Tag: scientific study

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.

Cultural Thinking Orientation & the Bullwhip Effect: Does the Way We Make Decisions Impact Supply & Demand?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Economists and researchers have long studied consumer thought and decision-making in order to understand supply and demand.

They’ve uncovered a phenomenon called the “bullwhip effect.”

This is a supply chain event where small oscillations in demand at the retail level result in increasingly larger oscillations in demand at other supplier levels, such wholesale, distributer, raw material, and manufacturer levels.

When you consider this phenomenon, visualize the cracking of a whip.

A small flick of the wrist sends a wave outwards.

Panic-Buying & The Market

One example of the bullwhip effect is panic-buying.

Consider the instinct to buy up all the toilet paper and hand sanitizer during the COVID pandemic. 

As stores struggled to keep their shelves stocked, orders increased, and manufacturers worked hard to meet that demand.

But eventually, they overproduce, as consumers stop panicking and ease up on the supply.

This is one way the bullwhip effect manifests.

But does our cultural thinking orientation influence this, as well?

Researchers of this study were interested in the dynamics of a culture’s holistic versus analytic thinking orientation – and what its relationship is to the bullwhip effect.

The Hypothesis: Holistic Thinking Reduces Bullwhip Effect

The hypothesis of the study posits that a stronger holistic thinking orientation might be associated with a reduction in the bullwhip effect. 

This is because holistic thinkers tend to make more extensive use of information, and higher reported information use might also be linked to a reduced bullwhip effect.

The Study’s Results: The Short Answer is ‘No’

Using the “beer game” – a simulation designed around the complexities of supply chain management – researchers found no evidence supporting the hypothesized relationship between the overall holistic versus analytic thinking orientation and the bullwhip effect.

One possible explanation for this lack of correlation could be cognitive limitations faced by individuals when dealing with an abundance of information in the beer game. 

If both holistic and analytic thinkers have similar cognitive capacities, neither thinking orientation may have an advantage in handling the overwhelming information. 

As a result, even if holistic thinkers focused more on contextual information, they might not integrate it into decision-making to a greater extent than analytic thinkers due to these cognitive constraints. 

This is further supported by the finding that the thinking orientation did not correlate with the reported use of information, indicating that both groups utilized available contextual information similarly.

What the research found was that thinking orientation didn’t impact this relationship on the whole…although, it did impact the decision-making of different subdomains of thinkers.

The Subdomains

A negative correlation was observed between a specific subdomain of the holistic versus analytic thinking orientation and the bullwhip effect. 

This indicates that certain aspects of decision-makers‘ thinking styles might indeed influence supply chain variability.

When considering the subdomains of the holistic versus analytic thinking orientation, the relationship between the subdomain concerning causal attribution and the bullwhip effect stood out. 

Decision-makers who assumed less complex causal relationships performed worse in terms of the bullwhip effect.

Moreover, the study revealed that holistic thinking did not correlate with reported information use. 

Instead, only the reported use of specific information demonstrated a negative association with the bullwhip effect. 

This finding implies that the nature and relevance of the information being utilized might be critical in mitigating supply chain fluctuations.

This study of the dynamics within supply chains can serve as a basis for developing more effective strategies to manage demand variability.

A balanced combination of holistic and analytic thinking might yield the most beneficial outcomes, with a focus on immediate processes (analytic thinking) while considering more distant processes to some extent (holistic thinking).

Self-Assertive Interdependence: The Paradox of Arab Culture

Posted on by Leave a comment

How does one become self-assertive in an interdependent culture?

It might seem like a paradox.

After all, interdependent cultures generally prioritize harmony over self.

Being bold or self-assertive might be seen as “rocking the boat.”

But Arab culture is the exception that proves the rule.

Although it’s a treasure trove of rich heritage, Arab culture is often overlooked in the realms of cultural psychology. 

This study explores a unique interdependence, infused with a self-assertiveness that sets Arabs apart.

How Landscape Shapes Culture

Picture a world shaped by harsh ecological and climatic environments, where survival hinges upon the protection and unity of tribal groups. 

