Causal reasoning refers to the process of identification of causality regarding the associations between the causes and the respective effects (Norenzayan and Nisbett 132). The causality studies extend from ancient philosophies to contemporary Neuropsychology. Causality studies deal with the assumptions about the causal nature that may be revealed through the functions of previous events. The Physics of Aristotle is the first ever known proto-scientific causes and effects studies. Causal inferences are examples of causal reasoning. The relationships of causation may be comprehended as force transfer as it is revealed through the previous events functions. The links of causal suggest cause and effect are related temporally; the causes precede the outcomes and change over time. The casual theories that differ culturally seem to have a basis in more mentalities that are culture-specific and pervasive in the West, America, and East Asia.
The mentality of Americans and the Westerners tend to pay much attention to the objects that categorize Psychological Process by the references to its features and ascribe casual reasoning and causality by rules and regulations about it. On the other hand, the mentality of East Asian tends to be more holistic and seem to focus attention on the fields in which the objects are located and ascribe causality as well as casual reasoning through the association between the areas and objects (Norenzayan and Nisbett 132). Most of the cross-cultural psychological processes, however, show similarities to primary demographic variables such as the level of education, the status of socioeconomic, gender, and age.
Description of Groups
The casual reasoning of American and East Asian differ significantly (Norenzayan and Nisbett, p133). Americans usually understand social behaviors primarily as the direct dispositions unfolding whereas East Asians view social behaviors as complex interactions between contextual factors as well as the provisions of other objects or people. Scholars in various fields that include psychology, philosophy of science, history, and ethnography, hold that there has been a significant difference between intellectual tradition and casual reasoning of American and East Asian. The East Asian mentality remains more holistic as compared to that of Americans and the Westerners such as the European nations. Therefore, the ordinary people of modern East Asia like the old intelligentsia of China are attuned to the overall context and the field in the determination of events. The western civilization have shaped American causal reasoning so significantly that one would expect the Americans intellectual object and casual reasoning to be more advanced (Norenzayan and Nisbett 133). On the other hand, the Americans and Westerners are more inclined in believing that casual reasoning, as well as causality, relies on the objects and therefore they tend to focus more on the objects than they do to the fields. The East Asians tend to trust causality as well as casual reasoning depends on the field, and therefore they are expected to attend the area more.
Description and Explanation of Findings
On the part of East Asians, focus on the field as a whole may be relatively challenging and they suggest that to separate the area from the object might be relatively difficult (Norenzayan and Nisbett 134). This notion of the East Asians is rooted in the concepts of the dependence of the field which refers to the "relative difficulties and challenges in the separation of the objects from the context in which they are located. One method or way to measure the dependence of field is by the techniques of the rod-and-frame tests. At the test of the rod and frame, the players look into long rectangular boxes at the rod which is the end of the structure. The structure of the rod and the plate may be revolved independently of the participants as well as one another; especially the rod is placed vertically. The dependence of the fields is illustrated by the extent to which the frame orientation affects the verticality judgments of the rod. The East Asian decisions, especially among the participants from China have been indicated to be more dependent on the field than their American counterparts.
In direct tests of whether Americans and the Westerners pay less attention to the field than the East Asians, the American, as well as Japanese participants, saw scenes of underwater, including one or focal fish, that is the fish which were faster moving and larger than any other object in the scene among many other objects that include coral, rocks, plants, small animals, as well smaller fish. The participants from Japan and America showed similar detail amounts concerning local fish, but the participants from Japan made many inferences and references to interactions between background and focal fish and indicated for more details about everything on the experiences. The participants were shown a local fish after watching the scenes either in a new environment or the original context (Norenzayan and Nisbett 135). The Japanese ability to realize and recognize specific focal fish was indicated in the background that was wrong. Such manipulations did not influence the recognition of the Americans.
Work Cited
Norenzayan, Ara, and Richard E. Nisbett. "Culture and Causal Cognition." Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9.4 (2000): 132-135.
