Cultural Differences in
Inferences Made During Comprehension
R. Brooke Lea
Macalester College
Karin M. Cox
University of Pittsburgh
Introduction
Aaron D. Mitchel
Pennsylvania State University
David Matz
Augsburg College
Figure 1: Lexical Decision
Response Times to Trait Probes
Results
2000
• Nisbett and colleagues (e.g., Nisbett et al., 2001) propose that cultural differences in cognitive
styles exist between East Asian and Western populations.
• EastAsians tend to think more holistically, assign causality to the entire field, and make relatively
little use of formal logic and categories.
• Westerners tend to be more analytical, assume that causality emerges from objects, use rules
including formal logic to understand behavior, and ignore contextual factors.
• Supporting data has come primarily from perceptual rather than textual tasks.
Trait Inferences (Figure 1)
• We know that Western (American) subjects tend to make logical and trait inferences while reading
(e.g., Lea, 1995; Winter & Uleman 1984), but we know little about the inferences made by East
Asian populations.
• A prediction, based on Nisbett et al. (2001), is that Western subjects should be most capable at
logical and trait inferences whereas East Asians should excel at situational inferences.
1788 1768
1600
East Asian Population
• No evidence of trait inferences during reading (F < 1)
1848
1400
1200
Western Population
• Significant difference among the three means, F(2, 52) = 3.51, p < .05
• Follow-up tests indicated that the Trait/Trait probes were identified significantly faster than the
probes in Baseline texts (p < .05), and marginally faster than the Situation/Trait probes (p < .057).
• We tested this “Systems of Thought” hypothesis within the context of text comprehension.
• We looked at three types of inferences:
1) propositional-logic (deductive) inferences
2) trait inferences that could explain a protagonist’s behavior
3) situational inferences relevant to a protagonist’s behavior
1800
1000
800
875
804 809
600
400
Situational Inferences (Figure 2)
200
0
East Asian Population
• Significant difference among the three means, F(2, 52) = 4.13, p < .01
• Follow-up tests revealed that the probes following both the Sit/Sit passages and the Trait/Sit
passages were identified significantly faster than those following the Baseline texts (p < .01, and p
< .05, respectively).
• The Sit/Sit and Trait/Sit conditions were not different from each other.
Western
Trait Passage
East Asian
Sit. Passage
Baseline
Figure 2: Lexical Decision
Response Times to Situation Probes
Western Population
• Significant difference among the three means , F(2, 52) = 6.73, p < .01
• Follow-up tests indicated that the Situation/Situation probes were identified significantly faster
than both the probes in Baseline texts (p < .05), and those that followed the Situation/Trait probes
(p < .01).
• The Trait/Sit and Baseline conditions were not different from each other.
1800
1766
1600
1622 1587
1400
1200
Method
Logical Inferences (Figure 3)
Participants
• Western participants were born in a Western country and spoke a Western language (almost
always English) as their native tongue.
• East Asian participants originated from East Asian countries (e.g., Japan, Korea, China) and were
native speakers of the mother tongue.
• Thirty-six Macalester College students made up the Western pool, and 30 residents of the Twin
Cities area made up the Eastern pool.
1000
East Asian Population
• Significant difference between the inference and no-inference means, F(1, 26) = 6.47, p < .05
800
Western Population
• Significant difference between the two means , F(1, 32) = 4.67, p < .05
400
Trait Inference Texts
• In an example passage taken from Uleman et al. (1996), a businessman is dancing with his
girlfriend and steps on her feet during the foxtrot (Table 1).
• In the Trait-inducing version, the businessman has just spilled a drink on his girlfriend’s dress, and
the foot-stomping appears due to his clumsiness. Indeed, Uleman and his colleagues have found
evidence that the target trait CLUMSY is spontaneously activated (“spontaneous trait inference”).
• We tested for trait inferences by asking participants to make lexical decisions on target traits, like
CLUMSY.
• We used two control conditions:
1) lexical decisions on the target trait after a completely unrelated text (Baseline Condition)
2) lexical decisions on the target trait after a similar text that promoted a situational
attribution for the target behavior (i.e., the lack of room on the dance floor caused the foot
fault).
Situational Texts
• Lupfer et al. (1990) modified Uleman’s trait passages so that situational factors appear to cause
the focal behavior (Table 1).
• In the situational version of the example text, the crowded dance floor explains why the
businessman stepped on his date’s feet.
• To test for situational inferences we asked participants to make lexical decisions on words related
to situational elements related to the focal behavior.
• We used two control conditions:
1) lexical decisions on the situational probe after an unrelated text (Baseline Condition)
2) lexical decisions on the situational probe after the trait-inference version of the text
Logical Inference Texts
• We used short passages that have reliably produced inference effects (e.g., Lea, 1995; Lea,
Mulligan, & Walton, 2004).
• In an example passage, Tony is deciding whether to have bread or cornflakes for breakfast (Table
2). He decides not to have corn flakes, and the reader can infer that he will have bread. This is not
a pragmatic inference (one cannot call up from world knowledge what Tony had for breakfast);
rather, it is a logical deduction based on the information presented in the premises, and the
reader’s understanding of the logical particles or and not.
• We tested for the “Or-Elimination” inference by asking participants to make lexical decisions on
the inferred proposition (e.g., BREAD).
• We also used a control condition in which Tony mentions but does not negate the “corn flakes”
proposition.
Summary
• The five types of passages and three types of probes were used to produce 8 different
experimental conditions (Table 3).
Table 1
200
0
Trait Implying
The businessman and his girlfriend plan a night on the town.
They go to several nightclubs.
He spills a drink on her dress.
The businessman steps on his girlfriend’s feet during the foxtrot.
