Is Objectivity All in the Mind? A Psychological, Cultural, and Neurobiological Inquiry

Introduction/Objectivity in a broad sense

Objectivity is often described as the cornerstone of how we construct reality: in a broad sense, objectivity is defined as the quality of being objective-making deductions and judgments based on facts and free from the interference of any emotional or personal beliefs. The American Psychological Association (APA) defines objectivity as (1) “the tendency to base judgments and interpretations on external data rather than on subjective factors, such as personal feelings, beliefs, and experiences; (2) a quality of a research study such that its hypotheses, choices of variables studied, measurements, techniques of control, and observations are as free from bias as possible;” and as opposite of subjectivity. In psychometrics, objectivity is one of the three major quality criteria for psychological tests, along with reliability and validity, and refers to the test’s procedure, result, analysis, and interpretation being independent of the person who administers the test. If all circumstances of objectivity’s utilization are considered, one should confirm that the incorporation of social, cultural and neurobiological analysis clearly verifies the likelihood of objectivity’s partial existence outside the mind. Via this lens, I argue that the concept of objectivity originates from the interaction of individual cognition, shared cultural norms, and neurobiological processes.

Objectivity in psychological research

To examine whether objectivity is solely “in the mind,” the first question to be answered is if it can exist independently of individual thoughts. Empirical research has long focused on the strengthening of objective evaluations, not only by designing clear rubrics and criteria, but also by standardizing interpretations of the results. Therefore, this helps reduce errors and biases introduced by an evaluator’s subjective judgments. This caution helps ensure that findings remain as detached from personal influence as possible. For example, to minimize research bias, scientists establish conventions which regulate the way to conduct their studies as a remedy to funding bias (Wilholt, 2008), a bias caused by methodological choices that aim to increase the possibility of a research result aligning with the researcher’s own preference (Nelson, 2014, Jones & Sugden, 2001).

Therefore, by analyzing how adjustments were made to ensure objectivity in research and experiments, factors that scientists consider as direct causes of subjectivity could come into light. By doing so, a clear line is drawn between where objectivity can exist, such as in one’s own consciousness, and where it can never be present. In psychological research, there are measures such as utilizing standardized procedures and instruments (Torrez et al., 2024), operationalization of variables (specifying the tested features), blind or double-blind procedures (Sikorski, 2021), evidence-based analysis, and transparency during research and replication (Scheibner, 2025). The establishment of these diversified, comprehensive approaches demonstrates that researchers acknowledge the inevitable biases and take precautions against the error caused by researchers’ self or experience-based evaluations, deception or distortion in results, or psychological suggestions.

Cultural and social influence

Another way to demonstrate the externality of objectivity is through proving its social and cultural basis. Since such traits vary from communities to communities, different interpretations and methods to achieve objectivity are designed.

As aforementioned, no one can make completely objective decisions. The neural capacity of objectivity, which determines the states of objectivity, is limited. Thereby, the perception of objects and real events in relatively stable, accurate, increasingly complete, perceiver-independent and neutral ways, unbiased by specific needs, motives, and anticipation of instrumental aspects and rewards, is an unobtainable task (M Dijker, 2014). The reason behind this limited capacity is that objective evaluations are normally preceded by a series of emotions, recalling past experiences caused by activation of sensory and motivational mechanisms. That is to say, absolute objectivity could not be achieved by an individual’s own endeavor. It should be socially based.

Is there a possibility that objectivity could be shaped by cultural influence? If one aims to unveil how objectivity exists outside of the psych psyche of one’s mind, comparisons between different perceived objectivities in a variety of cultural and social environments should be investigated. It is historically believed that objectivity is not built on perspective-neutral evidence but is based on shared assumptions within a community’s narrative. Such objectivity is therefore relative to the culture to which arguments are put for approval (T Clark, 1994). There are also research results using cross-cultural neuroimaging research to show that in the context of East Asian culture (collectivism) and Western culture (individualism), there are significant differences in the brain regions (such as the prefrontal cortex) activated by individuals during objective decision-making (Han et al., 2008).

