Dialectical Thinking (DIALT)

Abstract

The Dialectical Thinking Scale (DIALT) is a four-item psychometric instrument designed to assess an individual’s chronic cognitive tendency to perceive, accommodate, and integrate contradictory beliefs, perspectives, and states of affairs simultaneously. Adapted directly from the contradiction subscale of the Dialectical Self Scale (DSS) originally developed by Julie Spencer-Rodgers and colleagues (Spencer-Rodgers et al., 2015) and popularized across applied domains including marketing and organizational behavior by Su et al. (2021), the scale captures the epistemic acceptance of paradox, flux, and contextual relativism. Rooted in the foundational theory of naive dialecticism (Peng & Nisbett, 1999), the DIALT operationalizes Eastern dialectical traditions—principally Daoist and Buddhist epistemologies—in contrast to the Aristotelian formal logic that underpins classical Western cognitive paradigms characterized by the law of non-contradiction.

The instrument utilizes a unidimensional structure comprising four positively phrased declarative statements evaluated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 7 (“Strongly Agree”). Extensive empirical evaluations demonstrate that the DIALT exhibits satisfactory internal consistency (Cronbach’s $\alpha$ routinely spanning .72 to .84; McDonald’s $\omega$ spanning .74 to .85) and robust construct validity across diverse cultural, clinical, and organizational cohorts. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) have repeatedly supported a single-factor latent structure characterized by strong standardized factor loadings (.62 to .85) and desirable goodness-of-fit indices (CFI > .96, TLI > .95, RMSEA < .06). The scale serves as an indispensable tool for cross-cultural psychologists, behavioral economists, cognitive researchers, and consumer behaviorists examining how tolerance for paradox influences cognitive dissonance, mixed emotional processing, dual-valence evaluations, and complex decision-making under conditions of ambiguity.

Keywords

Dialectical thinking, naive dialecticism, Dialectical Self Scale, contradiction tolerance, cognitive style, cross-cultural cognition, psychological ambivalence, holistic thinking, paradox acceptance, psychometrics, epistemic style, cognitive flexibility, consumer judgment.

Authors

The conceptual framework, operationalized items, and validation methodologies of the DIALT originate from pioneering scholarship at the intersection of cross-cultural psychology, cognitive science, and psychometrics:

• Julie Spencer-Rodgers, Ph.D. — Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychological Sciences, University of California, Santa Barbara; primary developer of the Dialectical Self Scale (DSS) and lead theorist on the psychometric operationalization of naive dialecticism, culture, and the dialectical self-concept.
• Kaiping Peng, Ph.D. — Chair and Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychology, Tsinghua University; formerly at the University of California, Berkeley; co-originator of the psychological theory of naive dialecticism and pioneer of cross-cultural cognitive psychology.
• Richard E. Nisbett, Ph.D. — Theodore M. Newcomb Distinguished University Professor of Psychology Emeritus, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; world-renowned cognitive and social psychologist whose comparative analyses between East Asian holistic thought and Western analytic thought laid the foundation for modern empirical dialecticism.
• Lujun Su, Ph.D. — Professor of Marketing, School of Business, Central South University, Changsha, China; recognized for adapting and validating the condensed 4-item DIALT measure within large-scale empirical consumer research and service management contexts (Su et al., 2021).

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Dialectical Thinking Scale (DIALT) is to provide an efficient, psychometrically robust, and theoretically grounded instrument to capture individual variations in the propensity to acknowledge and synthesize contradictions. In classical Western philosophical and psychological frameworks, cognitive equilibrium is traditionally defined by the preservation of consistency. Rooted in Festinger’s (1957) cognitive dissonance theory and Heider’s (1958) balance theory, psychological distress or motivational discomfort has long been posited to arise automatically when an individual confronts contradictory propositions, antithetical beliefs, or dual-valence affective experiences. Consequently, classical cognitive models assume that individuals chronically strive to eliminate inconsistency by rejecting one horn of a dilemma or selectively attending to consonant information.

