New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Cultural Goofs Gear Up Gray Matter

People exposed to incongruent situations, such as Halloween-themed plates at a Labor Day picnic, performed better on cognitive-reasoning tests and were less likely to make impulse purchases or overeat

 

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Exposure to the unusual, the jarring, the culturally shocking may be beneficial for your cognitive reasoning—and your waistline.

That’s according to a study in the journal Social Cognition. [James A. Mourey, Ben C. P. Lam and Daphna Oyserman, Consequences of Cultural Fluency]

Using events we all have some understanding of—holidays, weddings and funerals—researchers ran eight experiments to see how people respond to normative cultural situations versus culturally disfluent situations.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


A normative situation would be a bride wearing white on her wedding day. A disfluent one would be hanging Saint Patrick’s Day decorations on Christmas.

The first two experiments took place during Fourth of July and Labor Day picnics. For the July Fourth party, white plates were randomly mixed into stacks of stars-and-stripes plates. On Labor Day, Halloween-adorned plates were mixed in with patriotic plates.  Then guests selected food from a buffet line.

The result? On Labor Day, guests put less food on the Halloween-themed than on the patriotic plates. And on the Fourth of July, they put less food on plain white plates than on stars-and-stripes plates.  

In other parts of this study researchers found that people who have been exposed to culturally-disfluent situations performed better on cognitive reasoning tests and were less likely to succumb to impulse purchases and food consumption. That situation was compared to when events met their expectations—such as seeing hearts on Valentine’s Day.

Encountering the expected allowed subjects to behave more mindlessly.  So, researchers reason that cultural fluency preserves associative reasoning while cultural disfluency shifts to systematic reasoning. These small tests reinforce the idea that routine makes the brain dull—while the unexpected keeps it fired up.

—Erika Beras

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe