Analytic Versus Holistic Thinking and Perceptions of Causal Impact

Abstract

East Asians and North Americans are known to have distinct cognitive styles, namely, holistic vs. analytic thinking style. This cognitive difference results in cultural differences in beliefs about causal complexity. For example, compared to North Americans, East Asians consider a larger amount of information for causal attribution due to their relatively more complex causal models of the world. The present research examines whether holistic vs analytic thinking also affects perceptions of causal impact of a given event. In study 1, we asked participants to judge whether each of a list of outcomes would be affected by a negative event (i. e. a large scale layoff) or a positive event (i. e. job security until retirement) and found that the more holistic participants perceived that a greater number of outcomes would be affected by a target event, either positive or negative. In study 2, we compared the perceptions of causal impact of Koreans and Americans. Consistent with our expectation, Koreans predicted a greater ripple effect of a given event than Americans. Implications and future research are discussed.