=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1419/paper0095
|storemode=property
|title=The Effect of Induced Processing Orientation on a Holistic-Analytic Thinking Task
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1419/paper0095.pdf
|volume=Vol-1419
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/eapcogsci/Majima15
}}
==The Effect of Induced Processing Orientation on a Holistic-Analytic Thinking Task==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1419/paper0095.pdf
The Effect of Induced Processing Orientation on a Holistic-analytic Thinking Task
Yoshimasa Majima (majima.y@hokusei.ac.jp)
Department of Psychology for Well-Being, Hokusei Gakuen University
Oyachi-Nishi 2-3-1, Atsubetsu-ku, Sapporo,
004-8631, JAPAN
Abstract theories dissociating two types of process is their focus on
Many cross cultural studies have mentioned two distinct
the object in a real world: context or field (in)dependence
forms of thinking, holistic and analytic thought, and argued (e.g. Buchtel & Norenzayan, 2009).
that one of the crucial differences between them is their For example, in a case of rule-based reasoning,
attentional focus on focal object and its context. Furthermore, Norenzayan, Smith, Kim, and Nisbett (2002) hypothesised
in face recognition studies, it has been replicated that face that people from Eastern societies tend to show biases
recognition is a configural process and is fostered by prior towards giving contextualised, associative thinking
global processing orientation. The present study explores a compared to people from Western societies. Norenzayan et
possible link between global-local processing bias and
holistic-analytic ways of thinking. One hundred twenty three al. (2002, Study 2) examined this hypothesis by comparing
Japanese participants completed either classification or categorisation strategies of European Americans, Asian
similarity judgement tasks based on categories in which the Americans and East Asians of Chinese and Korean ethnic
contextual information conflicted with abstract rules, after background. They revealed that participants from Eastern
processing orientation was manipulated by Navon stimuli. societies were likely to use family resemblance (i.e. overall
Results showed that participants preferred family- similarity) than were Westerners when judging a similarity
resemblance (i.e. holistic) solution to rule-based solution, and
between the target object and category members. It was
that manipulating the precedence (global, local, or mixed)
Navon stimuli did not affect overall response pattern. considered that holistic cognition of East Asian culture
However, prior local orientation slowed response latencies encouraged attention to family resemblance structure rather
more than did global orientation. It may imply that preceding than focusing on a single attribute shared by category
global-local processing orientation influences focus on the members.
focal object and thus modifies our ways of reasoning. Previous studies also showed a significant difference in
Keywords: global-local processing bias; holistic-analytic context-dependent and independent attentional focus while
thought; classification; similarity judgement processing visual stimulus. Navon (1977) proposed a global
precedence hypothesis supposing that analysis of global
Introduction structure in a visual scene comes before analysis of local
Recent theories of cognition often postulate that two distinct feature. Many studies replicate the global precedence effect
cognitive processes underlie much of human mental characterised by more reduced response times for
function (e.g. Evans, 2010). For example, dual process processing global structure than local feature, and
theories of reasoning and social cognition proposed that interference with identification of local (small) target by
human thinking consisted of two types of process: a global structure (e.g. Navon, 1977, 1983; Poirel, Pineau,
heuristic, implicit, automatic, contextual system (System 1) Jobard, & Mellet, 2008; Poirel, Pineau, & Mellet, 2008).
and an analytic, explicit, reflective, abstract system Furthermore, recent studies have shown that induced
(System2; e.g. Chaiken & Trope, 1999; Evans, 2008; global processing using Navon (1977) stimuli improve face
Stanovich, 2009). Furthermore, many cross-cultural studies recognition, whereas local processing priming impairs
revealed that Westerners and Easterners are different in their recognition. (e.g. Macrae & Lewis, 2002; Perfect, Dennis, &
styles of cognition (for review, see Buchtel & Norenzayan, Snell, 2007; Weston & Perfect, 2005). Since face
2009; Nisbett, 2003). Nisbett (2003) argues that Westerners recognition was considered to be a holistic process (e.g.
are more likely to adopt an analytic cognition characterised Tanaka & Farah, 1993), it may be reasonable to suppose
by detachment of objects from context, focus on attributes that preceding global processing fosters a holistic facial
of the object, and preference for using abstract rules for processing, whereas focus on local features hinders this
classifying and explaining the object. On the contrary, holistic process. It is also shown that a prior broad or narrow
Easterners are more likely to adopt a holistic cognition that focus of perceptual attention leads a comparable broad or
is depicted by reliance on context in case of reasoning, narrow conceptual attention, thus, promotes or hinders
judgement and decision making. It seemed that culturally- creative production (Friedman, Fishbach, Förster, & Werth,
defined analytic and holistic styles of cognition appeared to 2003).
