Is Your Brain “WEIRD”? Why Most Psychology Studies Might Not Apply to India: Part 3

[Read Part 1] [Read Part 2] [Read Part 3]

Modern psychology research has a WEIRD bias, relying heavily on participants from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic societies. Scientists long assumed that human minds everywhere work the same, but evidence shows WEIRD people are psychological outliers. In Part 1 and Part 2, we discussed the cultural influences on cognitive biases and judgement biases. Here, we try to answer the question what are the differences in belief systems in Indian collectivist culture compared to the WEIRD cultures.

Confirmation Bias: Perhaps the most famous bias, it’s our tendency to seek out or believe information that confirms our pre-existing beliefs and to discount information that contradicts them. This bias is very robust across cultures. The human mind, whether in New York or New Delhi, finds it more comfortable to stick with familiar beliefs.

In India, confirmation bias can be seen in many domains. For example, a person who firmly believes in Ayurveda might selectively remember instances when home remedies cured a cold and ignore times they didn’t work. Or in the political arena, once someone decides which party or leader they support, they may consume mostly media that praises that leader, filtering out contrary reports. The rise of WhatsApp and social media in India has in fact highlighted confirmation bias. People tend to forward messages that align with their biases (be it religious, political, or health-related) without scrutiny.

Culturally, one could argue that India’s strong family and community influence means many people inherit certain beliefs (say about caste or gender roles) and then see the world in ways that reinforce those beliefs. But this is not unique to India. Westerners do the same with their ideological bubbles. One subtle difference is, tolerance for ambiguity and multiple truths in some Eastern philosophies might make a person less desperately clingy to one “right” belief, potentially softening confirmation bias.

For instance, Hindu epics present complex characters with gray shades, an Indian reader might be used to holding contradictory information, whereas Western narratives often push a clear good/bad binary. Whether that actually reduces confirmation bias is uncertain, but it’s a thought.

Empirically, studies find confirmation bias in various cultures, and while the content of beliefs differs, the cognitive pattern is the same. Across India’s regions, confirmation bias might be strongest where education and media diversity are limited, e.g. a rural area with one dominant local narrative. In cosmopolitan areas with exposure to diverse viewpoints, people might still favor confirming evidence but at least encounter opposing views more often. The solution everywhere is similar. Encourage critical thinking and exposure to a plurality of perspectives.

Backfire Effect: This is a related concept where, when confronted with evidence against their beliefs, people not only resist but may double-down on the original belief. The classic example from Western studies is political, showing strong partisans evidence that contradicts their stance can sometimes entrench them further.

Does this happen in India? Very likely yes, consider debates on sensitive issues like vaccination, or inter-religious conflicts. If someone deeply believes a conspiracy theory (say, about a particular community or about a herbal COVID cure), simply presenting facts can make them defensive and cling even harder to the false belief.

There is anecdotal evidence in India’s public discourse, attempts to quash rumors often meet with “yeh sab angrezi science hai, hum nahi mante” (“this is all Western science, we don’t believe it”), indicating a backfire from perceived attacks on traditional belief. While the backfire effect’s universality is still researched, some studies even in the West have found it isn’t as common as initially thought, culturally, the degree of emotional investment in a belief likely matters.

In collectivist or honor-based cultures, admitting one is wrong can be seen as shameful, possibly making the backfire effect more pronounced. An Indian example is, if someone’s core belief tied to identity (like religious dietary rules) is challenged, they might react more strongly, as it’s not just an individual opinion but a communal identity.

There isn’t a specific measure that Indians backfire more or less than others, likely the phenomenon exists similarly. The remedy is more dialogue and finding common ground – is again universal.

Belief Bias: This bias occurs when our evaluation of an argument’s logic is influenced by the believability of the conclusion. For instance, even if a syllogism (a kind of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two propositions that are asserted or assumed to be true) is logically invalid, people tend to accept it if the conclusion aligns with their beliefs. This is a subtle bias often observed in reasoning tasks in the lab.