In this sense, the notion of objectivity is not universal but shaped by cultural frameworks, as demonstrated by studies on environmental decision-making. A revelation is that Western scientists relied exclusively on quantifiable metrics, such as tree species counts, to assess forest health, equating measurability with objectivity, while Maya Indigenous participants integrated ecological data with cultural-relational knowledge that cherishes ancestral ties to land and treats contextual interdependence as objective truth. Neuroimaging data showed that Westerners activated the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC), which is brain regions associated with analytical reasoning, whereas Maya participants activated the Default Mode Network (DMN), which are usually considered for social-cultural memory (Atran et al., 2005). This structural differentiation suggests that objectivity is neurologically encoded through cultural learning, and that this socially shaped civilization proved that objectivity is the element created from the cultural interaction of individuals in a specific community.

Neurobiological influence

A more straightforward method of testing the objectivity of a judgement is through biological investigation and analysis. Assessments on the extent of activation in individuals’ brains clear out a path for researchers to determine how objectivity relies on aspects more than internal contemplation. This aligns with the broader thesis that objectivity is not purely “in the mind”. If it were to come up with an experiment which could be adopted as an absolute reference, a possible hypothesis is, a research could be conducted based on the activated encephalic region during a judgement that is considered completely objective. If comparing the regions with those that control such judgement and other subjective aspects, such as emotions and artistic imagination, then a result regarding the degree of activation of the latter regions and the activation degree of the objective regions would demonstrate the quality of the “objective judgement”. hence deem the hypothesis correct or not.Consequently, determine whether the hypothesis is supported. Unfortunately, existing studies (Damásio, 1994) on the functions of various brain regions have shown that no single region is solely responsible of for objective reasoning, rendering a perspicuous distinction between objectivity and subjectivity detection in one’s mind impossible. However, by distinguishing the different functions of the regions, a plausible deduction could be made on the integrated network dynamics for rational decision-making (Cai et al., 2017), which is an integrated entity of which regions should be most active during objective contemplation.

As what is concluded in the former part, it seems possible that, since subjective judgement indicates activation in emotions, recalling of experiences, deception and self suggestion, if those regions are found active, the evaluation is no longer objective.

Neurobiological results showcased when facing personal moral dilemmas, an increased activity in brain areas associated with emotion, namely medial frontal gyrus, posterior cingulate gyrus, and bilateral superior temporal sulcus, alongside social cognition is observed (Greene et al., 2001). This directly contributes to the hypothesis of objectivity existing both in the brain and socially constructed cognition. Furthermore, research conducted on altruism, specifically on charitable giving, demonstrates the mutual contribution of domain-general value computations (vmPFC, result from objective thinking) and domain-specific prosocial motivations (anterior insula, mainly functions when provoke emotional response), implemented in distinct but interacting brain systems. This leads to the insight that altruism is not merely an action based on the balance of objective judgement, but also an association with emotional responses resulting from unconscious factors. Another noticeable phenomenon is that even ostensibly “objective decisions” under probabilistic risk assessment are results from stimulation of emotion-related brain regions, notably the anterior insula and amygdala, which are associated with aversion to ambiguity and somatic markers of discomfort. Critically, these findings reveal that the insula’s activity scales with subjective aversion to uncertain outcomes, suggesting that so-called rational choices are inherently modulated by affective and embodied signals. In fact, objectivity is perceived to be scaffolded by neural systems integrating visceral feedback (insula), emotional salience (amygdala), and higher-order computation (e.g., prefrontal regions). Thus, the neural foundation of decision-making blurs the traditional dichotomy between cold rationality and hot emotion, grounding objectivity in a dynamic interplay of cognitive, emotional, and somatic processes.

The research on Western scientists and Maya Indigenous participants as aforementioned have also presented how differences in mutual cultural interaction shape the construction of objectivity. But that does not disprove how objectivity solely exists within one’s mind. A way to resolve this is to make a clear distinction between the concepts of brain and mind. Doing so enables us to draw out the conclusion that, though the whole process of objective thinking happens, without doubt, inside one’s own head, there is still a high likelihood that the route of how someone thinks objectively and its underlying difference from individual to individual is a result from external interference.

To reach a consolidation of this claim, the historical construction of the two concepts must be archived. Throughout the history, both cognitive scientists and philosophers have used different methods to differentiate between the two concepts. For instance, Pinker (1997) frames the mind as a computational “software” evolved for information processing, and the brain as the “hardware.” This mirrors Damasio’s (1994) clinical findings: frontal lobe damage alters reasoning as a mental faculty, proving the brain’s causal role yet underscoring the mind’s dependent but distinct nature.

