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.
Success Across Cultures 