Participants were shown

a
Title Objectives Litreture reviews Methodology
prime picture (e.g., tire) Findings
for 500 ms, and then a
target picture that was Chinese participants were
Norenzayan et al. (2002) either related or equally likely to group items
reported that there unrelated to the prime together if they shared a
were no cultural picture (i.e., car, or relationship
differences in elephant). Participants (e.g., tire-car) and if they shared
categorization— responded by indicating a category (e.g., bus-car),
to determine if we whether the objects in whereas Western participants
CULTURAL Western and East Asian
INFLUENCES ON could observe the prime and target were more likely to group items
participants were
cultural differences pictures were related together if they belonged to the
CATEGORIZATION in categorization significantly more likely
PROCESSES to give unidimensional (yes or no), as quickly same category. These results
styles among
RESPONSES TO Chinese and rule-based responses accurately asaspossible.
and are similar to Chiu’s (1972)
EMOTICONS than family findings .Our results indicate
Western adults Each participant was
resemblance-based that significant cultural
shown a series of trials differences in categorization
responses. during the experiment,
regardless of their behavior can still be found
the critical trials being among
cultural background undergraduate students
those in which the who are attending a North
prime and target were American university.
relationally related (e.g.,
tirecar) and those in
which they were
The present Participantsrelated
categorically were
experimental presented with pictures
(e.g., bus-car).
research explores and were asked to
differences in provide a written
attention and description of five to six
information sentences in their native
processing styles language, using freely
between Korean Pioneering research by both figure and ground Korean speakers generally
and Chinese information (i.e., placed ground information
Masuda and Nisbett
speakers, who have (2001) references to place, ahead of figure information in
indicates that time or field). after the their sentences
been assumed to and mentioned
Westerners pay
display the same attention picture description task, more ground information
primarily to
attentional bias the two parts of the overall than English and Chinese
Does Language salient objects,
due to cultural recall task were speakers. In sum, Korean
Matter? Exploring commonalities. We displaying an analytic presented separately. In participants reported the
Chinese–Korean attentional bias,
hypothesize that the first part of the highest overall number of
Differences in whereas East Asians recall task, participants ground information, followed
the specific by
Holistic Perception structure of the display a holistic were presented with a Chinese participants, and
attentional bias by
Korean language paying attention to the setand of picture fragments English ones. In the recall task
predisposes had to identify however, the ANOVA did not
entire field and to
speakers to pay which fragments were reveal any significant
more attention to relationships between belonging to the differences between the
ground information objects and the field. pictures they had seen. participant groups
than to figure In the second part of
information, thus the recall task,
leading to a participants were asked
stronger holistic to answer questions
attentional bias about specific ground
compared to information of the
Chinese speakers. pictures they had seen.
 Japanese and
Americans watched
By referring to previous animated vignettes of The results showed that the
research(Bae 1995; underwater scenes and Japanese (a) made more
Derks et al. 2003), we reported the contents. statements about contextual
Attending to examine propose three factors In the next test, they information and relationships
holistically versus whether East which would were shown previously than Americans did and (b)
analytically: Asians also attend possibly affect emoticon seen objects and new recognized previously seen
comparing the to the context usage in IM: task objects, in original or objects more accurately when
context sensitivity more than formality, sender- novel setting , and were they saw them in their original
of Japanese and Americans receiver relationship asked to judge whether settings rather than in the novel
Americans. and they had seen the settings, whereas this
perceived receiver objects. Study 2 manipulation had relatively little
personality. replicated the effect on Americans.
recognition task using
photographs of wildlife

We presented
Nisbett and his participants with sets of
colleagues have argued three words (in one
to examine the that of three random orders)
roles East Asians, and Chinese European Americans showed
Is It Culture or Is It and asked them to
culture and in particular, reason in a a clear preference for
Language? indicate which two of
language play in holistic and categories. None of
Examination of the three
cross-cultural relational way, whereas the Chinese groups showed a
Language Effects in research in general were most closely
Westerners, in preference for categories, and
Cross-Cultural related and why.3 We
and particular European indeed, most of them showed a
Research on used very simple words
in research on Americans, reason in an clear preference for
Categorization in the task
basic cognition in analytic way (Nisbett, relationships.
so that it was easy for
particular. 2003; Nisbett, Peng, bilingual Chinese to
Choi, & Norenzayan, understand the task in
2001) English.
 Based on previous Chinese and
research suggesting that Western participants Western participants
East Asian thought is were presented with were significantly more likely to
s to determine if more holistic and that sets of three pictures group items together because
we could observe Western thought is (e.g., tire, car, bus) and they belong to the same
CULTURAL cultural differences more analytic were category, whereas Chinese
INFLUENCES ON in categorization (e.g., Nakamura, 1988; asked to select the two participants were equally likely
CATEGORIZATION styles among Nisbett, Peng, Choi, & pictures they thought to group items together based
PROCESSES Chinese and Norenzayan, 2001), that should be grouped on
Western adults East Asians are more together, and to provide their shared relationship (e.g.,
influenced by contextual an tire-car) and their category
elements in a situation explanation for their membership (e.g., bus-car).
than are Westerner decision.

