中国人整体性思维特征的情境评估法及其应用

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2021.01299

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

创设了新的中国人思维特征的情境评估方法, 初步应用于整体性思维特征与创造力倾向关系的研究并对其信效度进行了检验。新评估法选取体现典型文化意境和中国人思维特征的成语谜语作为材料, 利用虚拟现实技术构建形与意、情境与语境相互转换的成语谜语文化园, 记录被试游览时即景说出的成语建立成语库, 并编码所录成语的思维特征类型以作为被试的整体性思维测量指标。基于测试数据的信效度分析表明整体性思维成语测试系统信效度表现良好。整体性思维与创造力倾向的相关分析表明, 整体性思维与创造力倾向中的好奇性显著负相关。研究首次证实了利用虚拟现实技术来重建传统文化情境以实现对中国人思维特征的情境评估的可行性, 提示基于虚拟现实技术的情境评估法在未来心理学相关研究中的应用价值。

关键词: 成语, 整体性思维特征, 创新能力, 虚拟现实, 生态学效度

Abstract:

The Chinese method of thinking includes dialectical and holistic thinking. Holistic thinking refers to people’s tendency to think in a holistic manner and focus on the relationship between things, which has no effective measurement method at present. Numerous studies have speculated on the relationship between Chinese thinking and creativity, but no known empirical research has focused on exploring their relationship. An uncertain aspect is whether and how Chinese thinking styles make an impact on creativity. The present study developed a situation assessment test to measure holistic thinking and explored its relationship with creative tendency. We hypothesize that (1) holistic thinking may be (1) correlated with field-dependence cognitive style and (2) may prohibit creative tendency.
To verify the preceding hypothesis, idiom stories with typical Chinese thinking styles are first selected. Thereafter, an idiom riddle cultural park with transformation of form and meaning, situation, and context was constructed using virtual reality technology. By recording and coding idioms reported by participants when they visited the park, their level of holistic thinking could be measured. Lastly, cognitive style was evaluated using embedded figure test, personality traits were evaluated using the Chinese Big Five Personality Inventory brief version, and creativity tendency was evaluated by utilizing the Williams Prefer Measurement Forms. SPSS 18.0 was used for statistical analyses.
Reliability and validity research has shown that the coefficient of homogeneity is high. Results showed that under an experimental condition, holistic thinking was significantly positively correlated with field-dependence cognitive style, the proportion of subjective words was significantly negatively correlated with neuroticism, the proportion of words with deep meaning was significantly negatively correlated with agreeableness, and the proportion of words that focus on the overall effect was significantly negatively correlated with openness. These results proved that the developed test has good calibration validity. Cluster analysis indicated two types of participants: (1) people with strong holistic thinking (i.e., report words with deep meaning, considerably self-involved, and focus on overall effect) will report numerous words and are considerably unreasonable, and (2) people with weak holistic thinking (i.e., report words with plain meaning, minimally self-involved, and focus on details) will report a few words and are substantially reasonable. The independent sample T-test on the creativity tendency of the two types of participants showed that the curiosity of people with strong holistic thinking was significantly higher than that of people with weak holistic thinking. Moreover, no significant difference was observed in other aspects of creativity tendency.
Results support our hypothesis. The situation assessment test we developed has good reliability and validity and a useful method to measure Chinese holistic thinking. Compared with previous test methods, the current test has better ecological validity, can measure Chinese thinking in the natural cultural mood, and provide reference for other cultural tests. The current study can also contribute to an improved understanding of Chinese thinking styles and creativity tendency. This research is the first to realize the relationship between the two concepts in a virtual reality environment. Lastly, this method provides new ideas for a follow-up research on thinking and creativity.

Key words: idiom, holistic thinking characteristics, creativity, virtual reality, ecological validity

中图分类号:

B842

柯晓晓, 齐惠紫, 梁家辉, 金欣园, 高婕, 张明霞, 汪亚珉. (2021). 中国人整体性思维特征的情境评估法及其应用. 心理学报, 53(12), 1299-1309.

