PSY1PAC 2024 Semester 2 Lecture 5_1pp (PRE) PDF

latrobe.edu.au PSY1PAC Introductory Psychology: People and Culture...

latrobe.edu.au PSY1PAC Introductory Psychology: People and Culture Lecture 5: Cognition & Thinking Style Readings: Nisbett & Miyamoto (2005) – prescribed Cross & Lam (2017, pp.6-8) - recommended Dr Ben Chun Pan Lam Department of Psychology, Counselling and Therapy [email protected] Adapted with permission from Prof. Emi Kashima La Trobe University CRICOS Provider Code Number 00115M  Acknowledgement of country La Trobe University acknowledges that this event and our participants are located on the lands of many traditional custodians in Australia. We recognise that Indigenous Australians have a continuing connection to land, water and community, their living culture and their unique role in the life of these regions, and value their unique contribution to the University and wider Australian society. We are committed to providing opportunities for Indigenous Australians, both as individuals and communities through teaching and learning, research and community partnerships across all our campuses and online. We pay our respects to Indigenous Elders, past, present and emerging and extend this respect to any Indigenous participants joining us online today. Part 1. Learning Objectives Describe the carpentered world hypothesis Contrast analytic and holistic thinking styles by referring to ○ Field independence vs. dependence ○ Categorisation ○ Acceptance of contradiction (i.e., dialectical thinking) Describe the “environmental complexity hypothesis” PSY1PAC Lecture 5 Page 3 Models of Human Cognition – How human mind works Three most fundamental models Information processing model Mind works like a computer Encoding, storing, retrieving information Gérard DuBois PSY1PAC Lecture 5 Page 4 Models of Human Cognition – How human mind works Dual-process models People have two complementary systems ○ System 1 is fast and superficial ○ System 2 is slow and systematic Further discuss in the impression formation section PSY1PAC Lecture 5 Page 5 Models of Human Cognition – How human mind works Connectionist models Memory is like neural networks ○ Connections between inputs and outputs, learned through experience and continually updated Stored memory is activated in a new situation as a representation, and that experience is added to the network again PSY1PAC Lecture 5 Page 6 Field of Cognition – Study of how the mind works Cognition mainly involves Lower level (basic) Perception Memory Consciousness Language Thinking Decision making Problem solving Higher level (complex) Widely-held assumption about Culture in the field of Psychology Cultural influences are limited to higher-level psychological processes or social cognitive processes PSY1PAC Lecture 5 Page 7 Müller-Lyer Illusion A robust finding that the left line seems longer Some argued that this illusion reflects the “innate structure of the brain” But, people from some societies show little susceptibility to this visual illusion PSY1PAC Lecture 5 Page 8  Non-Western samples are less susceptible to this illusion US participants (and likely Australian students) are most susceptible Segall et al. (1966) PSY1PAC Lecture 5 Page 9 Carpentered World Hypothesis “Early exposure to carpentered corners leads to perceiving corners as depth cues, and thus susceptible to the M-L illusion” This is called Carpentered World Hypothesis Cultural learning plays important role in shaping psychological processes even at the basic level PSY1PAC Lecture 5 Page 10 Analytic and Holistic Thinking Styles Nisbett et al. (2001) proposed two contrasting thinking styles (or mindsets) Analytic Thinking Style Holistic Thinking Style Focus attention on salient Focus on the relations among objects and their attributes objects and the larger context Perceive objects as separated Predict objects’ behaviour on the from their context basis of their relationships Use taxonomic, rule-based Use non-taxonomic, relationship- categorisation based categorisation PSY1PAC Lecture 5 Page 11 The Rod‐and‐Frame Task Is the purple line (A) perfectly vertical, or (B) a couple of degrees off vertical? PSY1PAC Lecture 5 Page 12 Field‐independence vs. Field‐dependence Performing well on the rod-and-frame task requires ignoring the frame and focusing on the rod ○ Analytic thinkers tend to do well on the task, as they tend to separate objects from the fields and pay attention to specific objects (field- independent) ○ Holistic thinkers tend to be field-dependent Using this task, researchers found East Asians to be highly field-dependent (Ji et al., 2000) Farmers with coordinated activities, compared to hunter-gathers or animal herders are found to be more field-dependent (Witkin & Berry, 1975) PSY1PAC Lecture 5 Page 13 Consequences for Attention and Memory Masuda & Nisbett (2001) American and Japanese participants shown vignettes of underwater scenes (20 sec) Each scene had “focal fish”, with background elements PSY1PAC Lecture 5 Page 14 Consequences for Attention and Memory When asked to describe what they saw, Japanese made 60% more references to the background than Americans No cultural difference in descriptions of active objects or focal fish East Asians pay attention to and remember background or contextual information better than Americans PSY1PAC Lecture 5 Page 15 In-class activity (no pre-lecture spoilers) PSY1PAC Lecture 5 Page 16 Effects of Perceptual Environments on Attention Attention is directing cognitive activity to targets Culture may influence where you