al., 2010). For example, individuals from more relationally mobile environments are more likely to engage in self-disclosure (Schug et al., 2010) and provide more social support to friends (Kito et al., 2017; Thomson et al., 2018). People in high-mobility societies also tend to report higher levels of intimacy, similarity, and relationship quality with close others (Schug et al., 2009; Thomson et al., 2018; Yamada et al., 2017). These findings reflect that relationships in highly mobile environments need to be actively pursued and maintained via versatile strategies including openly expressed emotions.
On the contrary, the main adaptive task in a low-mobility environment is to avoid violating social norms and losing existing social ties (Yamagishi et al., 2008; Yamagishi & Yamagishi, 1994). People in low-mobility environments are more motivated to avoid conflict in existing social relationships due to the high costs of losing one (Oishi et al., 2015; Yuki & Schug, 2012). They are more cautious about their friendships (Li et al., 2015) and are more likely to adopt avoidance-based strategies to maintain security within existing social networks (Oishi et al., 2015; Yamagishi et al., 2008). These differences in social relationships between high and low relationally mobile societies translate into variations in psychological and behavioral tendencies across societies (Yuki & Schug, 2012, 2020).
Relational Mobility, Rejection Sensitivity, and Interpersonal Indecision
Although previous research explored the role of relational mobility in cognitive style, self-disclosure, intimacy, trust, social networks, and norm violation and conflict (for reviews, see Oishi et al., 2015; Yuki & Schug, 2020), it has not yet examined whether relational mobility is associated with our experiences when making interpersonal decisions. The study proposed that low relational mobility would foster interpersonal indecision, which we defined as decision avoidance and difficulties in interpersonal decision-making. Indecision is characterized by a long decision-making time, attempts to avoid or delay decisions, frequent changes of mind before making a final decision, and feelings of anxiety and worry during decision-making (Cheek & Goebel, 2020; Germeijs & De Boeck, 2002; Rassin et al., 2007). Indecisiveness is correlated with maladaptive characteristics, such as neuroticism (Germeijs & Verschueren, 2011; Patalano & LeClair, 2011), anxiety and depression (Rassin et al., 2007; Rassin & Muris, 2005a), and rumination (Rassin & Muris, 2005b). While the dispositional aspect of indecisiveness has been widely studied, less research has investigated indecision in specific contexts that are influenced by situational factors beyond general indecisiveness (Germeijs & De Boeck, 2002). To our knowledge, no studies have formally defined and examined the phenomenon of interpersonal indecision. Research has documented substantial differences in decision-making tendencies between non-interpersonal and interpersonal situations (e.g., making decisions for ourselves vs. for others; Luan et al., 2018). Therefore, it is important to consider interpersonal contexts in decision-making research, including the phenomenon of indecision.
In this study, we propose that interpersonal indecision is uniquely shaped by the social ecologies in which one inhabits. Living in low-mobility environments makes people more sensitive to social rejection (Garris et al., 2011; Lou & Li, 2017; Sato et al., 2014). The lack of opportunities to choose interpersonal relationships can lead to a stronger sensitivity and avoidance of negative evaluations from others (Yamagishi et al., 2008). Research showed that people in low-mobility societies are more likely to have destiny beliefs in social relationships, which makes them more bothered by any cues of rejection in social interactions (Lou & Li, 2017). Furthermore, living in low-mobility societies may increase the perceived levels of and concerns about negative interpersonal consequences. People from low relationally mobile societies perceive higher risks in social actions (e.g., speaking up for an unpopular issue or disagreeing with an authority) compared with those from highly mobile environments (Li, Hamamura, & Adams, 2016).
Sensitivity to social rejection in low-mobility societies may result in interpersonal indecision. First, rejection sensitivity is associated with selective attention to rejection cues and higher perceived social costs (Downey et al., 2004; Downey & Feldman, 1996). Perceived negative consequences are important contributors to decision avoidance and difficulty (Anderson, 2003). People in low-mobility societies may show interpersonal indecision due to increased alertness and sensitivity to potential negative interpersonal consequences, such as rejection or dislike. Second, concerns about social rejection may increase the negative emotions experienced and anticipated during social interactions. Negative experiences, such as worry and regret are closely linked to indecision (Anderson, 2003; Rassin et al., 2007). People with high rejection sensitivity tend to anxiously expect and react to social encounters (Downey & Feldman, 1996). This may make individuals more indecisive in interpersonal situations due to enhanced worry when making choices. Despite research showing links between relational mobility and rejection sensitivity, few studies have examined how these factors influence our interpersonal decision-making experiences.
Cross-country research has repeatedly shown that Japanese individuals are more indecisive (Yates et al., 1998, 2010) and exhibit more “decision difficulty” than North Americans (Newman et al., 2018; Oishi et al., 2014). However, other Asian populations, such as Chinese and Taiwanese, are not less decisive than North Americans (Li, Masuda, & Jiang, 2016; Patalano & Wengrovitz, 2006; Yates et al., 1998, 2010; but see Li et al., 2014). Japanese society is unique in that its relational mobility is among the lowest in the world, even compared with other Asian countries (Thomson et al., 2018). Our data showed that Japan has the lowest relational mobility, followed by Taiwan, with the United States having the highest level (Japan vs. Taiwan: d = −0.40; Japan vs. the United States: d = −1.05; see results in Study 2). 1 Some evidence suggests that high indecision in Japanese society relates to its characteristics of social relationships (Komiya et al., 2011; Saito & Midorikawa, 2016). For example, Saito and Midorikawa (2016) showed that Japanese indecisiveness is characterized by stronger concerns about what others choose and making different choices from others. Coupled with the findings that Japanese show higher sensitivity and social anxiety compared with individuals from other countries (Sato et al., 2014; Schreier et al., 2010), it is likely that the proposed socio-ecological framework—from relational mobility to rejection sensitivity to interpersonal indecision—may help explain the cross-country variations in indecision.