While specific cross-cultural studies are limited, one could speculate differences: educational systems that emphasize rote belief vs logical reasoning might affect this bias. In India, where education historically has included both rigorous logical traditions (ancient Indian logic, mathematics) and also a lot of rote learning of “truths” from teachers, the balance might vary. A student used to questioning teachers might be better at separating logic from belief, whereas one taught to accept what elders say (maybe in a conservative setting) might conflate truth with authority, effectively a belief bias. That said, belief bias is essentially human. An Indian who strongly believes “respecting elders is right” might readily accept a flawed argument if it concludes that “therefore, we must not question elders,” failing to see the logical gaps. A Western counterpart might do the same with a different content (say, believing in individual freedom and thus accepting a dubious argument defending freedom).

Regional variation in India could come from literacy rates and exposure to logic training. Some Indian curricula now include critical thinking, which could reduce belief bias among those students. Also, the diversity of beliefs in India (multiple religions, philosophies) means an educated Indian might be aware that what’s believable is relative, possibly encouraging a bit more skepticism toward one’s own belief-based reasoning. In contrast, more homogenous cultures might not realize that a “believable conclusion” could be culturally specific. In sum, belief bias likely exists broadly, but emphasizing formal logic and exposing people to different viewpoints can help keep it in check.

Barnum Effect: The Barnum effect is when people accept vague, general statements as specifically applicable to themselves, essentially why horoscopes and personality quizzes feel “so accurate!” Named after P.T. Barnum’s “something for everyone” idea, this bias is quite universal.

Indians are famously susceptible to it in the domain of astrology and palmistry. It’s common for Indians of all backgrounds to nod in agreement at a generic astrological reading like “you have a strong sense of justice but sometimes worry too much”, classic Barnum statements that could apply to anyone. The cultural factor here is that belief in astrology and similar practices is widespread and socially accepted in India, possibly reinforcing the Barnum effect because people are actively looking for personal meaning in these general statements.

A high percentage of Indians find horoscope readings accurate (though the same is true for many Westerners with, say, sun-sign astrology). The difference is degree: in India, it’s not unusual for major life decisions (marriage matches, naming ceremonies) to involve astrologers providing very broad statements that clients interpret as specific guidance. This doesn’t mean Indians are more “gullible” by nature, rather, the institutional trust in such practices is higher, giving more opportunity for the Barnum effect to play out. The words ‘institutional trust’ must be noted.

In more scientifically oriented circles in India, skepticism is rising, but even skeptics might fall for Barnum-ish flattery in other forms (like generic statements in a work appraisal “Your performance is far better than average.”). Outside India, many other non-WEIRD cultures also have strong fortune-telling traditions, from Chinese zodiac readings to African traditional healers, all leveraging this cognitive bias. It seems our brains everywhere are tuned to find meaning even in vague statements. The key is awareness: once you know about the Barnum effect, you might chuckle the next time a horoscope seems spot-on, realizing it’s phrased to feel that way for almost anyone.

Placebo Effect: The placebo effect isn’t a bias in judgment per se, but a psychobiological phenomenon, yet it’s sometimes listed among the biases because it shows how belief can bias our perception of outcomes. A placebo effect is when a dummy treatment produces real improvement because the person expects it to help. Conversely, the nocebo effect is feeling negative effects from an inert thing because you believe it’s harmful. These effects are found globally but depend heavily on cultural belief.

If you firmly believe in a treatment (whether modern medicine or a traditional remedy), you’re more likely to experience a placebo benefit from it. Culture sets those expectations. For example, in India many people have faith in Ayurvedic tonics, a patient might genuinely feel better taking a sweet herbal concoction due to belief in its efficacy, even if an objective test shows no active ingredient effect. Similarly, someone who fears they’ve been subject to a black magic curse (a “tona-totka”) might psychosomatically develop symptoms (a nocebo driven by cultural belief). Studies confirm significant cross-cultural variation in placebo effectiveness.

One review found that placebo drugs for ulcers had a much higher healing rate in Germany (59%) than in Denmark (22%), and Brazil showed only ~7% placebo healing in one analysis. These differences likely reflect cultural attitudes. Germans perhaps had high expectations in the treatments tested, whereas Brazilians were more skeptical or had different illness models.

