Tag: linear

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

Posted on by Leave a comment

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.

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

Posted on by Leave a comment

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.

“Time is Money”: Monochrons and Time Perception

Posted on by Leave a comment

A German manager was sent to Honduras to monitor a factory for his company.

Every single day, the factory workers showed up a half-hour late.

He held a meeting with the workers and brought this issue up, expecting to see some changes.

Nothing.

He created an incentive for being on time, offering a raise at year’s end to those who were punctual.

Nothing.

He implemented a sliding scale of punishment for tardiness, with a three-strike rule.

Nothing.

He laid down the law and fired a worker who was exceptionally late on a regular basis.

Still, the next day, workers did not punch in on time.

No matter how often he insisted that they be punctual, nothing changed.

He complained to his Honduran co-manager about this issue, and she shrugged, saying, “They may be late, but at least they show up. That, in and of itself, is rare.”

This is where monochrons and polychrons butt heads, and the frustration is very real.

Last week, we touched on the differences between monochronic and polychronic cultures.

This post will go into deeper detail about what to expect from monochronic employees or managers.

What to Expect from a Monochron

As the above example shows, monochrons – whose cultures are prominently found in Northern Europe, North America, and parts of Asia – are time-sensitive.

Time is strictly divided: there is a time for fun and a time for work.

As Project Management Institute describes it, monochrons treat time as:

“a commodity of high value, as necessary as or perhaps even more important than satisfaction, good work, and relationships.”

Time is as tangible as any other commodity, as the phrase, “Time is money,” suggests.

Time can be wasted. It can be saved. It can be killed. It can be lost. It can won.

This perspective of time results in monochrons having a stricter and more stressful relationship with the clock and, as such, they try to use their time effectively, often focusing on completing one task at a time.

As studies show, doing so is actually a more productive use of time than multitasking.

Studies indicate that multitasking is less efficient because we are less focused, resulting in shallower learning and lower achievement and productivity. 

In fact, one study showed that only 2.5 percent of people are effective multitaskers.

The fact that monochronic cultures eschew multitasking for a more focused approach indicates that they are instinctively making the most effective use of time.

A monochron’s linear thinking and proclivity to strict schedules, with a focus on one event following another (think a timetable or meeting agenda, etc.), exemplifies this.

Get It Done

Monochrons emphasize getting things done.

Punctuality. Precision. Productivity.

These are the keys to success in a monochronic culture.

Managing time to use it more efficiently results in greater productivity and, thus, greater success.

So, here’s a pro tip if you are attending a meeting with an international colleague: understand their time perspective and meet their expectations.

If they are from a monochronic culture, arrive early, be prepared, and adhere to the agenda.

Cultural Time Orientation: How Timeline-Oriented Cultures View Time

Posted on by Leave a comment

Do you have the time to talk about time?

You should, because understanding cultural concepts of time matters a great deal to cross-cultural relations.

Time-orientation researchers Alexander Gonzalez and Phillip Zimbardo wrote:

“Every child learns a time perspective that is appropriate to the values and needs of his society.”

Time is directly linked to a society’s values and needs. It is of the utmost importance to cultural understanding.

As we’ve discussed these past few weeks, the way a society views time can explain a lot about their cultural baobab.

For instance, those who are past-oriented value tradition; those who are present-oriented value instant gratification; and those who are future-oriented value goals and long-term benefits.

One last type of time orientation is timeline cognitivity.

Let’s take a look at how timeline-oriented cultures view and value time.

Timeline-Oriented Values

“Time is a wave or a black hole could not bend it; humanity rides the crest of an infinite number of waves that are perceived as linear in their limited frame of reference.” ― Ken Poirot

Timelines are linear, as are timeline-oriented cultures.

They view everything in linear terms with a linear frame of reference.

Individuals in such societies tend to be very detail-oriented but struggle to absorb and understand multiple events simultaneously.

Timeline-oriented cultures also tend to be monochronic, completing one task at a time.

Individuals from such cultures are generally not prone to multitasking.

Monochronic, timeline-oriented cultures value schedules and demonstrate strict time management.

The Devil is in the Details

Differing views on time influence global communications and affairs, necessitating some cross-cultural understanding and diplomacy on the matter.

When it comes to managing or negotiating across cultures, some knowledge of and practice in dealing with these differences in time perspectives and communication styles is key to succeeding in business.