Written by Does the way we think determine how we categorize things in our minds?
Does it influence how we view change?
Last week, we discussed analytic and holistic/dialectical thinking and how each thinking style views contradiction.
This week, we’ll take a look at two more studies on the subject – this time regarding categorization and change.
Categorization
Analytic thinkers are more likely to follow rule-based logic than dialectical thinkers are.
This is apparent in the way both groups categorize objects.
Studies in the early 2000s looked at how European American participants and Chinese and Korean participants categorize objects (Ji, Zhang, & Nisbett, 2004; Norenzayan, Smith, Kim, & Nisbett, 2002).
For instance, how would you logically pair a chicken, a cow, and grass?
Which two go together?
Americans more often than not paired the animals together, as they are more insistent on rule-based categorization, whereas East Asians were more likely than Americans to pair the cow with grass, since cows eat grass.
Americans were also more accurate about applying complex rules of categorization when instructed to do so.
Change
As mentioned in the previous post, analytic thinkers are linear thinkers.
They think in states of stability, not in states of flux.
Any states of change follow a linear trend.
Dialectical thinkers think in perpetual change and variability.
This way of thinking is described as follows:
“At the deepest level of Chinese philosophical thinking, ‘to be or not to be’ is not the question, because life is a constant state of passing from one stage of being to another, so that to be is not to be, and not to be is to be” (Peng & Nisbett, 1999, p. 743).
These different styles of thinking lead to different predictions.
One study demonstrated that while Americans take into account previous predictors to indicate future results, Chinese participants do not (Ji, Nisbett, & Su, 2001).
When given the scenario of whether a three-year chess champion would likely lose the next game against his strongest opponent, Americans proposed a 29% chance, while Chinese respondents proposed a 53% chance.
This linear versus cyclical view of change was also illustrated in a study on stocks (Ji, Zhang, & Guo, 2008).
While Canadians were more likely to sell falling stocks and buy rising stocks, Chinese participants did the opposite, selling rising stocks and buying falling stocks.
This counter-normative instinct is seen in professional investors too, with Canadian investors twice as likely to sell falling stocks as Chinese investors.
Contradiction, Categorization & Change
These studies illustrate how opposing thinking styles can color your perspective in so many different ways.
When viewing contradiction, when categorizing objects and groups, and when dealing with change in various capacities, our decisions are based on our thinking styles.
Keep this in mind when working with or managing in other cultures: There is no “one way” to see the world.
Success Across Cultures 