To investigate
whether graphical 1:) People from South &
Categories, symbols like emoji Southeast Asia can exchange
Identities, and Piamonte (2001) two Web-based
are capable feelings cross-culture with
Cultural studied the experiments through six common emoji in Internet.
of working as a
Classification: identification bias of groups of participants, 2:) The business information
pre-trade
Moving Beyond a graphic in some
supplementary can be convey by graphical
Model of symbols in different Southeast Asia
approach of symbols plus some rule group
Categorical cultural backgrounds countries.
information using extended and easy to
Constraint exchange in GMS understand.
area,

three aided graphic

symbol sets used in The results of this preliminary
investigation suggest
augmentative and that culture/ethnicity had an
Huer (1997) reported alternative impact on the translucency
Examining that “observations of communication (AAC) to ratings assigned to symbols in
to examine the
perceptions of communication across examine across four three graphic
impact of
graphic symbols cultures reveal that groups of adult
culture/ethnicity nonsymbolic symbol sets by participants in
across cultures: participants with
on participants’ four groups. It appears
Preliminary study of perceptions as well as symbolic differing cultural from these data that individuals
the impact of forms of communication histories and life
of graphic symbols. with different language
culture/ethnicity The methodology u are experiences. 147 and life experiences do not
culturally dependent” individuals who
identified as African perceive graphic
(p. 25). symbols in the same manner.
American, Chinese, However , there were also
European American, or similarities
Mexican participated
 Participants were
randomly assigned to
East Asians are more the classification
attentive to the or the similarity
situational context of
examined cultural judgment condition. In
behavior and are
preferences for the classification European Americans would be
less prone to the
formal versus condition, participants more willing to set aside
fundamental attribution
intuitive reasoning were asked, intuition and follow rules than
Cultural preferences among East Asian error (Ross, 1977).East for each stimulus set, to East Asians. Asian Americans
Asians have a more
for formal versus (Chinese and decide “which group revealed that they were either
holistic
intuitive reasoning Korean), Asian the target object similar to European Americans,
sense of causality: they
American, and belongs to.” In the or intermediate between
draw on a wider range
European similarity European Americans and East
of factors to explain
American judgment condition, Asians, p+E8
events. As a result, East
university students. other participants were
Asians show more instructed to decide
hindsight bias(Fischhoff, “which group the target
1975). object
is most similar to.”

Kayan, Fussel, and

Setlock (2006), 78 The authors find East Asians to
instant messenger users
(28 American, 21 Indian, A total of 80 blogs (40 be holistic, attending to the
entire field and assigning
and 29 East Asian from American blogs, 40 causality to it,
consisting of 26
To invistigate the from Japanese blogs) making relatively little use of
Singaporeans, 2
different in the use were taken from a categories and formal logic, and
Culture and Systems Chinese, and 1
of emoticon variety of blog trackers relying on "dialectical"
of Thought: Holistic between Japanese from Hong Kong) were (Tecnocrati, Yahoo reasoning, whereas
Versus Analytic examined regarding
and English Non- Japan, Blogumura) that Westerners are more analytic,
Cognition their instant messaging contained blog
verbal online paying attention primarily to the
online habits. Through directories
communication object and the categories to
questionnaires, they of personal blogs or which it
found that emoticons online diaries belongs and using rules,
were rated differently in including formal logic, to
order of importance understand its behavior
across
cultures
 using a unique
computer graphics
platform that combines
the power of generative
grammars with the
the universality subjectivity of visual
hypothesis claims that perception to genuinely 1. Six Basic Emotions Are Not
all humans reconstruct the mental Universal.
communicate six basic representations of basic 2.Representation of Emotional
To investigate internal emotional facial expressions in Intensity Varies Across Cultures.
whether Facial states (happy, surprise, individual observers . 3.Westerners represent each of
expressions of fear, disgust, anger, and Mental representations the six basic emotions with a
emotion are sad) using the same reflect the past visual distinct set of facial movements
culturally universal facial movements by experiences and the common to the group,
virtue of their biological future expectations of Easterners represent emotional
and evolutionary origins the individual observer. intensity with distinctive
[Susskind JM, et al. A cross-cultural dynamic eye activity.
(2008) comparison of the
mental representations
of the six basic
expressions therefore
provides a direct test of
their universality.