We can extend this to India. If a population trusts a particular therapy – say homoeopathic pills or a certain guru’s blessing – that context might yield a strong placebo effect. On the other hand, if people doubt a treatment (say, a new vaccine some are wary of), even a real drug can have reduced effectiveness because belief is low.

A fascinating illustration of cultural nocebo is the following. Research on Chinese Americans found those who strongly believed in Chinese astrology’s health omens actually died earlier if they had a bad astrological combination for a disease, seemingly due to stress/nocebo effects, whereas it had no effect on non-believers. In India, too, individuals deeply believing in inauspicious timings or “evil eye” might psychosomatically experience more misfortune or illness around those beliefs. The placebo/nocebo phenomena underscore how our mindsets shaped by culture can bias bodily perceptions and health outcomes.

Modern medicine in India is recognizing this, for instance, doctors find that communicating positively and aligning with patients’ health beliefs (instead of dismissing them) can harness the placebo benefit.

Spotlight Effect: The spotlight effect is our tendency to overestimate how much others notice us, we feel we’re in a spotlight, when in fact others are mostly focused on themselves. This bias has been demonstrated in Western studies (people asked to wear an embarrassing T-shirt vastly over-predicted how many others would notice). It exists in India as well since it stems from social anxiety and egocentric projection. However, cultural context influences when the spotlight effect is stronger.

Indian society places importance on “log kya kahenge” (what will people say), which might make people assume they are under scrutiny by neighbors or relatives more than a typical Westerner would. This could amplify the spotlight effect in certain Indian settings. For example, a teenager in a small town may feel everyone is noticing their every move or outfit, because community gossip is a real thing. In a tightly-knit community, people do observe each other more, which blurs where the bias ends and reality begins. Conversely, in a big anonymous city or in more individualistic subcultures, Indians might feel less watched.

Collectivist cultures emphasize reputation and saving face, so people might imagine a larger audience for their minor faux pas, whereas individualists might not care as much. For instance, a Japanese society may pose a high spotlight effect due to an ethos of not standing out. Similarly, in India someone might avoid wearing “weird” clothing not only out of personal preference but due to an imagined chorus of aunts and uncles clucking disapproval, even if in truth those folks may not really pay that much attention. As with other biases, awareness helps. Realizing that others have their own worries (especially in modern busy Indian life) can reduce undue self-consciousness.

Bystander Effect: The bystander effect is a social phenomenon where the more people are around during an emergency, the less likely any one of them is to help (diffusion of responsibility).

It’s been documented in the West through tragic cases and experiments. How does it play out in India? Unfortunately, India has had notorious instances of public apathy, accident victims left unattended, crime victims not helped which many attribute to the bystander effect bolstered by local norms. In fact, commentators have said the bystander effect “typifies the Indian psyche”, noting that Indians are often taught not to meddle in others’ affairs from a young age, which can lead to widespread reluctance to intervene.

Fear of legal hassles or getting in trouble also exacerbates this in India. One government report highlighted that cultural norms (e.g. respecting family privacy, not intervening in domestic disputes) plus practical fears (harassment by authorities if you step in) make Indian bystanders unusually passive. However, this is not uniform. In rural or close-knit communities, the sense of collective responsibility can be stronger. If you know the people involved, you may actually be more likely to help than a stranger would in the West. It’s in crowded cities like Delhi or Mumbai, where anonymity is high, that the classic bystander diffusion kicks in strongly (much like New York or London). So across regions of India, it may differ, small town folk might be more proactive (or at least know who to call), whereas metropolitan residents too often assume “someone else will help.”

Non-WEIRD cultures vary on this too. Studies in countries like Botswana or Turkey have shown both cases of strong community intervention and cases of bystander apathy in urban centers. Interestingly, psychological research suggests that collectivist values could cut both ways, they might induce people to help in-group members more readily, but if the victim is a stranger (out-group), a bystander from a tight-knit society might actually feel less obligation than an individualist would (since in individualist cultures, there’s an idea that anyone should step up, whereas a collectivist might think “not my family, not my business”).