KE Xiaoxiao, QI Huizi, LIANG Jiahui, JIN Xinyuan, GAO Jie, ZHANG Mingxia, WANG Yamin. (2021). Situational evaluation method of the Chinese people’s holistic thinking characteristics and their application. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 53(12), 1299-1309.

图/表 10

参考文献 35

[1]	Arlin P. K.(1976). Toward a metatheoretical model of cognitive development. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 7(3), 247-253. doi: 10.2190/2UNG-NGJN-HR24-YTEU URL
[2]	Arlin P. K., & Levitt L.(1998). A developmental perspective on giftedness. Creativity Research Journal, 11(4), 347- 355. doi: 10.1207/s15326934crj1104_8 URL
[3]	Benack S., Basseches M., & Swan T.(1989). Dialectical thinking and adult creativity. In: Glover J. A., Ronning R. R., ReynoldsC. R. (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp.199-208). Springer.
[4]	Chiu C. Y.(2000). Assessment of zhong-yong (dialectic) thinking: Preliminary findings from a cross-regional study. Hong Kong Journal of Social Sciences, 18, 33-55.
[5]	Choi I., Koo M., & Choi J. A.(2007). Individual differences in analytic versus holistic thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(5), 691-705. doi: 10.1177/0146167206298568 URL
[6]	Duan J. Y., & Ling B.(2011). A Chinese indigenous study of the construct of employee voice behavior and the influence of Zhongyon on it. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 43(10), 1185- 1197.
	[ 段锦云, 凌斌.(2011). 中国背景下员工建言行为结构及中庸思维对其的影响. 心理学报, 43(10), 1185-1197]
[7]	Düzel E., Bunzeck N., Guitart-Masip M., & Düzel S.(2010). Novelty-related motivation of anticipation and exploration by dopamine (NOMAD): Implications for healthy aging. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 34(5), 660-669. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.08.006 URL
[8]	Hong Y., Chiu C., & Kung T. M.(1997). Bringing culture out in front: Effects of cultural meaning system activation on social cognition. Progress in Asian Social Psychology, 1, 135-146
[9]	Hou Y. B., Peng K. P., & Zhu Y.(2016). Chinese thinking styles: Their concept and structure. Chinese Social Psychological Review, (2), 45-72.
	[ 侯玉波, 彭凯平, 朱滢.(2016). 中国人整体思维方式量表的编制与确认. 中国社会心理学评论, (2), 45-72.]
[10]	Hou Y. B., & Zhu Y.(2002). The effect of culture on thinking style of Chinese people. Journal of Chinese Psychology Acta Psychologica Sinica, 34(1), 106-111.
	[ 侯玉波, 朱滢.(2002). 文化对中国人思维方式的影响. 心理学报, 34(1), 106-111.]
[11]	Ji L. J., Peng K., & Nisbett R. E.(2000). Culture, control, and perception of relationships in the environment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(5), 943-955. pmid: 10821200
[12]	Li S. X., & Li T.(2000). A study on the relationship between cognitive style, interpersonal communication and creativity of college students. Journal of Psychological Science, 23(1), 119-120.
	[ 李寿欣, 李涛.(2000). 大学生认知方式与人际交往及创造力之间关系的研究. 心理科学, 23(1), 119-120.]
[13]	Li T. R., & Yu G. L.(2015). Why are humans curious? Concept, functions and theories of interpersonal curiosity. Advances in Psychological Science, 23(1), 132-141. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2015.00132 URL
	[ 李天然, 俞国良.(2015). 人类为什么会好奇?人际好奇的概念、功能及理论解释. 心理科学进展, 23(1), 132-141.]
[14]	Lin X. T., & Wang M. R.(1999). Williams creativity test. Taipei, China: Psychological Publishing
	[ 林幸台, 王木荣.(1999). 威廉斯创造力测验. 台北: 心理出版社]
[15]	Liu X. L., Liu L., Qiu Y. X., Jin Y., & Zhou J.(2016). Reliability and validity of Williams Creativity Assessment Packet. Journal of Schooling Studies, 13(3). 51-58.
	[ 刘晓陵, 刘路, 邱燕霞, 金瑜, 周隽.(2016). 威廉斯创造力测验的信效度检验. 基础教育, 13(3). 51-58.]
[16]	Loewenstein G.(1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 116(1), 75-98. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.75 URL
[17]	Lu T. P.(2008). The cultural characteristics of Chinese idioms. Overseas Chinese Education, (4), 16-23.
	[ 卢铁澎.(2008). 汉语成语的文化特性. 海外华文教育, (4), 16-23.]
[18]	Lu Z. Y., & Zhang Y. J.(2007). The effects of phonological loop of the working memory in Chinese reading comprehension. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 39(5), 768- 776.]