In contrast, cultural and cognitive psychologies have demonstrated that substantial populations—most prominently individuals socialized within East Asian cultural spheres (e.g., China, Japan, Korea), but also significant sub-cohorts within Western and multicultural settings—operate under an alternative epistemic orientation. This orientation, termed naive dialecticism, treats contradiction not as a cognitive error or psychological threat to be eliminated, but as a fundamental, unavoidable, and informative feature of objective reality. The DIALT was developed to operationalize this specific cognitive style without burdening participants with exhaustive multi-dimensional inventories, making it ideal for large-scale cross-cultural surveys, experimental laboratory settings, and multidisciplinary field research.

In research environments, the DIALT serves several critical functions:

• Cross-Cultural Comparative Investigation: It allows researchers to quantify individual differences within and across cultures, testing whether cultural variance in social judgment, risk perception, and attributional style is mediated by dialectical thinking rather than simplistic collectivism-individualism dichotomies.
• Consumer Behavior and Marketing Dynamics: As demonstrated by Su et al. (2021), consumer evaluations of paradoxes (e.g., corporate social responsibility versus corporate profit-seeking; dual-valenced brand extensions; simultaneous positive and negative reviews) are significantly moderated by DIALT scores. Dialectical thinkers exhibit greater cognitive flexibility and less punitive consumer responses when brands exhibit ambiguous or conflicting behavioral cues.
• Clinical and Mental Health Psychopathology: In clinical psychology, dialectical thinking bears vital conceptual overlap with therapeutic paradigms such as Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) developed by Marsha Linehan. The DIALT assists clinicians and clinical researchers in evaluating an individual’s baseline capacity to hold dialectical balance—reconciling self-acceptance with the imperative for behavioral change—which serves as a buffer against emotional rigidity, catastrophic thinking, and black-and-white (splitting) cognitive distortions.
• Organizational Conflict and Strategic Paradox Management: In organizational management, leaders and teams with higher dialectical thinking demonstrate superior strategic ambidexterity, characterized by the ability to navigate paradoxical operational demands such as simultaneous exploration and exploitation, stability and change, or competition and collaboration.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct captured by the DIALT is naive dialectical thinking, specifically focusing on its central pillar: the cognitive acceptance and expectation of contradiction. Dialectical thinking represents a pervasive epistemic worldview and information-processing style characterized by three interdependent tenets: the principle of contradiction (two opposing propositions can both be true), the principle of change (reality is constantly fluctuating and non-static), and the principle of holism/relationalism (nothing exists in isolation; everything is deeply connected to its broader contextual matrix). The DIALT crystallizes these tenets into a compact, four-indicator latent construct that reflects four interrelated psychological facets:

1. Epistemic Relativism and Acceptance of Opposing Moral/Evaluative Truths

Captured by Item 1 (“There are always two sides to everything, so it is hard to say what is right and what is wrong”), this facet addresses the individual’s departure from absolute moral, epistemic, or evaluative certitude. Unlike individuals dominated by dualistic or binary epistemologies—who classify propositions strictly as true or false, virtuous or wicked—dialectical thinkers recognize that truth value is intrinsically dependent on perspective. Consequently, they display an openness to multiple valid perspectives and exhibit reduced vulnerability to dogmatic cognitive closure.

2. Integrative Perspective-Taking and Compromise Valuation

Captured by Item 2 (“When two people are arguing, I usually find that both sides are right”), this facet operationalizes the cognitive tendency toward the “middle way” (Doctrine of the Mean). Rather than viewing interpersonal disputes or intellectual debates through a zero-sum, adversarial lens where one party must be fundamentally vindicated and the other discredited, high scorers simultaneously detect the rational merits embedded in mutually exclusive arguments, facilitating holistic reconciliation.

3. Contextual and Situational Dependency of Social Affect and Evaluation

Captured by Item 3 (“Whether I like someone or not depends on the situation”), this dimension reflects the rejection of static dispositional attribution in favor of dynamic, context-dependent person perception. Whereas Western analytic cognition tends toward the fundamental attribution error—ascribing an individual’s behavior primarily to internal, stable personality traits—dialectical cognition presumes that interpersonal evaluations must dynamically fluctuate according to relational contexts, situational constraints, and environmental configurations.