Current Research
This study investigated socio-ecological mechanisms of interpersonal indecision using four studies in Japan, Taiwan, and the United States. Study 1 examined cross-country differences in non-interpersonal and interpersonal indecision through autobiographical recall of decision-making events. Studies 2a and 2b used a vignette design to examine how country of residence and relationship closeness influence interpersonal indecision and tested the mediating role of relational mobility and rejection avoidance. Study 3 further tested the meditation model using a within-country approach. Study 4 developed a scale assessing the general tendency to experience interpersonal indecision and examined whether the proposed mechanism could be replicated using this scale. Specifically, we hypothesize that (a) Japanese are more interpersonally indecisive than North Americans and Taiwanese, (b) the cross-country differences in interpersonal indecision are explained by the differences in relational mobility, and (c) lower relational mobility is associated with greater sensitivity to social rejection, which in turn predict higher interpersonal indecision. All study materials were prepared in English or Japanese and then translated into English, Japanese, or Taiwanese Mandarin by the first author. An independent translator back-translated the materials into the original language. The research team checked and finalized the translation to ensure comparability. These studies were approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Psychological Science Unit at Kyoto University.
Transparency and Openness
Studies 1 to 3 were preregistered, but Study 4 was not preregistered. We report all preregistered analyses and indicate all deviations from the preregistered analysis plan. Analyses that were not included in the preregistered plan were labeled as exploratory. It is important to note that the most central prediction—the association between relational mobility, rejection avoidance/sensitivity, and interpersonal indecision—was directly tested in Studies 2 to 4, but this prediction was only preregistered in Study 3. Data, materials, and analytical R syntax are available via the Open Science Framework page (https://osf.io/f6j84/).
Study 1
Study 1 examined the cross-country differences in interpersonal and non-interpersonal indecision in Japan, Taiwan, and the United States. We expected that (a) Japanese participants would report higher levels of indecision than Taiwanese and U.S. participants and (b) that cross-country differences would be more pronounced in interpersonal situations than in non-interpersonal situations. Although previous studies have found cross-country differences in general indecisiveness (Yates et al., 1998, 2010), no studies have examined cross-country variations in non-interpersonal and interpersonal decision-making separately.
Method
Participants
The targeted sample size was 100 per country following previous research (Yates et al., 2010). We recruited 131 Japanese, 110 Taiwanese, and 140 U.S. adults who had never lived in a foreign country for more than 1 year. Participants from Japan and the United States were recruited via the online crowdsourcing platforms Lancers and Prolific, respectively. Participants from Taiwan were recruited via the marketing company Eastern Online. We excluded those who failed the attention check, completed the questionnaire too quickly or slowly (i.e., response time ± 2 SD), provided short answers to open-ended questions, or reported over 1 year of overseas experience. The final sample included 107 Japanese, 82 Taiwanese, and 120 U.S. participants (59% men and 41% women; Mage = 42.00, SDage = 8.55). No differences were found in gender, χ2(2) = 0.07, p = .96, Cramer’s V = .02 and mean ages, F(2, 306) = 0.16, p = .85, ŋ2 = .001, across countries. Detailed information on data exclusion and participants’ demographic background can be found in Supplementary Tables S1 and S2.
Procedure and Materials
Participants were recruited for a study of decision-making in everyday situations. Participants were asked to recall their most recent decision-making experiences in six situations: two major non-interpersonal situations, two minor non-interpersonal situations, and two interpersonal situations (see Table 1). We chose these situations to capture common decision-making situations that participants from different countries may encounter in their everyday lives.
Decision-Making Situations Recalled in Study 1.
Note. Participants were asked to recall one event for each situation in a random order using the following prompt: “Please recall a particular event in which you [. . .]. If there is more than one event in your mind, please describe the most recent one.”
For each situation, participants were asked to write down in detail the situation and their decision-making process, followed by a series of questions, including the time of the event (“When did the event happen?”), personal significance (“How important was the decision for you?”), decision difficulty (“How difficult was it for you to make the decision?”), and confidence (“To what extent did you feel confident in the decision you made?”). The time of the event was rated on a 12-point scale (1 = today, 12 = more than 10 years ago), and the other items were rated on a 9-point scale (1 = not at all, 9 = extremely). We preregistered to use the average decision difficulty and confidence as a measure of indecision. However, the correlations between these two variables were not high enough to be considered as the same construct (range = −.12 to −.52). We thus deviated from the preregistration and used only the scores of decision difficulty as the measure of indecision. 2
After completing the questions for one situation, the participants moved on to the next. The order of the six situations was randomized. They then completed the 11-item General Indecisiveness Scale (α = .92; e.g., “I find it easy to make decisions” [reversed item], “I try to put off making decisions,” and “I often worry about making the wrong decision”) on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree; Rassin et al., 2007) as the measure of dispositional indecisiveness. Finally, they completed questions on socio-demographic variables, including age, gender, and subjective social class (Adler et al., 2000). Cronbach’s alphas for each country for all measures included in Studies 1 to 4 can be found in Supplementary Table S4.
Results
Dispositional Indecisiveness
As shown in Figure 1A, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed that dispositional indecisiveness varied across countries, F(2, 306) = 16.24, p < .001, ŋ2 = .10. An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with age, gender, and subjective social class as covariates also indicated a similar main effect of country, F(2, 302) = 12.96, p < .001, ŋ2 = .08. As predicted, Tukey’s honestly significant difference (HSD) tests suggested that Japanese (M = 3.20, SD = 0.81) scored higher than Taiwanese (M = 2.67, SD = 0.77; d = 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.38, 0.97], p < .001) and U.S. participants (M = 2.62, SD = 0.87; d = 0.69, 95% CI = [0.42, 0.96], p < .001), while no differences were found between Taiwanese and U.S. participants (d = 0.06, 95% CI = [−0.34, 0.22], p = .90).
Cross-Country Differences in Non-Interpersonal and Interpersonal Indecision in Study 1.
