Cultural Differences in Perception: Observations from a Remote Culture

Abstract

Perceptual similarity was examined in a remote culture (Himba) and compared to that of Western observers. Similarity was assessed in a relative size judgement task and in an odd-one-out detection task. Th us, we examined the eff ects of culture on what might be considered low-level visual abilities. For both tasks, we found that performance was aff ected by stimuli that were culturally relevant to the tasks. In Experiment 1, we showed that the use of cow stimuli instead of the standard circles increased illusory strength for the Himba. In Experiment 2, only the Himba showed more accurate detection based on category diff erences in the displays. It is argued that that Categorical Perception in Experiment 2, based on its presumed Whorfi an origins, was the more reliable procedure for examining the eff ects of culture on perception.Similarity is an inherently unspecifi ed notion with an infi nity of ways that two objects may be decided to be similar (Goodman, 1972). Hence, we should not be surprised that diff erent experiences, whether in the same or diff erent cultures, promote similarity in diff erent ways. Here we examine perceptual similarity in a remote culture and compare performance to the same stimuli by observers from our Western culture. We examine similarity in a size judgement task and in an odd-one-out detection task. Th us, we are examining what might be considered low-level visual abilities. Yet, we shall show that the experience of the remote tribe allows both of these tasks to be dealt with diff erently from Western observers. In so doing, we return to an old debate made important in the New Look movement in psychology (Bruner and Goodman, 1947) that basic perceptual processes can be infl uenced by our value systems. A

Cultural differences in visual object recognition in 3-year-old children

“…The first is that clutter in scenes encourages more configural processing of scene information whereas less cluttered scenes encourage more selective focal attention. Thus, a history of experiencing more and less cluttered scenes could measurably alter visual processing in the ways observed across western and eastern cultures (Caparos, Ahmed, Bremner, De Fockert, Linnell, & Davidoff, 2012; Davidoff, Fonteneau, & Goldstein, 2008; Miyamoto, Nisbett, & Masuda, 2006; Wang, Masuda, Ito, & Rashid, 2012; see also Berman, Jonides, & Kaplan, 2008). By this hypothesis, Japanese real-world and cultural representations are more cluttered and U.S. scenes are less cluttered (Miyamoto, Nisbett & Masuda, 2006; Wang, Masuda, Ito, & Rashid, 2012).…”

Perception of contextual size illusions by honeybees in restricted and unrestricted viewing conditions

“…In humans, this size illusion is thought to involve region V1 cortical representations of target size and context [25]. The differences regarding susceptibility to size illusions observed between species is potentially due the ability of species to process visual images locally or globally [8], as baboons and Himba people do not perceive the illusion [6,17] and demonstrate a local precedence [17,18,26]. Interestingly, pigeons can flexibly shift between local and global processing [27], and, as mentioned, perceive the illusion as an assimilation illusion [15].…”

Internal representations reveal cultural diversity in expectations of facial expressions of emotion.

“…Culture-specific ideologies could exert powerful top-down influences on the perception of the visual environment by imposing particular cognitive styles. For example, individualistic (e.g., Western) cultures could generate tendencies to adopt local feature-processing strategies, whereas collectivist (e.g., East Asian) cultures may promote the use of global processing strategies, as suggested by relative size judgments (Davidoff, Fonteneau, & Goldstein, 2008), categorical reasoning styles (Norenzayan, Smith, Kim, Nisbett, 2002), change blindness sensitivities (Masuda & Nisbett, 2006), and eye movements (Blais, Jack, Scheepers, Fiset, & Caldara, 2008;Caldara, Zhou, & Miellet, 2010;Kelly, Miellet, & Caldara, 2010). By using distinct cognitive processing strategies, observers likely acquire culture-specific perceptual experiences of the visual environment, including facial expression signals.…”