This seems to align with Indian scenarios where people help relatives or acquaintances devotedly but may ignore a stranger bleeding on the road. Recognizing this, India has begun campaigns and even legal protections (Good Samaritan laws) to encourage bystander intervention as a civic duty. The goal is to overcome the cultural inhibitors and make helping behavior more universal – effectively trying to “rewrite” the bias with new norms.

Reactance: Psychological reactance is the impulse to resist when someone threatens our freedom or tells us what to do, the “don’t push me” reflex. For example, if a sign says “Do not write on this wall,” a reactance-prone person feels an urge to do it anyway, just to reassert freedom. 

While reactance (rebelling against rules) is common in Western cultures, India, with its emphasis on conformity, might seem to have less of it. Indian children are taught obedience, potentially reducing this habit. However, Indians likely still have contrarian instincts, expressing them in different ways. Amartya Sen, the Nobel laureate economist has called Indians ‘argumentative’. Research indicates that culture influences what triggers reactance and how it’s expressed.

In collectivist cultures like India, people might tolerate personal restrictions from family but strongly resist rules seen as imposed by outsiders or threatening their community. Examples include public backlash against government bans, even as individuals quietly accept parental authority. However, open defiance of family authority is less common in India due to social consequences.

Indian regions and subcultures vary. Hierarchical communities (military, religious or otherwise orthodox) may suppress questioning, while liberal or academic circles encourage it.

A recent study on social media censorship found cultural differences in reactance, those from more freedom-valuing cultures got angrier at censorship than those from more authoritarian cultures.Policymakers can use this understanding, for instance, by framing public health messages to encourage choices rather than using a scolding tone, which could trigger reactance.

As we’ve seen, cognitive biases are a human trait, but they don’t always look identical across cultures. Indian society provides vivid examples of how culture can tilt these mental habits, sometimes reducing a bias, sometimes enhancing it (strong in-group favoritism), or just changing its flavor (confirmation bias around different beliefs, placebo effects from traditional remedies, etc.). Even within India, the tremendous regional and social diversity means there’s no single “Indian” pattern. A college-educated urbanite from Mumbai and a rural elder from Tamil Nadu might exhibit different biases in line with their life experiences. The same re-examination applies to other non-WEIRD populations, from East Asian cultures that promote holistic thinking to Middle Eastern or African cultures with their own social norms. Decades of research now show that many psychological phenomena once assumed universal, from perception to reasoning style, actually vary widely across the globe. Cognitive biases, being part of how we think, are no exception.

Does that mean people outside the West are totally different mentally? No, we all share the same basic brain architecture and many biases (we’re all susceptible to things like availability heuristic and anchoring). But culture is a powerful modifier of behavior and thought patterns. The WEIRD re-evaluation trend reminds scientists (and all of us) that what we call “common sense” or “rational thinking” is often culturally scripted. Psychology as a field is moving toward a more inclusive understanding by testing biases and theories in places like India, China, Africa, and South America, not just in US college students. This broader lens doesn’t invalidate the concept of cognitive biases, it enriches it by bringing nuances. It tells us which biases might be universal and rooted in our evolutionary history, and which are accentuated or muted by cultural context.

For Indians, this knowledge is empowering. It means we can identify where imported psychological insights might need tweaking before application. For example, a debiasing program developed in the US might need to account for India’s collective orientation or different belief systems. It also means Indians can contribute insights from India to the world, for instance, understanding how collectivist values can sometimes counteract individual cognitive errors or how pluralistic thinking can reduce certain biases. Likewise, other non-WEIRD societies can highlight blind spots that WEIRD-centric research missed.

In summary, your brain is only as “WEIRD” as the environment that shapes it. Cognitive biases are part of being human, but how they manifest is often a product of culture. As psychology moves beyond its Western bubble, we get a clearer picture, Human nature is rich and varied, and what holds true in a Stanford psychology lab might not hold in a Sindhi household or a Senegalese village. Appreciating these differences makes for better science and it also reminds us to be humble about our intuitions. After all, what we take as “rational” could just be our culture talking. By studying biases in India and other non-WEIRD settings, we not only learn about those cultures, we learn about ourselves, and we take one step closer to a truly global understanding of the human mind.