Measuring love: Relational mobility promotes calculative mindset in mate choice

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.1777

Abstract

Abstract:

In today's Chinese society, people are increasingly “itemizing” their personal traits and requirements when seeking a partner through matchmaking. This phenomenon is conceptualized as a “calculative mindset” in mate choice. We propose that in interpersonal environments characterized by high relational mobility—where relationships are more freely formed and dissolved—this cognitive strategy of transforming mate-related information into easily processed quantitative indicators serves an adaptive function by reducing cognitive load. Through analyses of online dating profiles, survey measures, and laboratory experiments, three studies (comprising four sub-studies) reveal correlational and causal relationships between relational mobility and the calculative mindset in mate choice at both regional and individual levels. These findings extend the psychological implications of relational mobility into the domain of mate selection, offering theoretical insights into how individuals adapt to dynamic social ecologies and practical implications for shaping policies or marketing strategies aligned with contemporary mate selection psychology.

Key words: relational mobility, mate choice, calculative mindset, cognitive load

LI Yawen, CAI Pan, ZUO Shijiang, WANG Fang, DONG Yu, ZHOU Yang, HUANG Niwen. (2025). Measuring love: Relational mobility promotes calculative mindset in mate choice. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 57(10), 1777-1790.

Figures/Tables 5

References 53

[1]	Awad, E., Dsouza, S., Shariff, A., Rahwan, I., & Bonnefon, J. F. (2020). Universals and variations in moral decisions made in 42 countries by 70, 000 participants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(5), 2332-2337.
[2]	Bennis, W., Medin, D. L., & Bartels, D. M. (2010). The costs and benefits of calculation and moral rules. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(2), 187-202.
[3]	Bruch, E., & Feinberg, F. (2017). Decision-making processes in social contexts. Annual Review of Sociology, 43, 207-227. doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-060116-053622 pmid: 28785123
[4]	Chen, J. M., Kim, H. S., Mojaverian, T., & Morling, B. (2012). Culture and social support provision: Who gives what and why. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(1), 3-13.
[5]	Cheng, L., Wang, X., Jetten, J., Klebl, C., Li, Z., & Wang, F. (2024). Subjective economic inequality evokes interpersonal objectification. British Journal of Social Psychology, 63(4), 1587-1607.
[6]	Collins, N., L., Ford, M. B., Guichard, A. C., Kane, H. S., & Feeney, B. C. (2010). Responding to need in intimate relationships:Social support and caregiving processes in couples. In M.Mikulincer & P. R.Shaver (Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature (pp. 367-389). American Psychological Association.
[7]	Ellis, B. J., & Del Giudice, M. (2019). Developmental adaptation to stress: An evolutionary perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 111-139. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011732 pmid: 30125133
[8]	Falk, C. F., Heine, S. J., Yuki, M., & Takemura, K. (2009). Why do westerners self-enhance more than east Asians?. European Journal of Personality, 23(3), 183-203.
[9]	Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). GPower 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods*, 39(2), 175-191.
[10]	Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 62, 451-482. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346 pmid: 21126183
[11]	Grossmann, I., & Varnum, M. E. W. (2015). Social structure, infectious diseases, disasters, secularism, and cultural change in America. Psychological Science, 26(3), 311-324.
[12]	Hertwig,, R., & Hoffrage, U. (Eds.). (2013). Simple heuristics in a social world. Oxford University Press.
[13]	Hsee, C. K., & Rottenstreich, Y. (2004). Music, pandas, and muggers: On the affective psychology of value. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(1), 23-30.
[14]	Joel, S., MacDonald, G., & Plaks, J. E. (2013). Romantic relationships conceptualized as a judgment and decision-making domain. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(6), 461-465.
[15]	Johnson, E. J., & Payne, J. W. (1985). Effort and accuracy in choice. Management Science, 31(4), 381-513.
[16]	Kim, H. S., Sherman, D. K., & Taylor, S. E. (2008). Culture and social support. American Psychologist, 63(6), 518-526.
[17]	Kim, J., Jawahar, I. M., Steinheider, B., Stone, T., & Ferrell, B. (2022). Development of a measure of calculative mindset (CM): Establishing a nomological net and predictive utility of the CM measure. Psychological Reports, 125(4), 2249-2273.
[18]	Kitayama, S., & Salvador, C. E. (2024). Cultural psychology: Beyond east and west. Annual Review of Psychology, 75(1), 495-526.
[19]	Kito, M., Yuki, M., & Thomson, R. (2017). Relational mobility and close relationships: A socioecological approach to explain cross- cultural differences. Personal Relationships, 24(1), 114-130.
[20]	Komiya, A., Ohtsubo, Y., Nakanishi, D., & Oishi, S. (2019). Gift-giving in romantic couples serves as a commitment signal: Relational mobility is associated with more frequent gift-giving. Evolution and Human Behavior, 40(2), 160-166.
[21]	Lenton, A. P., & Francesconi, M. (2010). How humans cognitively manage an abundance of mate options. Psychological Science, 21(4), 528-533.
[22]	Lenton, A. P., & Stewart, A. (2008). Changing her ways: The number of options and mate-standard strength impact mate choice strategy and satisfaction. Judgment and Decision Making, 3(7), 501-511.
[23]	Li, L. M. W., Adams, G., Kurtiş, T., & Hamamura, T. (2015). Beware of friends: The cultural psychology of relational mobility and cautious intimacy. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 18(2), 124-133.
[24]	Li, L. M. W., & Masuda, T. (2016). The role of regulatory focus in how much we care about enemies: Cross-cultural comparison between European Canadians and Hong Kong Chinese. Journal of Cross- Cultural Psychology, 47(1), 131-148.
