DOI： 10.20792/jjlawpsychology.20.1_121

International / domestic magazine：International journal  

This chapter investigates if System 2 (analytic system) can revise or suppress the negative outputs of System 1 (intuitive system) by natural experiment in history. Two periods are picked up in this chapter: the 17th century when there was a decline in war, torture, cruel punishment, and religious persecution, and the time after World War II when there has been a decline in war, genocide, and violence with growing awareness of human rights. In short, the outputs associated with strong emotion are less likely to be revised, and an effective way for revision is to use a story to trigger the theory of mind in System 1. This is also discussed in the frame of distinction between deontic moral judgment and utilitarian moral judgment. Finally, it is proposed that a good story should be elaborated by System 2 and be prevailed so that it arises emotions (sympathy) of System 1 and drives people for the better-being future.

DOI： 10.4018/978-1-7998-1811-3.ch004

International / domestic magazine：International journal  

In the process of human evolution, the biggest adaptive problems have been how to maintain a group and how to rise in rank in a group hierarchy. If an adaptive problem is solved, the probability the solver will survive and success in reproduction rises. Laugh and laughter is discussed in the frame that it has been used to solve the adaptive problem in this chapter. The trigger of laughter is the cognition of a discrepancy. The discrepancy is the difference between what is expected and the actual state. A discrepancy cannot be serious to cause laugh and laughter. If it is implicitly expected to be resolved, then it is likely to arise a laughter with positive feeling. When laughter is shared by some people, it functions to link them with friendly relationship. On the other hand, the laughter becomes derisive (ridicule) when the discrepancy is between a social norm and an actual behavior. The ridicule functions to one's supremacy over the target individual. This function has been adaptive in the society of dominance hierarchy.

DOI： 10.4018/978-1-7998-1811-3.ch007

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

DOI： 10.1080/20445911.2019.1626862

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)   Kind of work：Single Work  

<p>Yama et al. (2017) reported hindsight bias in perceptions of the muddiness and the predictability of a flash flood in a river, as part of the author's expert testimony in a court trial. The defendants had taken children to the river to play when a flash flood occurred that led to the drowning of one child. The core question was if the defendants could have predicted the flood using a visible cue: the muddiness of the river. Participants who knew the outcome of flash flood estimated the river muddier. The instruction on causality between the muddiness and the flush flood was manipulated in this current study. Participants were grouped into two conditions: the control condition and the outcome condition. The hindsight bias was confirmed and participants judged the river as muddier when the causality was instructed. These data give practical indications for legal judgments in a court.</p>

DOI： 10.14875/cogpsy.2019.0_16

CiNii Article

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

DOI： 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00505

PubMed

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

© 2017 Japanese Psychological Association. Group discussion significantly improves performance on intellective problems. However, most experiments have been conducted in Western cultures. Cross-cultural psychology suggests that members of Eastern cultures might be less likely to benefit from group discussion. One experiment in Japan suggested that this was not the case, but this experiment suffered from some limitations. To address these limitations, Japanese participants were asked to solve an intellective task four times: individually (pre-test), in small discussion groups (test), individually again (transfer task, post-test), and individually after a delay (delayed post-test). The results revealed a robust improvement during group discussion. Groups in which at least one member had found the correct answer individually agreed on it during the discussion. Moreover, and in contrast with results obtained in Western cultures, most groups with no such member also found the correct answer. The gains obtained during discussion were maintained in the transfer tasks. This result provides further evidence that the improvement of reasoning performance in group discussion is a universal phenomenon, and provides support for the practice of collaborative learning in Japan.

DOI： 10.1111/jpr.12180

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

Other URL： http://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/conf/cogsci/cogsci2017.html#conf/cogsci/PfeiferY17

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

Three kinder garden teachers took some kids to a river side, a flash flood occurred, and a kid died. The focus was that if the accused could have predicted the flash flood. This experiment was conducted to test if people are susceptible to hindsight bias in this trial case. University students were presented four pictures actually taken before the flash flood and were asked to rate how muddy the river looks on 7-point scale and to infer the probability of flash flood from the muddiness. The participants in the outcome group were instructed that a flash flood was actually occurred and there were victims. Those in the outcome condition judged that the river was muddier and the probability of flood was higher than those in the control condition. We concluded that it is plausible that people are susceptible to hindsight bias on perceptual and probability judgment.

