6.3.3 Collectivistic and individualistic cognition.

Collectivistic and individualistic cultures have engaged the interest of researchers for a long time. Individualistic cultures are thought to promote self-reliance and competiveness where individuals are encouraged in the pursuit of autonomy and independence. Collectivistic cultures on the other hand place a stronger emphasis and value on the interest of the group based on social norms that support higher levels of conformity and social responsibility. Hofstede (1980) included individualism/collectivism as a cultural value that was useful in the ranking of countries and cultural groups. Markus and Kitiyama (1991b) made an important conceptual advance when they suggested that cultures identified as individualistic or collectivistic foster different kinds of self-construal called the independent and interdependent self.

Research support the view that people living in cultures defined as promoting individualistic values like Germany and the U.S. are more field independent compared to collectivistic cultures like those found in Malaysian and Russia (Kuhnen, Hannover, Roeder, Ali Shah, Schubert, Upmeyer, & Zakaria, 2001). The cultural context may in fact limit choices for independent decision making and thereby promote a field dependent cognitive style. Is field dependence conducive to creative thinking? While creativity is promoted in entrepreneurial societies and forms of self-expression regarded as healthy and normal, in collectivistic societies behavior that seek individual distinction may be met with social disapproval (Shiraev & Sobel, 2006). Creativity is negatively impacted in societies that enforce dogmatic thinking and limit exchange of ideas. Of course the presence of dogmatism is relative, both within cultural groups as well as between societies. In fact the disapproval of ideas is also manifested in so-called Western democratic societies as demonstrated in the persecution of communists and other unorthodox thinkers.

6.3.4 Greek versus Asian thinking style.

Some researchers contend that sociocultural differences are so profound that they not only create unique world views, but affect the very structure of cognitive processes (Nisbett, Peng, Choi, & Norenzayan, 2001). Cognitive differences are thought to derive from the philosophical views represented by Socrates in Greece and Confucius in China. For example, Western scholarly thought has emphasized critical thinking and skepticism in finding truthful conclusions. The Greek tradition encouraged people to be independent thinkers and to decide for themselves the correct path. Confucius on the other hand valued respect for educators and the pragmatic development of salient information and knowledge. Confucian modes of thinking appear to be contrary to Western thought that challenge authority whereas Asian thought urges respect for status and rank (Yang & Sternberg, 1997; Tweed & Lehman, 2002).

Nisbett and his colleagues contended that Western thought is more analytical where perception is directed toward objects and constituent categories and formal rules of logic are valued. They suggested that we can understand these norms of thinking if we understand the history of Greece as the center of trade routes and developing a herding economy that encouraged independent thinking functional to survival in that cultural context. The contribution of Greek society to Western ideas of freedom of the individual derived from these cultural experiences and context. On the other hand Chinese society emphasized social obligations in common with other collectivistic societies. As their economy was largely based on pragmatic innovations in agriculture that required cooperation and interdependence the Chinese evolved a more authoritarian society where the role of the educator was paramount. Perceptually the Chinese created a world view of complex interacting substances, compared to the Greek perspective of a perceptual world consisting of categories.

Nisbett and his colleagues argued that it is possible to build a cognitive theory based on the history of regions that explains why perception is field dependent in case of Asians and field independent among Western respondents. The structure of the dominant thought processes grew out of efforts to solve problems in these different cultural environments and is reflected in either dialectical thinking in Asia or in the use of formal logic in the West.