[25]	Li, L. M. W., Masuda, T., & Lee, H. (2018). Low relational mobility leads to greater motivation to understand enemies but not friends and acquaintances. British Journal of Social Psychology, 57(1), 43-60.
[26]	Liu, P. J., McFerran, B., & Haws, K. L. (2020). Mindful matching: Ordinal versus nominal attributes. Journal of Marketing Research, 57(1), 134-155.
[27]	Martin, A. S., Schug, J., & Maddux, W. W. (2019). Relational mobility and cultural differences in analytic and holistic thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(4), 495-518.
[28]	Miller, G. F., & Todd, P. M. (1998). Mate choice turns cognitive. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2(5), 190-198.
[29]	Ministry of Civil Affairs of the People's Republic of China. (2018, June 4). Civil Affairs Data: Social Service Statistics of Provinces in the 1st Quarter of 2018. https://www.mca.gov.cn/mzsj/tjjb/sjsj/2018/201806041612.html
[30]	Ministry of Civil Affairs of the People's Republic of China. (2018, August 2). Civil Affairs Data: Social Service Statistics of Provinces in the 2nd Quarter of 2018. https://www.mca.gov.cn/mzsj/tjjb/sjsj/2018/20180608021510.html
[31]	Ministry of Civil Affairs of the People's Republic of China. (2018, October 29). Civil Affairs Data: Social Service Statistics of Provinces in the 3rd Quarter of 2018. https://www.mca.gov.cn/mzsj/tjjb/sjsj/2018/20180910291033.html
[32]	Ministry of Civil Affairs of the People's Republic of China. (2019, January 30). Civil Affairs Data: Social Service Statistics of Provinces in the 4th Quarter of 2018. https://www.mca.gov.cn/mzsj/tjjb/sjsj/2018/20181201301220.html
[33]	Ministry of Public Security of the People's Republic of China. Bureau, of Public Order. (2013). Population Statistics by County and City in the People's Republic of China (2011). Qunzhong Press.
[34]	Morrison, M., & Roese, N. J. (2011). Regrets of the typical American: Findings from a nationally representative sample. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(6), 576-583.
[35]	National Bureau of Statistics of China. (2018). China Statistical Yearbook 2018. China Statistics Press.
[36]	Oishi, S. (2014). Socioecological psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 581-609. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-030413-152156 pmid: 23987114
[37]	Oishi, S., Rothman, A. J., Snyder, M., Su, J., Zehm, K., Hertel, A. W., Gonzales, M. H., & Sherman, G. D. (2007). The socioecological model of procommunity action: The benefits of residential stability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 831-844.
[38]	Oishi,, S., Schug, J., Yuki, M., & Axt, J. (2015). The psychology of residential and relational mobilities. In M. J. Gelfand, C.-Y.Chiu, & Y.-Y.Hong (Eds.), Handbook of advances in culture and psychology (Vol.5, pp. 221-272). Oxford University Press.
[39]	Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. J. (1993). The adaptive decision maker. Cambridge University Press.
[40]	Sato, K., & Yuki, M. (2014). The association between self-esteem and happiness differs in relationally mobile vs. stable interpersonal contexts. Frontiers in Psychology,5, Article 1113.
[41]	Schönbrodt, F. D., & Perugini, M. (2013). At what sample size do correlations stabilize. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(5), 609-612.
[42]	Schug, J., Yuki, M., & Maddux, W. W. (2010). Relational mobility explains between-and within-culture differences in self-disclosure to close friends. Psychological Science, 21(10), 1471-1479.
[43]	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.
[44]	Small, D. A., Loewenstein, G., & Slovic, P. (2007). Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102(2), 143-153.
[45]	Thomson, R. (2016). A socioecological approach to behavior and psychological tendencies on social network sites: The role of relational mobility[Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Hokkaido University.
[46]	Thomson, R., Yuki, M., Talhelm, T., Schug, J., Kito, M., Ayanian, A. H., … Visserman M. L. (2018). Relational mobility predicts social behaviors in 39 countries and is tied to historical farming and threat. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(29), 7521-7526.
[47]	Wang, L., Malhotra, D., & Murnighan, J. K. (2011). Economics education and greed. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 10(4), 643-660.
[48]	Wang, L., Zhong, C. B., & Murnighan, J. K. (2014). The social and ethical consequences of a calculative mindset. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 125(1), 39-49.
[49]	Weijters, B., & Baumgartner, H. (2012). Misresponse to reversed and negated items in surveys: A review. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(5), 737-747.
[50]	Yuki,, M., & Schug, J. (2012). Relational mobility:A socioecological approach to personal relationships. In Gillath, O., Adams, G., & KunkelA. (Eds.). Relationship science: Integrating evolutionary, neuroscience, and sociocultural approaches(pp.137-151). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association.
[51]	Yuki, M., & Schug, J. (2020). Psychological consequences of relational mobility. Current Opinion in Psychology, 32, 129-132. doi: S2352-250X(19)30109-5 pmid: 31491705
[52]	Yuki, M., Schug, J., Horikawa, H., Takemura, K., Sato, K., Yokota, K., & Kamaya, K. (2007). Development of a scale to measure perceptions of relational mobility in society. CERSS Working Paper 75, Center for Experimental Research in Social Sciences, Hokkaido University.
[53]	Zhong, C. B. (2011). The ethical dangers of deliberative decision making. Administrative Science Quarterly, 56(1), 1-25.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Regional Relational Mobility	?
2. Gender	0.05^***	?
3. Age	?0.08^***	0.53^***	?
4. Education Level	0.10^***	0.18^***	0.01^*	?
5. Regional Population Size	0.07	?0.19^***	?0.20^***	?0.08^***	?
6. Regional GDP	0.14	?0.10^***	?0.21^***	?0.03^***	0.85^***	?
7. Regional Residential Mobility	?0.00	?0.05^***	?0.01	?0.05^***	?0.29	?0.28	?
8. Calculative Mindset in Mate Choice	0.02^***	?0.04^***	?0.06^***	0.02^***	0.02^***	0.03^***	?0.01^**	?
M	0.37	?	24.36	3.55	4478.52	27327.10	0.26	0.02
SD	0.12	?	2.29	1.31	2866.82	22186.91	0.11	0.04