DOI： 10.14875/cogpsy.2017.0_29

CiNii Article

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

Other URL： http://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/journals/corr/corr1703.html#journals/corr/PfeiferY17

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)   Kind of work：Single Work  

DOI： 10.4324/9781315676074

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)   Kind of work：Single Work  

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)   Kind of work：Single Work  

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

© Japanese Psychological Association 2016. This study reports the results of a national survey of psychology programs in Japan, conducted by the Committee on the Education and Research of the Japanese Psychological Association, based on 443 responses from program heads of 378 colleges, universities, and graduate schools. We analyzed the data by institution and type of degree program. The results indicated that: (a) undergraduate-level psychological education in Japan is mainly provided by private universities (which account for 71% of all psychology graduates at this level), while Master's (60%) and Ph.D. (83%) programs are mainly provided by national and public universities; (b) the largest groups of faculty members by specialization are in clinical psychology and in developmental and educational psychology; (c) the dominant forms of teaching are lectures and seminars; and (d) most psychology major programs in Japan aim to improve students' academic and generic skills. Finally, we suggest how psychology programs in Japan can reform curriculum and better improve students' academic skills on the basis of their generic skills.

DOI： 10.1111/jpr.12111

J-GLOBAL

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

© 2015 Taylor & Francis. Thanks to the exchange of arguments, groups outperform individuals on some tasks, such as solving logical problems. However, these results stem from experiments conducted among Westerners and they could be due to cultural particularities such as tolerance of contradiction and approval of public debate. Other cultures, collectivistic cultures in particular, are said to frown on argumentation. Moreover, some influential intellectual movements, such as Confucianism, disapprove of argumentation. In two experiments, the hypothesis that Easterners might not share the benefits of argumentation was tested. In Experiment 1, Japanese participants had to solve a standard logical problem individually and then in groups. They performed significantly better in groups. In Experiment 2, Japanese participants had to estimate the weight of various animals. They did so individually, then after learning of another participant's estimates, then after discussing these estimates with the other participant, and then individually again. While the Japanese participants also benefitted from the discussion, these benefits were only visible when participants provided a final individual estimate. This delay is interpreted as reflecting the pressure to preserve social harmony that would have constrained Japanese participants to yield to their partner even when knowing that this did not improve the accuracy of their answer.

DOI： 10.1080/13546783.2014.1002534

J-GLOBAL

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)   Kind of work：Single Work  

© 2016 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. Some may still have a stereotypical image that Japanese employees work like a robot, and achieved the industrial development even though they are not logical thinkers. This chapter is against this based on the latest cross-cultural studies. The conclusions are as follows. (1) Even if Japanese appears to be illogical in the sense that they are less likely to do rule-based thinking, this does not means that they are less intelligent. (2) Easterners are more likely to do dialectical thinking. (3) Easterners' naïve dialecticism is strongly associated with cultural tradition, and it is plausible that it has been developed in a highcontext culture. (4) Japanese people may have a collectivist culture, and it is not an undeveloped culture comparing with an individualist culture as shown in the case of 'nemawashi'. Finally, it is proposed that the distinction between Westerners' low-context culture and Easterners' high-context culture provide important implications for globalizing business and that the notions of global mindset and 'glocal' are important for international business.

