Relational mobility and cultural differences in analytic and holistic thinking.

2019 ◽  
Vol 116 (4) ◽  
pp. 495-518 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alvaro San Martin ◽  
Joanna Schug ◽  
William W. Maddux
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Differences ◽  
Holistic Thinking

Analytic versus Holistic Cognition

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Minkyung Koo ◽  
Jong An Choi ◽  
Incheol Choi
Keyword(s):  
Social Psychology ◽  
Cultural Differences ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Consumer Psychology ◽  
Cognitive Domains ◽  
Holistic Thinking ◽  
Causal Perception ◽  
Interdependent Self ◽  
Change Tolerance ◽  
Holistic Cognition

This chapter summarizes research on analytic versus holistic thinking, including locus of attention, causal perception, perception of change, tolerance of contradiction, and categorization—constructs that are widely studied in social psychology and other related fields, such as consumer psychology. The chapter also reviews the literature on the Analysis-Holism Scale (AHS): how it was developed and how it differs from scales that measure other cultural differences (e.g., individualism versus collectivism; independent versus interdependent self; dialectical versus linear self). Empirical evidence supporting the validity of the AHS in various cognitive domains is introduced. The chapter concludes with a review of recently published papers in which the AHS has been validated and utilized for various purposes.

scholarly journals THE RELATION BETWEEN CULTURE AND PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSES OF CONSUMERS: ATTRIBUTES-CONSEQUENCES-VALUES LINKAGES VARIATIONS

2020 ◽  
pp. 95-110
Author(s):  
Choi Byung-Joon
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Differences ◽  
Cognitive Processing ◽  
Cultural Difference ◽  
Cognitive Structure ◽  
Cultural Analysis ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Purchase Decision ◽  
Cognitive Approach ◽  
Holistic Thinking ◽  
Consumption Decisions

Means-end chain (MEC) theory is grounded in a cognitive approach emphasizing connections between the attributes of the product, the consequences of consumption, and the corresponding instrumentality of satisfying consumer values (Gutman, 1982). Taking this hierarchical cognitive structure into account in cross-cultural contexts can lead to deeper understanding of international consumer behavior concerning product choice and consumption decisions. To date, however, international and cross-cultural applications of MEC theory have been conducted primarily by Western researchers with Anglo-Saxon consumers as subjects (e.g., Grunert et al., 2001; Hofstede, Steenkamp, & Wedel, 1999; Mort & Rose, 2004; Overby, Gardial, & Woodruff, 2004; Russel et al., 2004; Valette-Florence et al., 2000). In addition, little attention has been paid to consumers’ cognitive processing styles, which determine different patterns of thinking, in comparative analyses of MECs among consumers from different cultural backgrounds, particularly Western and Eastern cultures. This is despite the fact that a growing corpus of cross-cultural psychology studies confirms cultural differences in styles of thinking, with Western societies characterized by analytic thinking and Eastern societies characterized by holistic thinking (Nisbett et al., 2001). We suggest that this cultural orientation in the different styles of thinking influences the hierarchical cognitive structure on which consumers from Eastern versus Western cultures base their purchase decision-making process. Thus, the question we address in this research is whether analytic versus holistic thinking affects the manner in which consumers cognitively link product attributes to different consequences and values. More precisely, this research aims to contribute to recent MEC research by examining the relation between cultural differences in cognition between Western (French) and Eastern (Korean) cultural members and their MEC linkages underlying wine purchase decision. Our research was undertaken at two different levels of cross-cultural analysis: a chronic cultural difference level and an experimental level in which either the analytic or the holistic thinking tendency is primed.

scholarly journals A Cross-Cultural Study on the Cognitive Traits That Affect Hindsight Bias —Focusing on Holistic-Analytic Thinking and Conservatism

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Han Jung
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Differences ◽  
Cognitive Styles ◽  
Hindsight Bias ◽  
Multiple Regression Model ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Analytic Thinking ◽  
Holistic Thinking ◽  
Cross Cultural Study ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
East West