parallel two distinct systems of dual process theory, i.e. These results raise an interesting question: does preceding
System 1 and System 2. Although analytic-holistic style and induction of processing orientation, i.e. global or local
dual process thinking share some important properties, they processing affects other types of holistic-featural process? If
are still to be considered as two different conceptualisation one of the key aspects of holistic-analytic thought is their
of our cognition. One of such common properties among difference of attentional focus on the target object, it might
577
be possible that preceding manipulation of processing category and a family resemblance structure of the other
orientation influences attentional focus and then modifies category. Therefore, if the target object shared the
reasoning strategies. Relevant to this issue, Kühnen and deterministic feature of Category 1, rule-based (i.e. analytic)
Oyserman (2002) examined whether self-construal priming solution would select Category 1 as a classification or a
affected a succeeding processing of Navon letter stimuli. similar set of the target, whereas family resemblance (i.e.
Interestingly, participants who were primed with holistic) solution would select Category 2.
independent self exhibited faster response latencies to the Category sets and target objects adopted in this study
local letter than the global letter; on the other hand, were the same as Norenzayan et al. (2002), and we used
interdependent self-construal priming did not influence same ten category pairs × two target objects yielding twenty
processing speed. stimulus sets. At each trial, participants were scored 1 if
The aim of the present research is to explore a possible they chose rule-based alternative and the number of rule-
link between perceptual processing orientation and based solutions was averaged across twenty trials. Response
relatively higher thinking style, i.e. holistic-analytic thought. latency was also recorded. Half of participants were
If continuous presentation of certain kind of visual stimuli, assigned to classification condition, and the other
such as Navon letter, guides processing orientation of our participants were assigned to similarity judgement condition.
cognition as shown in studies of face recognition, this
orientation might also affect our reasoning strategies. Navon-letter task This task was adopted to induce either
Specifically, prior focus on global structure may encourage global or local processing orientation before classification or
a holistic manner of categorisation, whereas focus on local similarity judgement. Navon-letter stimuli consisted of
feature may foster attention to single feature and black letters presented on a white background. For each
categorisation based on this attribute (i.e. rule-based item, a global letter (approximately 3.5 cm × 3.5 cm) was
categorisation). formed with 9-13 local letters (5 mm × 5 mm; sample
stimuli are shown in Figure 1). Participants were asked to
Methods identify and say aloud the target letter (either ‘H’ or ‘L’) in
This experiment used a 2 (task types) × 3 (processing the presented stimulus. The experimenter recorded
orientations) design, with type and orientation as between- participants’ utterances, and response latency was also
subject factors. recorded by voice key feature of Inquisit 4. However,
responses from Navon-letter task were not analysed, since
Participants this task was introduced for inducing a particular processing
One hundred twenty three undergraduates (33 males and 90 orientation.
females, mean age = 19.8, SD = 1.02) of Hokusei Gakuen Participants were assigned to one of three conditions
University took part in the present experiment for either intended to induce certain perceptual styles: global, local or
payment or a part of course credit. mixed (control). In global orientation condition (n = 21 for
classification, n = 20 for similarity judgement), participants
Materials and Conditions were presented with either H or L global letters consisted of
small Fs, Ns, Ss, or Ts, respectively. In this condition,
All tasks were presented on a 23-inch LCD Display participants were required to detect a target that appeared
(S2340T; Dell Inc.) with full screen mode. A Windows 7 only in global letter. In local orientation condition (n = 21
PC (Compaq Pro 6300SF; Hewlett-Packard Development for classification, n = 20 for similarity judgement), stimuli
Company) and experimental software (Inquisit 4; consisted of F, N, S or T global letters composed of small
Millisecond Software) were used to control the presentation Hs or Ls, respectively. In this condition, they needed to
of stimuli and record participants’ responses. The display detect targets appeared only in local letters. In mixed
was placed on a desk approximately 60 cm away from a orientation condition (n = 21 for classification, n = 20 for
participant. similarity judgement), ‘a H consisted of Fs or Ts’, ‘a L
consisted of Fs or Ts’, ‘a F consisted of Hs or Ls’ and ‘a T
Classification / Similarity Judgment Task This task was consisted of Hs or Ls’ were used, therefore participants
adopted from Norenzayan et al. (2002, Study 2). were required to identify a target letter that appeared in both
Participants were presented with two category sets and one global and local letters. This group was introduced as a
target stimulus at a time and asked to express their control. In all conditions, each stimulus was presented with
classification or similarity judgement by pressing one of two six times and participants responded total of 48 trials in a
buttons (‘F’ = Category 1, ‘J’ = Category 2). Each category counter-balanced order.