DOI： 10.4018/978-1-4666-9806-2.ch010

J-GLOBAL

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)   Kind of work：Single Work  

© 2016 by IGI Global. Some may still have a stereotypical image that Japanese employees work like a robot, and achieved the industrial development even though they are not logical thinkers. This chapter is against this based on the latest cross-cultural studies. The conclusions are as follows. (1) Even if Japanese appears to be illogical in the sense that they are less likely to do rule-based thinking, this does not means that they are less intelligent. (2) Easterners are more likely to do dialectical thinking. (3) Easterners’ naïve dialecticism is strongly associated with cultural tradition, and it is plausible that it has been developed in a highcontext culture. (4) Japanese people may have a collectivist culture, and it is not an undeveloped culture comparing with an individualist culture as shown in the case of ‘nemawashi’. Finally, it is proposed that the distinction between Westerners’ low-context culture and Easterners’ high-context culture provide important implications for globalizing business and that the notions of global mindset and ‘glocal’ are important for international business.

DOI： 10.4018/978-1-4666-9814-7.ch080

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)   Kind of work：Single Work  

DOI： 10.11225/jcss.23.297

CiNii Article

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

© 2015 Taylor & Francis. Peng and Nisbett found that Chinese people are more apt to engage in dialectical thinking (DT) than Americans. We gave the Dialectical Self Scale questionnaire and 10 pairs of opposing opinions to high school and university students of Japanese, Chinese, and British nationality. We asked them to fill in the questionnaire, to rate how strongly they agreed with each opinion, and to rate how wise it is to think dialectically. The scores on the questionnaire were higher among Easterners than among Westerners and higher among university students than among high school students. But the results of opinion agreement indicated that the dialectical tendency was stronger among the Chinese and British than among the Japanese. Furthermore, however, Japanese participants judged DT as wiser than Chinese and British did, and Chinese university students believed it was wiser than Chinese high school students did. We propose that this effect is attributed to Marxist education in China.

DOI： 10.1080/20445911.2015.1025792

J-GLOBAL

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

© 2014 Taylor & Francis. Many fields of study have shown that group discussion generally improves reasoning performance for a wide range of tasks. This article shows that most of the population, including specialists, does not expect group discussion to be as beneficial as it is. Six studies asked participants to solve a standard reasoning problem—the Wason selection task—and to estimate the performance of individuals working alone and in groups. We tested samples of U.S., Indian, and Japanese participants, European managers, and psychologists of reasoning. Every sample underestimated the improvement yielded by group discussion. They did so even after they had been explained the correct answer, or after they had had to solve the problem in groups. These mistaken intuitions could prevent individuals from making the best of institutions that rely on group discussion, from collaborative learning and work teams to deliberative assemblies.

DOI： 10.1080/13546783.2014.981582

J-GLOBAL

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

© The Author(s) 2014. Interpersonal trust of Japanese and Americans was investigated using two methods: a General Trust Questionnaire and a scenario judgments task, in which participants were asked to rate how strongly they trust a target person in a series of vignettes. Participants were grouped into two conditions, with the target person being either an in-group member or an outgroup member. The purposes of this study were to investigate whether Americans have a higher level of trust than Japanese do, to test the in-group hypothesis which predicts that the difference in trust between the two conditions is greater for Japanese than for Americans and the dialectical thought hypothesis which predicts that the correlation between the General Trust Questionnaire score and the scenario judgments task score would only occur in the Americans’ data. The study, which was conducted with American (n = 105) and Japanese (n = 102) participants, found no differences in the trust level between Americans and Japanese in both methods. The results did not support the in-group hypothesis, but did support the dialectical thought hypothesis, indicating that Japanese are more dialectical in judging how they trust others.

DOI： 10.1177/2158244014556991

J-GLOBAL

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)   Kind of work：Single Work  

According to the propositional logic, the probability of conditional <i>if p then q</i> equals to P(&not;p&or;q). However, many researchers show that people judge that it equals conditional probability (P(q|p)). The data support the the suppositional theory which propose that not-p cases are regarded as void based on De Finetti&rsquo;s truth table. We adopted the set-choice paradigm whereby participants are given a pair of urns which includes some chips and asked to choose one which gives higher probability of a conditional &lsquo;if p then q&rsquo;(the probability of conditional). We also set the conditional bet task in the same way. We gathered data from American and Japanese samples via internet, and found that both Japanese and American judged the probability based on the conditional probability, but some judged it based on the principle of conjunction (P(p&q)).

