Kitayama and Salvador's review highlights the significant cultural variations in argumentation styles and emotional expressions globally, particularly between South Asian and Western contexts. The research underscores that in India, debate serves a prosocial purpose aimed at mutual benefit, contrasting with the competitive nature of argumentation often found in the U.S. Here, analytic skills are viewed individually rather than as part of social interactions. This cultural understanding of communication styles greatly impacts social dynamics, especially in multicultural environments like America, where diverse expressions influence learning and collaboration.
"This evidence indicates that Indians do not engage in argumentation solely to influence others and impose their views on others; rather, they argue with the intention of assisting others and ensuring that others benefit from their arguments."
"In the United States, argumentation is more typically used to defeat opponents in the debate, and analytic cognition is seen as a personal skill rather than a social resource."
#cultural-psychology #argumentation #emotional-expression #comparative-psychology #cultural-differences
Collection
[
|
...
]