Non-Interpersonal and Interpersonal Indecision
As shown in Figure 1B and 1C, a two-way ANOVA indicated significant main effects of country, F(2, 306) = 9.51, p < .001, ŋ2 = .06 and situation, F(4.78, 1,463.88) = 95.97, p < .001, ŋ2 = .24, on indecision in the decision-making situations. As predicted, the interaction effects between country and situation were also significant, F(9.57, 1,463.88) = 2.43, p = .008, ŋ2 = .02. An ANCOVA with age, gender, and subjective social class as covariates also indicated similar effects of country, F(2, 302) = 9.34, p < .001, ŋ2 = .06; situation, F(4.79, 1,445.4) = 6.78, p < .001, ŋ2 = .02; and the interaction between country and situation, F(9.57, 1,445.4) = 2.51, p = .006, ŋ2 = .02. Separate one-way ANOVAs with Bonferroni corrections showed significant effects of country only in interpersonal situations (joining a group: F(2, 306) = 12.10, p < .001, ŋ2 = .07; planning for a group activity: F(2, 306) = 9.43, p = .001, ŋ2 = .06) not in non-interpersonal situations (career decision: F(2, 306) = 2.78, p = .38, ŋ2 = .02; big purchase decision: F(2, 306) = 1.40, p = 1.00, ŋ2 = .01); meal decision: F(2, 306) = 0.73, p = 1.00, ŋ2 = .01; leisure time plan: F(2, 306) = 2.30, p = .61, ŋ2 = .02). For the joining a group situation, post hoc comparisons indicated that Japanese (M = 5.77, SD = 2.17) reported higher levels of indecision than Taiwanese (M = 4.80, SD = 2.34; d = 0.43, 95% CI = [0.14, 0.72], p = .02) and U.S. participants (M = 4.22, SD = 2.57; d = 0.65, 95% CI = [0.38, 0.92], p < .001), while no differences were found between Taiwanese and U.S. participants (d = 0.24, 95% CI = [−0.04, 0.52], p = .20). For the Planning for a group activity situation, post hoc comparisons indicated that Japanese participants (M = 4.89, SD = 2.06) reported higher levels of indecision than U.S. participants (M = 3.85, SD = 2.57; d = 0.44, 95% CI = [0.18, 0.71], p = .003), Taiwanese participants (M = 5.17, SD = 2.30; d = 0.54, 95% CI = [0.25, 0.82], p < .001) also reported higher levels of indecision than U.S. participants, but there were no differences between Taiwanese and Japanese participants (d = 0.13, 95% CI = [−0.16, 0.42], p = .69).
Exploratory Analyses for Robustness
First, participants from different countries may differ in the frequency and personal significance of decisions in the situation. Regression analyses controlling for the time of the event and the personal significance of the decision showed similar cross-country patterns of interpersonal indecision (see Supplementary Table S5). Second, comparing mean differences across countries may be subject to the reference group effect (Heine et al., 2002), so that, we explored the interaction effect of situational indecision using a within-country approach (see Supplementary Table S6). Similar conclusions can be drawn, such that, joining a group was as difficult as big purchase decisions for Japanese participants, but for Taiwanese and U.S. participants, joining a group was similar to minor non-interpersonal decisions (i.e., meal decisions and leisure time plans) in terms of indecision was as difficult as minor non-interpersonal decisions for U.S. participants but fell between major and minor decisions for Taiwanese and Japanese participants. These additional analyses support the robustness of interpersonal indecision as a cross-country phenomenon.
Discussion
Study 1 found that Japanese participants were more indecisive than Taiwanese and U.S. participants, but the differences only existed in interpersonal situations. The findings largely supported our predictions that people from less mobile societies, such as Japan, would experience more interpersonal indecision. One exception was that Taiwanese and Japanese participants showed similar levels of interpersonal indecision in the planning a group activity situation. A notable difference between the two interpersonal situations is that planning for a group activity is more like a one-time event, whereas decisions about joining a group tend not to have a definite ending. The latter may be more likely to trigger stronger considerations for potential social rejection in future interactions. This may explain why we found effects more consistent with our hypothesis in the joining a group situation than in the planning for a group activity situation. Alternatively, another difference between these two conditions was that only the planning for a group activity condition directly involved family members. A closer look at the open responses revealed that many Taiwanese participants recalled traveling with their aging parents. High indecision in this situation may reflect the complexity and difficulty of fulfilling filial duties in Taiwan (Yeh & Bedford, 2003). Overall, Study 1 demonstrated that Japanese participants are more likely to report experiences of interpersonal indecision than those from other countries.
Study 2a
Study 2a investigated cross-country differences in interpersonal indecision using a vignette design. We designed a vignette based on responses from the joining a group situation in Study 1, where participants were invited to a hobby-related activity by a coworker. In addition to interpersonal indecision, we also assessed how concerned participants were about the relational consequences of their decisions (i.e., relationship concern). Studies have shown that relationship concern explain why East Asians show more interpersonal hesitancy in seeking support (Taylor et al., 2004), so that, it is likely that relationship concern may also help explain cross-country differences in interpersonal indecision. We hypothesized that Japanese participants would show higher levels of relationship concern and interpersonal indecision than Taiwanese and U.S. participants.
Furthermore, Study 2a also addressed a potential moderator of cross-country patterns: relationship closeness. People in low-mobility environments are more motivated to avoid losing existing social relationships, which may lead them to show greater concern for relationships with those who are close to them than for those who are not. Cross-country differences in interpersonal indecision are likely to be more pronounced in close relationships than in less-close ones, as concern about relationship consequences in less-close relationships may be low across countries. Therefore, we hypothesized that cross-country differences would exist regardless of relationship closeness but would be stronger when participants have a close relationship (compared with a less-close relationship) with the coworker.
In addition, we examined the mediating role of relational mobility and rejection avoidance in the relationship between country of residence and interpersonal indecision. We hypothesized that, compared with Taiwanese and U.S. participants, Japanese participants would report lower relational mobility, which in turn predicted higher rejection avoidance and then interpersonal indecision. The mediation analyses were not preregistered because the hypothesis was developed based on exploratory analyses from Study 2. Despite the consistent and replicated patterns, the mediation analyses reported in Studies 2a and 2b should be deemed exploratory.