DOI： 10.14875/cogpsy.2014.0_5

CiNii Article

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

Other URL： http://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/conf/cogsci/cogsci2014.html#conf/cogsci/AraiY14

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

This study investigated implicit attitudes toward high-fat foods among female undergraduate students. The existence of conflict between implicit negative attitudes and approach attitudes toward high-fat foods was predicted. Implicit attitudes were measured using the Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998). This test has two attribute categories: positive-negative and approach-avoidance. In Experiment 1, food stimuli were presented using words. The results showed an implicit negative attitude toward high-fat foods, but no approach attitude. In Experiment 2, pictures were used as food stimuli. Here, the results showed both an implicit negative attitude and an implicit approach attitude toward high-fat food. However, no difference was seen in implicit attitude toward high-fat foods between the group with high intention of intake restraint and the group with low intention. These results partly supported the prediction for this study. The relationships of implicit negative attitudes and implicit approach attitudes toward high-fat foods, and eating behavior, were discussed.

DOI： 10.14966/jssp.KJ00007905890

CiNii Article

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

Abstract Many recent experiments have explored the way people take advice into account. It has been observed that in so doing participants often rely on one of the two following strategies: averaging between the different opinions or choosing one of the opinions, as opposed to using more complex weighting strategies. While several factors that affect strategy choice have been investigated, no attention has been paid to potential cultural variations. Among the many relevant cross-cultural differences, results have show that Easterners tend to favor compromise more than Westerners, a difference that could translate into a greater preference for averaging in Eastern population. In Experiment 1, we confronted Japanese and French participants to two pieces of advice and asked them to form an aggregate answer. In Experiment 2, participants had to aggregate their own opinion and a piece of advice. In neither of the experiments were the Japanese more likely to use averaging than the French. Explanations for this robust absence of difference are suggested. The only difference that emerged was that the Japanese were more likely to choose the advice and less likely to choose their own answer than the French. Different interpretations of this result are discussed, including the possibility that it is an artefact of a theoretically irrelevant difference between the populations under study. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2012.

DOI： 10.1163/156853712X633893

Kind of work：Single Work  

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

Other URL： http://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/conf/cogsci/cogsci2012.html#conf/cogsci/NakamuraYBZAZYK12

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

The self-choice effect is the superior memory performance observed when participants are allowed to choose the items at the study phase. Kawasaki, Itsukushima and Yama (2011, ICOM5) revealed that as for list words self-choice effect was observed, but as for critical lures no self-choice effect was observed with DRM paradigm. In this experiment, we investigated the effect of duration and self-choice effect on true memory and false memory. Participants studied DRM lists in forced-choice and self-choice conditions and took two recall tests immediately and 1-week later. As a main result, recall of list words decreased, but that of critical lures increased with the duration. Hence fuzzy trace theory was supported.

DOI： 10.14875/cogpsy.2012.0_25

CiNii Article

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

Other URL： http://dblp.uni-trier.de/db/conf/cogsci/cogsci2012.html#conf/cogsci/YamaZ12

Kind of work：Single Work  

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

DOI： 10.4992/pacjpa.75.0_3PM058

CiNii Article

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

DOI： 10.4992/pacjpa.75.0_1PM089

CiNii Article

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

DOI： 10.4992/pacjpa.75.0_1PM129

CiNii Article

Authorship：Lead author   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)   International / domestic magazine：International journal  