	[ 鲁忠义, 张亚静.(2007). 工作记忆中的语音回路对汉语阅读理解的影响. 心理学报, 39(5), 768-776.]
[19]	Morris M. W. & Peng K. P.(1994). Culture and cause: American and Chinese attributions for social and physical events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 947-971.
[20]	Nippold M. A., & Duthie J. K.(2003). Mental imagery and idiom comprehension: A comparison of school-age children and adults. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46(4), 788-799. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2003/062) URL
[21]	Nisbett R. E.(2004). The geography of thought:How Asians and westerners think differently…and why. New York: Free Press.
[22]	Paletz S. B. F., & Peng K. P.(2009). Problem finding and contradiction: Examining the relationship between naive dialectical thinking, ethnicity, and creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 21(2-3), 139-151.
[23]	Peng K. P., Liu Y., Cao C. H., & Zhang W.(2011). Virtual social psychology: Exploration and implication. Advances in Psychological Science, 19(7), 933-943.
	[ 彭凯平, 刘钰, 曹春梅, 张伟.(2011). 虚拟社会心理学:现实, 探索及意义. 心理科学进展, 19(7), 933-943.]
[24]	Peng K. P., & Nisbett R. E.(1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54(9), 741-754. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.54.9.741 URL
[25]	Rothenberg A.(1996). The Janusian process in scientific creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 9(2-3), 207-231.
[26]	Schubert T., Friedmann F., Regenbrecht H.(2001). The experience of presence: Factor analytic insights. Presence: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 10(3), 266-281. doi: 10.1162/105474601300343603 URL
[27]	Spencer-Rodgers J., Peng K. P., Wang L., & Hou Y.(2004). Dialectical self-esteem and East-West differences in psychological well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(11), 1416-1432. pmid: 15448306
[28]	Su D. Q., Zhong Y., Zeng H., & Ye H. S.(2013). Embodied semantic processing of Chinese action idioms: Evidence from fMRI study. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 45(11), 1187- 1199. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2013.01187 URL
	[ 苏得权, 钟元, 曾红, 叶浩生.(2013). 汉语动作成语语义理解激活脑区及其具身效应:来自fMRI的证据. 心理学报, 45(11), 1187-1199.]
[29]	Tan H. Y., & Liu M.(2009). The effects of imagery on the memory of Chinese idioms. Journal of Psychological Science, 32(1), 21-24.
	[ 谭华玉, 刘鸣.(2009). 表象对成语记忆影响的实验研究. 心理科学, 32(1), 21-24.]
[30]	Wang M. C., Dai X. Y., & Yao S. Q.(2011). Development of the Chinese Big Five Personality Inventory (CBF-PI) Ⅲ: Psychometric properties of CBF-PI brief version. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 19(4), 454-457.
	[ 王孟成, 戴晓阳, 姚树桥.(2011). 中国大五人格问卷的初步编制Ⅲ: 简式版的制定及信效度检验. 中国临床心理学杂志, 19(4), 454-457.]
[31]	Wu X., & Zhang H. C.(1997). New development of creativity research. Journal of Beijing Normal University (Social Science), 139(1), 13-18.
	[ 武欣, 张厚粲.(1997). 创造力研究的新进展. 北京师范大学学报:社会科学版, 139(1), 13-18.]
[32]	Yang W. J., Zhang H. Y., Li R. J., & Zhou Y. J.(2013). The effects of clues on meta-cognition monitor of anagram solving. Psychological Exploration, 33(1), 28-33.
	[ 杨文娇, 张和云, 李瑞菊, 周治金.(2013). 线索对谜语问题解决过程中元认知监测过程的影响. 心理学探新, 33(1), 28-33.]
[33]	Ye H. S.(2011). Embodied cognition: A consideration from theoretical psychology. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 43(5), 589-598.
	[ 叶浩生.(2011). 有关具身认知思潮的理论心理学思考. 心理学报, 43(5), 589-598.]
[34]	Yuan X. J., Cui X. X., Cao Z. C., Kan H., Wang X., & Wang Y. M.(2018). Attentional bias towards threatening visual stimuli in a virtual reality-based visual search task. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 50(6), 622-636. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00622 URL
	[ 袁小钧, 崔晓霞, 曹正操, 阚红, 王晓, 汪亚珉.(2018). 虚拟仿真场景中威胁性视觉刺激搜索的注意偏向效应. 心理学报, 50(6), 622-636.]
[35]	Zhu X. C., Li R. J. & Zhou Y. J.(2009). The role of clues in Chinese idiom riddle solving. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 41(5), 397-405. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2009.00397 URL
	[ 朱新秤, 李瑞菊, 周治金.(2009). 谜语问题解决中线索的作用. 心理学报, 41(5), 397-405.]