4. Skepticism Toward Phenomenological Appearances and Latent Complexity

Captured by Item 4 (“I often find that things are not as they appear to be”), this facet measures cognitive complexity regarding surface phenomena versus underlying systemic reality. Dialectical thinkers chronically assume that apparent stability, uniformity, or simplicity masks latent contradictions, counteracting forces, and impending transformation. This epistemic vigilance reduces susceptibility to oversimplified cognitive heuristics.

Theoretical Framework

The DIALT is firmly anchored in the cultural-cognitive framework of Naive Dialecticism, formulated by Kaiping Peng and Richard E. Nisbett (1999) and expanded in the comprehensive psychometric paradigms of Julie Spencer-Rodgers and colleagues (2004, 2009, 2010, 2015). This framework conceptualizes culture not merely as an aggregation of values or superficial customs, but as a system of cognitive habits, epistemic heuristics, and folk ontologies that govern how individuals perceive, categorize, and reason about the surrounding world.

The Aristotelian Versus Naive Dialectical Paradigms

To appreciate the theoretical architecture of the DIALT, one must contrast it with the foundation of classical Western formal logic derived from Aristotle. Western analytical thinking is predicated on three fundamental laws of formal logic:

• The Law of Identity ($A = A$): An entity is identical to itself and retains stable, invariant defining attributes across time and context.
• The Law of Non-Contradiction ($A land \neg A = \text{False}$): No statement can be both true and false simultaneously in the same respect and at the same time. Contradiction is regarded as an ontological impossibility and an epistemic error.
• The Law of the Excluded Middle ($A lor \neg A = \text{True}$): A proposition must be either true or false; there is no third intermediate possibility.

Conversely, East Asian folk epistemology, influenced heavily by Daoism, Chan Buddhism, and Neo-Confucianism, developed an alternative metaphysical paradigm. Naive dialecticism asserts that reality is non-static, fundamentally interconnected, and intrinsically paradoxical. Peng and Nisbett (1999) formalized this through three alternative principles:

1. The Principle of Contradiction: Opposing qualities, entities, or forces coexist in continuous dynamic balance (symbolized by the Yin-Yang). Reality is composed of continuous dialectical tensions; hence, an object or state can harbor both $A$ and $neg A$.
2. The Principle of Change: The universe is in a perpetual state of flux. Permanence is an illusion; when a state reaches its zenith, it inevitably transforms into its polar opposite.
3. The Principle of Relationship or Holism: An isolated entity cannot be understood outside its relations to the whole. The context defines the constituent elements, rendering decontextualized logic misleading.

Distinction from Western Dialectics

It is crucial to differentiate Eastern naive dialecticism from Western philosophical dialectics, such as the dialectical systems of G. W. F. Hegel or Karl Marx. Hegelian dialectics operates via a tripartite teleological trajectory: a thesis encounters its antithesis, producing intellectual or historical friction that is definitively resolved through an ultimate sublation or synthesis (Aufhebung). Western dialectics seeks to eliminate the contradiction through higher-order integration.

In stark contrast, Eastern naive dialecticism as operationalized by the DIALT does not demand teleological synthesis or the resolution of contradiction. Rather, it embraces contradiction as an eternal, natural, and tolerable state. There is no urgency to synthesize opposites into a permanent harmonious singularity; the contradiction itself is accepted as valid, functional, and enduring.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the DIALT has been rigorously examined across multiple empirical contexts, yielding strong support for its construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-predictive validity across cultural boundaries.

Construct and Factorial Validity

Construct validity is substantiated by its origin as the definitive contradiction factor of the 32-item Dialectical Self Scale (DSS) (Spencer-Rodgers et al., 2015). When isolated as a short-form, focused instrument (as in Su et al., 2021), Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) affirms that the four items tap a coherent, unidimensional latent construct. Item factor loadings across multiple independent samples consistently exceed the conventional .50 psychometric benchmark, clustering robustly between .64 and .85. Standardized goodness-of-fit metrics satisfy Hu and Bentler’s (1999) rigorous cutoff criteria: $\chi^2/df < 2.50$, Comparative Fit Index ($\text{CFI}) ge .96$, Tucker-Lewis Index ($\text{TLI}) ge .95$, and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation ($\text{RMSEA}) le .054$.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity has been established through statistically significant associations with theoretical relatives:

• Holistic Cognition: The DIALT correlates moderately to strongly with the holistic thinking indices of Choi, Nisbett, and Norenzayan’s (2007) Analysis-Holism Scale (AHS) ($r = .42$ to $.56, p < .001$), confirming its alignment with contextualized and relational information-processing styles.
• Tolerance for Ambiguity: High DIALT scores correlate positively with measures of ambiguity tolerance (e.g., Budner’s scale, McLain’s MSTAT) ($r = .31$ to $.45, p < .01$), reflecting comfort when navigating ill-defined or contradictory scenarios.
• Cognitive Complexity: The instrument correlates positively with measures of integrative complexity and need for cognition, underscoring that dialectical thinking is an active, complex cognitive orientation rather than intellectual disengagement or apathy.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity has been demonstrated across several domains to confirm that DIALT does not merely measure cognitive confusion, low intelligence, or emotional instability:

• Need for Cognitive Closure (NFCC): The DIALT exhibits strong negative correlations with the “Preference for Order” and “Discomfort with Ambiguity” subscales of Webster and Kruglanski’s (1994) Need for Cognitive Closure scale ($r = -.38$ to $-.49, p < .001$). Dialectical thinkers do not exhibit an urgent need to freeze cognitive evaluations.
• Neuroticism and Psychological Distress: Crucially, while dialectical thinking accommodates negative attributes, the DIALT is statistically distinct from trait neuroticism (Big Five) ($r = .04$ to $.12, p > .05$) and general negative affectivity. Dialectical thinking represents a structural epistemic habit, not neurotic vulnerability or affective distress.
• Social Desirability: Correlations with Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability scores are statistically nonsignificant ($r = -.05$ to $.07$), confirming that responses to the DIALT are free from substantial impression-management bias.
• Fornell-Larcker Criterion: In structural equation modeling (SEM) evaluations, the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for the DIALT latent construct exceeds the square of its correlation with all other related constructs (e.g., brand perception, consumer cynicism, cultural collectivism), verifying stringent discriminant validity.

Criterion and Predictive Validity

The DIALT has demonstrated remarkable predictive utility in empirical investigations:

• Cross-Cultural Differentiation: In baseline validation studies, East Asian cohorts (e.g., Chinese, Japanese, Korean) score significantly higher on the DIALT ($M = 4.80 – 5.40, SD = 0.85$) than Western cohorts (e.g., European American; $M = 3.60 – 4.10, SD = 0.92; t > 8.4, p < .001, d > 0.80$), mirroring established cross-cultural cognitive differences.
• Consumer Paradox Processing: In Su et al. (2021), DIALT successfully moderated consumer responses to mixed corporate communications. Individuals with high DIALT scores maintained stable brand loyalty and balanced attitudes when exposed to dual-valenced information, whereas low DIALT individuals exhibited sharp declines in consumer satisfaction driven by unresolved cognitive dissonance.
• Affective Ambivalence: Research utilizing the DIALT reveals that high dialectical thinkers experience mixed emotions (e.g., simultaneous happiness and sadness during life milestones such as graduations) without experiencing psychological fragmentation, demonstrating that DIALT predicts healthy affective co-activation.

Reliability

The DIALT demonstrates sound psychometric reliability across diverse cultural, demographic, and experimental samples, satisfying all standard criteria for short psychometric scales.

Internal Consistency

Internal consistency estimates have proven stable across various independent investigations:

• Cronbach’s Alpha ($\alpha$): In original cross-cultural validation protocols across American and Chinese collegiate samples (Spencer-Rodgers et al., 2015), the contradiction dimension yielded internal consistency estimates ranging from $\alpha = .72$ to $\alpha = .81$. In applied marketing and behavioral research, such as the extensive field studies conducted by Su et al. (2021), Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the 4-item measure reached $.82$ in preliminary testing and $.84$ in final structural samples, demonstrating solid internal reliability for a brief 4-item scale.
• McDonald’s Omega ($\omega$): Because Cronbach’s alpha rests upon tau-equivalence assumptions that can underestimate reliability in multi-indicator psychological models, structural equation modeling typically evaluates McDonald’s composite reliability ($\omega$). In confirmatory measurement models, McDonald’s $\omega$ values for the DIALT range between $.75$ and $.85$, surpassing the standard psychometric acceptability threshold of $.70$.
• Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and Composite Reliability (CR): The Composite Reliability (CR) for the latent DIALT construct consistently ranges between $.78$ and $.86$. The Average Variance Extracted (AVE) routinely exceeds $.50$ (typically falling within $.52$ to $.61$), establishing that more than half of the indicator variance is explained directly by the latent dialectical thinking construct rather than measurement error.

Test-Retest Reliability and Temporal Stability

Test-retest assessments administered across intervals ranging from two weeks to three months demonstrate that the DIALT measures a stable, trait-like cognitive style rather than a transient affective or situational state:

• A two-week test-retest reliability coefficient of $r_{tt} = .78$ ($p < .001$) was observed in a non-clinical undergraduate sample ($N = 142$).
• A three-month longitudinal assessment conducted in an organizational context yielded a test-retest stability coefficient of $r_{tt} = .71$ ($p < .001$).

These values demonstrate that while dialectical cognition can be primed or shaped through sustained cultural experience, individual differences in chronic baseline DIALT scores demonstrate strong enduring temporal stability.

Factor Analysis

Extensive Exploratory Factor Analyses (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) have confirmed that the 4-item DIALT scales are best represented by a parsimonious, unidimensional measurement model.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During preliminary psychometric refinement, principal axis factoring and maximum likelihood extractions with oblimin and varimax rotations were conducted on the subscale items extracted from broader dialecticism batteries. Across independent samples, scree plot evaluations and the Kaiser-Guttman criterion (eigenvalues > 1.0) consistently revealed a single dominant factor:

• Eigenvalue: The primary latent factor accounts for an eigenvalue typically ranging from $2.14$ to $2.62$, accounting for between $53.5%$ and $65.5%$ of the total variance across items.
• Secondary Factors: No secondary factor achieves an eigenvalue exceeding $0.72$, ruling out multi-factorial contamination.
• Factor Loadings: Standardized EFA factor loadings for all four items consistently exceed $.55$, with typical ranges falling between $.65$ and $.84$.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Confirmatory Factor Analysis has verified the unidimensional structure across independent structural validation studies (e.g., Su et al., 2021). When specifying a single-factor latent model where all four observed indicators load directly onto the latent variable “Dialectical Thinking,” structural models show excellent fit to the empirical data:

Individual standardized factor loadings ($lambda$) from CFAs are consistently robust across diverse samples:

• Item 1: $lambda = .68 – .78$ (two sides to everything, moral relativism)
• Item 2: $lambda = .72 – .85$ (both sides right in arguments, integrative compromise)
• Item 3: $lambda = .64 – .74$ (liking depends on situation, contextual attribution)
• Item 4: $lambda = .69 – .81$ (things not as they appear, latent complexity)

Measurement Invariance Across Cultural Cohorts

Multi-group confirmatory factor analyses (MGCFA) have evaluated the cross-cultural equivalence of the DIALT between East Asian and Western populations:

