contradiction – Success Across Cultures

Does the way we think determine how we categorize things in our minds?

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.

Many aspects of the field of psychology are not culture-neutral; instead, they often mirror a distinct Western analytical framework.

This is called ethnocentricity – or cultural bias.

Within this framework, the world is envisioned as operating under discernible and unwavering rules, the existence of contradictions is perceived as a puzzle to be solved, and entities are generally regarded as relatively independent agents.

Context and the intricate web of relationships between individuals and objects tend to be marginalized or, when examined, are often assumed to conform to simple and concise rules.

In contrast, dialectical or holistic thinking, which is more prevalent in East Asian societies, places a greater emphasis on context and the interplay of relationships.

It embraces the notion of change rather than stability and readily accommodates contradictions.

While analytical thinking undoubtedly has its merits, particularly in scientific inquiry and daily life, dialectical thinking at times leads to more precise conclusions or pragmatically advantageous decisions.

Consequently, the authors of this paper advocate for the conscious adoption of both dialectical and analytical thinking as valuable tools in the cognitive toolkit, applicable to researchers and the general population alike.

They’ve also identified three ways in which each style of thinking differs: contradiction, categorization, and change.

But before we get to that, let’s take a look at each thinking style in a nutshell.

Analytic Thinking Style of the West

In general, Western cultures have an analytic thinking style, focused on individual objects and their specific attributes, independent of context.

Analytic thinkers are also linear thinkers: reasoning is rule-based.

They expect stasis, and any change is predicted.

Dialectical Thinking Style of the East

Eastern cultures have a dialectical or holistic thinking style, focused on context and relationships.

Objects are viewed in their context as part of the whole; everything is interconnected.

This type of thinking expects constant change with everything in flux.

The interconnected parts are dynamic and nonlinear, and contradiction is seen as a fact of life and to be expected.

Let’s examine contradiction and these thinking styles perceive it.

Contradiction

In a study by Peng and Nisbett (1999), groups of American and Chinese participants were given contradictory statements.

Some participant groups were provided both statements to view, while others were given either the first or second statement, with one being more plausible than the other.

They were tasked with rating the plausibility of each statement.

When given the contradictory statements together, Americans rated the more plausible statement as much more plausible than when viewed by itself.

Chinese participants viewed the less plausible statement as more plausible when provided the contradictory statements together.

Neither rating change is logical, as a statement cannot be more or less true, simply because it is contradicted.

This study goes to show that Americans wish to eliminate contradiction altogether, while the Chinese prefer to increase the contradiction, giving credibility to both sides.

Next week, we’ll take a look at the other two aspects of these differing thinking styles in regard to categorization and change.

Tag: contradiction

Contradiction, Categorization, and Change: Three Studies on Cultural Thinking Styles & How We View the World, Part II

Contradiction, Categorization, and Change: Three Studies on Cultural Thinking Styles & How We View the World, Part I