来源	维度	主要内容
AHS量表	因果观	强调目标与环境的关系, 注重交互作用
	矛盾观	面对矛盾时寻求折中和妥协
	变化观	现象是非静态的, 不断变化的
	关注点	关注目标与目标之间/目标与环境之间的关系
中国人整体思维方式量表	联系性	世界是普遍联系的
	变化性	世界是不断变化的
	矛盾性	世界是充满矛盾的统一体

来源	维度	主要内容
AHS量表	因果观	强调目标与环境的关系, 注重交互作用
	矛盾观	面对矛盾时寻求折中和妥协
	变化观	现象是非静态的, 不断变化的
	关注点	关注目标与目标之间/目标与环境之间的关系
中国人整体思维方式量表	联系性	世界是普遍联系的
	变化性	世界是不断变化的
	矛盾性	世界是充满矛盾的统一体

分类	操作性定义
合理成语	符合环境信息或被试表现出的心理、行为特征的成语
总体型	体现整体环境内容和被试总体心境体验的成语
具体型	体现线索事物细节内容、被试具体动作和即时体验的成语
会形型	只是简单地描写的事物表象, 并无深层含义的成语; 拥有深层含义, 但是在场景之中只是选择了表面的、具象的意义进行表达的成语
会意型	表现事物氛围的成语; 除了表面意义之外, 还有并且被试能够在环境中体会到更深一层引申意义的成语
主观型	体现被试自身行为、情绪、感受、评价的成语
客观型	仅体现环境信息、不涉及被试主观体验的成语

分类	操作性定义
合理成语	符合环境信息或被试表现出的心理、行为特征的成语
总体型	体现整体环境内容和被试总体心境体验的成语
具体型	体现线索事物细节内容、被试具体动作和即时体验的成语
会形型	只是简单地描写的事物表象, 并无深层含义的成语; 拥有深层含义, 但是在场景之中只是选择了表面的、具象的意义进行表达的成语
会意型	表现事物氛围的成语; 除了表面意义之外, 还有并且被试能够在环境中体会到更深一层引申意义的成语
主观型	体现被试自身行为、情绪、感受、评价的成语
客观型	仅体现环境信息、不涉及被试主观体验的成语

成语名称	总体型	局部型	会形	会意	客观型	主观型
生机勃勃	√			√		√
画蛇添足		√	√		√
画地为牢		√		√	√
家徒四壁	√			√	√
山清水秀	√		√			√