Cognitive Science/ Cognitive Processes
A Cross-Cultural Analysis of Dialectical Thinking, Cognitive Flexibility, and Adjustment
Brianna J. Preiser, B.S.
Graduate Student
University of Hawai’i at Manoa
Honolulu, Hawaii
Lauren E. Bradley, B.A.
Undergraduate Student
University of Hawai’i at Manoa
Honolulu, Hawaii
Kyani K. Uchimura, B.A.
Undergraduate Student
University of Hawai’i at Manoa
Honolulu, Hawaii
Anthony Papa, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
University of Hawai’i at Manoa
Honolulu, Hawaii
Dialectical thinking (DT) is characterized by accepting contradictory information and may be linked to coping flexibility. DT is more prevalent among Asians than Westerners, and it has been shown to predict coping flexibility and positive adjustment longitudinally in a Chinese sample (Cheng, 2009). However, in a study comparing residents of China and the US, higher capacity for DT was linked to higher anxiety with the strongest effects in the Chinese sample (Spencer-Rodgers et al., 2004). This suggests that DT may have different implications for different groups. Although DT has previously been linked to coping flexibility broadly, the relationship between DT and components of cognitive flexibility (CF) is largely unknown, particularly across cultural groups. The current study examined the relationships between ethnicity, age, DT, and components of CF: ability to develop alternative solutions to problems and perceived controllability.
Participants (N = 271) who had experienced a recent loss and were currently residing in in the US completed measures of DT, CF, and demographics. A one-way ANOVA comparing DT by ethnicity was marginally significant (p = 0.07). On average, all non-majority ethnic groups (American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian, Black, Native Hawaiian, and Latinx) scored higher on DT compared to White-identified participants. Therefore, ethnicity (coded 0 = NonWhite, 1 = White) was entered as a predictor in all regression models.
Regression models predicting overall CF (R2 = .29), alternative thinking (R2 = .09), and controllability (R2 = .34) were significant (ps < .001). Greater DT (ßs ≤ -.25, ps < .001) was associated with lower levels of CF, alternative thinking, and controllability. Age was used as a control, and lower age was associated with lower levels of CF and alternative thinking (ßs ≥ .12, ps < .05). Ethnicity was nonsignificant (ps > .05) in all models.
Major findings were: 1) ethnicity was not a significant predictor in any model, and 2) greater DT was predictive of lower levels of CF in a US sample. The lack of differences by ethnicity could be attributable to all participants residing in the US and, thus, operating within a Western society. In this case, we might not expect to see the East-West differences observed in other studies. DT generally predicted poor outcomes in the sample. Past research on DT shows there is a cognitive tendency in East-Asians to endorse contradictory aspects of personal experiences – a dialectical response style. Therefore, individuals high in DT may tend to endorse a larger spectrum of experiences in the affirmative. Methodologically this may necessitate two measures of the same construct, a positively worded and negatively worded measure. Because the current CF measure uses reverse coded items to collapse positively and negatively worded items, the null findings for ethnicity when predicting CF (despite observing differences in DT) may be the result of methodological limitations of measures normed in a Western society. Future research should examine how the current operationalization of CF may not be capturing CF in samples high in DT.