( Kühnen & Oyserman, 2002) (Mikulincer, Kedem, & Paz, 1990) , (Derryberry & Tucker, 1994)

Transcription

1 2016, 14 (1): 1 ~6 Studies of Psychology and Behavior * 1 1,2 2 2 (1, ) (2, ),,,,,,,?,,, ( 1), ( 2),, ( 1), ( 2), B842.1,,, 1, (Derryberry & Tucker, 1994),?, (Gasper, 2004; Gasper & Clore,, 2002) (Friedman & F 觟 rster, 2000), (Smith & Trope, 2006) (F 觟 rster, : Marguc, & Gillebaart, 2010; F 觟 rster et al., 2009),,,,, (Kühnen, ; Hannover, & Schubert, 2001; Kühnen & Oyserman,,, 2002) Kühnen Oyserman (2002),,, (, I me), ; (Burgoon, Hen- (, we derson, & Markman, 2013; F 觟 rster & Denzler, 2012; F 觟 rster, Liberman, & Kuschel, 2008; F 觟 rster, Liberman, & Shapira, 2009),,, (F 觟 rster & Denzler, 2012; Vartanian, Martindale, & Kwiatkows-, ki, 2007) (F 觟 rster, 2009) ( Kühnen & Oyserman, 2002) (Mikulincer, Kedem, & Paz, 1990) us), Navon, (F 觟 rster & Higgins, 2005),, : * : (13BMZ004) :, wanmg@nwnu.edu.cn 1

2 2 14 & Bless, 2007),, (Tadmor, & Tetlock, 2006; Tadmor, Tetlock, & Peng, 2009), ( ), (Tadmor, Hong, Chao, Wiruchnipawan, & Wang, 2012), (,,,, 2014),,?,, (Leung & Chiu, 2010; Leung, Maddux, Galinsky, & Chiu, ; Maddux, Adam, & Galinsky, 2010; Maddux & Galinsky, 2009) Leung Chiu (2010) 126 (50 76 ) (31 ( ), 35 ) (19 41 ) 2 ( : ( ), ) 2 ( : ),,, 2.1.2,, (1) ( F 觟 rster & Denzler, 2012; Friedman, (Leung & Chiu, 2010; Leung et al., 2008; Tadmor Fishbach, F 觟 rster, & Werth, 2003) Friedman & Hong, 2012), (2003),,,,, ( ),,,, 20,,, 5,? ( ) (2) 1,, 1, 1 05, 35 2,, (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988),, PANAS, 2,, t (34) =1.32, p>0.05;, 1 (, t (34) =1.66, p>0.05 ), ( ) 2.1.3,, (F 觟 rster,, 2009; F 觟 rster, 2012; F 觟 rster et al., 2008; Schwarz,

3 1 : 3 ( ),,, ( ) (expectancy-congruent),, 5, ( expectancy-incongruent), (Bos, & Dijksterhuis, 2011; Dijksterhuis, 2004; Hastie & ABBA, Kumar, 1979),,,,, 2, 2.2, 2 ( 3.1 : ) 2 ( : ) 63 (24 39,, F (1,122) = ), ( , p<0.05,, ) (8 22 (M=3.17, SD=1.30) ) 2 ( : (M=2.48, SD=1.35); ) 2 ( :, F (1,122) =0.09, p>0.05,,, F (1,122) =25.82, p<0.01, (M=3.69, SD =1.26) ( M =2.53, SD = ), F (1,123) =15.68, p<0.01; (1) 1, (2) (M=1.97, SD=1.03) (M= 4, , SD=1.44), F (1,123) =10.34, p<0.05 ( ),, 2 ( ), 4,, 18 (M=5.99, SD=0.52; 7,, ), 12 ( 6 ), 6 1 ) ( 3 ) 3.69 (1.26) 1.97 (1.03) 2.53 (1.04) 3.00 (1.44) 3.1.3,,, 1,, 3 2,,,,, 18,

