Elqayam & Evans (E&E) suggest that it is only within the paradigm of descriptivism that competing theories can be arbitrated. We agree with their argument; but, in order to more parsimoniously and appropriately arbitrate those theories, descriptivism should focus more on the role of studies on cultural and individual differences for the explanation of the human mind.
Normative considerations have critical limitations for understanding the human mind, especially on the computational level, because normativism does not provide insight into the variability in human cognition and behavior. Descriptivism is an alternative approach. For example, the dual-process or dual-system paradigm proposes two types of processes: (a) heuristic, rapid, parallel preconscious processes, and (b) analytic, effortful, sequential processes that correlate with general cognitive ability. The paradigm's core idea is that research should focus on observing and explaining the thinking and reasoning that people do, without preconceived concerns about what they ought to do.
Nonetheless, the paradigm's current form is still insufficient for understanding the human mind, because descriptivism research needs to focus more on cultural and individual differences, especially those based on motivational factors. A major limitation of the explanatory approach is that the observation and, thereby, the interpretation of theory construction is often idiosyncratic to a particular culture or group. Research has shown variations from a given prediction, regardless of whether it is normative or descriptive, in many domains and on different levels between cultures.
For example, researchers had thought that persons from East Asian cultures were more risk-averse in most domains, such as social risk, than are persons from Western cultures; but, surprisingly, the former show greater risk-seeking than Westerners do regarding financial risks (Hsee & Weber Reference Hsee and Weber1999). Furthermore, such cross-cultural differences are found not only in higher-level cognition but in other levels as well, despite human-cognition researchers' intuition that the higher the level of cognitive thinking, the more the influence of individual and cultural differences in the resulting behavior. In contrast, observing fundamental differences between different populations on the perceptual level is not difficult. For example, Chua et al. (Reference Chua, Boland and Nisbett2005a) measured the eye movements of American and Chinese participants while they viewed photographs comprising a focal object on a complex background. The Americans fixated more often on the focal objects than did the Chinese, and the Americans tended to look at the focal object more quickly. In contrast, Chinese participants emphasized background in their visual perception. Even in everyday events, Americans tended to focus more on characteristics to do with self and personal agency and intentionality, and less on emotionality than East Asians did (Chua et al. Reference Chua, Leu and Nisbett2005b).
As these cross-cultural examples show, if every culture or group requires its own explanatory story, then there probably isn't any way to find generalizations about human cognition and behavior. Numerous previous studies observed a degree of variability consistent with this possibility. Obviously, this concept lacks parsimony in regard to explaining human thinking, but parsimony should be one of the core aspects of descriptivism. An alternative (and supplementary) approach is to identify psychological variables that differ between cultures or groups, which would help to unify research on cultural and/or group differences and research on other kinds of individual differences. This individual differences approach seeks psychological variables, differing both within and across cultures or groups, that explain previously observed differences in cognitive performance (Kim & Markman Reference Kim and Markman2006; Weber & Hsee Reference Weber and Hsee2000).
In line with this idea, Kim and his colleagues (Kim & Markman Reference Kim and Markman2006; Kim et al. Reference Kim, Grimm and Markman2007; Markman et al. Reference Markman, Grimm, Kim, Wyer, Chiu and Hong2009) have suggested that considering cultural difference can provide better generalizations about human cognition, by emphasizing the processes by which individual difference factors lead to behaviors. For example, Kim and Markman (Reference Kim and Markman2006) manipulated fear of isolation (FOI) in American college students and observed that the high FOI group showed a greater relative preference for dialectical and holistic proverbs, which reflect collectivist viewpoints, than did the low FOI group. Another typical study of cultural difference observed this pattern with regard to Chinese and American populations, respectively (Peng & Nisbett Reference Peng and Nisbett1999). This result could establish a causal link between FOI and cognition. Another example is research into self-construal's effect on judgment. In Gardner et al.'s (Reference Gardner, Gabriel and Lee1999) study, individuals from the United States and Hong Kong, when primed for independent self-construal, preferred individualist values to collectivist values. In contrast, those primed for interdependent self-construal showed the opposite pattern. More importantly, this priming procedure produced the same outcomes found in cultures promoting individualism and collectivism, respectively, while also causally linking self-construal differences and value differences.
Thus, differences in a motivation-based individual difference factor, such as FOI or self-construal, create different cognitive goals; and different cultures' differing cognitive and behavioral outcomes reflect these different goals. Probably this is why researchers observe variability and inconsistencies from/against any universal theory or explanation, regardless of whether its basis is normativism or descriptivism. Nonetheless, individual research has often explored only one or two aspects of the causal mechanisms of individual differences, the differences' influence on cognitive processes, and/or different behavioral outcomes between cultures.
The particular goals a person can have are culturally determined. However, the goal activation's influence on human thinking may be common across individuals. Individual difference factors might differ across cultures and influence behavior. Therefore, taken together, culturally universal cognitive mechanisms could still cause cultural differences in behavior. While the content of people's goals clearly differs across cultures, the motivational system's mechanisms of operation might be universal. Similarly, while cultures may emphasize different personality characteristics (on average), these characteristics' influence on thinking and behavior could be the same among members of different cultures.
In sum, we suggest research should shift away from assessing broad behaviors and toward assessing the psychological characteristics underlying a behavior's processes, by exploring individual difference factors within/between cultures. Taken at face value, an explanation of human thinking focusing on individual difference factors across cultures makes the theory merely complex; but, ultimately, it can provide a parsimonious paradigm, by uncovering the true causal mechanisms of psychological processes.
