Kaiping Peng

Culture, Dialectics, and Reasoning about Contradiction.

Chinese ways of dealing with seeming contradictions result in a dialectical or compromise approach—retaining basic elements of opposing perspectives by seeking a middle way. On the other hand, European-American ways, deriving from a lay version of Aristotelian logic, result in a differentiation model that polarizes contradictory perspectives in an effort to determine which fact or position is correct. Five empirical studies showed that dialectical thinking is a form of folk wisdom in Chinese culture: Chinese participants preferred dialectical proverbs containing seeming contradictions more than did American participants. Chinese participants also preferred dialectical resolutions to social conflicts and preferred dialectical arguments over classical Western logical arguments. Furthermore, when 2 apparently contradictory propositions were presented, American participants polarized their views, and Chinese participants were moderately accepting of both propositions. Origins of these cultural differences and their implications for human reasoning in general are discussed.

What's Wrong With Cross-Cultural Comparisons of Subjective Likert Scales?: The Reference-Group Effect

Social comparison theory maintains that people think about themselves compared with similar others. Those in one culture, then, compare themselves with different others and standards than do those in another culture, thus potentially confounding cross-cultural comparisons. A pilot study and Study 1 demonstrated the problematic nature of this reference-group effect: Whereas cultural experts agreed that East Asians are more collectivistic than North Americans, cross-cultural comparisons of trait and attitude measures failed to reveal such a pattern. Study 2 found that manipulating reference groups enhanced the expected cultural differences, and Study 3 revealed that people from different cultural backgrounds within the same country exhibited larger differences than did people from different countries. Cross-cultural comparisons using subjective Likert scales are compromised because of different reference groups. Possible solutions are discussed.

Dialectical Self-Esteem and East-West Differences in Psychological Well-Being

A well-documented finding in the literature is that members of many East Asian cultures report lower self-esteem and psychological well-being than do members of Western cultures. The authors present the results of four studies that examined cultural differences in reasoning about psychological contradiction and the effects of naive dialecticism on self-evaluations and psychological adjustment. Mainland Chinese and Asian Americans exhibited greater “ambivalence” or evaluative contradiction in their self-attitudes than did Western synthesis-oriented cultures on a traditional self-report measure of self-esteem (Study 1) and in their spontaneous self-descriptions (Study 2). Naive dialecticism, as assessed with the Dialectical Self Scale, mediated the observed cultural differences in self-esteem and well-being (Study 3). In Study 4, the authors primed naive dialecticism and found that increased dialecticism was related to decreased psychological adjustment. Implications for the conceptualization and measurement of self-esteem and psychological well-being across cultures are discussed.

Acculturation Strategies and Integrative Complexity The Cognitive Implications of Biculturalism

People are being exposed to second cultures in growing numbers, yet the role played by second-culture exposure in shaping sociocognitive skills has received little theoretical attention. The authors address this gap by exploring the relationship between acculturation strategies and integrative complexity. Consistent with the acculturation complexity model, studies of both Asian American college students (Study 1) and Israelis working in the United States (Study 2) show that biculturals are more integratively complex across domains (e.g., culture, work) than either assimilated or separated individuals. Using priming manipulations to clarify the directional flow of causality between acculturation and integrative complexity, the authors also find that greater integrative complexity among biculturals is driven by acculturation pressures (Study 3). Finally, the authors discuss the adaptive implications of multiculturalism.

Cultural Differences in Expectations of Change and Tolerance for Contradiction: A Decade of Empirical Research

Since the publication of Peng and Nisbett’s seminal paper on dialectical thinking, a substantial amount of empirical research has replicated and expanded on the core finding that people differ in the degree to which they view the world as inherently contradictory and in constant flux. Dialectical thinkers (who are more often members of East Asian than Western cultures) show greater expectation of change in tasks related to explanation and prediction and greater tolerance of contradiction in tasks involving the reconciliation of contradictory information. The authors show how these effects are manifested in the domains of the self, emotional experience, psychological well-being, attitudes and evaluations, social categorization and perception, and judgment and decision making. They note important topics in need of further investigation and offer predictions concerning possible cultural differences in unexplored domains as a function of the presence or absence of naïve dialecticism.

