David Lacko, Jiří Čeněk, Alaattin Arıkan, Thomas Dresler, Adrianne John Galang, Zdeněk Stachoň, Alžběta Šašinková, Jie-Li Tsai, Tomáš Prošek, Pavel Ugwitz, Čeněk Šašinka
{"title":"Investigating the geography of thought across 11 countries: Cross-cultural differences in analytic and holistic cognitive styles using simple perceptual tasks and reaction time modeling.","authors":"David Lacko, Jiří Čeněk, Alaattin Arıkan, Thomas Dresler, Adrianne John Galang, Zdeněk Stachoň, Alžběta Šašinková, Jie-Li Tsai, Tomáš Prošek, Pavel Ugwitz, Čeněk Šašinka","doi":"10.1037/xge0001685","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article investigates cross-cultural differences in analytic/holistic cognitive styles among participants from 11 countries: Armenia, Australia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Czechia, Germany, Ghana, Philippines, Slovakia, Taiwan, and Türkiye. Using a preregistered design, 993 university students were assessed with three perceptual tasks based on Navon's hierarchical figures and Gottschaldt's embedded figures. Analytic and holistic cognitive styles were estimated using reaction time modeling, specifically a Bayesian four-parameter shifted Wald distribution and a hierarchical linear ballistic accumulator model. The results revealed notable cross-cultural variations in cognitive styles, though these differences did not align with predictions from analytic/holistic cognitive style theory. Countries traditionally characterized as more holistic or analytic did not consistently show the expected cognitive style patterns. Multilevel modeling examined the influence of country-level variables, such as Hofstede's and Schwartz's cultural dimensions. While some dimensions, like individualism and long-term orientation, were associated with both analytic and holistic thinking, many cultural predictors had no significant impact on cognitive styles. Additionally, exploratory latent profile analysis assessed cognitive metastyles, such as flexibility and rigidity, but the findings do not support the presence of a rigidity metastyle. No profiles exhibited a strong preference for one cognitive dimension while showing a low preference for the other. These findings challenge the straightforward application of analytic/holistic theory across diverse cultural contexts and suggest a need for reevaluation of its generalizability. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":15698,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001685","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本文研究了来自 11 个国家的参与者在分析/整体认知风格方面的跨文化差异:亚美尼亚、澳大利亚、巴西、保加利亚、捷克、德国、加纳、菲律宾、斯洛伐克、台湾和土耳其。通过预先登记的设计,993 名大学生接受了以纳冯的层次图形和哥特沙尔特的嵌入图形为基础的三项感知任务评估。利用反应时间模型,特别是贝叶斯四参数移动沃尔德分布和分层线性弹道累加器模型,对分析和整体认知风格进行了估计。研究结果表明,认知风格存在明显的跨文化差异,但这些差异与分析/整体认知风格理论的预测并不一致。传统上被认为更注重整体性或分析性的国家并没有持续表现出预期的认知风格模式。多层次建模研究了国家层面变量的影响,如霍夫斯泰德(Hofstede)和施瓦茨(Schwartz)的文化维度。虽然某些维度(如个人主义和长期取向)与分析性思维和整体性思维相关,但许多文化预测因素对认知风格没有显著影响。此外,探索性潜在特征分析评估了认知元风格,如灵活性和刚性,但结果并不支持刚性元风格的存在。没有人在表现出对一种认知维度的强烈偏好的同时,又表现出对另一种认知维度的低偏好。这些发现对分析/整体理论在不同文化背景下的直接应用提出了挑战,并表明有必要重新评估该理论的普适性。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
Investigating the geography of thought across 11 countries: Cross-cultural differences in analytic and holistic cognitive styles using simple perceptual tasks and reaction time modeling.
This article investigates cross-cultural differences in analytic/holistic cognitive styles among participants from 11 countries: Armenia, Australia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Czechia, Germany, Ghana, Philippines, Slovakia, Taiwan, and Türkiye. Using a preregistered design, 993 university students were assessed with three perceptual tasks based on Navon's hierarchical figures and Gottschaldt's embedded figures. Analytic and holistic cognitive styles were estimated using reaction time modeling, specifically a Bayesian four-parameter shifted Wald distribution and a hierarchical linear ballistic accumulator model. The results revealed notable cross-cultural variations in cognitive styles, though these differences did not align with predictions from analytic/holistic cognitive style theory. Countries traditionally characterized as more holistic or analytic did not consistently show the expected cognitive style patterns. Multilevel modeling examined the influence of country-level variables, such as Hofstede's and Schwartz's cultural dimensions. While some dimensions, like individualism and long-term orientation, were associated with both analytic and holistic thinking, many cultural predictors had no significant impact on cognitive styles. Additionally, exploratory latent profile analysis assessed cognitive metastyles, such as flexibility and rigidity, but the findings do not support the presence of a rigidity metastyle. No profiles exhibited a strong preference for one cognitive dimension while showing a low preference for the other. These findings challenge the straightforward application of analytic/holistic theory across diverse cultural contexts and suggest a need for reevaluation of its generalizability. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Experimental Psychology: General publishes articles describing empirical work that bridges the traditional interests of two or more communities of psychology. The work may touch on issues dealt with in JEP: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, JEP: Human Perception and Performance, JEP: Animal Behavior Processes, or JEP: Applied, but may also concern issues in other subdisciplines of psychology, including social processes, developmental processes, psychopathology, neuroscience, or computational modeling. Articles in JEP: General may be longer than the usual journal publication if necessary, but shorter articles that bridge subdisciplines will also be considered.