Q1.Ancient cultural systems produce differences in ways of perceiving and thinkingabout world. East Asians prefer dialectical thinking whereas Americans preferlogical deterministic thinking.
Westerners show analytic thinking and EastAsians show holistic thinking. Research indicate that East Asians are moreholistic on average than North Americans. Holistic thinking fundamentallyinvolves high attention to context, whereas analytic thinking fundamentallyinvolves focusing on central objects in relative isolation from their context (deOliveira & Nisbett, 2017 ). Holistic and analytic thinking styles differ inseveral ways. Holistic thinkers, such as many East Asians, are more likely tobe influenced by contextual cues when making judgments (as cited in Choi,Dalal, Kim-Prieto, & Park, 2003; as cited in Masuda, Ellsworth, et al.,2008). They categorize objects based on relationships or resemblance (as citedin Ji, Zhang, & Nisbett, 2004), and assign causality to situations (ascited in Morris & Peng, 1994). They are also more likely to be dialectical;they tend to accept discrepancy in reasoning (as cited Peng & Nisbett,1999) and expect the world to change in a cyclical way (as cited in Ji,Nisbett, & Su, 2001).
We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!
Analytic thinkers, such as many Westerners, focusmore on central objects than on the background when making judgments,categorize objects based on rules and ignore relationship or similarities, andappoint causality to traits and dispositions. They are less dialectical; theyembrace formal logic and expect stable trends in the world which means they’re mostlylogical. Inmy opinion, due to dialectic thinking, Asians accept the authority and they’remostly efficient followers and problem solvers. However the Europeans, due tologistic determinism, challenge the authority and question the common knowledge.Therefore they are usually critical thinkers. Q2. Habitualuse of linguistic features and grammatical structure leads people’s cognitiverepresentation of the world and reality.
Language is cognitively associatedwith cultural scripts, norms, and practices (as cited in Chen & Bond,2010). Language influences thought and behavior by evoking a culturally coherentcognitive mentality (Chen, Benet-Martínez & Ng, 2013). When individuals speakdifferent languages, they also encode different cultural systems associatedwith using each language (Chen, Benet-Martínez & Ng, 2013).
Priming one oftheir languages may activate the matching culture-specific cognitive style andin turn affect the resulting perception and behavior (Chen, Benet-Martínez& Ng, 2013). Language use guides people’s perceptual focus toward differentaspects of the self and the world, and influences the way they see, think, andact (Chen, Benet-Martínez & Ng, 2013). In my opinion, there is an huge effect of thedifferences of languages. According to the language, our perception is shapedand determined. Since i’m not familiar with the two cultures i cannot say abouttheir general perception of guilt but there should be the effect of language’sfeatures such as syntax and semantics on their perception.
Also there may be aneffect of their histories. They both have different histories and Poland haveNazi history. So these differences must have an effect on the perception ofguilt in both countries. In order to make my claims conclusive we may need theiranswers to what they understand from the meaning of guilt and their languageperception differences. Q3. Collectivistic cultures such as those of EastAsia emphasize relationships, group harmony, and group goals over individualgoals (as cited in Triandis, 2001). There is a need of frequent attention tocontext for successful navigation in the world in a daily living of acollectivist society. In other words, it demands holistic thinking.
Individualistic cultures emphasize autonomy, personal agency, and personalgoals (as cited in Triandis, 2001). People in individualistic cultures such asthose of North America are considered to be separated and stable existencesthat are not as influenced by context (as cited in Oyserman et al., 2002).Thus, contextual demands are relatively less pressing, supporting a moreanalytic thinking style (de Oliveira & Nisbett, 2017).
For example, moredevelopment may lead to higher individualism, which may, in turn, reinforcemore analytic modes of thinking (de Oliveira & Nisbett, 2017). Culturesdiffer in how individuals view the self (as cited in e.g.
, Markus &Kitayama, 1991; as cited in Triandis, 1989). In individualistic cultures, theself is characterized as autonomous and agentic; in collectivistic cultures,the self is characterized as connected and communal (Chen, Benet-Martínez &Ng, 2013). Cultures also differ depending on how individuals behave. Viewingthe self as independent or interdependent is revealed in different behaviouralstyles (Chen, Benet-Martínez & Ng, 2013). In individualistic cultures,people give priority to personal goals, emphasize unique attributes, and distinguishthemselves from others. However in collectivistic cultures, people share commongoals, conform to social norms, and value interpersonal relationships. Westernor individualistic cultures explain “self” as independent, separate existences.