4 4 14 5, 3,,, 3.2 (Leung & Chiu, 2010; Leung et al., 2008),,, ( Leung & Chiu, 2010; Leung et al., (Bos & Dijksterhuis, 2011) 2 ( ) 2 ( ) :, :, (Derryberry &, F (1,61) =8.89, p<0.01, Tucker, 1994; F 觟 rster, 2009; F 觟 rster et al., 2008; (M= Schwarz & Bless, 2007), 0.30, SD=0.11) (M= 0.22, SD=0.11);, F, ( Derryberry & (1,61) =41.62, p<0.05, Tucker, 1994; F 觟 rster, 2009; F 觟 rster et al., 2008) (M=0.33, SD=0.13) (M=0.19, SD=0.16),,,, F (1,61) ( Kühnen et al., 2001; =4.29, p<0.05 Kühnen & Oyserman, 2002),,,, (M=0.35, SD=0.13) (M=0.31, SD=0.14),,, t (61) =1.10, p>0.05,, (M=0.25, SD=0.18) (M=0.12, SD=0.12), t (55.43) = 3.49, p<0.01, (Dovidio, Gaertner, & Kawakami, 2003; Gaertner et al.,,,, 1999) (Dovidio et al., 2003;,,,,, 2010) (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008; Xu, Zuo, Wang, & Han, 2009) (Pettigrew, 1998) (0.13) 0.31 (0.14) 0.25 (0.18) 0.12 (0.12) 4,,,,, (,, 1), ( 2) 2008),, 2,,,,,,

5 1 : 5 5 F 觟 rster, J., Liberman, N., & Shapira, O. (2009). Preparing for nov-, el versus familiar events: Shifts in global and local processing., Journal of Experimental Psychology:General, 138 (3), F 觟 rster, J., Marguc, J., & Gillebaart, M. (2010). Novelty categorization theory. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4 (9), Friedman, R. S., & F 觟 rster, J. (2000). The effects of approach and avoidance motor actions on the elements of creative insight. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79 (4), ,,. (2014). Friedman, R. S., Fishbach, A., F 觟 rster, J., & Werth, L. ( 2003).., 51 (6), Attentional priming effects on creativity. Creativity Research,,,. (2010). Journa, 15 (2-3), , 18 (5), Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Rust, M. C., Nier, J., Banker, B., Bos, M. W., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2011). Unconscious thought works bottom-up and conscious thought works top-down when forming an impression. Social and Cognition. 29 (6), Burgoon, E. M., Henderson, M. D., & Markman, A. B. (2013). There are many ways to see the forest for the trees: A tour guide for abstraction. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8 (5), Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Kawakami, K. (2003). Intergroup contact: The past, present, and future. Intergroup Relations, 6 (1), Group Processes and Derryberry, D., & Tucker, D. M. ( 1994). Motivating the focus of attention. In P. M. Niedenthal & S. Kitayama (Eds.), Heart s eye: Emotional influences in perception and attention (pp ). New York: Academic Press. Dijksterhuis, A. (2004). Think different: The merits of unconscious thought in preference development and decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87 (5), F 觟 rster, J. ( 2009). Relations between perceptual and conceptual scope: How global versus local processing fits a focus on similarity versus dissimilarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138 (1), F 觟 ster, J. (2012). GLOMOsys: How and Why of Global and Local Processing. Current Direction in Psychological Science, 21 (1), F 觟 rster, J., & Denzler, M. (2012). Sense creative! The impact of ( ), global and local vision, hearing, touching, tasting, and smelling on creative and analytic thought. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3 (1), , F 觟 rster, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2005). How global versus local perception fits regulatory focus. Psychological Science, 16 (8), ,?, F 觟 rster, J., Liberman, N., & Kuschel, S. ( 2008). The effect of, global versus local processing styles on assimilation versus contrast in social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social? Psycholoy, 94 (4), Ward, C. M., Mottola, G. R., Houlette, M. (1999). Reducing intergroup bias: Elements of intergroup cooperation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76 (3), Gasper, K. (2004). Do you see what I see? Affect and visual information processing. Cognition and Emotion, 18 (3), Gasper, K., & Clore, G. L. (2002). Attending to the big picture: Mood and global versus local processing of visual information. Psychological Science, 13 (1), Hastie, R., & Kumar, P. A. ( 1979). Person memory: Personality traits as organizing principles in memory for behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37 (1), Kühnen, U., Hannover, B., & Schubert, B. (2001). The semanticprocedural interface model of the self: The role of self-knowledge for context -dependent versus context -independent modes of thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80 (3), Kühnen, U., & Oyserman, D. (2002). Thinking about the self influences thinking in general: Cognitive consequences of salient self -concept. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38 (5), Leung, A. K. Y., & Chiu, C. Y. (2010). Multicultural experience, idea receptiveness, and creativity. Journal of Cross -Cultural Psychology, 41 (5-6),