Method
Participants
The same data collection procedure as in Study 1 was used. Simulation-based power analysis indicated that 252 participants per country were required to detect an interaction effect in a two-way ANOVA with 90% power. 3 We excluded those who failed the attention check, completed the questionnaire too quickly or slowly, or reported over 1 year of overseas experience. The final sample included 231 Japanese, 260 Taiwanese, and 245 U.S. participants (53% men, 47% women, and 0.4% other genders; Mage = 43.20, SDage = 9.77). No differences were found in the proportions of women participants (χ2(2) = 2.24, p = .33, Cramer’s V = .06) and mean ages, F(2, 733) = 1.57, p = .21, ŋ2 = .004, across countries. Among the participants, 464 (63%) were employed full time, 97 (13%) part time, and 175 (24%) were unemployed. Detailed information on data exclusion and participants’ demographic background can be found in Supplementary Tables S1 and S2.
Design
A 3 (country: Japan, Taiwan, vs. the United States) × 2 (relationship closeness: close vs. less-close relationship) between-participants design was used. The dependent variables were relationship concern and interpersonal indecision.
Procedure and Materials
Participants were instructed to imagine they were invited to a hobby-related group in which they were not interested, either by a coworker with a close relationship or a coworker with a less-close relationship (see Table 2). They were asked to carefully read the description twice and write down as much of their imagined situation as possible. After that, they completed a manipulation check (i.e., “I feel very close to my coworker in this situation”) on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) and a question about their final decision (i.e., “Would you join the group?”) on a 5-point scale (1 = definitely not, 2 = probably not, 3 = not sure, 4 = probably, 5 = definitely). Participants also completed measures of interpersonal indecision and relationship concerns. In contrast to the single-item measure of indecision (i.e., decision difficulty) used in Study 1, we created a three-item measure that better captured the main aspects of indecision, including decision difficulty, worry about making wrong decisions, and attempts to delay decisions (α = .85; i.e., “How difficult would it be for you to decide whether to join?” “How worried would you be about making the wrong decision?,” and “How much would you want to put off the decision if you were able to?”) on a 9-point scale (1 = not at all, 9 = extremely) adapted from the General Indecisiveness Scale (Rassin et al., 2007). Relationship concern was measured by five items (α = .91; e.g., “When making the decision, I would worry about what my coworker thinks of me” and “When making the decision, I would consider the impact of my decision on my relationship with my coworker”) on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Kaiser’s rule (i.e., eigenvalue > 1), scree plot, and parallel analysis all indicated a one-factor solution for relationship concern items. Finally, they completed a three-item measure of rejection avoidance 4 (α = .90; e.g., “I worry about what people think of me, and always feel that someone is watching me” and “Sometimes when I do things, I get so anxious and confused thinking about how everything will turn out that I have trouble even getting started”) on a 7-point scale (1 = does not describe at all, 7 = describes very well; Hashimoto & Yamagishi, 2013) and a 12-item measure of relational mobility (α = .87; e.g., “They (the people around you) have many chances to get to know other people” and “They are able to choose the groups and organizations they belong to”) on a 6-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree; Yuki et al., 2007).
Vignettes and Relationship Manipulations in Study 2.
Results
Table 3 shows the descriptive statistics and Table 4 shows correlations of the study variables. First, we checked whether the relationship closeness manipulation was successful. A two-way ANOVA indicated a significant main effect of relationship closeness condition, F(1, 730) = 930.05, p < .001, ŋ2 = .54, on relationship closeness. Participants felt closer to coworkers in the close relationship condition (M = 5.56, SD = 1.11) than in the less-close relationship condition (M = 3.04, SD = 1.21). We preregistered to include analyses of their final decision (i.e., whether they decided to join the group or not) but did not have specific predictions, so that, the results were omitted from the manuscript but available in the Supplementary Materials.
Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables in Study 2.
Correlations of Study Variables in Study 2.
p < .05, **p < .01.
Preregistered Analyses
A two-way ANOVA indicated significant main effects of country, F(2, 730) = 6.12, p = .002, ŋ2 = .02, and relationship closeness condition, F(1, 730) = 33.33, p < .001, ŋ2 = .04, on relationship concern. No interaction effects were found between country and relationship closeness condition, F(2, 730) = 0.25, p = .78, ŋ2 = .001. Contrary to our prediction, Tukey’s HSD tests indicated that Taiwanese (M = 3.64, SD = 1.47) showed lower relationship concern than Japanese (M = 4.06, SD = 1.32; d = −0.30, 95% CI = [−0.48, −0.12], p = .01) and U.S. participants (M = 4.03, SD = 1.64; d = −0.25, 95% CI = [−0.43, −0.08], p = .01), while no differences were found between Japanese and U.S. participants (d = 0.02, 95% CI = [−0.16, 0.20], p = .98). In addition, participants in the close relationship condition (M = 4.20, SD = 1.44) showed higher relationship concerns than did participants in the less-close relationship condition (M = 3.58, SD = 1.49; d = 0.42, 95% CI = [0.28, 0.57]).
A two-way ANOVA indicated significant main effects of country, F(2, 730) = 3.42, p = .03, ŋ2 = .01, and relationship closeness condition, F(1, 730) = 29.61, p < .001, ŋ2 = .04, on interpersonal indecision (see Figure 2A). No interaction effects were found between country and relationship closeness condition, F(2, 730) = 0.81, p = .44, ŋ2 = .002. Consistent with our prediction, Tukey’s HSD tests indicated that Japanese participants (M = 3.65, SD = 1.92) showed higher interpersonal indecision than U.S. participants (M = 3.22, SD = 2.10; d = 0.22, 95% CI = [0.04, 0.40], p = .04); however, Taiwanese (M = 3.34, SD = 1.92) did not differ from Japanese (d = −0.16, 95% CI = [−0.34, 0.01], p = .19) or U.S. participants (d = 0.06, 95% CI = [−0.11, 0.24], p = .76). In addition, participants in the close relationship condition (M = 3.78, SD = 2.06) showed higher interpersonal indecision than participants in the less-close relationship condition (M = 3.00, SD = 1.82; d = 0.40, 95% CI = [0.25, 0.55]).
