CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 204Cultural Differences and ValuesAttachment and Relationship DynamicsGender Roles and Identity Studies

Cultural differences in intimacy: The influence of gender-role ideology and individualism—Collectivism

Open access
Marshall, Tara C.·2008·Journal of Social and Personal Relationships
DOI 10.1177/0265407507086810
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Two studies examined emotional intimacy in European Canadian and Chinese Canadian dating relationships. Cultural differences in gender-role ideology and individualism—collectivism were hypothesized to differentially contribute to self-disclosure and responsiveness, and in turn, intimacy. Study 1 revealed that Chinese Canadians' lower intimacy relative to European Canadians was mediated by their greater gender-role traditionalism but not by their individualism or collectivism. Study 2 further linked greater gender-role traditionalism to lower self-disclosure, and in turn, lower intimacy. Results also revealed that Chinese Canadians' lower intimacy mediated their lower relationship satisfaction and higher rate of relationship termination in Study 1, but that Chinese Canadians were not any more likely to terminate their relationships in Study 2.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0265407507086810

Cites

78 of 78 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 11

  1. Davis, D., & Perkowitz, W. T. (1979). Consequences of responsiveness in dyadic interactions: Effects of probability of response and proportion of content related responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 534-550.
  2. DeVos, G. (1985). Dimensions of the self in Japanese culture. In A. J. Marsella, G. DeVos, & F. L. K. Hsu (Eds.), Culture and self: Asian and Western perspectives (pp. 141-184). London, UK: Tavistock.
  3. Dindia, K. (1997). Self-disclosure, self-identity, and relationship development: A transactional / dialectical perspective. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of Personal Relationships (2 nd edition) (pp. 411-426). John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Intimacy 36
  4. Gao, G. (1991). Stability of romantic relationships in China and the United States. In S. Ting- Toomey and F. Korzenny (Eds.), Cross-cultural interpersonal communication. International and intercultural communication annual, Vol. 15 (pp. 99-115). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  5. Hsu, F. L. K. (1985). The self in cross-cultural perspective. In A. J. Marsella, G. DeVos, & F. L. K. Hsu (Eds.), Culture and self: Asian and Western perspectives (pp. 24-55). London, England: Tavistock.
  6. Lin, Y. C. (1992). The construction of the sense of intimacy from everyday social interaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Rochester, NY. Intimacy 39
  7. Liu, C.-L. J. (2003). A relational self model of gender role identity of young Taiwanese women within their cultural context. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities & Social Sciences, 63(9-A), pp. 3357.
  8. Matsumoto, D. (2004). The role of individualism-collectivism in future cross-cultural research. Cross-Cultural Psychology Bulletin, 38, 10-18.
  9. Schneller, D. P., & Arditti, J. A. (2004). After the break-up: Interpreting divorce and rethinking intimacy. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 42, 1-37.
  10. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Construct validation of a triangular love scale. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 313-335.
  11. Waring, E. M., Holden, R. R., Wesley, S. (1998). Development of the Marital Self-Disclosure Questionnaire (MSDQ). Journal of Clinical Psychology, 54, 817-824.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Marshall, T. C.
Affiliations
Western University (CA)
Corresponding author
Marshall, Tara C.
ORCID
Marshall, Tara C.
Venue
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2008-02
Volume
25
Issue
1
Pages
143-168
ISSN
  • 0265-4075 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-3608
DOI
10.1177/0265407507086810
OpenAlex
W2119127167
Cited by
204
References
78
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 53 · 2019: 46 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 8
FWCI
5.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of Social and Personal Relationships (publishedVersion)
  • Brunel University Research Archive (BURA) (Brunel University London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Cultural Differences and Values
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Roles and Identity Studies
Keywords
emotional intimacy, gender role ideology, individualism-collectivism, self-disclosure, dating relationships, Chinese Canadians, European Canadians, cultural differences, relationship satisfaction, breakup

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review