You have
Access
Elqayam & Evans (E&E) suggest that it is only within the paradigm of descriptivism that competing theories can be arbitrated. We agree with their argument; but, in order to more parsimoniously and appropriately arbitrate those theories, descriptivism should focus more on the role of studies on cultural and individual differences for the explanation of the human mind.
Normative considerations have critical limitations for understanding the human mind, especially on the computational level, because normativism does not provide insight into the variability in human cognition and behavior. Descriptivism is an alternative approach. For example, the dual-process or dual-system paradigm proposes two types of processes: (a) heuristic, rapid, parallel preconscious processes, and (b) analytic, effortful, sequential processes that correlate with general cognitive ability. The paradigm's core idea is that research should focus on observing and explaining the thinking and reasoning that people do, without preconceived concerns about what they ought to do.
Nonetheless, the paradigm's current form is still insufficient for understanding the human mind, because descriptivism research needs to focus more on cultural and individual differences, especially those based on motivational factors. A major limitation of the explanatory approach is that the observation and, thereby, the interpretation of theory construction is often idiosyncratic to a particular culture or group. Research has shown variations from a given prediction, regardless of whether it is normative or descriptive, in many domains and on different levels between cultures.
For example, researchers had thought that persons from East Asian cultures were more risk-averse in most domains, such as social risk, than are persons from Western cultures; but, surprisingly, the former show greater risk-seeking than Westerners do regarding financial risks (Hsee & Weber Reference Hsee and Weber1999). Furthermore, such cross-cultural differences are found not only in higher-level cognition but in other levels as well, despite human-cognition researchers' intuition that the higher the level of cognitive thinking, the more the influence of individual and cultural differences in the resulting behavior. In contrast, observing fundamental differences between different populations on the perceptual level is not difficult. For example, Chua et al. (Reference Chua, Boland and Nisbett2005a) measured the eye movements of American and Chinese participants while they viewed photographs comprising a focal object on a complex background. The Americans fixated more often on the focal objects than did the Chinese, and the Americans tended to look at the focal object more quickly. In contrast, Chinese participants emphasized background in their visual perception. Even in everyday events, Americans tended to focus more on characteristics to do with self and personal agency and intentionality, and less on emotionality than East Asians did (Chua et al. Reference Chua, Leu and Nisbett2005b).
As these cross-cultural examples show, if every culture or group requires its own explanatory story, then there probably isn't any way to find generalizations about human cognition and behavior. Numerous previous studies observed a degree of variability consistent with this possibility. Obviously, this concept lacks parsimony in regard to explaining human thinking, but parsimony should be one of the core aspects of descriptivism. An alternative (and supplementary) approach is to identify psychological variables that differ between cultures or groups, which would help to unify research on cultural and/or group differences and research on other kinds of individual differences. This individual differences approach seeks psychological variables, differing both within and across cultures or groups, that explain previously observed differences in cognitive performance (Kim & Markman Reference Kim and Markman2006; Weber & Hsee Reference Weber and Hsee2000).
In line with this idea, Kim and his colleagues (Kim & Markman Reference Kim and Markman2006; Kim et al. Reference Kim, Grimm and Markman2007; Markman et al. Reference Markman, Grimm, Kim, Wyer, Chiu and Hong2009) have suggested that considering cultural difference can provide better generalizations about human cognition, by emphasizing the processes by which individual difference factors lead to behaviors. For example, Kim and Markman (Reference Kim and Markman2006) manipulated fear of isolation (FOI) in American college students and observed that the high FOI group showed a greater relative preference for dialectical and holistic proverbs, which reflect collectivist viewpoints, than did the low FOI group. Another typical study of cultural difference observed this pattern with regard to Chinese and American populations, respectively (Peng & Nisbett Reference Peng and Nisbett1999). This result could establish a causal link between FOI and cognition. Another example is research into self-construal's effect on judgment. In Gardner et al.'s (Reference Gardner, Gabriel and Lee1999) study, individuals from the United States and Hong Kong, when primed for independent self-construal, preferred individualist values to collectivist values. In contrast, those primed for interdependent self-construal showed the opposite pattern. More importantly, this priming procedure produced the same outcomes found in cultures promoting individualism and collectivism, respectively, while also causally linking self-construal differences and value differences.
Thus, differences in a motivation-based individual difference factor, such as FOI or self-construal, create different cognitive goals; and different cultures' differing cognitive and behavioral outcomes reflect these different goals. Probably this is why researchers observe variability and inconsistencies from/against any universal theory or explanation, regardless of whether its basis is normativism or descriptivism. Nonetheless, individual research has often explored only one or two aspects of the causal mechanisms of individual differences, the differences' influence on cognitive processes, and/or different behavioral outcomes between cultures.
The particular goals a person can have are culturally determined. However, the goal activation's influence on human thinking may be common across individuals. Individual difference factors might differ across cultures and influence behavior. Therefore, taken together, culturally universal cognitive mechanisms could still cause cultural differences in behavior. While the content of people's goals clearly differs across cultures, the motivational system's mechanisms of operation might be universal. Similarly, while cultures may emphasize different personality characteristics (on average), these characteristics' influence on thinking and behavior could be the same among members of different cultures.
In sum, we suggest research should shift away from assessing broad behaviors and toward assessing the psychological characteristics underlying a behavior's processes, by exploring individual difference factors within/between cultures. Taken at face value, an explanation of human thinking focusing on individual difference factors across cultures makes the theory merely complex; but, ultimately, it can provide a parsimonious paradigm, by uncovering the true causal mechanisms of psychological processes.