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

Abstract

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.

Microfoundations of Organizational Paradox: The Problem Is How We Think about the Problem

“…We developed 29 items, and then checked content validity using a panel of experts. Similar to validated scales of related constructs, we developed items that can be applied at work as well as in other contexts (e.g., Cialdini et al, 1995;Spencer-Rodgers et al, 2010;Webster & Kruglanski, 1994). Our panel of experts included four leading scholars familiar with methods of scale development as well as paradox theory.…”

“…However, individuals may cognitively differentiate and integrate different perspectives but feel uncomfortable when the perspectives appear to be contradictory. Finally, research on naïve dialecticism, building on insights from Eastern philosophy, addresses individual attitudes towards contradictions (Choi et al, 2007;Spencer-Rodgers, Williams, & Peng, 2010), but not whether individuals accept and feel comfortable with contradictions. Similarly, the attitude towards contradictions subdimension of holism focuses on tactics for managing tensions, such as compromising and seeking middleground (Choi et al, 2007), rather than confronting and embracing tensions.…”

When Should We Disagree? The Effect of Conflict on Team Identity in North American and East Asian Teams

“…High dialectical thinkers tend to reconcile opposing views and contradictions by seeking the middle ground or accepting that both can exist simultaneously. In contrast, low dialectical thinkers tend to accept only one side as true while rejecting the other side (Spencer-Rodgers et al, 2010b). For example, Peng and Nisbett (1999) found that high dialectical thinkers (e.g., Chinese), relative to low dialectical thinkers (e.g., Americans), were more likely to accept two opposing statements as true; preferred dialectical proverbs that accept rather than deny contradictions (e.g., "Sorrow is born out of excessive joy") to nondialectical proverbs that reflect the rule on noncontradiction (e.g., "Half a loaf is better than none").…”

“…I found that team cultural composition moderates the relation between conflict and team identity, and I argued that the reason why East Asian team's identity is not negatively influenced by high levels of conflict is because they endorse a stronger style of dialectical reasoning and can integrate the positive and negative aspects of conflict (Spencer-Rodgers et al, 2010b). Future research should directly measure and test dialectical reasoning.…”

Unpacking Four Forms of Third Culture in Multicultural Teams

“…Thus, theoretically related individual difference and cultural variables that may influence people's expectations for the four third culture forms were investigated. Specifically, predictions were developed and tested using theories on cognitive motivation (Cacioppo, Petty, Feinstein, & Jarvis, 1996;Earley & Ang, 2003;Kruglanski & Webster, 1996;Spencer-Rodgers, Williams, and Peng, 2010), multiculturalism ideology (Berry, 2003;Brodt et al, 2010;Verkuyten, 1995), national culture (Hofstede, 1980), and multicultural team experience.…”