Abstract
Is agency a straightforward and universal feature of human experience? Or is the construction of agency (including attention to and memory for people involved in events) guided by patterns in culture? In this paper we focus on one aspect of cultural experience: patterns in language. We examined English and Japanese speakers’ descriptions of intentional and accidental events. English and Japanese speakers described intentional events similarly, using mostly agentive language (e.g., “She broke the vase”). However, when it came to accidental events English speakers used more agentive language than did Japanese speakers. We then tested whether these different patterns found in language may also manifest in cross-cultural differences in attention and memory. Results from a non-linguistic memory task showed that English and Japanese speakers remembered the agents of intentional events equally well. However, English speakers remembered the agents of accidents better than did Japanese speakers, as predicted from patterns in language. Further, directly manipulating agency in language during another laboratory task changed people’s eye-witness memory, confirming a possible causal role for language. Patterns in one’s linguistic environment may promote and support how people instantiate agency in context.
Highlights
Throughout life, we act on the world around us
We find that English and Japanese speakers remember the agents of intentional events well, but in the case of accidental events English speakers are more likely to remember the individuals potentially construable as agents than are Japanese speakers
English and Japanese speakers described intentional events but differed in their descriptions of accidental events. This pattern in language suggests a specific prediction: If English speakers are more likely than Japanese speakers to describe accidents agentively, might they pay more attention to and be more likely to remember the individuals involved in accidental events? The patterns in language predict no differences between the two groups for intentional events, but more attention to potential agents for English speakers in the case of accidental events
Summary
Throughout life, we act on the world around us. We move and shake things, we build and break things. We make many inferences about actions and outcomes, deciding who to blame for what. Everyday life may lead us to think that causal agency is a natural, straightforward, and universal feature of human experience. Consider this scenario: A forklift operator is maneuvering his heavy load toward its destination in a crowded warehouse, and as he squeezes around a tight turn, the nearest shelf collapses and millions of dollars worth of fine crystal comes crashing to the floor. The tight turn, the rickety shelf, or the fragile crystal the cause? Was collapsing, falling, or shattering the effect? The tight turn, the rickety shelf, or the fragile crystal the cause? Was collapsing, falling, or shattering the effect?
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