set was consisted of four exemplar objects varying in four
binary features. One of the four binary features was
deterministic and constant within category members. The
other three were non-deterministic and varied across
members, however these features together constructed a
strong family resemblance structure. The target object was
designed so as to share a deterministic feature of one
578
Figure 1: Examples of Navon-letter stimuli
Procedure
The participants were tested individually and were randomly
assigned to one of six experimental conditions. Upon arrival,
they were told that they were expected to take part in two
separate and unrelated research projects.
At first, participants completed a Navon-letter task. They
were required to look at series of Navon (1977) letters and Figure 2: Mean percentage of rule-based decision
detect target letters (H or L) that would appear in each across 20 trials by task (classification/similarity judgement)
stimulus. They were also instructed to make a response as and processing orientation (global, local, mixed).
quickly as possible. Before the main trial, four-trial practice
sessions were conducted. In the practice trials, participants
were instructed to identify ‘2’ or ‘4’ appeared in stimuli. Results and Discussion
Practice stimuli were consisted of ‘a 2 consisted of 6s or 7s’,
‘a 4 consisted of 6s or 7s’, ‘a 7 consisted of 2s or 4s’, ‘a 6 Classification and Similarity Judgement
consisted of 2s or 4s’. As in main trials, participants The number of rule-based judgements for each participant
assigned to global condition were presented with stimuli in across twenty trials was averaged for each condition. As
which target letters appeared only in global structure. shown in Figure 2, participants preferred family-
Similarly, participants of local condition were presented resemblance solution over rule-based solution in both
with stimuli in which target letters appeared only in local classification and similarity judgement tasks. In addition, it
feature, and participants in mixed condition received stimuli seemed that preceding local processing result in more rule-
that target letter appeared in both global and local letters. based solution (M = 44.7%) compared to global or mixed
When participants finished the practice sessions, the processing (Ms = 38.3, 38.7%, respectively). However, a 2
experimenter verified that the participant understood the (task types: classification / similarity judgement) × 3
instructions clearly. The stimulus sets were then presented (processing orientations: global, local, or mixed) ANOVA
to participants in a random order. The experiment software failed to show any effects [a main effect of task type, F(1,
automatically moved to next stimulus after a response was 117) = 1.05, p = .31, 𝜂!! = .01; a main effect of processing
made. orientation, F(2, 117) = 1.99, p = .14, 𝜂!! = .03; a task ×
Participants then received a folder with instructions on a
orientation interaction, F(2, 117) = 1.38, p = .26, 𝜂!! = .02,
categorical judgement task. Half of participants in each
processing orientation condition were assigned to a respectively; MSe = .026 in all cases].
classification task, and the others were assigned to a Previous work (Norenzayan et al., 2002) showed that
similarity judgement task. In the classification task, participants overwhelmingly preferred rule-based solution in
participants were asked to decide which group the target classification task irrespective of cultural background,
object belonged to. In the similarity judgement task, other whereas participants from East Asian culture preferred
participants were asked to choose which group the target family resemblance alternative to rule-based solution during
was similar to. Participants were instructed to indicate their similarity judgement. Opposed to the previous study, the
decision by pressing a designated button (‘F’ for Category 1, present result showed an overall preference for family-
‘J’ for Category 2). They were also instructed to take their resemblance (M = 57.9%) over rule-based solution (M =
time while responding, but not to spend too much time on 42.1%) even in classification decision. One sample t test
any single item. Before the main trial, participants practiced revealed that participants preferred family resemblance
with two sample stimulus sets. After the practice session, solutions higher than the chance level, t(62) = 3.41, p = .001,
the experimenter confirmed that the participant understood d = 0.78 1 . A strong preference for family resemblance
the instruction. The experiment software then presented
stimulus sets in a random order. After the participants 1
We conducted an additional separate analysis with 1-factor
pressed a button, the software automatically moved to the (processing orientation) ANOVA in each of two tasks. Results
next set. showed that a main effect of orientation approached significance in
classification task [F(2, 117) = 2.76, MSe = 0.03, p = .067]. In this
task, preceding local orientation (M = 48.1%) tended to lead more
579
solution was also observed in similarity judgement [M = 3000
60.9% vs. M = 39.1%, t(59) = 6.19, p < .001, d = 1.84].