Interpersonal Indecision by Relationship Closeness Condition and Country (Study 2). (A) Study 2a: Company Situation and (B) Study 2b: Community Situation.
Exploratory Analyses
We found significant cross-country differences in both relational mobility, F(2, 732) = 71.20, p < .001, ŋ2 = .16, and rejection avoidance, F(2, 733) = 31.95, p < .001, ŋ2 = .08. Japanese participants reported lower relational mobility than Taiwanese participants (d = −0.29, 95% CI = [−0.47, −0.11], p = .005) and U.S. participants (d = −0.98, 95% CI = [−1.17, −0.79], p < .001), while Taiwanese participants also scored lower than U.S. participants (d = −0.81, 95% CI = [−0.99, −0.63], p < .001). Japanese participants reported higher rejection avoidance than Taiwanese participants (d = 0.54, 95% CI = [0.36, 0.72], p < .001) and U.S. participants (d = 0.71, 95% CI = [0.52, 0.89], p < .001), while Taiwanese participants also scored higher than U.S. participants (d = 0.20, 95% CI = [0.03, 0.38], p = .046).
As shown in Figure 3A, we conducted a mediation analysis to explore socio-ecological mechanisms of interpersonal indecision. Confidence intervals for indirect effects were estimated using 5,000 bootstrapped samples. A significant indirect effect was found from country of residence, relational mobility, rejection avoidance, to interpersonal indecision (standardized indirect effect for Taiwan vs. Japan = −0.01, 95% CI = [−0.02, −0.003]; standardized indirect effect for U.S. vs. Japan = −0.05, 95% CI = [−0.07, −0.03]) when including the relationship closeness condition as a covariate. Notably, the cross-country differences in interpersonal indecision between Japan and the United States were fully mediated by the indirect effects of relational mobility and rejection avoidance.
Cross-Country Variations of Interpersonal Indecision Mediated by Relational Mobility and Rejection Avoidance (Study 2). (A) Study 2a: Company Situation and (B) Study 2b: Community Situation.
Study 2b
Study 2b aimed to investigate whether the findings of Study 2a were robust across different contexts. The company situations used in Study 2a may have been difficult for unemployed participants to imagine. We adapted the vignette to a community situation in which participants were invited to a hobby-related group by a neighbor. The hypotheses and design are the same as those in Study 2a.
Method
The same data collection procedure was used in Study 2a. The final sample included 236 Japanese, 260 Taiwanese, and 245 U.S. participants (55% men, 45% women, and 0.4% other genders; Mage = 43.43, SDage = 9.82). No differences were found in the proportions of women participants (χ2(2) = 4.69, p = .10, Cramer’s V = .08) and mean ages, F(2, 738) = 0.22, p = .81, ŋ2 = .001, across countries. Detailed information on data exclusion and participants’ demographic background can be found in Supplementary Tables S1 and S2. The same procedure and materials were used, except the vignettes were adapted to the community context (see Table 2). The measures for interpersonal indecision (α = .84), relationship concern (α = .92), rejection avoidance (α = .90), and relational mobility (α = .86) showed good internal reliability in Study 2b.
Results
Table 3 shows the descriptive statistics and Table 4 shows correlations of the study variables. A two-way ANOVA indicated a significant main effect of relationship closeness condition, F(1, 735) = 842.43, p < .001, ŋ2 = .52, on relationship closeness. Participants felt closer to their neighbors in the close relationship condition (M = 5.44, SD = 1.04) than in the less-close relationship condition (M = 3.08, SD = 1.21). We preregistered to include analyses of their final decision but did not have specific predictions, so that, the results were omitted from the manuscript but available in the Supplementary Materials.
Preregistered Analyses
A two-way ANOVA indicated significant main effects of country, F(2, 734) = 16.38, p < .001, ŋ2 = .04, and relationship closeness condition, F(1, 734) = 65.22, p < .001, ŋ2 = .08, on relationship concern. No interaction effects were found between country and relationship closeness condition, F(2, 734) = 0.50, p = .61, ŋ2 = .001. Contrary to our prediction, Tukey’s HSD tests indicated that Taiwanese participants (M = 3.50, SD = 1.42) showed lower relationship concern than Japanese (M = 4.16, SD = 1.42; d = −0.47, 95% CI = [−0.65, −0.29], p < .001) and U.S. participants (M = 4.05, SD = 1.58; d = −0.37, 95% CI = [−0.54, −0.19], p < .001), while no differences were found between Japanese and U.S. participants (d = 0.07, 95% CI = [−0.11, 0.25], p = .69). In addition, participants in the close relationship condition (M = 4.32, SD = 1.44) showed higher relationship concerns than did participants in the less-close relationship condition (M = 3.48, SD = 1.44; d = 0.58, 95% CI = [0.44, 0.73]).
A two-way ANOVA indicated significant main effects of country, F(2, 735) = 12.22, p < .001, ŋ2 = .03, and relationship closeness condition, F(1, 735) = 41.41, p < .001, ŋ2 = .05, on interpersonal indecision (see Figure 2B). No interaction effects were found between country and relationship closeness condition, F(2, 735) = 1.52, p = .22, ŋ2 = .004. Consistent with our prediction, Tukey’s HSD tests indicated that Japanese (M = 3.98, SD = 1.99) showed higher interpersonal indecision than Taiwanese (M = 3.23, SD = 1.80; d = 0.40, 95% CI = [0.22, 0.57], p < .001) and U.S. participants (M = 3.29, SD = 1.97; d = 0.35, 95% CI = [0.17, 0.53], p < .001), while no differences were found between U.S. and Taiwanese participants (d = 0.03, 95% CI = [−0.14, 0.21], p = .92). In addition, participants in the close relationship condition (M = 3.94, SD = 2.04) showed higher interpersonal indecision than participants in the less-close relationship condition (M = 3.05, SD = 1.74; d = 0.47, 95% CI = [0.32, 0.61]).