Within the tapestry of Arabian cultures, a code of honor emerges, demanding respect and trustworthiness as integral traits of every individual. 

As this study’s hypothesis takes shape, the pieces align.

East Meets West

Study 1 reveals the captivating psychological profile of Arabs, bridging the gap between East and West. 

Like their Eastern counterparts, Arabs showcase interdependence and holism, embracing the profound connections that bind us. 

But, in a fascinating twist, they combine this interdependence with a self-assertiveness akin to Western cultures. 

These cultural intricacies defy simplistic categorizations.

Motives Behind Self-Assertiveness

Study 2 and Study 3 paint an even more vivid picture, illuminating the underlying motivations that drive self-assertiveness in Arabs and Westerners. 

For Arabs, their self-assertiveness serves the greater cause of interdependence, amplifying their sense of unity and communal strength. 

On the other hand, Westerners channel their self-assertiveness towards independence, valuing individual autonomy as a cornerstone of their cultural fabric.

Nuance is Everything

The authors’ work marks a significant milestone in the ever-evolving landscape of cultural psychology.

Beyond the conventional East versus West, interdependence versus independence paradigm, it uncovers the nuanced complexities of Arab culture. 

The study contributes to a deeper understanding of human diversity and the interplay between socioecological environments and cultural identities.

How Much Does Culture Influence Gender Stereotypes

Posted on by Leave a comment

Does culture influence the way that we perceive gender?

Or are masculine and feminine gender roles and stereotypes universal?

Three compelling studies unveil the influence of cultural values on the contents of these stereotypes, shedding light on the dynamic interplay between society and our perceptions of gender.

Study 1: Women as Interdependent, Men as Independent

At first glance, the authors of Study 1 expected two straightforward main effects. 

  • 1) East Asians would be perceived as more interdependent compared to their Western counterparts. 
  • 2) Within each culture, men would be seen as more independent than women—a pattern deeply entrenched in our societal fabric. 

Study 1 begins with Americans, who perceive men as less interdependent than women. 

But in Korea, the script actually flips, defying the “universal” gender stereotype of male independence. 

Koreans, in their unique cultural lens, perceive men as more interdependent than women, revealing the nuance between cultural values and gender perceptions.

As it turns out, men embody the traits that hold sway in their respective societies.

Study 2: Bicultural Norms Align According to Language

Study 2 introduces us to the world of bicultural Korean Americans, navigating the transition between languages and cultural frames. 

As they complete surveys, the language they use becomes a catalyst for transformation. 

In English, men are perceived as less interdependent, aligning with American cultural norms. 

However, in Korean, men are seen as more interdependent, mirroring the values of their Korean heritage.

Study 3: Gender Stereotypes Morph According to Dominant Cultural Preferences

Study 3 sees American college students take center stage. 

Ambitiousness and sociability emerge as focal points, representing the cultural values cherished at their respective universities. 

These values shape perceptions of a male student. 

Whatever trait is hailed as the pinnacle of cultural importance becomes the beacon through which his character is judged. 

Culture, like a master sculptor, molds the contents of gender stereotypes with a deft hand.

Conclusion

These studies ignite a flame of understanding, illuminating the dialogue between culture and gender perceptions. 

They reveal the malleability of stereotypes, challenged by the diverse tapestry of human experiences shaped by culture. 

As we continue to place gender and culture, we delve deeper into the realm of societal influence, recognizing the power cultural values hold in shaping our perceptions of masculinity and femininity.

Cultural Mirrors: Behaviors and Self-Views Across Borders

Posted on by Leave a comment

What shapes us?

Self-construal theory (Markus and Kitayama, 1991) poses that our feelings, thoughts, and behaviors are shaped by the tapestry of cultural self-views. 

Two dimensions emerge: the independent and interdependent self-construals.

These construals are the basis for this cross-cultural comparison of behaviors of Japanese, Australian, and Canadian university students.

These three groups were asked to complete an independent and interdependent cultural self construal scale.

After a week, they rated their past behavior.

The findings reveal a compelling pattern.