DOI： doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2010.526786

Kind of work：Single Work  

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

Hindsight bias is a mistaken belief that one could have predicted a given outcome once the outcome is known. Choi and Nisbett (2000) reported that Koreans showed stronger hindsight bias than Americans, and explained the results using the distinction between analytic cognition (Westerners) and holistic cognition (Easterners). The purpose of the present study was to see whether hindsight bias is stronger among Easterners than among Westerners using a probability judgement task, and to test an "explicit-implicit" hypothesis and a "rule-dialectics" hypothesis. We predicted that the implicit process is more active among Easterners to generate hindsight bias, and that Easterners are more dialectical thinkers, whereas Westerners are more rulebased thinkers. French, British, Japanese, and Korean participants were asked to make probabilistic judgements in a Good Samaritan scenario (Experiment 1) and in a scenario including conditional probabilistic judgement (Experiment 2). In both Experiments, we presume that the implicit revision of causal models is made just by being given unexpected outcome information, and that explicit revision is made by being asked to point out possible factors for an unexpected outcome. In the results Easterners showed greater hindsight bias generally and it was greater in the Good Samaritan scenario. We conclude that the reason why hindsight bias was lower among Westerners is primarily that they tried to follow a rule to suppress the bias. © 2010 Psychology Press.

DOI： 10.1080/13546783.2010.526786

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

Nisbett et al. (Psychol Rev 108:291-310, 2001) claim that East Asians are likely to use holistic thought to solve problems, whereas Westerners use analytic thought more, and discuss the differences in the frame of the individualism/collectivism distinction. The holistic versus analytic distinction has been the greatest point of interest of dual process theories, which imply that human thinking has two sub processes. We apply a revised dual process model that proposes meme-acquired goals in both systems to explain cultural differences in thought. According to this, gene-installed goals are universal across cultures, whereas meme-acquired goals depend upon culture. To introduce a dual process model means that we discuss adaptation both in terms of culture and natural selection. Hence, we propose an interactive view that supports an adaptive relation between mind and culture. © 2007 Fondazione Rosselli.

DOI： 10.1007/s11299-007-0028-4

Authorship：Lead author   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)   International / domestic magazine：International journal  

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

In this paper, we investigate the impact of two factors on the way people address conflicting information. One relates to culture and the other to the communicative context in which contradiction occurs. We compared two theoretical approaches, one that focuses on the former factor-the culturalist approach-and one that focuses on the latter factor-the evolutionary approach. According to the culturalist approach, the way we deal with contradiction can be markedly affected by culture, so that people from cultural environments with different social practices are more or less inclined to accept contradictions. In particular, this approach predicts that Easterners are more likely to search for a compromise between two conflicting viewpoints than Westerners, who tend to follow a logical principle of noncontradiction. In contrast, the evolutionary approach considers that when contradiction occurs in a communicative context, universal mechanisms designed to deal with the problem of managing deceptive information go into effect and lead to the tendency of giving more weight to one's own belief than to the other's conflicting view. We tested these two approaches with Japanese and French participants. Our data supports the evolutionary approach, since both groups showed the same bias of favoring one's own position when it was challenged by another's. © Walter de Gruyter.

DOI： 10.1515/IP.2006.029

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)   International / domestic magazine：International journal  

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

Shafir (1993) found that people select an alternative which is positive on some dimensions and negative on others more often than one with average dimensions. We applied his methodology to the choice of a person. It is argued that Japanese people prefer a person with an average disposition. But is it that they really prefer this or that they believe that others do? We presented a scenario where two persons wanted to join a party with your group. One was positive on some dimensions and negative on others, whereas the other had an average disposition. One hundred and seven female students were asked to choose one of the two persons, and 113 female students were asked to reject one of the two. They were also asked to infer which person the other members of their group would choose or reject. The results were that our participants chose and rejected the person with positive and negative dimensions in the self-decision condition, whereas they inferred that other members would choose the average person. These imply that self-critical bias may reflect an adaptive strategy as to the selection of persons.

DOI： 10.14966/jssp.KJ00004065962

CiNii Article

Shafir (1993) found that people select an alternative which is positive on some dimensions and negative on others more often than one with average dimensions. We applied his methodology to the choice of a person. It is argued that Japanese people prefer a person with an average disposition. But is it that they really prefer this or that they believe that others do? We presented a scenario where two persons wanted to join a party with your group. One was positive on some dimensions and negative on others, whereas the other had an average disposition. One hundred and seven female students were asked to choose one of the two persons, and 113 female students were asked to reject one of the two. They were also asked to infer which person the other members of their group would choose or reject. The results were that our participants chose and rejected the person with positive and negative dimensions in the self-decision condition, whereas they inferred that other members would choose the average person. These imply that self-critical bias may reflect an adaptive strategy as to the selection of persons.