Exploratory Analyses
We found significant cross-country differences in both relational mobility, F(2, 738) = 88.59, p < .001, ŋ2 = .19, and rejection avoidance, F(2, 738) = 38.82, p < .001, ŋ2 = .10. Japanese participants reported lower relational mobility than Taiwanese participants (d = −0.51, 95% CI = [−0.69, −0.33], p < .001) and U.S. participants (d = −1.13, 95% CI = [−1.32, −0.93], p < .001), while Taiwanese participants also scored lower than U.S. participants (d = −0.75, 95% CI = [−0.57, −0.93], p < .001). Japanese participants reported higher rejection avoidance than Taiwanese participants (d = 0.61, 95% CI = [0.43, 0.79], p < .001) and U.S. participants (d = 0.77, 95% CI = [0.58, 0.95], p < .001), while Taiwanese participants did not differ from U.S. participants (d = 0.20, 95% CI = [0.02, 0.37], p = .06). As shown in Figure 3B, a significant indirect effect was found from country of residence, relational mobility, rejection avoidance, to interpersonal indecision (standardized indirect effect for Taiwan vs. Japan = −0.03, 95% CI = [−0.04, −0.02]; standardized indirect effect for U.S. vs. Japan = −0.07, 95% CI = [−0.10, −0.05]). Cross-country differences in interpersonal indecision between Japan, Taiwan, and the United States were fully mediated by the indirect effects of relational mobility and rejection avoidance.
Discussion
Studies 2a and 2b showed similar results. In Study 2a, Japanese participants showed higher interpersonal indecision than U.S. participants, whereas in Study 2b, Japanese participants showed higher interpersonal indecision than both Taiwanese and U.S. participants. However, we did not find an interaction between country and relationship closeness condition in both studies, which means that Japanese were more interpersonally indecisive regardless of their relationships with the people involved. Unexpectedly, Taiwanese participants showed the lowest relationship concern among the countries. A possible explanation for the divergent patterns of relationship concern and indecision may be that the concept of relationship concern itself is vaguely defined, and indecision may stem from a specific aspect of relationship concern that could result in rejection (e.g., concerns about rejection or potential negative consequences). We addressed this issue by separating and directly measuring expected relationship costs and benefits in the next study. Finally, we found a consistent pattern that cross-country differences in interpersonal indecision were fully mediated by indirect effects through relational mobility and rejection avoidance, supporting the proposed socio-ecological framework.
Study 3
Study 3 aimed to validate and further explore the socio-ecological framework in a sample of U.S. adults. First, we aimed to replicate the mediation effect using a within-country approach. In Study 2, the measure of rejection avoidance included only three items and was not originally designed to measure rejection sensitivity. Study 3 used a validated measure of rejection sensitivity (Berenson et al., 2009). Second, relational mobility captures the characteristics of our immediate social environment, so that, it is possible that it would influence how we perceive people around us. Socio-cultural environments influence how we think and make decisions, not only by shaping our individual tendencies but also by affecting how we perceive the psychological characteristics of others (Zou et al., 2009). If we believe that the people around us have high rejection sensitivity, we may become more cautious in making decisions that involve them. Therefore, interpersonal indecision may be driven not only by concerns about being rejected but also by concerns about hurting others’ feelings. We included a measure of the perceived normative level of rejection sensitivity (i.e., whether the participants think most people would be concerned about being rejected) to test whether interpersonal indecision in a low relationally mobile environment is driven by self-focused rejection concerns or shared norms of relationship concern. Finally, we have so far focused on the role of the general propensity of rejection sensitivity. It is unclear whether relational mobility would influence how people evaluate the current decision-making situation in relation to social rejection, such as whether they would expect stronger relational outcomes or be more concerned about being rejected in a specific context. Therefore, we also included measures of expected relational benefits, expected relational costs, and concern for social rejection when making the decision described in the vignette.
Method
Participants
We recruited 262 adults born and raised in the United States who had not participated in previous studies via Prolific. Simulation-based power analysis indicated that 244 participants were required to detect a mediation effect in the parallel mediation model with 90% power. 5 The final sample included 252 U.S. participants (50% men, 49% women, and 1% other genders; Mage = 41.70, SDage = 13.41). Detailed information on data exclusion and participants’ demographic background can be found in Supplementary Tables S1 and S2.
Materials
Vignette Ratings
We used the vignette of the close relationship condition from Study 2b as it showed the most salient cross-country differences (see Figure 2). After reading the situation, participants wrote down the situation they imagined and completed the same measures of final decision and interpersonal indecision (α = .86) as in Study 2b. They also completed additional questions, including expected relational benefits (i.e., “My decision would have positive impacts on my relationship with my neighbor”) and expected relational costs (i.e., “My decision would have negative impacts on my relationship with my neighbor”) on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) and one item regarding concern for social rejection (i.e., “How concerned or anxious would you be over your neighbor’s negative reactions if you choose not to join the group?”) on a 6-point scale (1 = very unconcerned, 6 = very concerned).
Relational Mobility
We assessed relational mobility using the 12-item Relational Mobility Scale (α = .87; Yuki et al., 2007).
Rejection Sensitivity
We assessed rejection sensitivity using the Rejection Sensitivity Questionnaire, Adult version (A-RSQ; Berenson et al., 2009). The scale consists of nine hypothetical situations that might involve rejection from others (e.g., “You approach a close friend to talk after doing or saying something that seriously upset him/her”). For each situation, participants rated how anxious or concerned they were about the outcome (e.g., “How concerned or anxious would you be over whether or not your friend would want to talk with you?”) on a 6-point scale (1 = very unconcerned, 6 = very concerned) and the likelihood of having their request being accepted (e.g., “I would expect that he or she would want to talk with me to try to work things out”) on a 6-point scale (1 = very unlikely, 6 = very likely). Following the method outlined by Berenson et al. (2009), we calculated the index of rejection sensitivity by multiplying the score of the first question (i.e., rejection concern) with the reversed score of the second question (i.e., rejection expectancy) for each situation and then generating an average score across the situations. The resulting index demonstrated good internal reliability in our study (α = .80).