Cultural Heritage

The interdependent behavior score exhibits a positive correlation with interdependent self-construal scores, while displaying a negative correlation with independent self-construal scores.

Japanese participants, true to their cultural heritage, report a greater inclination toward interdependent behaviors than their Canadian and European Australian counterparts. 

Yet, within the Canadian context, the plot thickens. 

Asian Canadians, with their unique fusion of cultural influences, exhibit a stronger tendency toward interdependence than their European Canadian peers. 

These revelations support Markus and Kitayama’s cultural self-construal hypothesis.

However, there’s a twist. 

The self-view measures, while expected to follow suit, defied the study’s hypothesis. 

European Canadians and European Australians, as anticipated, perceive themselves as more independent than their Japanese counterparts. 

Yet, surprisingly, Canadians lean toward interdependence more than their Japanese counterparts.

However, the study’s authors believe the divergence lies within the very structure of their questionnaires. 

Potential Flaw in the Study

The behavioral measure, rooted in tangible actions and future probabilities, stands as a reflection of actual performance. 

It requires no comparison against others, delivering a raw and authentic portrayal. 

Conversely, the self-construal measures ask participants to assess the extent to which they embody certain tendencies, lacking an objective reference point. 

To top it off, social comparison creeps in, complicating matters.

For instance, in a situation of conflict-avoidance: How can one respond without drawing upon the comparisons embedded within their own social fabric? 

A statement such as “I avoid having conflicts with members of my group” demands a comparison of one’s conflict-avoidance against others’. 

When the behaviors of others differ across cultures, biases infiltrate our cross-cultural means of self-rating scales. 

Such is the nature of the “reference group effect.”.

The Self

Still, the results pertaining to the self-construal scales may indeed reflect genuine perceptions of how the self is viewed in different cultures. 

Levine and colleagues discovered that Westerners showcased greater independence than their East Asian counterparts, though the level of interdependence did not follow the anticipated trajectory.

Japan in a national-level transition is a collision of individualism and collectivism, tradition and modernity. 

While the Japanese continue to behave in interdependent ways, their self-view rebels against the interdependence they embody. 

Does Emotional Support Positively Benefit Well-Being? That May Depend on Culture

Posted on by Leave a comment

When you hear “emotional support,” you might think of positive actions like understanding, encouragement, compassion, and comfort.

Emotional support is commonly seen as essential for forming and maintaining friendships, providing a sense of help, tangible support, and self-worth. 

Existing studies have highlighted the positive impact of emotional support on health and well-being, emphasizing its role in combating loneliness and improving overall health outcomes.

Interestingly, some researchers have found that the perception of emotional support does not always lead to positive effects on subjective well-being and can even have adverse effects. 

According to Fisher et al. (1982), 

“Recipients of support often ‘experience negative consequences including feelings of failure, inferiority, and dependency’ and thus ‘in many instances “[they] bite the hands that feed them”’ (p. 27).”

This apparent contradiction prompted this study published by sage, exploring the cultural underpinnings of the benefits or absence of benefits associated with perceived emotional support.

Independence-Interdependence Theory

Drawing on the independence-interdependence theory of cultural self, the researchers argue that in cultures that value independence, the direct link between perceived emotional support and well-being may be compromised. 

This is because perceiving oneself as dependent on support can conflict with the importance placed on independence. 

On the other hand, in cultures that prioritize interdependence, perceived emotional support is expected to have clear and positive effects on well-being.

To test this hypothesis, the study examines subjective well-being and reported physical health among college students (Study 1) and nonstudent adults (Study 2). 

By considering different cultural contexts, the research aims to shed light on the role of culture in shaping the effectiveness of perceived emotional support in promoting well-being.

The Study

Study 1 found that among Euro-American college students, the positive effect of perceived emotional support on subjective well-being was weak and virtually nonexistent once self-esteem was taken into account. 

On the other hand, in testing Japanese and Filipinos in Asia, even after controlling for self-esteem, perceived emotional support positively predicted subjective well-being

Study 2 extended the research by examining Japanese and American adults in midlife. 

The results supported Study 1.