Situation Implying
The businessman and his girlfriend are celebrating his birthday.
They are trying to dance on a very crowded dance floor.
Everyone is bumping into others.
The businessman steps on his girlfriend’s feet during the foxtrot.
Control Text
The gas station attendant was hungry.
She left the counter to find food in spite of the rules against doing so.
The attendant went to the fast food restaurant across the street.
When she returned, her boss was waiting for her.
Trait Probe: CLUMSY
Situational Probe: NO ROOM
Sit. Passage
East Asian
Trait Passage
Baseline
Figure 3: Lexical Decision
Response Time to Logical Probes
1400
Western Population
• Made trait inferences while reading trait-inference passages, as predicted
• Also made trait inferences during the situational passages (though the effect was only marginally
significant)
• Unexpectedly, Westerns also made situational inferences while reading the situational passages.
• The data suggest that Western readers activated both situational- and trait-related concepts while
reading situational texts.
• Westerns also made logical inferences, as has been demonstrated previously.
1200
1248
1329
1000
800
730
600
766
400
200
0
Western
Logical Inference
East Asian
No-Inference Control
Discussion
Overall, results are consistent with the “Systems of Thought” hypothesis, though there were some surprises:
The Predicted
• Each cultural group strongly exhibited their
expected cognitive bias in interpreting the
behavior of protagonists in a story:
• East Asian participants focused on contextual,
relational, and holistic information (the field) –
even when dispositional information was readily
available.
• Western participants made more descriptiveanalytic, subject-oriented inferences – even
when situational information was easily
accessible.
The Surprising
• Each group made more types of inferences
than predicted by a strict interpretation of the
Systems of Thought hypothesis:
• East Asians made logical inferences
• Westerners made situational inferences.
Table 2
Inference Text
Tony was trying desperately to stick to his diet.
“Well,” said his mother, “You can have either bread or corn flakes with
breakfast.”
Tony seemed to take forever before giving an answer.
“Alright Ma, since I have to skip something, I won’t have the corn
flakes.”
No- Inference Text
Tony was trying desperately to stick to his diet.
“Well,” said his mother, “You can have either bread or corn flakes with
breakfast.”
Tony seemed to take forever before giving an answer.
He wondered if he could talk her into more helpings of corn flakes.
More on the Surprises
• That East Asians made logical inferences is
not surprising from the perspective of
psychological models of deduction (e.g., Braine
& O’Brien, 1998; Lea et al., 1990; Rips, 1994).
Final Summary
• The hypothesis that culture affects cognition
received partial support.
• The strongest supporting evidence came from
Western readers showing a strong dispositional
bias, and East Asian readers exhibiting a
comparably strong situational bias.
• Evidence of Western readers making
situational inferences is not well supported in
the literature. Lupfer et al. (1990) found that
situational cues helped participants recall the
situational passages. However, they were not
able to find on-line (priming) evidence for their
spontaneous activation.
• Some of the results that were inconsistent
with the Systems of Thought hypothesis will
require further work to interpret with respect to
that hypothesis.
• Perhaps the most surprising result is that
Westerners activated both situation- and traitrelated concepts while reading the situational
passages. An off-line follow-up study in which
readers think-aloud while reading might clarify
this result.
• Our data clearly refute any claim that East
Asians do not make propositional-logic
inferences during everyday activities like
reading.
Table 3
Example Logical Text
Probe: BREAD
Western
East Asian Population
• Made situational inferences during both situation and trait texts
• Even when a passage focused causality on the protagonist these readers activated situational
concepts.
• There was no evidence that they activated trait-inferences during the reading of any of our
passages.
• The Eastern readers made logical inferences while reading.
Condition
Example Trait, Situational and Control Texts
916 882
600
Results Summary
Materials & Procedure
• Participants read a block of 96 four-line texts one line at a time on a computer screen.
• Passages ended with a lexical decision probe, and a comprehension question.
• The 96 passages were composed of:
• 16 pragmatic (trait & situational) passages
• 16 pragmatic controls
• 12 logic passages in their “inference” form
• 12 logic passages in their “no-inference” form
• 40 filler passages
838
Trait
Inference
Trait
NoInference
Control
Trait
Baseline
Control
Situational
Inference
Situational
No-Inference
Control
Situational
Baseline
Control
Control
Passage
Type
Trait
Situational
Control
Situational
Trait
Probe Type
Trait
Trait
Trait
Situational
Situational
References
6
2 4
Situational
Logic
Inference
Logic
NoInference
Control
Inference
NoInference
Logical
Logical
247 presses
35
1
Braine, M.D.S., & O’Brien, D.P. (1998). Mental Logic. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
Lea, R.B., O'Brien, D.P., Fisch, S.M., Noveck, I.A., & Braine, M.D.S. (1990). Predicting propositional logic inferences in text comprehension. Journal of Memory and
Language, 29, 361-387.
Lea, R. B. (1995). On-Line evidence for elaborative logical inferences in text. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 1469-1482.
Lea, R.B., Mulligan, E.J., & Walton, J. (2005). Accessing distant premise information: How memory feeds reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory
& Cognition, 28, 303-317.
Lupfer, M.B., Clark, L.F., & Hutcherson, H.W. (1990). Impact of context on spontaneous trait and situational attributions. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 58,
239-249.
Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. PsychologicalReview, 108, 291–310.
Rips, L.J. (1994). The psychology of proof: Deductive reasoning in human thinking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Winter, L., & Uleman, J. S. (1984). When are social judgments made? Evidence for the spontaneousness of trait inferences. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 47,
237-252.
Uleman, J., Hon, A., Roman, R., & Moskowitz, G., (1995). On-line evidence for spontaneous trait inferences at encoding. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.