Individual differences in thinking style and dealing with contradiction: The mediating role of mixed emotions

Certainty in holistic thinking and responses to contradiction: Dialectical proverbs, counter-attitudinal change and ambivalence

The present research examined whether consideration of individuals' certainty in their holism can enhance the ability of this individual difference to predict how they respond to contradiction-relevant outcomes. Across four studies, participants first completed a standardized measure of holistic-analytic thinking. Then, they rated how certain they were in their responses to the holism scale or were experimentally induced to feel high or low certainty. Next, participants were exposed to dialectical proverbs (Study 1a and 1b), to a counter-attitudinal change induction (Study 2), or to a paradigm of attitudinal ambivalence (Study 3). Results revealed that participants with higher certainty in their holistic thinking exhibited higher preference for dialectical proverbs (Study 1a and 1b), changed their attitude less following a counter-attitudinal task (Study 2) and showed weaker correspondence between objective and subjective ambivalence (Study 3). Beyond examining new domains and discovering novel findings, the present work was designed to be the first to show moderation of previously identified effects in the domain of holistic thinking and responses to contradiction.

The role of attitudes towards contradiction in psychological resilience: the cortical mechanism of conflicting resolution networks

Managing contradictions and building resilience help us overcome life's challenges. Here, we explored the link between attitudes towards contradictions and psychological resilience, examining the role of cortical conflict resolution networks. We enlisted 173 healthy young adults and used questionnaires to evaluate their cognitive thinking styles and resilience. They underwent structural and functional magnetic resonance imaging scans. Our results revealed that contrasting attitudes toward contradictions, formal logic, and naïve dialecticism thinking styles corresponded with varying degrees of resilience. We noted structural and functional differences in brain networks related to conflict resolution, including the inferior frontal and parietal cortices. The volumetric variations within cortical networks indicated right-hemispheric lateralization in different thinking styles. These findings highlight the potential links between conflict resolution and resilience in the frontoparietal network. We underscore the importance of frontoparietal brain networks for executive control in resolving conflicting information and regulating the impact of contradictions on psychological resilience.

Holism and Causal Responsibility: The Role of Number and Valence of Event Consequences

The present research examines the effect of holistic-analytic thinking style on causal responsibility. Across seven studies (N = 4,103), participants' thinking style was either measured or manipulated. Then, the valence or number of consequences varied in several scenarios involving a cause-consequence relationship. As a dependent measure, participants indicated the degree of responsibility attributed to the cause mentioned in each scenario. The results revealed that holistic (vs. analytic) participants assigned more responsibility to the cause when the consequences presented were a combination of positive and negative outcomes (vs. univalent), and when multiple (vs. single) consequences were triggered in the scenario. To explore the explanatory factor for these results, a final study manipulated the complexity of the consequences, along with the number. The results of this research suggested that holistic (vs. analytic) individuals consider the degree of complexity of consequences to establish causal attribution.

Interconnectedness and (in)coherence as a signature of conspiracy worldviews

Conspiracy theories may arise out of an overarching conspiracy worldview that identifies common elements of subterfuge across unrelated or even contradictory explanations, leading to networks of self-reinforcing beliefs. We test this conjecture by analyzing a large natural language database of conspiracy and nonconspiracy texts for the same events, thus linking theory-driven psychological research with data-driven computational approaches. We find that, relative to nonconspiracy texts, conspiracy texts are more interconnected, more topically heterogeneous, and more similar to one another, revealing lower cohesion within texts but higher cohesion between texts and providing strong empirical support for an overarching conspiracy worldview. Our results provide inroads for classification algorithms and further exploration into individual differences in belief structures.

You Eat How You Think: A Review on the Impact of Cognitive Styles on Food Perception and Behavior

Sensory perception is understood to be a complex area of research that requires investigations from a variety of different perspectives. Although researchers have tried to better understand consumers’ perception of food, one area that has been minimally explored is how psychological cognitive theories can help them explain consumer perceptions, behaviors, and decisions in food-related experiences. The concept of cognitive styles has existed for nearly a century, with the majority of cognitive style theories existing along a continuum with two bookends. Some of the more common theories such as individualist-collectivist, left-brain-right-brain, and convergent-divergent theories each offered their own unique insight into better understanding consumer behavior. However, these theories often focused only on niche applications or on specific aspects of cognition. More recently, the analytic-holistic cognitive style theory was developed to encompass many of these prior theoretical components and apply them to more general cognitive tendencies of individuals. Through applying the analytic-holistic theory and focusing on modern cultural psychology work, this review may allow researchers to be able to answer one of the paramount questions of sensory and consumer sciences: how and why do consumers perceive and respond to food stimuli the way that they do?

Specificity in the Study of Mixed Emotions: A Theoretical Framework

Research on mixed emotions is yet to consider emotion-specificity, the idea that same-valenced emotions have distinctive characteristics and functions. We review two decades of research on mixed emotions, focusing on evidence for the occurrence of mixed emotions and the effects of mixed emotions on downstream outcomes. We then propose a novel theoretical framework of mixed-emotion-specificity with three foundational tenets: (a) Mixed emotions are distinguishable from single-valenced emotions and other mixed emotions based on their emotion-appraisal relationships; (b) Mixed emotions can further be characterized by four patterns that describe relationships between simultaneous appraisals or appraisals that are unique to mixed emotions; and (c) Carryover effects occur only on outcomes that are associated with the appraisal characteristics of mixed emotion. We outline how mixed-emotion-specific effects can be predicted based on the appraisal tendency framework. Temporal dynamics, the application of mixed-emotion-specificity to individual difference research, methodological issues, and future directions are also discussed.

The Cassandra Experience: A Mixed Methods Study on the Intragroup Cognitive Dissonance of Italian Expatriates During the First Wave of COVID-19

In March 2020, Italy was the first European country to be hit severely by the first wave of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to put in place moderate-high containment measures. 594 Italian expatriates participated in a cross-sectional mixed-methods survey focusing on the period that goes from the beginning of March 2020 to the beginning of April 2020. The survey aimed to describe the experiences of participants when it comes to conflicting beliefs and behavior with the Italian or host country communities in relation to COVID-19, using the Intragroup Cognitive Dissonance (ICD) framework. We explored: (1) COVID-19 risk perception (assessed for themselves, the Italian community, and the host country community); (2) COVID-19 risk meta-perception (participants' perception of the Italian and host country communities' risk perception); (3) intensity of emotions (assessed for themselves); (4) national group identification (assessed for themselves in relation to the Italian and host country communities) before and after the first wave of COVID-19 in Italy. An inductive thematic analysis of three open-ended questions allowed an in-depth understanding of the experiences of Italian expatriates. Results describe the ICD of participants with the Italian or host country communities, expressed as a difference between COVID-19 risk-perception and risk meta-perception. ICD predicts that when a dissonance of beliefs and behavior is experienced within an individual's group, a shift in identification with another more consonant group will happen, if identity enhancing strategies with the dissonant group are unsuccessful. Our findings showed that when the ICD was experienced with the host country community, this was solved through a disidentification strategy and mediated by negative emotions. Identity enhancing strategies with the host country community were unsuccessfully enacted as described by the qualitative answers of participants referring to episodes of racism, ridicule, and to a Cassandra experience: predicting a catastrophic future without being believed. Unexpectedly, participants experiencing the ICD with the Italian community did not enact a disidentification strategy. An increase in virtual contacts, enhanced sense of belonging, a stronger identification baseline, and different features of the two ICDs can be responsible for these results. This study sheds light on the relevance of ICD in natural settings and on international communities, during global crises.