Perceived Normative Level of Rejection Sensitivity
We adapted the A-RSQ to measure how people think most people around them are sensitive to social rejection. Specifically, we changed the questions of the scale to “How concerned or anxious do you think most people in this situation would. . .” (rejection concern) and “How much would most people in this situation expect that. . .” (rejection expectancy). The items were transformed into a total score using the same procedure of the A-RSQ scale (α = .83).
Results
Preregistered Analyses
Table 5 shows the descriptive statistics of the study variables, and Figure 4A shows the parallel mediation model. As predicted, relational mobility negatively mediated interpersonal indecision through rejection sensitivity (standardized indirect effect = −0.05, 95% CI = [−0.09, −0.01]). However, the indirect effect of the perceived normative level of rejection sensitivity was not significant (standardized indirect effect = 0.03, 95% CI = [−0.01, 0.07]). Although the perceived normative level of rejection sensitivity was negatively predicted by relational mobility (β = −.25, 95% CI = [−0.38, −0.13], p < .001), it did not predict interpersonal indecision (β = −.12, 95% CI = [−0.27, 0.03], p = .12). 6
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of Study Variables in Study 3.
p < .05, **p < .01.
Indirect Effects of Relational Mobility on Interpersonal Indecision (Study 3). (A) Indirect Effects Via Rejection Sensitivity and (B) Indirect Effects Via Evaluations of Current Decision-Making Situation.
Exploratory Analyses
We explored whether relational mobility had indirect effects on interpersonal indecision via participants’ evaluations of the current decision-making situation. As shown in Figure 4B, a parallel mediation analysis showed that relational mobility had negative indirect effects on interpersonal indecision via expected relational costs (standardized indirect effect = −0.04, 95% CI = [−0.07, −0.01]) and concern for social rejection (standardized indirect effect = −0.08, 95% CI = [−0.15, −0.01]). No indirect effects were found via expected relational benefits (standardized indirect effect = 0.003, 95% CI = [−0.01, 0.02]). Furthermore, an additional parallel mediation analysis also found that the effect of the propensity of rejection sensitivity on interpersonal indecision can be fully mediated by expected relational costs and concern for social rejection, with no mediation effects of expected relational benefits (see Supplementary Figure S2).
Discussion
In Study 3, interpersonal indecision was predicted by one’s rejection sensitivity in low relational mobility environments but was less related to considerations that others might feel rejected (i.e., normative level of social rejection). This suggests that interpersonal indecision is driven by subjective and individual concerns about being rejected, rather than by the shared normative structure of caring about hurting others’ feelings. In addition, we showed that relational mobility affects how people evaluate decision situations, such that, people from low relational mobility environments reported stronger concerns and higher expected levels of relational costs, which in turn predicted interpersonal indecision; however, there were no indirect effects of expected relational benefits. These results suggest that interpersonal indecision is driven only by avoidance-based aspects of relationship concern but not by the approach-based aspects that a general measure of “relationship concern” might capture. This finding is consistent with the idea that social interactions are driven by avoidance-based motivation in environments with low relational mobility (Oishi et al., 2015; Yamagishi et al., 2008; see also Hamamura et al., 2009).
Study 4
Studies 2 to 3 focused on interpersonal indecision when individuals were invited to join a group. Study 4 aimed to develop a measure of interpersonal indecision and investigate whether the mechanisms observed in vignette ratings could be replicated when assessing participants’ general tendency to experience interpersonal indecision. This study involved participants from Japan and the United States.
Participants
The same data collection procedure as in previous studies was used. We excluded those who failed the attention check, completed the questionnaire too quickly or slowly, or reported over 1 year of overseas experience. Study 4 was part of a larger dataset examining cross-country variations in interpersonal behaviors. We included all participants available in the dataset. The final sample included 413 Japanese (61% men, 38% women, and 0.2% other genders; Mage = 45.19, SDage = 9.85) and 423 U.S. participants (49% men, 50% women, and 0.5% other genders; Mage = 42.34, SDage = 12.17). The proportions of women participants (χ2(1) = 10.96, p < .001, Cramer’s V = 0.11) and mean ages (t(806.33) = 3.72, p < .001, d = 0.13) varied across countries. Japanese participants consisted of more men and were approximately 3 years older on average compared with those from the United States. Gender and age were therefore adjusted for in the analysis. Detailed information on data exclusion and participants’ demographic background can be found in Supplementary Tables S1 and S2.
Measures
We developed a scale to assess participants’ tendency to experience interpersonal indecision. The initial items included seven items adapted from the General Indecisiveness Scale (Rassin et al., 2007), which were modified to fit an interpersonal context. The following instruction was used for the scale: “The following questions are about how you make decisions in interpersonal situations. ‘Interpersonal situations’ here refers to situations when you interact with others or when your decisions may directly affect others.” Kaiser’s rule (i.e., eigenvalue > 1), scree plot, and parallel analysis all indicated a one-factor solution for the scale. One item was excluded due to low factor loadings in Japan. The final scale consisted of six items rated on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Table 6 shows the final items of the final Interpersonal Indecision Scale. We conducted multigroup confirmatory factor analysis to check cross-country measurement invariance. We used ΔCFI (comparative fit index) < 0.01 as criteria for measurement invariance (Chen, 2007). As shown in Table 7, we established configural (i.e., no differences in factor structure across countries) and metric invariance (i.e., comparable factor loadings across countries). We failed to establish full scalar invariance (i.e., same item intercepts across countries), but after freeing constraints on items 5 and 6, partial scalar invariance was established. Supplemental analysis using only four items with full scalar invariance did not change the results reported below (see Supplementary Figure S3). The scale showed good internal reliability in both countries (Cronbach’s alpha: Japan = .83, the United States = .87). In addition to interpersonal indecision, participants completed the same scales of rejection sensitivity (Berenson et al., 2009) and relational mobility (Yuki et al., 2007). These scales showed good internal reliability in this study (see Supplementary Table S4).