This study is an attempt to replicate a certain theory about the East-West cultural differences in cognitive tendencies. Nisbett (2003) theorized that there are cultural differences in cognitive styles between Eastern and Western societies, with Eastern societies tending towards holistic thinking and connecting objects through relationships and Western societies tending towards analytic thinking and sorting objects through categorization. Whereas Westerners tend to see the essence of nature itself, Easterners tend to focus on the harmony and interaction between humans and objects. As an extension of this claim, Choi and Nisbett (2000) indicate that Koreans have stronger hindsight bias than Westerners. However, this study successfully invalidated their studies, demonstrating that there was little East-West difference in the way of thinking and Koreans' strong hindsight bias resulted from their higher conservatism compared to Westerners. The results found no significant difference in hindsight bias between Koreans and Westerners. In addition, there was no East-West difference in categorization-relationship and essence-interaction preferences, although conservatism was found to be higher in Koreans than Westerners. The multiple regression model showed that the differences in such preferences did not affect hindsight bias and conservatism was the only factor that increased hindsight bias.

Cognitive gadgets: A provocative but flawed manifesto

2019 ◽  
Vol 42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Del Giudice
Keyword(s):  
Theory Of Mind ◽  
Cultural Differences ◽  
Twin Studies ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Evolutionary Approach ◽  
Genetic Inheritance ◽  
Double Standards ◽  
Cross Cultural Differences ◽  
Cherry Picking ◽  
Dichotomous Thinking

Abstract The argument against innatism at the heart of Cognitive Gadgets is provocative but premature, and is vitiated by dichotomous thinking, interpretive double standards, and evidence cherry-picking. I illustrate my criticism by addressing the heritability of imitation and mindreading, the relevance of twin studies, and the meaning of cross-cultural differences in theory of mind development. Reaching an integrative understanding of genetic inheritance, plasticity, and learning is a formidable task that demands a more nuanced evolutionary approach.

The Cross-Cultural Equivalence of Parental Rearing Measure: EMBU-C

2006 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 85-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maja Deković ◽  
Margreet ten Have ◽  
Wilma A.M. Vollebergh ◽  
Trees Pels ◽  
Annerieke Oosterwegel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Cultural Differences ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Child Rearing ◽  
Latent Factors ◽  
Immigrant Adolescents ◽  
Confirmatory Factor ◽  
Parental Rearing ◽  
The Cross ◽  
Multigroup Confirmatory Factor Analysis

We examined the cross-cultural equivalence of a widely used instrument that assesses perceived parental rearing, the EMBU-C, among native Dutch and immigrant adolescents living in The Netherlands. The results of a multigroup confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the factor structure of the EMBU-C, consisting of three latent factors (Warmth, Rejection, and Overprotection), and reliabilities of these scales are similar in both samples. These findings lend further support for the factorial and construct validity of this instrument. The comparison of perceived child rearing between native Dutch and immigrant adolescents showed cultural differences in only one of the assessed dimensions: Immigrant adolescents perceive their parents as more overprotective than do Dutch adolescents.

What’s Next?

2011 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 60-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Vorderer
Keyword(s):  
Cultural Differences ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
New Developments ◽  
Theoretical Concepts ◽  
Open Questions ◽  
Entertainment Products ◽  
Entertainment Theory

This paper points to new developments in the context of entertainment theory. Starting from a background of well-established theories that have been proposed and elaborated mainly by Zillmann and his collaborators since the 1980s, a new two-factor model of entertainment is introduced. This model encompasses “enjoyment” and “appreciation” as two independent factors. In addition, several open questions regarding cultural differences in humans’ responses to entertainment products or the usefulness of various theoretical concepts like “presence,” “identification,” or “transportation” are also discussed. Finally, the question of why media users are seeking entertainment is brought to the forefront, and a possibly relevant need such as the “search for meaningfulness” is mentioned as a possible major candidate for such an explanation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document