In the journal article, “Cultural and visual perception: Does perceptual inference depend on culture?” researchers questioned how culture affects the way we interpret what we see (Ishii, Tsukasaki, & Kitayama). Specifically, researchers wondered how culture affected how individuals interpret pieces of a picture. Researchers hypothesized that American participants would focus on precise, detailed parts of the image while Japanese individuals were able to interpret the entire picture. In the first part of the study, it was found that Americans were better at interpreting two part-cue conditions as compared to the Japanese population. Furthermore, it was found that neither group of subjects were accurate in interpreting the holistic-cue conditions. Because of this second finding, and realizing there were significant differences in the two groups regarding how the study was performed, the researchers designed a second part of the experiment. In the second part of the study, European-Americans were studied against Asian-Americans. Additionally, both groups performed the study in one location and only multiple-part conditions were used. It was found that European-Americans were more accurate in deciphering part-cue conditions than Asian-Americans. Yet again, there was no cultural difference in the interpretation of the holistic-cue conditions (Ishii, Tsukasaki, & Kitayama).
This journal article was extremely well written and was able to demonstrate the expertise and credibility of the researchers. The article clearly outlined the purpose of the study as well as how the study was performed. The journal article also articulated how studies in the past have influenced this study and gave inspiration to the development of the experiment. Furthermore, the researchers were able to identify their limitations in the first part of the study and use those as guidelines for the second part of the study. This is incredibly humble of the researchers. It shows they are not influenced by their own bias and are aware that there are always methods in which a scientific study can be improved. Moreover, as opposed to other experiments that just outline the limitations, it was nice to see how the limitations would influence a future study. This is a fantastic and simple way to show an author’s credibility on the subject. To add to their credibility, the researchers could have assessed how the second study could be improved in the future, or how else they would complete the study in the future.
The journal article focused on how two different cultures differ in their interpretation of flashing images. The researchers targeted the Western hemisphere and the Eastern hemisphere (Ishii, Tsukasaki, & Kitayama). It is well known that those of the Eastern hemisphere have a very different perspective than those in the Western hemisphere. For example, in the West, particularly the United States, medicine is focused on improving technologies and curing disease with modern-day medicine. Conversely, medicine in the Eastern part of the world focuses on the whole body, drawing on ancient traditions that use a holistic view. Using this example, it is easy to see why and how the researchers made their hypothesis. I believe their hypothesis and assumption of what the results would show is congruent with how these two sides of the hemisphere view the world.
Although the researchers’ assumptions prove to be true, this is also crossing into dangerous territory. When read in the wrong way, readers could interpret the hypothesis as giving into well-known stereotypes. This could be dangerous in terms being prejudice towards a culture. Furthermore, it assumes that every individual within a specific culture is going to believe in the same philosophy. This might anger those within that specific population when others assume their beliefs.
In broader terms, the article can be used to research two different subjects. First, as previously stated, the study looks as how culture and socialization differs across the globe. It is assumed that Americans prefer to look at details while Japanese look at the object as well as what is in the background. Secondly, the article can be used to examine how the human brain processes images and which images are more easily processed. In both parts of the experiment, neither of the groups were sufficient at interpreting the holistic-cue conditions. Therefore, it can be said the human brain prefers to decode part-cue conditions. This interpretation of the experiment can open doors to subsequent studies on how the brain interprets pictures. In terms of psychology, the article assesses how socialization differs in different parts of the world and how the human brain chooses to interpret representations of an image. Researchers can assess the scientific parts of psychology or the social parts of psychology, depending on which part of the conclusions you choose to focus on.
Related to our class, the study assess how culture can affect our psychological being and the way we interpret the world around us. Furthermore, it assesses how two different cultures can be similar in the fact that both groups were unable to accurately interpret holistic-cue conditions.
References
Ishii, K., Tsukasaki, T., & Kitayama, S. (2009). Culture and visual perception: Does perceptual
inference depend on culture?. Japanese Psychological Research, 51(2), 103-109