The Dialectical Self-Concept: Contradiction, Change, and Holism in East Asian Cultures

Naïve dialecticism refers to a set of East Asian lay beliefs characterized by tolerance for contradiction, the expectation of change, and cognitive holism. In five studies, the authors examined the cognitive mechanisms that give rise to global self-concept inconsistency among dialectical cultures. Contradictory self-knowledge was more readily available (Study 1) and simultaneously accessible (Study 2) among East Asians (Japanese and Chinese) than among Euro-Americans. East Asians also exhibited greater change and holism in the spontaneous self-concept (Study 1) and inconsistency in their implicit self-beliefs (Study 3). Cultural differences in self-concept inconsistency were obtained when controlling for alternative explanatory variables, including self-criticism (Study 4) and self-concept certainty (Studies 2 and 3) and were fully mediated by a direct measure of dialecticism (Study 5). Naïve dialecticism provides a comprehensive theoretical framework for understanding these cultural differences and the contradictory, changeable, and holistic nature of the East Asian self-concept.

White selves: conceptualizing and measuring a dominant-group identity.

This article addresses the nature and measurement of White racial identity. White identification is conceptualized as an automatic association between the self and the White ingroup; this association is fostered through social exposure to non-Whites and serves to link self- and ingroup evaluations. Four studies validated a measure of White identification against criteria derived from this model. In Study 1, the White Identity Centrality Implicit Association Test (WICIAT) predicted response latencies in a task gauging self-ingroup merging. In Study 2, the WICIAT correlated with census data tapping exposure to non-Whites. In Studies 3 and 4, the WICIAT predicted phenomena associated with the linking of self- and ingroup evaluations: identity-related biases in intergroup categorization (Study 3) and self-evaluative emotional reactions to ingroup transgressions (Study 4). Together, the findings shed light on the antecedents and consequences of White identity, an often-neglected individual difference construct.

Implicit Theories of Creativity Across Cultures Novelty and Appropriateness in Two Product Domains

One potential problem for creativity theory is whether both novelty and appropriateness are equally valid dimensions across cultures. Taking an implicit theory approach, the authors surveyed more than 400 students from Japan, China, and the United States. Using repeated measures scenarios of cooking and textbook products, novelty was found to be important across the three countries for evaluations of creativity. However, the Chinese were more swayed than were the Americans by the novelty manipulation in terms of how much they desired the products. Appropriateness was more important for Americans and Japanese for evaluations of creativity and desire for products. Both novelty and appropriateness had large effects. Rather than relying on assumed country variations, the authors argue that cross-cultural research be used to understand the nature of creativity.

Culture, Education, and the Attribution of Physical Causality

Two studies investigated the impact of culturally instilled folk theories on the perception of physical events. In Study 1, Americans and Chinese with no formal physics education were found to emphasize different causes in their explanations for eight physical events, with Americans attributing them more to dispositional factors (e.g., weight) and less to contextual factors (e.g., a medium) than did Chinese. In Study 2, Chinese Americans identity as Asians or as Americans was primed before having them explain the events used in Study 1. Asian-primed participants endorsed dispositional explanations to a lesser degree and contextual explanations to a greater degree than did American-primed participants, although priming effects were observed only for students with little physics education. Together, these studies suggest that culturally instilled folk theories of physics produce cultural differences in the perception of physical causality.

Culture and Group Perception: Dispositional and Stereotypic Inferences About Novel and National Groups

In 3 studies, the authors tested the hypothesis that Chinese participants would view social groups as more entitative than would Americans and, as a result, would be more likely to infer personality traits on the basis of group membership--that is, to stereotype. In Study 1, Chinese participants made stronger stereotypic trait inferences than Americans did on the basis of a targets membership in a fictitious group. Studies 2 and 3 showed that Chinese participants perceived diverse groups as more entitative and attributed more internally consistent dispositions to groups and their members. Guided by culturally based lay theories about the entitative nature of groups, Chinese participants may stereotype more readily than do Americans when group membership is available as a source of dispositional inference.