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Regional Relational Mobility	?
2. Gender	0.05^***	?
3. Age	?0.08^***	0.53^***	?
4. Education Level	0.10^***	0.18^***	0.01^*	?
5. Regional Population Size	0.07	?0.19^***	?0.20^***	?0.08^***	?
6. Regional GDP	0.14	?0.10^***	?0.21^***	?0.03^***	0.85^***	?
7. Regional Residential Mobility	?0.00	?0.05^***	?0.01	?0.05^***	?0.29	?0.28	?
8. Calculative Mindset in Mate Choice	0.02^***	?0.04^***	?0.06^***	0.02^***	0.02^***	0.03^***	?0.01^**	?
M	0.37	?	24.36	3.55	4478.52	27327.10	0.26	0.02
SD	0.12	?	2.29	1.31	2866.82	22186.91	0.11	0.04

Variables	Calculate Mindset in Mate Choice
Variables	Null	M1	M2
Intercept	1.64×10^-2***	2.34×10^-2***	2.04×10^-2***
M1: Individual Level
Gender		?3.86×10^-3***	?3.68×10^-3***
Age		?3.08×10^-4**	?3.00×10^-4**
Education Level		6.86×10^-4***	6.71×10^-4***
M2: Regional Level
Regional Population Size			5.12×10^-8
Regional GDP			1.87×10^-8
Regional Residential Mobility			?2.85×10^-3
Regional Relational Mobility			7.20×10^-3**
σ²	1.38×10^-3	1.37×10^-3	1.37×10^-3
τ₀₀	2.66^***	1.72×10^-6***	8.56×10^-7**
R²	0.0019	0.0057	0.0062
ΔR²		0.0038	0.0005

Variables	Calculate Mindset in Mate Choice
Variables	Null	M1	M2
Intercept	1.64×10^-2***	2.34×10^-2***	2.04×10^-2***
M1: Individual Level
Gender		?3.86×10^-3***	?3.68×10^-3***
Age		?3.08×10^-4**	?3.00×10^-4**
Education Level		6.86×10^-4***	6.71×10^-4***
M2: Regional Level
Regional Population Size			5.12×10^-8
Regional GDP			1.87×10^-8
Regional Residential Mobility			?2.85×10^-3
Regional Relational Mobility			7.20×10^-3**
σ²	1.38×10^-3	1.37×10^-3	1.37×10^-3
τ₀₀	2.66^***	1.72×10^-6***	8.56×10^-7**
R²	0.0019	0.0057	0.0062
ΔR²		0.0038	0.0005

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Relational Mobility	?
2. Gender	?0.11	?
3. Age	0.13^*	?0.10	?
4. Education Level	0.10	0.04	0.22^***	?
5. Subjective SES	0.25^***	0.03	0.21^***	0.28^***	?
6. Relationship Status	0.08	?0.01	0.17^**	?0.04	0.09	?
7. Calculative Mindset toward Others	0.17^**	0.05	0.01	0.03	0.11	?0.10	?
8. Calculative Mindset toward Self	0.14^*	?0.12^*	0.09	?0.00	0.06	?0.09	0.71^***	?
M	4.98	?	27.74	3.67	2.71	1.57	4.45	4.94
SD	0.91	?	4.23	0.85	0.71	0.50	1.12	1.03