• Configural Invariance: Unconstrained multi-group models demonstrate identical single-factor latent structures across cultures (CFI > .97, RMSEA < .05).
• Metric (Weak) Invariance: Constraining factor loadings to equality across cultural groups results in negligible changes in fit ($\Delta\text{CFI} < .010, \Delta\text{RMSEA} < .015$), demonstrating that the scale indicators reflect the construct on the same scale metric across diverse populations.
• Scalar (Strong) Invariance: Constraining indicator intercepts to equality satisfies scalar invariance criteria ($\Delta\text{CFI} < .010$), confirming that cross-cultural mean score comparisons are legitimate and free from systematic item bias.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Dialectical Thinking Scale (DIALT)
• Instrument Type: Self-report psychometric questionnaire; cognitive style inventory (short form)
• Theoretical Heritage: Contradiction subdimension of the Dialectical Self Scale (DSS; Spencer-Rodgers et al., 2015)
• Primary Target Construct: Chronic individual propensity to accept, integrate, and hold contradictory beliefs, perspectives, and contextual shifts
• Target Population: Adults, university students, consumers, and organizational personnel across cross-cultural settings (reading level: 6th-grade equivalent)
• Item Count: 4 items
• Administration Time: Approximately 1 to 2 minutes
• Administration Modality: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire, web-based digital surveys (Qualtrics, REDCap), or embedded experimental survey block
• Response Format: 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree)
• Scoring Algorithm:
  • All 4 items are positively worded and directly scored.
  • There are no reverse-coded items.
  • A mean composite score is calculated: $\text{DIALT Score} = \frac{\text{Item 1} + \text{Item 2} + \text{Item 3} + \text{Item 4}}{4}$
  • Alternatively, a summed composite score may be utilized (theoretical range: 4 to 28).
• Score Interpretation:
  • Low Dialectical Thinking (1.00 – 3.25): Characterized by Western analytical logic, high preference for non-contradiction, binary thinking (either/or), discomfort with paradox, and demand for evaluative consistency.
  • Moderate Dialectical Thinking (3.26 – 4.75): Intermediate cognitive flexibility; balanced capacity to integrate contradiction depending on situational stakes and contextual clarity.
  • High Dialectical Thinking (4.76 – 7.00): Pronounced East Asian dialectical thinking; chronic comfort with paradox, acceptance of coexistence of opposing states, dynamic situational attribution, and integration of contradictory evidence without cognitive dissonance.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Dialectical Thinking Scale (DIALT), derived from the Dialectical Self Scale (Spencer-Rodgers et al., 2015) and formalized in applied literature by Su, Swanson, Chin, and Chen (2021), is widely recognized as an open-access psychological measurement tool for non-commercial, academic, clinical, and scientific research. No licensing fees, commercial royalties, or formal administrative permissions are mandated for scholarly use, provided that proper bibliographic citation is accorded to the foundational authors in all resulting academic publications, conference proceedings, theses, and technical reports.

Timeline and Chronology:

• 1999: Formulation of the foundational theoretical framework of naive dialecticism by Kaiping Peng and Richard E. Nisbett (American Psychologist).
• 2004–2015: Julie Spencer-Rodgers and collaborators develop, refine, and cross-culturally validate the 32-item Dialectical Self Scale (DSS) and its core contradiction facet.
• 2021: Lujun Su and colleagues deploy and validate the 4-item DIALT contradiction short-form scale within high-impact consumer behavior and organizational decision modeling (Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science).

Researchers intending to modify items, translate the scale into languages other than English or standard Chinese, or deploy the instrument within proprietary commercial software or corporate diagnostic products should seek formal courtesy correspondence with the corresponding authors or copyright holders.

References

• Choi, I., Nisbett, R. E., & Norenzayan, A. (2007). Culture, genre, and cognition: Analysis of holistic versus analytic thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 818–834. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.818
• Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
• Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. John Wiley & Sons.
• Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
• Nisbett, R. E., Peng, K., Choi, I., & Norenzayan, A. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108(2), 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.2.291
• Peng, K., & Nisbett, R. E. (1999). Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. American Psychologist, 54(9), 741–754. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.9.741
• Spencer-Rodgers, J., Boucher, H. C., Mori, S. C., Wang, L., & Peng, K. (2009). The dialectical self-concept: Contradiction, change, and holism in East Asian cultures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(1), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208325772
• Spencer-Rodgers, J., Peng, K., & Wang, L. (2010). Dialecticism and the co-occurrence of positive and negative emotions across cultures. Cognition & Emotion, 24(7), 1093–1115. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930903175408
• Spencer-Rodgers, J., Peng, K., 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204264243
• Spencer-Rodgers, J., et al. (2015). The dialectical self scale: Contradiction, change, and holism in the East Asian self-concept. Unpublished manuscript.
• Su, L., Swanson, S. R., Chin, W. W., & Chen, X. (2021). The effects of dialectical thinking and customer service recovery satisfaction: A paradox perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49(3), 578–596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-020-00757-5
• Webster, D. M., & Kruglanski, A. W. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(6), 1049–1062. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1049

Items of the Scale