How WEIRD are they? Disentangling Psychological and Pragmatic Processes Thomas Holtgraves Dept. of Psychological Science Ball State University

Overview Overreliance on WEIRD participants distorts behavioral research; wrong to assume one can generalize from research with WEIRD Ps. Old and perennial issue in social psychology. Three responses – 1. Some psychological differences may reflect differences in pragmatic rules rather than differences in psychological processes. – 2. A focus on phenotypic differences may hinder detection of underlying genotypic principles – 3. Generalizability is an empirical question that is now easier to address

1. Pragmatic not Psychological Henrich et al. examples are all psychological, many social psychological – Visual perception (Muller-Lyer illusion), cooperation in economic decision making, self-concept, moral reasoning, etc. Some observed differences in these variables may be due to methodological differences (Schweder; Baumard & Sperber) Even if identical methods are used, the manner in which those methods are interpreted by Ps may differ; i.e., pragmatic differences

Pragmatics of Experiments All behavioral science experiments involve communication E explains to P what the study is about, what they are to do, and so on Some psychological effects may in fact be pragmatic effects (N. Schwarz; R. Wyer) Rather than psychological effects, these reflect pragmatic effects (i.e., principles regarding conversation, etc.)

Pragmatics of Experiments Example: Representativeness heuristic (Kahneman & Tversky) – Ps given individuating (Jack is conservative, apolitical, spends time on his hobbies, etc.) and base-rate (description comes from a panel of 30 engineers and 70 lawyers) information – What is probability Jack is engineer? Ps indicate engineer Interpreted as a cognitive bias (Ps ignore base-rate info) However, information provided by E comes with a presumption of relevance; and so Ps use it (even if logically, they shouldn’t).

Pragmatics of Experiments Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE) = Tendency to make dispositional attributions for behavior and ignore situation factors (e.g., Fred slipped because he is clumsy). Henrich et al. Western/Individualistic Ps more likely to demonstrate FAE than non-Western Ps Attribution difference or pragmatic difference?

Pragmatics of Experiments Classic Fundamental Attribution Error studies (e.g., Jones & Davis): Ps provided with information about another’s (Joe) behavior and asked to make a judgment (what is Joe’s true opinion) Some of the information is not relevant for an attributional judgment – e.g., Joe was told to write a pro-Castro essay – Ps read Joe’s essay and are asked about Joe’s opinion – Ps indicate that Joe has a favorable attitude toward Castro (even though he was told to write the favorable essay; FAE).

Pragmatics of Experiments Pragmatic alternative: Ps assume that information (the writer’s essay) is given to them for a reason (i.e., it’s relevant). And so they use it Possible pragmatic differences: The presumption of relevance may be less strong in non-Western cultures OR What counts as relevant may vary over cultures

Psychological Difference vs. Pragmatic Difference Economic games – WEIRD Ps understand the “as if” nature of the games; they have a schema that makes it understandable – Non-WEIRD Ps have no schema for this. They try to make sense by…

2. Different Manifestations of Same Underlying Process Identical underlying psychological process may be expressed differently across cultures – Observed differences (phenotypic expression) may be explicable at more abstract level of analysis (genotypic process) – Overemphasis on differences can be misleading – Example: Is self-enhancement universal? Henrich et al., argue unique to WEIRD Ps Gaertner et al. argue self-enhancement is universal but that cultures vary in terms of what traits they enhance on (West = individualistic traits - independence; East = collectivist traits; devotion to family)

Pragmatics: Politeness and Conversation Processing Brown & Levinson Politeness Theory – Politeness (via facework) is assumed to be universal – But, much cultural variability in terms of: How politeness is expressed What is face-threatening And so on – So, even though much cultural variability in linguistic politeness, that variation reflects an underlying universal motivation (face)

Politeness as Universal and Variable Empirical evidence: Holtgraves & Yang (1992) Examined levels of reported politeness as a function of Power, Distance, and Imposition in U.S. and S. Korea Results: – Culture and gender differences in overall politeness and positive politeness

Underlying Cultural and Gender Similarities and Differences Similarity: Politeness varied as a function of power and distance for U. S. and S. Korean, and for male and female. Difference: – Power weighted more heavily by S. Koreans than U.S. – Power weighted more heavily by males than by females – Distance weighted more heavily by females than by males

Request Politeness as a Function of Distance for U.S. and S. Korean Ps

Request Politeness as a Function of Hearer Power for Male and Female Ps

Maxims as Universal and Variable Grice’s maxims (quantity, quality, etc.) probably not universal However, violations of maxims (regardless of what they are) prompt deeper processing (i.e., extra-cognitive activity in order to make sense of the violation). Hence, both universality and variability

3. Generalizability as a Tractable Empirical Question Whether results using WEIRD samples generalize is an empirical issue Now easier to undertake these types of analyses Internet and survey platforms – Amazon Mechanical Turk – Possible to recruit and pay Ps for participation – Possible to select relevant samples (e.g., male S. Koreans between 18 and 35)

Mechanical Turk Especially useful for pragmatics research Can create and present scenarios, stimulus sets, etc. Collect judgments of appropriateness, interpretations, reaction times, etc. Can specify non-WEIRD samples Can include validity checks (fake items to leave blank)

Internet (Mturk) Data Quality and Limitations Internet/Mturk data quality (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011) – Data are as reliable as data collected via traditional methods – Compensation (e.g., $.01 U.S.) doesn’t effect quality (but does have an effect on speed). Limitations – IRB – Internet availability

Recap 1. Some psychological differences are pragmatic differences. – E.g. Fundamental Attribution error. – Others? 2. Observed differences may reflect universal principles 3. Tests of generalizability now easier and encouraged