tend to attend to in your immediate environment Miyamoto et al. (2006) hypothesised that ○ People who live in perceptually-busy environments (complex arrays of stimulus) tend to attend to contextual information We simply call this the “Environmental Complexity Hypothesis” PSY1PAC Lecture 5 Page 17  To test this, first gathered random scenes from small, medium and large cities in Japan and the US Presented these scenes to people in Japan and the US and examined their attentional patterns PSY1PAC Lecture 5 Page 18  Miyamoto et al. (2006) American scenes judged to be more complex if from a large city (NYC) than a smaller city Japanese scenes judged to be similar in complexity regardless of city size, and to be overall more complex than American scenes PSY1PAC Lecture 5 Page 19  Pictures shown to new groups of American and Japanese participants Some pictures shown twice; respondents would yell out if they saw the same pictures with a tiny change There were two types of change ○ Focal change, e.g., colour of the car at the front differs ○ Contextual change, e.g., design of a shop sign at the back differs Who will notice the contextual changes more? pixabay PSY1PAC Lecture 5 Page 20  US participants JP participants Japanese participants (right two bars) 4 detected more contextual changes than Americans (left two bars) No. of Changes Detected 3.2 Both groups found more contextual 3 2.7 2.7 changes in the Japanese scenes (red bars) than in the US scenes (blue bars) 2.1 2 Japanese physical environments attract people’s attention to contextual information more than US environments 1 US JP US JP Scenes Miyamoto et al. (2006) PSY1PAC Lecture 5 Page 21 In-class activity (no pre-lecture spoilers) PSY1PAC Lecture 5 Page 22 Cultural Differences in Attention and Artistic Preferences Draw a house, a tree, a river, a person, and a horizon (Masuda et al., 2008) What differences do you see in these drawings in terms of where and how objects are situated? Masuda et al. (2008) PSY1PAC Lecture 5 Page 23 Drawings by US participants Drawings by Japanese participants Directs attention to focal objects 75% more contextual objects rather than relations of elements Higher horizon within a scene Smaller faces in portraits Lower horizon Larger faces in portraits PSY1PAC Lecture 5 Page 24 Taxonomic vs. Non-taxonomic Categorisation What goes with the gloves? A or B? PSY1PAC Lecture 5 Page 25 Which of the two groups is the target object more similar? Group 1 or Group 2? Norenzayan et al. (2002) PSY1PAC Lecture 5 Page 26 Thinking Style and Categorisation Group 1 Group 2 Relationship-based categorisation, Taxonomic, rule‐based based on family resemblance categorisation Target shares more features with Target shares one common feature Group 1 members—petals, leaf, with Group 2, the straight stem, centre circle—than with Group 2 but not with Group 1 members European Americans higher East Asians higher tendency tendency Talking and Thinking Talking is viewed differently and impacts thinking differently in different cultures Study on thinking aloud (Kim, 2002) European Americans and Asian Americans completed a nonverbal IQ test Talking and Thinking First, everyone did the test quietly Then, they continued the test under one of two different conditions ○ Thinking aloud while solving questions ○ Reciting the alphabet (to suppress tongue movement) while solving them Does thinking aloud help or hinder performance? iStock  Thinking aloud facilitated Euro-Americans but hindered Asian Americans’ performance Reciting the alphabet (i.e., articulatory suppression) hindered Euro-Americans’ performance more Why does thinking aloud hinder Kim (2002) Asians’ test performance? Talking and Thinking Talking and thinking style ○ Analytic: Breaking up an idea and putting elements back again ○ Holistic: Sorting out the relationships among elements of the idea first Different cultural traditions have different attitudes toward talking ○ Western traditions emphasise the importance of self‐expression and debating ○ East Asian traditions deemphasise talking and are more accepting of silence as part of communication Accepting Contradiction Analytic thinking assumes Dialectical thinking (or naïve contradictions are resolved by dialecticism) is a type of reasoning rejecting the wrong proposition that emphasises acceptance of Formal logic contradictions ○ A cannot = not-A Associated with holistic thinking, ○ B = A or not-A prominent among Chinese (and East Asians) Compared to formal logic ○ A ≠ A (or A = not-A) ○ B = A and not-A Accepting Contradiction Dialectical thinking – expectation of change Everything is connected and constantly changing (as symbolised by yin and yang) Universe is moving back and forth between opposite poles, contradictions are inevitable Opposite objects can be simultaneously accepted, without resolving contradiction Consider the following two arguments; how much do you believe in each (Peng & Nisbett, 1999)? A sociologist who surveyed college students from 100 universities claimed that a high correlation existed among college female students who smoked and those who were thin. A biologist who studied nicotine addiction asserted that heavy doses of nicotine often lead to people becoming overweight.  