Q1. to logistic determinism, challenge the authority and

Published by admin on

Ancient cultural systems produce differences in ways of perceiving and thinking
about world. East Asians prefer dialectical thinking whereas Americans prefer
logical deterministic thinking. Westerners show analytic thinking and East
Asians show holistic thinking. Research indicate that East Asians are more
holistic on average than North Americans. Holistic thinking fundamentally
involves high attention to context, whereas analytic thinking fundamentally
involves focusing on central objects in relative isolation from their context (de
Oliveira & Nisbett, 2017 ). Holistic and analytic thinking styles differ in
several ways. Holistic thinkers, such as many East Asians, are more likely to
be 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 cited
in Ji, Zhang, & Nisbett, 2004), and assign causality to situations (as
cited 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). Analytic thinkers, such as many Westerners, focus
more on central objects than on the background when making judgments,
categorize objects based on rules and ignore relationship or similarities, and
appoint causality to traits and dispositions. They are less dialectical; they
embrace formal logic and expect stable trends in the world which means they’re mostly

my opinion, due to dialectic thinking, Asians accept the authority and they’re
mostly efficient followers and problem solvers. However the Europeans, due to
logistic determinism, challenge the authority and question the common knowledge.
Therefore they are usually critical thinkers. 


Q2. Habitual
use of linguistic features and grammatical structure leads people’s cognitive
representation of the world and reality. Language is cognitively associated
with cultural scripts, norms, and practices (as cited in Chen & Bond,
2010). Language influences thought and behavior by evoking a culturally coherent
cognitive mentality (Chen, Benet-Martínez & Ng, 2013). When individuals speak
different languages, they also encode different cultural systems associated
with using each language (Chen, Benet-Martínez & Ng, 2013). Priming one of
their languages may activate the matching culture-specific cognitive style and
in turn affect the resulting perception and behavior (Chen, Benet-Martínez
& Ng, 2013). Language use guides people’s perceptual focus toward different
aspects of the self and the world, and influences the way they see, think, and
act (Chen, Benet-Martínez & Ng, 2013).

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

 In my opinion, there is an huge effect of the
differences of languages. According to the language, our perception is shaped
and determined. Since i’m not familiar with the two cultures i cannot say about
their general perception of guilt but there should be the effect of language’s
features such as syntax and semantics on their perception. Also there may be an
effect of their histories. They both have different histories and Poland have
Nazi history. So these differences must have an effect on the perception of
guilt in both countries. In order to make my claims conclusive we may need their
answers to what they understand from the meaning of guilt and their language
perception differences.


Q3.  Collectivistic cultures such as those of East
Asia emphasize relationships, group harmony, and group goals over individual
goals (as cited in Triandis, 2001). There is a need of frequent attention to
context for successful navigation in the world in a daily living of a
collectivist society. In other words, it demands holistic thinking.
Individualistic cultures emphasize autonomy, personal agency, and personal
goals (as cited in Triandis, 2001). People in individualistic cultures such as
those of North America are considered to be separated and stable existences
that are not as influenced by context (as cited in Oyserman et al., 2002).
Thus, contextual demands are relatively less pressing, supporting a more
analytic thinking style (de Oliveira & Nisbett, 2017). For example, more
development may lead to higher individualism, which may, in turn, reinforce
more analytic modes of thinking (de Oliveira & Nisbett, 2017).

differ in how individuals view the self (as cited in e.g., Markus &
Kitayama, 1991; as cited in Triandis, 1989). In individualistic cultures, the
self 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. Viewing
the self as independent or interdependent is revealed in different behavioural
styles (Chen, Benet-Martínez & Ng, 2013). In individualistic cultures,
people give priority to personal goals, emphasize unique attributes, and distinguish
themselves from others. However in collectivistic cultures, people share common
goals, conform to social norms, and value interpersonal relationships. Western
or individualistic cultures explain “self” as independent, separate existences.
Non-western or collectivistic cultures combine interpretation of self as individual
is interdependent and inseparable from social context.

believe that in collectivist cultures brainstorming is easy for individuals. In
collectivist cultures people tend to be more connected and communal. Although i
have problems about talking in front of people according to my observations
mostly people state their opinions easily. Also it make sense that mutual
support and interpersonal relations are really important for a person to not
being shy. In collectivist cultures mutual support is valid.


The sample contains 34 East Asian American (24 women and 10 men) and 41 European
American (28 women and 13 men) undergraduates at Stanford University
participated in the study. All the participants’ native and dominant language
was English. All European American participants were third- or older-generation
Americans (i.e., both of their parents were also born and raised in the United
States), but all East Asian Americans were second-generation Americans (i.e.,
both of their parents were immigrants from East Asian countries). I think that
the sample is representitive.

research examined the effect of talking on thinking by focusing on how
different cultural assumptions about the relationship between talking and
thinking in East Asian and European American cultural contexts are reflected in
how talking affects the cognitive processes of East Asians and European
Americans (Kim, 2002). Hypothesis-testing, experimental method was used in this

Study 1, Asian Americans and European Americans both thought aloud while
solving reasoning problems (Kim, 2002). Talking impaired Asian Americans’
performance but not that of European Americans (Kim, 2002). Study 2 showed that
participants’ beliefs about talking and thinking are correlated with how
talking affects performance, and suggested that cultural difference in modes of
thinking can explain the difference in the effect of talking(Kim, 2002). Study
3 showed that talking impaired Asian Americans’ performance because they tend
to use internal speech less than European Americans (Kim, 2002). Results
illuminate the importance of cultural understanding of psychology for a multicultural
society (Kim, 2002). Talking is closely related to thinking
in European American cultural contexts, there is a reality in which talking and
thinking are closely related with each other (Kim, 2002). How people process
information is not free or independent from the social and cultural contexts of
the process, and therefore, can have quite divergent behavioral and social
consequences (Kim, 2002).

to Kim (2002) one of the explanations can be provided by the difference in the
languages of the participants. Research has shown that language plays an
important role in shaping human thoughts (Kim, 2002). Thus, the cultural
difference in the effect of talking on thinking might be explained by the fact
that the structure of English facilitates analytical thinking whereas the
structure of East Asian languages (i.e., Chinese and Japanese) inhibits
analytical thinking (Kim, 2002). The other explanation to the results might be the
stereotype threat (as cited in Steele, 1997). Stereotype threat is a
situational threat that can affect the members of any group about whom a
negative stereotype exists, and where negative stereotypes about these groups
apply, 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 American
participants in the experiments were asked to engage in an act of talking that
is associated with this stereotype (Kim, 2002).





S. D., & Nisbett, R. E. (2017). Beyond East and West: Cognitive Style in Latin

America. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology,48(10), 1554-1577. doi:10.1177/0022022117730816

S. X., Benet-Martínez, V., & Ng, J. C. (2013). Does Language Affect

Perception? A Functional Approach to Testing the Whorfian
Hypothesis. Journal
of Personality,82(2), 130-143. doi:10.1111/jopy.12040

S. X., Ng, J. C., Buchtel, E. E., Guan, Y., Deng, H., & Bond, M. H. (2017).
The added

value of world views over self-views: Predicting modest
behaviour in Eastern and Western cultures. British
Journal of Social Psychology,56(4), 723-749.

H. S. (2002). We talk, therefore we think? A cultural analysis of the effect of
talking on

thinking. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology,83(4), 828-842.

Categories: Relationships


I'm Iren!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out