Rule
Mean response latency (ms)
2500
Response speed Family resemblance
Mean response latencies by task type and processing
2000
orientation were shown in Figure 3. The log-transformed
response latencies were submitted to a similar 2 × 3
ANOVA. Results showed that a main effect of task type 1500
was not significant, F(1, 117) < 1. However, a main effect
of processing orientation and a task × orientation interaction 1000
approached significance, F(2, 117) = 2.88, p = .06, 𝜂!! = .05,
F(2, 117) = 2.54, p = .08, 𝜂!! = .04, respectively (MSe = .029 500
in all cases). A post-hoc Tukey-Kramer test revealed a
significant difference between global (M = 1504.4, SD = 0
460.0) and local orientation condition (M = 2033.3, SD = Global Mixed (ctrl) Local
1310.2; p = .04). Mixed condition (M = 1740.4, SD = 693.0) Induced processing orientation
fell in between, but was not significantly different from
other two conditions. Furthermore, the test of simple main Figure 4: Mean response latency
effects revealed a significant simple main effect of by type of response (rule-based / family resemblance) and
orientation among participants in classification task, F(2, processing orientation (global, local, mixed).
117) = 5.53, p = .005, 𝜂!! = .087. Specifically, global-
Next, we examined the effect of induced processing
oriented participants classified target faster than local-
orientation differed as a function of participants’ judgement.
oriented participants (p = .004). Additionally, classification
For this purpose, we calculated mean response latencies of
decision was faster than similarity judgement when
rule-based and family resemblance judgement separately for
participants were oriented globally. On the contrary, a
each participant. Figure 4 showed mean response latencies
simple main effect of orientation was not significant in
by type of judgement (rule-based vs. family resemblance)
similarity judgement (F < 1).
and processing orientation. Next, we conducted two separate
2 (task) × 3 (orientation) ANOVAs for latencies of rule-
3000
based and family resemblance solutions, respectively. These
Classification
analyses indicated a marginal main effect of orientation on
Mean response latency (ms)
2500 Similarity the speed of rule-based solution, F(2, 117) = 2.79, p = .065,
𝜂!! = .046. Specifically, preceding local processing led to
2000 slower rule-based response (M = 2008.4, SD = 1204.0) than
global processing (M = 1517.7, SD = 449.6, p = .045).
1500 Response latencies followed by mixed processing fell in
between (M = 1721.9, SD = 645.4). On the other hand, there
1000 was no such difference for family resemblance responses.
Effects of task type and 2-factor interaction were not also
found.
500
The effect of processing priming on reasoning
0
Global Mixed (ctrl) Local Taken together, present results might suggest that
Induced processing orientation
processing orientation does not affect classification /
similarity judgement itself, although classification decision
Figure 3: Mean response latency may be hindered when the processing focus is on narrow
by task (classification vs. similarity judgement) and local feature. When a perceptual processing was oriented to
processing orientation (global, local, mixed). local feature, response latencies of classification slowed. It
is also shown that locally oriented participants were more
likely to rely on rule-based solution than do globally
oriented participants, although the effect is weak.
Furthermore, the local processing priming appeared to
decelerate rule-based decision compared to global
processing. These results partly correspond to those of
previous research (Kühnen & Oyserman, 2002), which
rule-based solution than did global orientation (M = 36.4%, p
= .062). On the contrary, a main effect of orientation was not
revealed independent self-construal priming slowed
significant in similarity judgement task (F < 1). response speed in context-dependent (i.e. global) stimuli.
