Dialectical Thinking

What it measures

A four-item scale measuring an individual's chronic tendency to perceive and hold contradictory beliefs, positions, and perspectives simultaneously. Items assess awareness of contradictions in the world, the presence of unresolvable contradictions in one's environment, the tendency to find merit in opposing arguments, and the experience of holding contradictory beliefs. Drawn from the contradiction dimension of the Dialectical Self Scale, the subscale captures the cognitive openness to paradox and ambiguity that characterises East Asian dialectical thinking styles, though it has been applied cross-culturally in consumer research.

Response format

7-point Likert

Scale items

• I often find that things will contradict each other.
• My world is full of contradictions that cannot be resolved.
• When I hear two sides of an argument, I often agree with both.
• I sometimes believe two things that contradict each other.

Full scale items shown. Always cite the original source when using this scale in research.

Usage notes & scoring

Alpha ranged from .75 to .85 across three studies — Su et al. (2021, Studies 4, 5, and 6; Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 49(3), 578–596). The .75 and .76 lower bounds fall below threshold; the scale is included on the basis of the .85 estimate from Study 4. VALIDITY: Not discussed in the consumer application. Subset of the Dialectical Self Scale (Spencer-Rodgers et al. 2015), specifically the contradiction dimension. Originally developed to measure cultural differences in self-concept structure, particularly the greater acceptance of contradiction in East Asian vs. Western thinking. Cross-cultural applications should consider whether the scale functions equivalently across cultural groups.

Recommended companion scales

Citation

Spencer-Rodgers, Julie, et al. (2015). The dialectical self scale: Contradiction, change, and holism in the East Asian self-concept. Unpublished manuscript. [Applied by: Su, Lujun, et al. (2021). Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 49(3), 578–596.]

Keywords