The present research examines the effect of holistic-analytic thinking style on causal responsibility. Across seven studies (N = 4,103), participants’ thinking style was either measured or manipulated. Then, the valence or number of consequences varied in several scenarios involving a cause–consequence relationship. As a dependent measure, participants indicated the degree of responsibility attributed to the cause mentioned in each scenario. The results revealed that holistic (vs. analytic) participants assigned more responsibility to the cause when the consequences presented were a combination of positive and negative outcomes (vs. univalent), and when multiple (vs. single) consequences were triggered in the scenario. To explore the explanatory factor for these results, a final study manipulated the complexity of the consequences, along with the number. The results of this research suggested that holistic (vs. analytic) individuals consider the degree of complexity of consequences to establish causal attribution.
BrunL.PansuP.DompnierB. (2021). The role of causal attributions in determining behavioral consequences: A meta-analysis from an intrapersonal attributional perspective in achievement contexts. Psychological Bulletin, 147(7), 701–718. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000331
2.
ChoiI.ChoiY. (2002). Culture and self-concept flexibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(11), 1508–1517. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616702237578
3.
ChoiI.DalalR.Kim-PrietoC.ParkH. (2003). Culture and judgement of causal relevance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 46–59. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.46
4.
ChoiI.KooM.ChoiJ. A. (2007). Individual differences in analytic versus holistic thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(5), 691–705. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206298568
5.
ChoiI.NisbettR. E.NorenzayanA. (1999). Causal attribution across cultures: Variation and universality. Psychological Bulletin, 125(1), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.1.47
6.
DuvalD.WicklundR. (1973). Effects of objective self-awareness on attribution of causality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(73)90059-0
7.
Ein-GarD.ShivB.TormalaZ. L. (2011). When blemishing leads to blossoming: The positive effect of negative information. Journal of Consumer Research, 38, 846–859. https://doi.org/10.1086/660807
8.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
9.
FeinbergM.FangR.LiuS.PengK. (2019). A world of blame to go around: Cross-cultural determinants of responsibility and punishment judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(4), 634–651. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218794631
10.
GascóM.BriñolP.SantosD.PettyR. E.HorcajoJ. (2018). Where did this thought come from? A self-validation analysis of the perceived origin of thoughts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44, 1615–1628. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218775696
11.
GrossmannI.HuynhA. C.EllsworthP. C. (2016). Emotional complexity: Clarifying definitions and cultural correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(6), 895–916. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000084
12.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
13.
HeiderF. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Erlbaum.
14.
JiL.-J.GuoT.ZhangZ.MesserveyD. (2009). Looking into the past: Cultural differences in perception and representation of past information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(4), 761–769. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014498
15.
JiL.-J.LeeA.ZhangZ.LiY.WangX.-Q.TorokD.RosenbaumS. (2023). Judging a book by its cover: Cultural differences in inference of the inner state based on the outward appearance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 125, 82–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000413
LiL. M. W.MasudaT.HamamuraT.IshiiK. (2018). Culture and decision making: Influence of analytic versus holistic thinking style on resource allocation in a fort game. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49(7), 1066–1080. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022118778337
21.
LuttrellA.PettyR. E.ChangJ. H.TogansL. J. (2022). The role of dialecticism in objective and subjective attitudinal ambivalence. British Journal of Social Psychology, 61(3), 826–841. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12504
22.
MadduxW. W.YukiM. (2006). The “ripple effect”: Cultural differences in perceptions of the consequences of events. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(5), 669–683. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205283840
23.
Martín-FernándezM.RequeroB.ZhouX.GonçalvesD.SantosD. (2022). Refinement of the Analysis-Holism Scale: A cross-cultural adaptation and validation of two shortened measures of analytic versus holistic thinking in Spain and the United States. Personality and Individual Differences, 186, 111322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111322
24.
MasudaT.GonzalezR.KwanL.NisbettR. E. (2008). Culture and aesthetic preference: Comparing the attention to context of East Asians and Americans. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(9), 1260–1275. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208320555
25.
MorrisM. W.PengK. (1994). Culture and cause: American and Chinese attributions for social and physical events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 949–971. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.949
NisbettR. E.PengK.ChoiI.NorenzayanA. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108(2), 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.2.291
28.
NorenzayanA.LeeA. (2010). It was meant to happen: Explaining cultural variations in fate attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(5), 702–720. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019141
RossL. (1977). The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 173–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60357-3
31.
SantosD.RequeroB.Martín-FernándezM. (2021). Individual differences in thinking style and dealing with contradiction: The mediating role of mixed emotions. PLOS ONE, 16(9), Article e0257864. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257864
32.
ScollonC. N.DienerE.OishiS.Biswas-DienerR. (2005). An experience-sampling and cross-cultural investigation of the relation between pleasant and unpleasant affect. Cognition and Emotion, 19, 27–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930441000076
33.
SmithR. W.ReddenJ. P. (2020). The role of holistic processing in simultaneous consumption. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 91, 104023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2020.104023
34.
SpinaR. R.JiL.-J.GuoT.ZhangZ.LiY.FabrigarL. (2010). Cultural differences in the representativeness heuristic: Expecting a correspondence in magnitude between cause and effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(5), 583–597. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210368278
35.
SwannW. B.Jr.GómezA.SeyleD. C.MoralesJ.HuiciC. (2009). Identity fusion: The interplay of personal and social identities in extreme group behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 995–1011. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013668
36.
WangH.MasudaT.ItoK.RashidM. (2012). How much information? East Asian and North American cultural products and information search performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(12), 1539–1551. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212455828
37.
WongV. C.WyerR. S.Jr.WyerN. A.AdavalR. (2021). Dimensions of holistic thinking: Implications for nonsocial information processing across cultures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 150(12), 2636–2658. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001060
38.
ZhouX. Z.RequeroB.GonçalvesD.SantosD. (2021). Every penny counts: The effect of holistic-analytic thinking style on donation decisions in the times of Covid-19. Personality and Individual Differences, 175, 110713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110713
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
