1. Happy Birthday to Prof. David Over Conditional reasoning and hindsight effect: A cross-cultural study of British, French, Korean, and Japanese Hiroshi YAMA (Kobe College, Japan) Ken I. MANKTELOW (University of Wolverhampton, UK) Hugo MERCIER (Institut Jean Nicod, France) Jean-Baptiste VAN DER HENST (Institut des Sciences Cognitives, France) Kyung Soo DO (Sung Kyun Kwan University, Korea) Yayoi KAWASAKI (Kobe College, Japan) Kuniko ADACHI (Kobe College, Japan)

2. 1. Cultural Differences in Cognition Nisbett (2003; Nisbett, Peng, Choi, & Norenzayan, 2001) Westerners - analytic cognition - individualist culture Easterners - holistic cognition - collectivist culture Analytic cognition involves detachment of the object from its context, a tendency to focus on attributes of the object to assign it to a category, and a preference for using rules about the categories to explain and predict the object’s behavior. Holistic cognition has an orientation to the context or the field as a whole, attention to relationships between a focal object and the field, and a preference for explaining and predicting events on the basis of such relationships.

3. 2. Hindsight Bias Choi and Nisbett (2000) When Korean participants knew an unexpected outcome, they showed greater hindsight bias and thus were less surprised at the unexpected outcome as if they could have predicted it than Americans. Hindsight bias: a mistaken belief that one can have predicted a given outcome once the outcome is known. -> Koreans have more ‘complex models’ for events (holistic cognition) than Americans. We try to replicate these results using conditional reasoning tasks often used in the study of reasoning mechanisms.

4. 3. Holistic Cognition(?) in Reasoning Manktelow and Fairley (2000) (cf. Byrne, 1989) Ex). “If X studies hard, then X will do well in the next exam” “X studied hard, and X was very nervous during the exam” “X did not study hard, and X had seen a copy of the question before the exam” -> People suppose a superordinate principle that is related to the stated-p in the conditional. SuperP The SuperP is supposed to be anything that makes X do well in the next exam.

5. ４. Two levels of SuperP SuperP - can be holistic, because people consider situational factors to reason beyond the conditional rule. (Level 1 availability of SuperP) Do Westerners (Manktelow & Fairley, 2000) do holistic cognition? - can be used for analytic thought (because SuperP is a ‘principle’), if it becomes explicit in some ways. (Level 2 availability of SuperP) -> The SuperP became explicit by an additional information (e.g., ‘X was very nervous’) in the study of Manktelow and Fairley (2000).

6. 5. Causality and SuperP Cummins (1995; Cummins, Lubart, Alksnis, & Rist, 1991) Causal reasoning is sensitive to two factors -Alternative cause (AC): not cited in the causal rule but is capable of evoking the effect -Disabling condition (DC): an event that could prevent an effect An alternative cause is a factor that satisfies SuperP, whereas a disabling condition is a factor that prevents SuperP from being satisfied even though stated-p has been satisfied.

7. 5. Our Suppositions and Inferences We interpret the results of Choi and Nisbett (2000) as that Korean people are supposed to think holistically and thus to have more complex models to construct their subjective SuperP than Americans. (Level 1 availability in Easterners – hindsight bias) SuperP can be supposed to be constructed and work in holistic way, because having SuperP means considering situational factors beyond rule-based reasoning. (Level 1 availability) SuperP is, if it is codified, a superordinate principle. Therefore, it is plausible that this principle could be used for analytic thought, if it becomes explicit in some ways. (Level 2 availability)

8. 6. Paradigm 1) An indicative conditional with its satisfied antecedent/consequent is given, and estimation of the probability of the consequent/antecedent. (Control : no outcome; Outcome: outcome ) (Level 1 availability by outcome information –only in Easterners) 2) Informed that the consequent/antecedent did not actually occur, and they are asked to point out possible DCs/ACs. (Level 2 availability –universal across cultures) 3) Participants are asked to judge the probability that the consequent/antecedent occurred returning to the time when they were not yet informed of the outcome.

9. (Page1) Please imagine that students are going to take an exam at a university. The lecturer said, “if a student studies hard, then (s)he will pass the exam.” Mary is a student at the university. She studied hard. But it turned out that Mary did not pass the exam later. Now if you had been asked the following question before you knew that Mary did not pass the exam, what might have been your answer? What is the probability that Mary will pass the exam in this situation? (Page 2) Although Mary studied hard, it turned out that she did not pass the exam. Please point out possible factors that might have influenced why she did not pass the exam one by one in the following space (in 4 minutes). (Page3) Finally, now please think back to the time when you knew only that Mary has studied hard. Please estimate the probability that she will pass the exam again. You can indicate a different number from your first one.

10. Method Design 4 (nationality: French, British, Japanese, Korean) by 2 (outcome: control, outcome) by 2 (trial: initial, final) Participants 78 French university students. (C:44; O:42) 98 British university students. (C:49; O:49) 100 Japanese university students. (C:51; O:49) 95 Korean university students. (C:46; O:49)

11. Predictions 1. Easterners will judge the probabilities lower when outcome is given in the initial judgment because of Level 1 availability (greater hindsight bias). 2. The SuperP of Easterners becomes available when just the outcome is given (Level 1 availability), whereas the SuperP of Westerners becomes available when they are asked to point out DCs or ACs (Level 2 availability). Westerners Easterners

12. Initial and final mean estimated probabilities (%) FrenchBritish Japanese Korean

13. Discussion (1) French: The outcome information did not make SuperP available (no Level 1 availability) People revised their subjective probability after generating DCs or ACs (Level 2 availability) -> The prediction on Westerners (Level 2 availability) British and Japanese: The outcome information made SuperP available (Level 1), therefore no effect of generating DCs or ACs in the outcome condition. The outcome information did not cause hindsight bias (inhibitory or compensating effect?) Korean : The outcome information made SuperP available (Level 1) that caused hindsight bias. -> The prediction on Easterners (Level 1 availability)

14. Discussion (2) Hindsight bias in the initial estimation was seen only in Korean people. -> Doubt on the explanation of Choi and Nisbett (2001) that the hindsight bias is a product of holistic cognition only (because no hindsight bias in Japanese) -> Hindsight bias is an amalgam of Level 1 availability of SuperP and of blocking of compensating effect in logical reasoning?

15. Discussion (3) Comparison of our study with Choi and Nisbett - Choi and Nisbett (2000) - a story on a seminary student who was very likely to help others with a no-help outcome - Our study - a plausible conditional with an outcome against the conditional. We provided our participants a situation where they are enhanced to do logical reasoning?

16. Discussion (4) The description of ‘complex models’ (Choi & Nisbett, 2000) in terms of SuperP availability: Availability by outcome (Level 1) Availability by DCs or ACs generation (Level 2) -> dual process theory - The hindsight bias is partially caused by Level 1 availability. - The SuperP in Manktelow and Fairley (2000) was at Level 2 availability. Differences within Westerners and within Easterners?

17. Special Thanks This research is supported by the grant from France- Japan Research Cooperative Program, and by a grant-in-aid from the Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science (No. 16530483). Minoru Karasawa Junichi Taniguchi Masasi Hattori and David E. Over