2nd blog for social psy: cultural differences in perception & the correspondence bias

Differences in perception between Westerners and Asians occur at remarkably basic levels. Westerners have been conditioned to view themselves as independent individuals while Asians generally focus on interrelationships. For example, Westerners zoom in on central objects in their environment while Asians also take into consideration the circumstance of the object. Brain scanning, where greater areas of the brain linked to attention light up when performing a difficult task, also supports previous research. Americans expended more neural energy when comparing a line’s length relative to a square but found it easier to estimate it by looking at it alone while Asians found it easier to approximate length by comparing it to a square than when the line was presented alone.

These perceptual differences may be a result of cultural differences in accessible schemas (ease with which certain mental representations of objects or categories of events rise to consciousness). Western cultures stress individuality, freedom and independence (individualism) while Eastern cultures emphasize harmony, obedience and interdependence (collectivism). Hence, differing information would be encoded in memory, leading to varying types of chronically accessible schemas where Westerners are more likely to categorize people in terms of personal achievements and Easterners, categorize people based on group memberships.

It has been found that cultural differences (including these differences in perception and chronically accessible schemas) produce a continuum of the correspondence bias. Correspondence bias refers to the propensity to assume that other’s behaviours reflect their personality, attitudes and other internal factors and not situational factors. There is often overreliance on internal factors and underestimation of external factors when giving causal explanations. Correspondence bias has been found by various researchers to be significantly stronger in individualistic cultures as compared to collectivistic cultures. Differences in accessible schemas suggest that people from different cultures may recognise and comprehend the same event or person rather differently.

Cultural differences in perception and correspondence bias can be observed in many instances, Farmer and Kleinman* contrasted the predicaments of AIDS patients in 2 countries. An individualistic culture that recognises personal rights and uniqueness prevails in USA, leading people to think that AIDS sufferers are responsible for their plight. Victims are perceived as innocent (like infants) or guilty (like homosexuals). However, Haitian culture places greater emphasis on social relationships and less on personal onus. Additionally, AIDS sufferers in USA experience a greater degree of social death due to discrimination and fear from others while community members may even look after afflicted Haitians. As can be seen, AIDS sufferers in USA are more prone to be prejudiced against while those in Haiti are usually forgiven.

Though living in Asia, I often tend towards being individualistic. I feel that I should learn to acknowledge other viewpoints by taking into account external influences. As in the case of AIDS sufferers, emphasis on personal variables and responsibility reduces our sensitivity to the needs of patients.

read "Asians and Westerners really see things differently" here

*Farmer, P., & Kleinman, A. (1989). AIDS as human suffering. Daedalus, 118, 135 - 162. (Reprinted in Stephen Graubard, Ed: Living With AIDS, Cambridge: MIT Press, 1990; Reprinted In A. Podolefsky and P. Brown, Eds: Applying Cultural Anthropology. Second Edition, Mayfield Press and also in their Applying Anthropology. Third Edition.)

1st blog for social psychology: changing attitudes towards wildlife conservation

Tigers, elephants and other protected animals have started to invade Bengkalis communities because their rainforests are destroyed by unlicensed loggers. When Riau’s Balairaja conservation forest was set up in 1986, it comprised 18000 ha. With only 200 ha left by 2006, animals are forced to wander out of their diminishing natural habitats. People, goats and buffaloes have died as a result. Farms are ruined and crops ravaged. Villagers have tried burning tyres in a bid to scare elephants away, along with measures to poison and poach them. Orang utans are illicitly hunted or captured while the already small tiger population continues to dwindle.
Albeit various laws set up in favour of conservation, governmental efforts in their execution have been half-hearted. For example, the 7 rangers trained in protecting Riau’s national park greatly fall short of the requirement of 38 rangers, whereas security processes need to be beefed up to avert wildlife smuggling.
There are 3 components of attitudes: cognitive (one’s belief’s about an event/ thing), affective (how an event/ thing makes one feel), and behavioural (one’s past actions toward an event/ thing). When inconsistencies occur between these components, such as positive feelings mixed with negative beliefs or vice versa, these ambivalent attitudes bring about varying behaviours over time as either the positive or negative elements surface at present, with the overriding element controlling behaviour. Ambivalent attitudes could underlie the apparent indifference of the Indonesian government and public towards wildlife conservation. Villagers might feel angry and frustrated when their settlements are trampled upon by wild animals while their past actions of hunting down wild animals for food and tigers for their coveted body parts have indicated that these animals are a source of nuisance and should be used for make money instead. There may also be conflicting beliefs where logging national parks for wood to make furniture and paper could reap economic benefits, although such actions are inherently harmful to earth and may destroy undiscovered plant species. While villagers and traders may take the cue from the government as laws for conservation are not adamantly enforced, their immediate survival instincts may be stronger than one’s concern towards the environment (negative aspects override the positive ones in attitudes towards conservation).
Besides using the law, various strategies can be employed to reduce the villagers’ and government’s dissonance in attitudes towards wildlife conservation. According to the dissonance theory, identification of illogical and flawed actions arouses people unpleasantly, prompting them to modify dissonant cognitions or add consonant cognitions. The hypocrisy paradigm has been used to test the dissonance theory whereby people were made to publicise a socially desirable behaviour and then made aware that they have been not constantly displaying the behaviour themselves. Results indicate that the feeling of hypocrisy generated by the combination of promoting the behaviour and being reminded of past failures was essential to create dissonance that in turn triggers people to act more in accordance to the promoted behaviour. Similarly, villagers in Riau could be provided with information on the benefits of wildlife conservation and be rewarded for promoting it and then reminded of their behavioural irregularities to promote more conservation in future.
Strength of arguments is an important determinant of acceptance of a message. Strong arguments in favour of conservation that elicit positive thoughts should be pointed out to the villagers while weak arguments should be abandoned. This makes use of the central route to persuasion, where information-processing is rational and based on facts. The peripheral route to persuasion makes use of superficial and noncognitive processing and the use of heuristics has shorter-term effects. This should only be employed as a secondary measure. For example, messages about wildlife conservation should come from credible sources and the presentation of the pros of conservation could be made to seem longer than the cons.
To help protect the wildlife and rainforests in Indonesia, social psychological theories could be applied to study the attitudes of the public and government before implementing strategies to alter their attitudes, rather than just relying on the law or sanctions.

click here to download the original newspaper article "All talk, little action to save endangered wildlife"