6 6 14 Leung, A. K. Y., Maddux, W. W., Galinsky, A. D., & Chiu, C. Y. (2008). Multicultural experience enhances creativity: The when and how. American Psychologist, 63 (3), Maddux, W. W., Adam, H., & Galinsky, A. D. (2010). When in Rome... Learn why the Romans do what they do: How multicultural learning experiences facilitate creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36 (6), Maddux, W. W., & Galinsky, A. D. (2009). Cultural borders and mental barriers: the relationship between living abroad and creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96 (5), Mikulincer, M., Kedem, P., & Paz, D. (1990). The impact of trait anxiety and situational stress on the categorization of natural objects. Anxiety Research, 2 (2), Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup Contact Theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49 (1), Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta -analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38 (6), Schwarz, N., & Bless, H. (2007). Mental construal processes: The inclusion/exclusion model. In D. Stapel, and J. Suls ( Eds.), Assimilation and contrast in social psychology (pp ). PA: Psychology Press. Smith, P. K., & Trope, Y. (2006). You focus on the forest when you re in charge of the trees: Power priming and abstract information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90 (4), Tadmor, C. T., Hong, Y. Y., Chao, M. M., Wiruchnipawan, F., & Wang, W. (2012). Multicultural experiences reduce intergroup bias through epistemic unfreezing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103 (5), Tadmor, C. T., & Tetlock, P. E. (2006). Biculturalism: A Model of the Effects of Second -Culture Exposure on Acculturation and Integrative Complexity. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37 (2), Tadmor, C. T., Tetlock, P. E., & Peng, K. (2009). Acculturation strategies and integrative complexity the cognitive implications of biculturalism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40 (1), Vartanian, O., Martindale, C., & Kwiatkowski, J. ( 2007). Creative potential, attention, and speed of information processing. Personality and Individual Differences, 43 (6), Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 (6), Xu, X., Zuo, X., Wang, X., & Han, S. (2009). Do you feel mypain? Racial group membership modulates empathic neural responses. The Journal of Neuroscience, 29 (26), Bicultural Experience Facilitates the Global Processing Style Wan Minggang 1, Yang Yang 1,2, Li Jiansheng 2, Jiang Hui 2 (1 Research Center for Education of Northwest Ethnic Minorities, Northwest Normal University, Lanzhou, ; 2 School of psychology, Northwest Normal University, Lanzhou, ) Abstract Studies have shown that, compared to individualistic cultures, collectivistic cultures could facilitate global processing. However, cultural experience can be divided not only into individualist and collectivist according to Eastern and Western cultures but also into multicultural and monocultural according to individuals experiences. Compared to monocultural experiences, are multicultural experiences, especially, the most common bicultural experience more conducive to the global processing style? To address this question, we conducted two experiments in which participants were divided into two groups, one exposed to a bicultural experience and another exposed to a monocultural experience. The two groups were either required to search for similarities or differences between two videos (Experiment 1), or recall the information congruent or incongruent with older adult stereotypes (Experiment 2). The experimental results showed that, compared to the participants exposed to a monocultural experience, those exposed to a bicultural experience tended to search for similarities among the objects (Experiment 1) and were not prone to have stereotype impressions (Experiment 2). This indicates that individuals with bicultural experiences facilitate the global processing style. Key words global processing style, local processing style, processing styles, bicultural experiences.