Do Easterners and Westerners Treat Contradiction Differently?

in Journal of Cognition and Culture
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

Peng and Nisbett (1999) put forward an influential theory of the influence of culture on the resolution of contradiction. They suggested that Easterners deal with contradiction in a dialectical manner, trying to reconcile opposite points of view and seeking a middle-way. Westerners, by contrast, would follow the law of excluded middle, judging one side of the contradiction to be right and the other to be wrong. However, their work has already been questioned, both in terms of replicability and external validity. Here we test alternative interpretations of two of Peng and Nisbett’s experiments and conduct a new test of their theory in a third experiment. Overall, the Eastern (Chinese) and Western (French) participants behaved similarly, failing to exhibit the cross-cultural differences observed by Peng and Nisbett. Several interpretations of these failed replications and this failed new test are suggested. Together with previous failed replications, the present results raise questions about the breadth of Peng and Nisbett’s interpretation of cross-cultural differences in dealing with contradiction.

Do Easterners and Westerners Treat Contradiction Differently?

in Journal of Cognition and Culture

Sections

References

BonaccioS.DalalR.S. Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 2006 101 127 151

ChanS.F. Formal logic and dialectical thinking are not incongruent American Psychologist 2000 55 1063

ChenC.UttalD.H. Cultural values, parents’ beliefs, and children’s achievement in the United States and China Human Development 1988 31 351 358

ChenS.ChaikenS. ChaikenS.TropeY. The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology 1999 New York, NY The Guilford Press 255 270

FrantzC.M.SeburnM. Are argumentative people better or worse at seeing both sides? Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 2003 20 565 573

FriedmanM.ChenH.C.VaidJ. Proverb preferences across cultures: Dialecticality or poeticality? Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 2006 13 353 359

FuJ.H.MorrisM.W.LeeS.L.ChaoM.ChiuC.Y.HongY.Y. Epistemic motives and cultural conformity: need for closure, culture, and context as determinants of conflict judgments Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2007 92 191 207

HeldB.S. Why there is universality in rationality Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology 2010 30 1 16

HoD.Y.F. Dialectical thinking: neither eastern nor western American Psychologist 2000 55 1064

HussB. Cultural differences and the law of noncontradiction: some criteria for further research Philosophical Psychology 2004 17 375 389

Johnson-LairdP.N. How We Reason 2006 Oxford Oxford University Press

KimH.MarkusH.R. Deviance or uniqueness, harmony or conformity? A cultural analysis Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1999 77 785 800

LeeY.T. What is missing in Chinese-western dialectical reasoning? American Psychologist 2000 55 1065 1066

MarkusH.R.KitayamaS. Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation Psychological Review; Psychological Review 1991 98 2 224

MercierH. On the universality of argumentative reasoning Journal of Cognition and Culture 2011 11 85 113

MercierH.SperberD. Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2011 34 57 74

MercierH.YamaH.KawasakiY.AdachiK.Van der HenstJ.-B. Is the use of averaging in advice taking modulated by culture? Journal of Cognition and Culture 2012 12 1 16

PengK.NisbettR.E. Culture, dialectics and reasoning about contradiction American Psychologist 1999 54 741 754

PengK.NisbettR.E. Dialectical Responses to Questions About Dialectical Thinking American Psychologist 2000 55 1067 1068

PettyR.E.WegenerD.T. GilbertD.FiskeS.LindzeyG. Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables The Handbook of Social Psychology 1998 Boston, MA McGraw-Hill 323 390

PettyR.E.WegenerD.T. ChaikenS.TropeY. The elaboration-likelihood model: Current status and controversies Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology 1999 New York, NY The Guilford Press 41 72

RipsL.J. The Psychology of Proof: Deductive Reasoning in Human Thinking 1994 Cambridge, MA MIT Press

RosenthalR. The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results Psychological Bulletin 1979 86 638

Spencer-RodgersJ.WilliamsM. J.PengK. Cultural differences in expectations of change and tolerance for contradiction: A decade of empirical research Personality and Social Psychology Review 2010 14 296 312

SperberD.ClémentF.HeintzC.MascaroO.MercierH.OriggiG.WilsonD. Epistemic vigilance Mind and Language 2010 25 359 393

Van der HenstJ.-B.MercierH.YamaH.KawasakiY.AdachiK. Dealing with contradiction in a communicative context: A cross-cultural study Intercultural Pragmatics 2006 3 487 502

YueX.NgS.H. Filial obligations and expectations in China: Current views from young and old people in Beijing Asian Journal of Social Psychology 1999 2 215 226

Figures

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 22 22 14
Full Text Views 9 9 9
PDF Downloads 2 2 2
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0