Department of Psychology, Northwestern University.
Cogn Sci. 2005 Jul 8;29(4):525-9. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_18.
Norenzayan, Smith, Jun Kim, and Nisbett (2002) investigated cultural differences in the use of intuitive versus formal reasoning in 4 experiments. Our comment concerns the 4th experiment where Norenzayan et al. reported that, although there were no cultural differences in accuracy on abstract logical arguments, Koreans made more errors than U.S. undergraduates in judging the logical validity of concrete arguments. Norenzayan et al. concluded that Koreans are less likely than European Americans to decontextualize an argument's content from its logical structure, as Koreans were more likely to consider the believability of the conclusion when assessing an argument's validity (a belief bias). Notably, Korean participants were more conservative (less likely to say an argument is valid) than European American participants when assessing arguments. An analysis of the average of the hit and correct rejection rates in each of the conditions (abstract, concrete-believable, concrete-nonbelievable) revealed that, contrary to conclusions of Norenzayan et al., European Americans were no better than Koreans at determining the validity of concrete deductive arguments with conclusions varying in believability.
诺伦泽扬、史密斯、金俊和尼斯贝特（2002 年）在 4 项实验中研究了不同文化在直觉推理和形式推理使用上的差异。我们的评论涉及第 4 项实验，在该实验中，诺伦泽扬等人报告说，尽管在抽象逻辑论证的准确性上没有文化差异，但韩国人在判断具体论证的逻辑有效性时比美国本科生犯的错误更多。诺伦泽扬等人得出结论，韩国人不太可能像欧洲裔美国人那样将一个论点的内容与其逻辑结构分离开来，因为韩国人在评估论点的有效性时更有可能考虑结论的可信度（信念偏差）。值得注意的是，在评估论点时，韩国参与者比欧洲裔美国参与者更保守（不太可能说论点有效）。对每个条件（抽象、具体可信、具体不可信）中的击中率和正确拒绝率的平均值进行分析，结果表明，与诺伦泽扬等人的结论相反，欧洲裔美国人在确定具有不同可信度结论的具体演绎论证的有效性方面并不比韩国人更好。