580
However, local orientation in the present study led a Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (1999). Dual-process theories in
slowdown in the context-independent processing, i.e. rule- social psychology. New York: Guilford Press.
based judgement, rather than context-dependent family Chua, H. F., Boland, J. E., & Nisbett, R. E. (2005). Cultural
resemblance solution. The reason why prior local processing variation in eye movements during scene perception.
interferes context-independent processing remains unclear, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
however, it may be possible that preceding narrow focus United States of America, 102, 12629-12633. doi:
encourages a careful processing of each aspect of stimulus 10.1073/pnas.0506162102
set and, as a result, decelerates rule-based solution. Evans, J. St. B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of
On the other hand, processing orientation influenced reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review
neither response pattern nor response speed in similarity of Psychology, 59, 255-278. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.
judgement task. This pattern of result was in line with 59.103006.093629
Kühnen and Oyserman (2002), such that interdependent Evans, J. St. B. T. (2010). Thinking twice: Two minds in
self-focus did not affect response speed between global and one brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
local stimuli. Friedman, R. S., Fishbach, A., Förster, J., & Werth, L.
Present result also showed a discrepancy about (2003). Attentional Priming Effects on Creativity.
classification decision from previous results (Norenzayan et Creativity Research Journal, 15, 277-286.
al., 2002). Participants in the present study preferred family- Kühnen, U., & Oyserman, D. (2002). Thinking about the
resemblance over rule-based solution even in classification self influences thinking in general: Cognitive
task. The reason why such a difference was found remains consequences of salient self-concept. Journal of
unclear, although it might be possible that prior orientation Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 492-499.
influences succeeding complex reasoning tasks. Macrae, C. N., & Lewis, H. L. (2002). Do I know you?
Certainly, the present investigation has some limitations. Processing orientation and face recognition.
A major limitation was that this study did not involve in Psychological Science, 13, 194-196. doi: 10.1111/1467-
cross-cultural comparison. From a cross-cultural perspective, 9280.00436
it has been shown that the Westerner and Easterner differ in Masuda, T., & Nisbett, R. E. (2001). Attending holistically
their perceptual style. For example, Masuda and Nisbett versus analytically: Comparing the context sensitivity of
(2001) presented Japanese and American students with an Japanese and Americans. Journal of Personality and
animated scene of ‘aquarium’ and asked them to describe it. Social Psychology, 81, 922-934. doi: 10.1037/0022-
Japanese participants were more likely to mention the 3514.81.5.922
background, contextual information and relationship Navon, D. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of
between the focal objects and the background than were global features in visual perception. Cognitive Psychology,
Americans. Furthermore, Chua, Boland, and Nisbett (2005) 9, 353-383. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(77)90012-3
used an eye-tracking methodology showing that American Navon, D. (1983). How many trees does it take to make a
participants fixated more on focal objects than did Chinese forest? Perception, 12, 239-254.
participants while they viewed photographs. On the contrary, Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The geography of thought: How
Chinese gazed at the background than did the Americans. Asians and Westerners think differently - and why. New
These attentional differences between people from Western York: Free Press.
and Eastern societies suggest that an analytic (i.e. Western) Norenzayan, A., Smith, E. E., Kim, B. J., & Nisbett, R. E.
style of cognition leads our attention primarily to focal (2002). Cultural preferences for formal versus intuitive
objects detached from their contexts, whereas a holistic reasoning. Cognitive Science, 26, 653-684.
(Eastern) style encourages associating focal objects with Perfect, T. J., Dennis, I., & Snell, A. (2007). The effects of
their contexts. These cultural differences in attentional style local and global processing orientation on eyewitness
should mediate the priming effect of global-local processing identification performance. Memory, 15, 784-798. doi:
orientation. We must considered this issue in the future 10.1080/09658210701654627
investigation. Poirel, N., Pineau, A., Jobard, G., & Mellet, E. (2008).
Seeing the forest before the trees depends on individual
Acknowledgments field-dependency characteristics. Experimental
The author thanks Izumi Ishikawa and Yusuke Yokoe for Psychology, 55, 328-333.
their assistance in conducting experiment. Poirel, N., Pineau, A., & Mellet, E. (2008). What does the
nature of the stimuli tell us about the Global Precedence
Effect? Acta Psychologica, 127, 1-11. doi:
References 10.1016/j.actpsy.2006.12.001
Buchtel, E. E., & Norenzayan, A. (2009). Thinking across Stanovich, K. E. (2009). Distinguishing the reflective,
cultures: Implications for dual processes. In J. S. B. T. algorithmic, and autonomous minds: Is it time for a tri-
Evans & K. Frankish (Eds.), In two minds: Dual process theory? In J. S. B. T. Evans & K. Frankish (Eds.),
processes and beyond. (pp. 217-238). New York: Oxford In two minds: Dual processes and beyond (pp. 55-88).
University Press. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
581