Editing Social cognition (section)

==Cultural differences==
Social psychologists have become increasingly interested in the [[Culture and social cognition|influence of culture on social cognition]].<ref name= "Aronson">{{cite book |last=Aronson |first=E. |author2=Wilson, T |author3=Akert, R.|title=Social Psychology |publisher=Pearson |chapter=Chapter 3: Social Cognition |year=2010}}</ref> Although people of all cultures use schemas to understand the world, the content of schemas has been found to differ for individuals based on their cultural upbringing. For example, one study interviewed a Scottish settler and a Bantu herdsman from Swaziland and compared their schemas about cattle.<ref name=Bartlett>{{cite book |title= Remembering |last=Bartlett |first=F. |publisher=Cambridge: Cambridge University Press |page=249 |year=1932}}</ref> Because cattle are essential to the lifestyle of the Bantu people, the Bantu herdsman's schemas for cattle were far more extensive than the schemas of the Scottish settler. The Bantu herdsman was able to distinguish his cattle from dozens of others, while the Scottish settler was not.

Cultural influences have been found to shape some of the basic ways in which people automatically perceive and think about their environment.<ref name= "Aronson" /> For example, a number of studies have found that people who grow up in East Asian cultures such as [[China]] and [[Japan]] tend to develop holistic thinking styles, whereas people brought up in Western cultures like Australia and the USA tend to develop analytic thinking styles.<ref name= "Nisbett">{{cite journal |last=Nisbett |first=R. |author2=Peng, K. |author3=Choi, I. |author4= Norenzayan, A.  |title=Culture and Systems of thought: Holistic vs. analytic cognition |journal=Psychological Review |volume=108 |pages=291–310 |year=2001 |doi=10.1037/0033-295X.108.2.291 |pmid=11381831 |issue=2|s2cid=17739645 }}</ref><ref name = "Masuda 2006">{{cite journal|author-link1=Takahiko Masuda |last1=Masuda |first1=T. |last2=Nisbett|first2=R. |title=Culture and change blindness |journal=Cognitive Science |volume=30 |pages=381–389 |year=2006 |doi=10.1207/s15516709cog0000_63 |pmid=21702819 |issue=2|citeseerx=10.1.1.594.9397 }}</ref> The typically Eastern holistic thinking style is a type of thinking in which people focus on the overall context and the ways in which objects relate to each other.<ref name= "Nisbett" /> For example, if an Easterner was asked to judge how a classmate is feeling then he/she might scan everyone's face in the class, and then use this information to judge how the individual is feeling.<ref name = "Masuda 2008">{{cite journal |last=Masuda |first=T. |author2=Ellsworth, P. C.|author-link2=Phoebe C. Ellsworth|author-link3=Batja Mesquita |author3=Mesquita, B.  |title=Placing the face in context: Cultural differences in the perception of facial emotion |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |volume=94 |pages=365–381 |year=2008 |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.94.3.365 |pmid=18284287 |issue=3}}</ref> On the other hand, the typically Western analytic thinking style is a type of thinking style in which people focus on individual objects and neglect to consider the surrounding context.<ref name= "Masuda 2006" /> For example, if a Westerner was asked to judge how a classmate is feeling, then he or she might focus only on the classmate's face in order to make the judgment.<ref name = "Masuda 2008" />

Nisbett (2003) suggested that cultural differences in social cognition may stem from the various philosophical traditions of the East (i.e. [[Confucianism]] and [[Buddhism]]) versus the Greek philosophical traditions (i.e. of Aristotle and Plato) of the West.<ref name= "Aronson" /> Other research indicates that differences in social cognition may originate from physical differences in the environments of the two cultures. One study found that scenes from Japanese cities were 'busier' than those in the US as they contain more objects which compete for attention. In this study, the Eastern holistic thinking style (and focus on the overall context) was attributed to the busier nature of the Japanese physical environment.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Miyamoto |first=Y. |author2=Kitayama, S.  |title=Cultural variation in correspondence bias: The critical role of attitude diagnosticity of socially constrained behaviour |journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |volume=83 |pages=1239–1248 |year=2002 |doi=10.1037/0022-3514.83.5.1239 |pmid=12416925 |issue=5|citeseerx=10.1.1.319.6787 }}</ref>

Later studies find that these differences in cognitive style can be explained by differences in [[relational mobility]]. Relational mobility is a measure of how much choice individuals have in terms of whom to form relationships with, including friendships, romantic partnerships, and work relations. Relational mobility is low in cultures with a subsistence economy that requires tight cooperation and coordination, such as farming, while it is high in cultures based on [[Pastoralism|nomadic herding]] and in urban industrial cultures. 
A cross-cultural study found that the relational mobility is lowest in East Asian countries where [[Paddy rice|rice farming]] is common, and highest in South American countries.<ref name="ThomsonEtAl2018">{{cite journal |last1=Thomson |first1=Robert|display-authors=etal|title=Relational mobility predicts social behaviors in 39 countries and is tied to historical farming and threat |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |date=2018 |volume=115 |issue=29 |pages=7521–7526|doi=10.1073/pnas.1713191115|pmid=29959208|pmc=6055178|bibcode=2018PNAS..115.7521T |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name="YukiSchug2012">{{cite book |last1=Yuki |first1=Masaki |last2=Schug |first2=Joanna|editor1-link=Omri Gillath |editor1-last=Gillath |editor1-first=O. |editor2-last=Adams |editor2-first=G. |editor3-last=Kunkel |editor3-first=A. |title=Relationship Science: Integrating Evolutionary, Neuroscience, and Sociocultural Approaches |date=2012 |publisher=American Psychological Association |pages=137–151 |chapter=Relational mobility: A socioecological approach to personal relationships|doi=10.1037/13489-007|hdl=2115/52726 |isbn=978-1-4338-1123-4 |s2cid=53496958 }}</ref>

These cultural influences might have also been results of the Chameleon Effect. The Chameleon Effect is when people unconsciously mimic the behaviors, gestures, and expressions of others. Chartrand and Bargh (1999) found that people favor those who were subtly mimicking them over those who weren’t; those who were mimicking others were more likely to be liked and have more friendly interactions with others. The intensity of the Chameleon Effect highly depends on the culture norm and what is seen as acceptable. In a culture promoting collectivism, which highly values group harmony and requires one to actively fit in, this subtle mimicking is more likely to occur as it is socially accepted. However, culture promoting individualism, which prioritizes independence over group harmony, mimicry might be less common or even seen as intrusive. Therefore, the intensity of the Chameleon Effect highly depends on the culture norm and what is seen as acceptable. <ref name="ChartrandBargh1999">
{{cite journal
 | last1 = Chartrand
 | first1 = Tanya L.
 | last2 = Bargh
 | first2 = John A.
 | title = The Chameleon Effect: The Perception–Behavior Link and Social Interaction
 | journal = Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
 | date = 1999
 | volume = 76
 | issue = 6
 | pages = 893–910
 | publisher = American Psychological Association
 | doi = 10.1037/0022-3514.76.6.893
 | pmid = 10402679
 | url = https://acmelab.yale.edu/sites/default/files/1999_the_chameleon_effect.pdf
 | access-date = 1 May 2025
}}
</ref>