DOI： 10.14966/jssp.KJ00004065962

CiNii Article

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)   International / domestic magazine：Domestic journal  

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)   International / domestic magazine：International journal  

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

DOI： 10.1080/09658210444000520

PubMed

J-GLOBAL

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)   International / domestic magazine：International journal  

Authorship：Lead author   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)   Kind of work：Single Work   International / domestic magazine：International journal  

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)   Kind of work：Single Work  

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)   Kind of work：Single Work   International / domestic magazine：International journal  

DOI： doi.org/10.1080/13546780244000051

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)   International / domestic magazine：Domestic journal  

Kind of work：Single Work  

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)   Kind of work：Single Work   International / domestic magazine：International journal  

DOI： doi.org/10.1080/13546780143000053

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)   International / domestic magazine：Domestic journal  

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)   Kind of work：Single Work   International / domestic magazine：Domestic journal  

Authorship：Lead author   Kind of work：Single Work  

Authorship：Lead author   Kind of work：Single Work  

Authorship：Lead author   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)   Kind of work：Single Work   International / domestic magazine：Domestic journal  

Authorship：Lead author   Kind of work：Single Work  

Kind of work：Single Work  

Authorship：Lead author   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)   International / domestic magazine：International journal  

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)   Kind of work：Single Work  

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)   Kind of work：Single Work  

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)   Kind of work：Single Work   International / domestic magazine：International journal  

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)   Kind of work：Single Work   International / domestic magazine：Domestic journal  

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)   Kind of work：Single Work  

Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)   Kind of work：Single Work   International / domestic magazine：Domestic journal  

Book type：Scholarly book

Total pages：184   Book type：Scholarly book

ASIN

Other Link： https://images-fe.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51d%2BFnXTPbL._SL75_.jpg

Total pages：200  

ASIN

Total pages：xv, 187p  

CiNii Books

Book type：Scholarly book

CiNii Books

Total pages：320   Book type：Scholarly book

ASIN

Other Link： https://images-fe.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51t26WBcdhL._SL75_.jpg

Total pages：v, 224p  

CiNii Books

Total pages：178   Book type：Scholarly book

ASIN

Other Link： https://images-fe.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/4177kA7vcnL._SL75_.jpg

Total pages：378   Book type：Scholarly book

ASIN

Other Link： https://images-fe.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51mZWFupHSL._SL75_.jpg

Total pages：3冊  

CiNii Books

Total pages：vii, 251p  

CiNii Books

Total pages：360  

ASIN

Total pages：268   Book type：Scholarly book

ASIN

Other Link： https://images-fe.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51pDm%2Ba6XEL._SL75_.jpg

Book type：Scholarly book

Total pages：172p  

CiNii Books

Responsible for pages：4  

Book type：Scholarly book

Book type：Scholarly book

Book type：Scholarly book

Book type：Scholarly book

Book type：Scholarly book

Book type：Scholarly book

CiNii Books

CiNii Books

Publishing type：Article, review, commentary, editorial, etc. (scientific journal)   Kind of work：Single Work  

The present study measured"personal space"using the real world situation method (Novelli et al.,2010), and examined the influence of two factors (degree of intimacy/height)hypothesized to affect preference for personal space.Each female participant(N=34)was asked to discuss a familiar topic (a filler task) with a confederate and to adjust the distance between her seat and the confederate's so as to create a comfortable personal space. Participants were assigned to either a high-intimacy condition with a known confederate or low-intimacy condition with an unknown confederate.When participants were unfamiliar with the confederate, they maintained a larger personal space. Furthermore, taller participants tended to maintain a larger personal space. These results, in conjunction with the results from a follow-up questionnaire,suggest that people create physical distance not so much as a form of self-protection, but rather as a way to demonstrate consideration for others.