Discussion & Conclusion

This paper has argued that objectivity cannot be understood as solely within an individual’s mind. Empirical evidence from psychology, cross-cultural studies, and neuroscience reveals that “objectivity” can be deeply shaped by social conventions, cultural frameworks, and biological processes that influence how we reason, perceive, and judge. Meanwhile, this perspective has some limitations. For instance, critiquing objectivity as socially constructed depends on research methods that themselves presume some baseline of methodological objectivity, suggesting a potential logical fallacy. Moreover, emphasizing cultural and neurobiological influences risks underestimating individual agency — people can and do develop habits of critical reflection that help them transcend personal and cultural biases, even if perfect objectivity is unattainable. The discussion here is also constrained by a relatively narrow cultural scope, relying heavily on specific comparisons such as Western scientific norms and Indigenous or East Asian epistemologies. Broader cross-cultural and historical analyses could illuminate how globalization and interdisciplinary collaboration foster hybrid forms of objectivity that neither belong wholly to the mind nor to any single cultural system.

Neurobiological findings further complicate any clear-cut distinction between objective reasoning and subjective emotion. Studies show that affective and cognitive processes interact dynamically, suggesting that rationality and emotion are not easily separable. While this supports the view that objectivity is scaffolded by the brain’s architecture, it also cautions against simple neurobiological reductionism: correlation does not imply that emotion always undermines objectivity; in some cases, it may enhance it.

Recognizing these complexities invites us to view objectivity not as a fixed state but as an ongoing, collaborative achievement. Practical mechanisms — such as peer review, standardized methods, transparency, and cross-cultural dialogue — play a critical role in mitigating individual and collective biases. Future research should build on this foundation through longitudinal studies of how cultural exposure reshapes neural and behavioral markers of objectivity, as well as experimental interventions that foster metacognitive skills and cultural competence. Ultimately, the pursuit of objectivity is not about erasing subjectivity but about negotiating the conditions under which shared, credible, and reflexive knowledge becomes possible. By acknowledging the interdependence of mind, brain, and society, we can better understand — and strengthen — the fragile but essential project of objectivity.

References

Atran, S., Medin, D. L., & Ross, N. O. (2005). The cultural mind: Environmental decision making and cultural modeling. Psychological Science, 16(5), 727–731. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01600.x

Cai, L., Qu, S., & Cheng, G. (2018). Two-archive method for aggregation-based many-objective optimization. Information Sciences, 422, 305–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2017.08.078

Clark, T. W. (1994). Culture and objectivity. The Humanist, 54(5), 38. (Original work published 1994). https://naturalism.org/applied-naturalism/politics/culture-and-objectivity.

Damásio, António (1994). Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. Putnam.

Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293(5537), 2105–2108. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1062872

Han, S., & Northoff, G. (2008). Culture-sensitive neural substrates of human cognition: A transcultural neuroimaging approach. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9(8), 646–654. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2456

Hsu, M., Bhatt, M., Adolphs, R., Tranel, D., & Camerer, C. F. (2005). Neural systems responding to degrees of uncertainty in human decision-making. Science, 310(5754), 1680–1683. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1115327

Jones, M., & Sugden, R. (2001). Positive confirmation bias in the acquisition of information. Theory and Decision, 50(1), 59–99.

M Dijker, A. J. (2014). Consciousness: A neural capacity for objectivity, especially pronounced in humans. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 223. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00223

Nelson, J. A. (2014). The power of stereotyping and confirmation bias to overwhelm accurate assessment: The case of economics, gender, and risk aversion. Journal of Economic Methodology, 21(3), 211–231.

Pinker, S. (1997). How the mind works. W. W. Norton & Company.

Sikorski, M. (2021). Objectivity for the research worker. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 11(3), 93. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-021-00400-6

Scheibner, Y. L. E. (2025). The relationship between reported individual differences in thought suppression and rebound effect (Bachelor thesis). Department of Psychology, University of Groningen. Retrieved from https://exampleuniversitylibrary.edu/theses/1234567

Torrez, B., Dupree, C. H., & Kraus, M. W. (2024). Objectivity interrogation of racial scholarship in psychology and management. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-63236-z

Tusche, A., Böckler, A., Kanske, P., Trautwein, F. M., & Singer, T. (2016). Decoding the charitable brain. Neuron, 90(1), 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2016.02.025

Wilholt, T. (2008). Bias and values in scientific research. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. Part A, 40(1), 92–101.