The evidence suggests that cultural orientations towards independence or interdependence influence the way individuals perceive and benefit from emotional support. 

Those cultures that are more interdependent are more likely to benefit from perceived emotional support in terms of well-being and physical health.

These findings have implications for understanding the role of cultural context in shaping social support processes and interventions to promote well-being.

The Theory of a Universal Structure of Human Values

Posted on by Leave a comment

What values do you consider “collectivist”? How about “individualist”?

If you had to explain your own values, under which headline would they fall?

This study examines the values of American, Indian, and Japanese populations. 

The intent of this cross-cultural research was to measure the individualist, collectivist, and mixed values in each culture to see where they fell.

First off, what constitutes an “individualist” versus a “collectivist” value?

The Values

The researchers used the theory of a universal structure of human values, proposed by Schwartz and Bilsky in 1987 (revised in 1992).

Each value is labeled individualist, collectivist, or mixed and are as follows:

  • Power: Attainment of social status, dominance, and control. (Individualist)
  • Achievement: Personal success and competence. (I)
  • Hedonism: Pleasure and enjoyment. (I)
  • Stimulation: Excitement, novelty, and a thrilling life. (I)
  • Self-Direction: Independent thought, action, and autonomy. (I)
  • Benevolence: Preserving and improving the welfare of others. (Collectivist)
  • Tradition: Respect for and acceptance of cultural customs and traditions. (C)
  • Conformity: Restraint of behaviors to maintain social order and harmony. (C)
  • Universalism: Understanding, tolerance, and protection for the welfare of all. (Mixed)
  • Security: Stability of self, relationships, and society. (M)
  • Spirituality: Finding meaning, inner harmony, and having a spiritual life. (M)

These values encompass a range of motivations and goals that individuals may prioritize in their lives.

The Results

Along with these value types were subcategories of value traits. 

And of these value traits, Americans, Indians, and Japanese participants were compatible in 14 of the 22 individualist values.

Of the collectivist values, participants were compatible in 13 out of 15.

Lastly, of the mixed values, there was compatibility in 9 out of 15 (and absolutely none regarding spiritual values).

The American participants, as expected, scored high on individualist values and mixed types. They had a preference for standing out from the crowd. 

Indians, on the other hand, were drawn to collectivist and mixed values. They believed in the power of unity. 

The Japanese students threw a bit of a curveball. They didn’t follow any clear pattern of individualism or collectivism.

This study suggests that no country – including the United States, India, or Japan – can be neatly labeled as just individualist or collectivist. Each has a melting pot of values.

Independent variables like gender, race, income, or media usage may also help us understand why individualistic and collectivist orientations coexist in the same cultures.

“I’m the Decider.” Decision-Making & Coping Strategies in Individualist vs. Collectivist Cultures

Posted on by Leave a comment

Do you make good decisions?

Do you feel you do…and do you actually?

This study in the International Journal of Psychology strove to uncover whether individualist or collectivist cultures were more confident in their decision-making.

It also examined various cultures’ decision-making styles and coping strategies.

Here’s what the study found.

The Subjects

Researchers recruited students from three individualistic Western countries (USA, Australia, and New Zealand) and three collectivist Eastern Asian cultures (Japan, Hong Kong, and Taiwan) to participate in their experiment.

The purpose of the study was to measure participants’ confidence in their decision-making abilities and the coping patterns they employ.

The Statements

Participants were handed a questionnaire that would unveil the way they view their own decision-making. 

Rating themselves from 0 to 12, the questionnaire prompted with thought-provoking statements like:

  • I think I am a good decision maker
  • I like to consider all of the alternatives
  • I avoid making decisions
  • Even after I have made a decision, I delay acting upon it

This self-reflection and self-reporting led to some exciting finds.

The Coping Strategies

The coping strategies identified by the study included:

  • Vigilance – a careful decision-making style, where every alternative is thoroughly considered. 
  • Buck-passing – dodging decisions and shifting responsibility to someone else. 
  • Procrastination – delaying action even after a decision has been made. 
  • Hypervigilance – a panic-induced decision-making style that makes you feel like time is about to explode.