Standardized Loadings for Final Items of the Interpersonal Indecision Scale (Study 4).
Note. The following instruction was used for the scale: “The following questions are about how you make decisions in interpersonal situations. ‘Interpersonal situations’ here refers to situations when you interact with others or when your decisions may directly affect others.” The items were rated on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).
Measurement Invariance Tests for the Interpersonal Indecision Scale (Study 4).
Note. For the partial scalar model, we released the constraints on the intercept of the following items: “5. In interpersonal situations, I try to put off making decisions” and “6. In interpersonal situations, I always know exactly what I want.”
Results
Table 8 shows the descriptive statistics and correlations of the study variables. Figure 5 shows the mediation model adjusting for age and gender. Similar to previous studies, country of residence had an indirect effect on interpersonal indecision through relational mobility and rejection sensitivity (standardized indirect effect = −0.05, 95% CI = [−0.07, −0.03]). The mediation model without adjusting for age and gender showed a similar pattern (see supplementary Figure S4).
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of Study Variables in Study 4.
p < .05, **p < .01.
Relationships Between Country of Residence and Interpersonal Indecision Mediated by Relational Mobility and Rejection Sensitivity (Study 4)
Internal Meta-Analysis
We conducted a meta-analysis to synthesize the results regarding relational mobility, rejection avoidance/sensitivity, and interpersonal indecision (Goh et al., 2016). A two-stage structural equation modeling method with a fixed-effects model was used (Cheung & Chan, 2005). As shown in Figure 6, the estimated direct effect of relational mobility on interpersonal indecision was −0.09 (−0.12, −0.05), and the estimated indirect effect via rejection avoidance/sensitivity was −0.14 (−0.16, −0.12). Analytical R syntax for the meta-analysis is available via the Open Science Framework page (https://osf.io/f6j84/).
Meta-Analytic Mediation Analysis Across the Studies
General Discussion
The current study investigates the socio-ecological mechanisms underlying interpersonal indecision. Using samples from three countries, we found that living in societies with low relational mobility, such as Japan, makes people more sensitive to social rejection, which makes them more indecisive (i.e., experiencing decision difficulty, worrying about making wrong decisions, and attempting to delay decisions) in interpersonal situations. This link can be further explained by increased expectations of negative relational outcomes and a higher concern for social rejection when making interpersonal decisions. When people have fewer opportunities to determine their social networks, the risk of social rejection becomes more salient, making decisions involving others more difficult. These findings support a socio-ecological framework for understanding between- and within-country variations in interpersonal indecision. The limitations of this research are listed in Table 9.
Table of Limitations.
Previous studies on culture and decision-making have relied on comparisons between a single country in East Asia and the West, largely ignoring variations within East Asian countries (for exceptions, see Yates et al., 1998, 2010). This study goes beyond the East–West dichotomy and provides a socio-ecological account of why previous research has observed divergent patterns when comparing Western countries with Japan and other East Asian countries (e.g., Taiwan). Many recent studies have highlighted the cross-country differences in human cognition and decision-making in East Asia (Hornsey et al., 2019; Huang et al., 2024; Miyamoto et al., 2013). Importantly, previous research has shown that cross-country differences in “interdependence” between Japan and the United States are evident only in rejection avoidance, with no differences observed in harmony seeking (Hashimoto & Yamagishi, 2013, 2016). Our findings further reveal that higher rejection sensitivity and interpersonal decision avoidance are unique to low-mobility Japan, rather than characteristics shared across East Asia. These results offer a novel framework for understanding variations in interpersonal behaviors and social cognition within East Asian countries.
Our findings can also advance our cross-country understanding of interpersonal behaviors in applied contexts, such as interpersonal hesitancy to seek support (Taylor et al., 2004) and slow decision-making processes in Japanese companies (Watanabe, 1998; Watanabe & Yamaguchi, 1995). In the within-country context, our findings can help us understand regional differences in interpersonal behavior (Komiya et al., 2016), as well as interpersonal maladjustment due to cultural misfit when moving from a less mobile environment to a highly mobile environment (Stephens et al., 2012). Notably, Yates et al. (2010) found that the Japanese have a more positive view of individuals who display indecisive behavior. Because interpersonal indecision is afforded by social ecology, it may also have positive aspects. If network members deem interpersonally indecisive people more favorable, interpersonal indecision may paradoxically have some social benefits. Given that previous studies have mostly focused on the maladaptive aspects of indecisiveness and indecision, a crucial line of future research should examine both the potential benefits and drawbacks of interpersonal indecision.
Conclusion
In this research, we identify interpersonal indecision as a unique characteristic of people living in social environments with less flexible social networks. An enhanced need to be aware of potential rejection and ostracism makes the already complex interpersonal decision-making process even more challenging. Our findings contribute to the growing body of literature showing how social ecologies shape human psychology and behaviors across societies.
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-1-psp-10.1177_01461672241312260 – Supplemental material for Low Relational Mobility Fosters Interpersonal Indecision Through Increased Sensitivity to Social Rejection
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-psp-10.1177_01461672241312260 for Low Relational Mobility Fosters Interpersonal Indecision Through Increased Sensitivity to Social Rejection by Kuan-Ju Huang, Igor de Almeida, Yukiko Uchida and Shigehiro Oishi in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge Ken Kaku, Shoei Shimizu, Toshiki Nonaka, and Raphael Uricher for their help in translating the materials and Hiina Domae, Maiko Okuda, and Raphael Uricher for their valuable comments on the research design. They also acknowledge Cheng-Yi Chuang for his help in data collection in Taiwan. They used ChatGPT to check for grammatical errors and increase readability. They carefully reviewed and edited the content and took full responsibility for the content in this paper.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material is available online with this article.
Notes
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