American participants (left) who read both arguments were even more convinced by the stronger argument than if they had heard only the strong argument by itself ○ Become even more confident in one argument Chinese participants (right) viewed the stronger argument to be less convincing if they read a contradictory argument ○ Find both to be more plausible when viewing both arguments together Where Do These Differences Come From? Root in Greek philosophies Root in Chinese philosophies Platonic view: the world is a Confucianism, Taoism, and collection of discrete, unchanging Buddhism: emphasis on harmony, objects categorised by universal change, and interconnectedness properties Collectivism, interdependent self Individualism, independent self Where Do These Differences Come From? People from collectivistic/interdependent cultures (e.g., Arabs, Russians, Turkish farmers and fishermen) do tend to use holistic thinking more But, people from some collectivistic/interdependent cultures (e.g., Latin American culture) tend not to practice dialectical thinking Oversimplification of cultural differences in thinking styles, also overlooking situational factors (see cultural priming in your reading) Match between thinking styles and cognitive task requirements more important – good to have both in your toolbox Part 2. Learning Objectives Identify two steps of impression formation Differentiate dispositional attributions and situational attributions Describe the fundamental attribution error, including cultural differences PSY1PAC Lecture 5 Page 38 Social Cognition Social cognition involves making Major research topics in social sense of the social world, including cognition have been yourself person perception other people attribution interactions between people social categorisation social relationships group perception (stereotyping) Two‐step Process of Impression Formation First impressions (superficial Considered impressions processing) (systematic processing) Rely on salient cues Attribution accounting for Activate correspondent additional information inference Complex impressions Use of schemas First Impressions First impressions are quick (< 1 sec) ○ Salient cues visually stand out ○ Correspondent inference refers to inferring from the observed, salient behaviour an attribute implied ○ “Sam tripped over twice before leaving the room” →“clumsy” ○ “Toni helped an old man cross the busy street.” →“kind” Make correspondent inference automatically without an intention or awareness of doing so pexels First Impressions Using schemas: first trait you activated will guide the processing of further information “clumsy” →“careless”, “forgetful”, “messy” Schemas are cognitive structures that tie various expectations based on your prior experiences Thus, pay more attention to the person’s actions that are consistent with the first impression and further expect consistent behaviours First impressions are robust – we often pay little attention to new information that denies our impression Attribution Attribution refers to consciously explaining why the person took that behaviour ○ Attributing a cause to the behaviour. People tend to think of internal (dispositional) causes first, and then may consider external (situational) explanations later “Sam tripped over twice before leaving the room” →“clumsy” →“Something on the floor may have caused to trip” Causal Attribution (Western) Research has shown that people are prone to dispositional attribution even where a situational explanation is available This bias was named Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE) Actor/Observer Bias ○ FAE is more likely when observing the behaviour of other people than our own ○ We tend to notice situational causes of our behaviour more easily! Cultural Differences in Causal Attribution Cross-cultural research shows that FAE is less prevalent among Asians (e.g., Indians, Chinese) Asians, compared to European Americans, tend to adjust their initial impressions involving dispositional attribution by using situational attribution They may also make situational attributions more from the outset These differences are considered due to thinking styles ○ Analytic thinking → dispositional attribution ○ Holistic thinking → situational attribution Cultural Differences in Causal Attribution Joan Miller’s (1984) research compared causal attribution in different age groups in India and the US Participants were provided with some scenarios such as “A motorcycle driver (an attorney) had an accident, and his friend who was riding with him got injured. The driver left his injured friend at a hospital and went to work.” Why do you think he left his friend at the hospital and went to work? Cultural Differences in Causal Attribution Indians’ responses Americans’ responses “He might have become nervous “He must have been in a state or confused” of shock” “It was his duty to be in court “He was irresponsible” for the client he was “He was aggressive in pursuing representing” his career success” “The injured man might not More dispositional attribution have looked as seriously injured as he was” More situational attribution  Respondents’ (8 years – adult) explanations were coded as dispositional or situational Miller (1984) Cultural differences in attribution were more prominent in adults In India, situational attributions increased with age In the US, dispositional attributions increased with age Practice Question 1 In-class activity (no pre-lecture spoilers) PSY1PAC Lecture 5 Page 49 Practice Question 2 In-class activity (no pre-lecture spoilers) PSY1PAC Lecture 5 Page 50 Week 6: Motivation Morling, B., & Lee, J. M. (2017). Culture and motivation. In A. T. Church (Ed.), The Praeger Handbook of Personality Across Cultures: Culture and Characteristic Adaptations (pp. 61–82). Praeger/ABC- CLIO. (Read the intro paragraph and pp. 63‐70)