DOI： 10.18910/57809

CiNii Article

Other URL： http://hdl.handle.net/11094/57809

Publishing type：Article, review, commentary, editorial, etc. (scientific journal)   Kind of work：Single Work  

© 2016 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. Some may still have a stereotypical image that Japanese employees work like a robot, and achieved the industrial development even though they are not logical thinkers. This chapter is against this based on the latest cross-cultural studies. The conclusions are as follows. (1) Even if Japanese appears to be illogical in the sense that they are less likely to do rule-based thinking, this does not means that they are less intelligent. (2) Easterners are more likely to do dialectical thinking. (3) Easterners' naïve dialecticism is strongly associated with cultural tradition, and it is plausible that it has been developed in a highcontext culture. (4) Japanese people may have a collectivist culture, and it is not an undeveloped culture comparing with an individualist culture as shown in the case of 'nemawashi'. Finally, it is proposed that the distinction between Westerners' low-context culture and Easterners' high-context culture provide important implications for globalizing business and that the notions of global mindset and 'glocal' are important for international business.

DOI： 10.4018/978-1-4666-9806-2.ch010

J-GLOBAL

Publishing type：Article, review, commentary, editorial, etc. (scientific journal)  

© The Author(s) 2014. Interpersonal trust of Japanese and Americans was investigated using two methods: a General Trust Questionnaire and a scenario judgments task, in which participants were asked to rate how strongly they trust a target person in a series of vignettes. Participants were grouped into two conditions, with the target person being either an in-group member or an outgroup member. The purposes of this study were to investigate whether Americans have a higher level of trust than Japanese do, to test the in-group hypothesis which predicts that the difference in trust between the two conditions is greater for Japanese than for Americans and the dialectical thought hypothesis which predicts that the correlation between the General Trust Questionnaire score and the scenario judgments task score would only occur in the Americans’ data. The study, which was conducted with American (n = 105) and Japanese (n = 102) participants, found no differences in the trust level between Americans and Japanese in both methods. The results did not support the in-group hypothesis, but did support the dialectical thought hypothesis, indicating that Japanese are more dialectical in judging how they trust others.

DOI： 10.1177/2158244014556991

J-GLOBAL

Publishing type：Article, review, commentary, editorial, etc. (other)   Kind of work：Single Work  

Publishing type：Article, review, commentary, editorial, etc. (scientific journal)  

Shafir (1993) found that people select an alternative which is positive on some dimensions and negative on others more often than one with average dimensions. We applied his methodology to the choice of a person. It is argued that Japanese people prefer a person with an average disposition. But is it that they really prefer this or that they believe that others do? We presented a scenario where two persons wanted to join a party with your group. One was positive on some dimensions and negative on others, whereas the other had an average disposition. One hundred and seven female students were asked to choose one of the two persons, and 113 female students were asked to reject one of the two. They were also asked to infer which person the other members of their group would choose or reject. The results were that our participants chose and rejected the person with positive and negative dimensions in the self-decision condition, whereas they inferred that other members would choose the average person. These imply that self-critical bias may reflect an adaptive strategy as to the selection of persons.

DOI： 10.14966/jssp.KJ00004065962

CiNii Article

Presentation type：Public lecture, seminar, tutorial, course, or other speech  

Presentation type：Oral presentation (invited, special)  

Presentation type：Public lecture, seminar, tutorial, course, or other speech  

Presentation type：Public lecture, seminar, tutorial, course, or other speech  

Presentation type：Oral presentation (invited, special)  

Presentation type：Public lecture, seminar, tutorial, course, or other speech  

Presentation type：Symposium, workshop panel (public)  

Presentation type：Symposium, workshop panel (public)  

Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

Presentation type：Symposium, workshop panel (public)  

Presentation type：Symposium, workshop panel (public)  

Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

Presentation type：Public lecture, seminar, tutorial, course, or other speech  

Presentation type：Symposium, workshop panel (nominated)