Non-western or collectivistic cultures combine interpretation of self as individualis interdependent and inseparable from social context.Ibelieve that in collectivist cultures brainstorming is easy for individuals. Incollectivist cultures people tend to be more connected and communal. Although ihave problems about talking in front of people according to my observationsmostly people state their opinions easily. Also it make sense that mutualsupport and interpersonal relations are really important for a person to notbeing shy.
In collectivist cultures mutual support is valid. Q4.The sample contains 34 East Asian American (24 women and 10 men) and 41 EuropeanAmerican (28 women and 13 men) undergraduates at Stanford Universityparticipated in the study. All the participants’ native and dominant languagewas English. All European American participants were third- or older-generationAmericans (i.e.
, both of their parents were also born and raised in the UnitedStates), but all East Asian Americans were second-generation Americans (i.e.,both of their parents were immigrants from East Asian countries). I think thatthe sample is representitive. Thisresearch examined the effect of talking on thinking by focusing on howdifferent cultural assumptions about the relationship between talking andthinking in East Asian and European American cultural contexts are reflected inhow talking affects the cognitive processes of East Asians and EuropeanAmericans (Kim, 2002).
Hypothesis-testing, experimental method was used in thisresearch. InStudy 1, Asian Americans and European Americans both thought aloud whilesolving reasoning problems (Kim, 2002). Talking impaired Asian Americans’performance but not that of European Americans (Kim, 2002). Study 2 showed thatparticipants’ beliefs about talking and thinking are correlated with howtalking affects performance, and suggested that cultural difference in modes ofthinking can explain the difference in the effect of talking(Kim, 2002). Study3 showed that talking impaired Asian Americans’ performance because they tendto use internal speech less than European Americans (Kim, 2002). Resultsilluminate the importance of cultural understanding of psychology for a multiculturalsociety (Kim, 2002). Talking is closely related to thinkingin European American cultural contexts, there is a reality in which talking andthinking are closely related with each other (Kim, 2002).
How people processinformation is not free or independent from the social and cultural contexts ofthe process, and therefore, can have quite divergent behavioral and socialconsequences (Kim, 2002). Accoringto Kim (2002) one of the explanations can be provided by the difference in thelanguages of the participants. Research has shown that language plays animportant role in shaping human thoughts (Kim, 2002). Thus, the culturaldifference in the effect of talking on thinking might be explained by the factthat the structure of English facilitates analytical thinking whereas thestructure of East Asian languages (i.e., Chinese and Japanese) inhibitsanalytical thinking (Kim, 2002). The other explanation to the results might be thestereotype threat (as cited in Steele, 1997). Stereotype threat is asituational threat that can affect the members of any group about whom anegative stereotype exists, and where negative stereotypes about these groupsapply, members of these groups can fear being reduced to that stereotype (Kim,2002).
Because there is a stereotype about East Asians as being quiet and nonverbal,stereotype threat may have been experienced when East Asian Americanparticipants in the experiments were asked to engage in an act of talking thatis associated with this stereotype (Kim, 2002). ReferencesOliveira,S. D., & Nisbett, R. E. (2017).
Beyond East and West: Cognitive Style in LatinAmerica. Journal ofCross-Cultural Psychology,48(10), 1554-1577. doi:10.1177/0022022117730816Chen,S.
X., Benet-Martínez, V., & Ng, J. C. (2013). Does Language AffectPersonalityPerception? A Functional Approach to Testing the WhorfianHypothesis.
Journalof Personality,82(2), 130-143. doi:10.1111/jopy.12040Chen,S. X.
, Ng, J. C., Buchtel, E. E., Guan, Y.
, Deng, H., & Bond, M. H. (2017).The addedvalue of world views over self-views: Predicting modestbehaviour in Eastern and Western cultures.
BritishJournal of Social Psychology,56(4), 723-749.doi:10.1111/bjso.12196Kim,H. S.
(2002). We talk, therefore we think? A cultural analysis of the effect oftalking onthinking. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology,83(4), 828-842.doi:10.1037//0022-35126.96.36.1998