The Results 

The students from the individualistic Western countries displayed confidence in their decision-making abilities, while their collectivist Eastern Asian counterparts scored higher in buck-passing, avoiding decisions, and hypervigilance.

But what was surprising about this study was that, despite these cultural differences, all six countries showed similar ratings. 

Across all countries, all participants who had higher decision-making self-esteem were more likely to adopt adaptive coping patterns like vigilance. 

On the flip side, those who doubted their decision-making abilities were prone to fall into the abyss of maladaptive coping strategies – buck-passing, avoidance, and hypervigilance.

Potential Flaws in the Study

Some things to keep in mind about the potential flaws in this study are that decision-making strategies depend on the situation.

You might make impulsive decisions in some cases and vigilant ones in others. 

The study did not account for the varied approaches to decision-making according to different scenarios.

Moreover, the difference in cultural values may impact the self-reporting. 

For instance, in many Asian cultures, boasting about oneself or decision-making prowess isn’t the norm. This could have influenced the participants’ responses, leading to hidden biases.

Lastly, self-reporting on decision-making is, of course, subjective and may not align with actual behavior. To get to the bottom of that, researchers would have to observe the participants’ decision-making in action. 

Regardless of the approach, this study uncovers the dynamic relationship between culture, self-esteem, and coping strategies.

The bottom line is decision-making is complex – influenced by context, societal expectations, and our true behavior in the face of tough choices.

Assertive vs. Avoidance Tactics: How Does Culture Determine Approach to Conflict Resolution?

Posted on by Leave a comment

How do you approach conflict resolution?

Are you tactically assertive or avoidant?

And is your approach determined by personality or culture?

Over the coming weeks, I’ll discuss scientific studies dealing with the six cultural constructs, the first of which is individualism versus collectivism.

This paper by cognitive and cross-cultural psychologist, C. Dominik Guess, takes a look at conflict resolution in individualist and collectivist cultures.

Japan Collectivism vs. US Individualism

One of the studies in Guess’ paper explores how cultural background shapes the way conflict is handled – specifically, American individualism versus Japanese collectivism.

A group of researchers, led by Ohbuchi, Fukushima, and Tedeschi, gathered American and Japanese students and unleashed the power of conflict recall. 

They asked participants to dig deep into their memories and recall a conflict they had experienced.

These participants were then asked to share their conflict experience – what they did, what they wanted to achieve, etc. 

Using rating scales, they were asked to measure various aspects of the conflict, like goals and tactics. 

In the battlefield of conflict, four major tactics emerged, each with its own arsenal of sub-tactics: conciliation, assertion, third-party intervention, and avoidance.

The Four Tactics

Let’s better understand the four tactics identified.

Conciliation – this tactic involves finding common ground. It’s a way to indirectly communicate expectations and build bridges. 

Assertion – this tactic is a bold and assertive move, where you fiercely demand what you want.

Third-party intervention – this tactic involves calling in reinforcements in the form of seeking help or advice from an outsider. 

Avoidance – this tactic is the ultimate passivity, dodging confrontation like a pro.

Considering these differing approaches to conflict resolution, you can imagine the cultural clash that may result.

The Results: Assertive vs. Avoidant

As you may have guessed, the American students, with their individualistic spirit, generally used assertive tactics in their conflicts. 

On the flip side, the Japanese students, being the collectivist champions they are, took a more subtle approach overall. 

They opted for avoidance tactics, sidestepping confrontation and prioritizing harmony in their relationships.

This may be because each group’s main goal in these conflicts also differed.

The Japanese participants prioritized their relationships, while the American participants’ goal was more often geared toward achieving a sense of justice.

While the results confirm what most would have hypothesized, considering what we already know about individualist and collectivist cultures, the research could be adapted so that the type of conflict being discussed is more uniform. 

An individual’s approach (the tactics and goals) may vary based on the conflict.

As the students were allowed to choose whichever conflict they wanted to assess, their responses may have differed based upon the type they chose.

Regardless, this study may tell us something key about how individualists and collectivists approach conflict: individualists with justice in mind, and collectivists with harmony.