User:Xia616/Cross-cultural differences in decision-making

Article Draft

Decision-making models

In cross-cultural psychology, researchers have developed models to conceptualize and predict how culture influences decision-making behaviors. These models vary based on assumptions about the role of culture:

• The Universal Model assumes minimal variation in decision-making processes across cultures. Researchers using this approach generalize findings from one group to a broader population, suggesting that decision-making behaviors are largely universal.
• The Dispositional Model acknowledges significant cross-cultural differences in decision-making. Proponents argue that cultural influences are deeply embedded in individuals' cognition, consistently shaping decision-making processes across all contexts and situations.
• The Dynamic Model takes a flexible perspective, recognizing cross-cultural differences while viewing cultural knowledge as situationally activated rather than static. This model emphasizes the dynamic interplay between cultural influences and situational factors, supporting the development of nuanced theories on decision-making.

Integration of Judgment and Decision-Making Research

Judgment and decision-making (JDM) research in psychology has contributed additional insights to these models by challenging the traditional economic assumption of the "rational actor." Studies in JDM highlight systematic biases and heuristics, such as the availability heuristic, representativeness heuristic, framing effects, anchoring, and confirmation bias, which can influence decisions and lead to deviations from rationality.

Incorporating JDM principles into cultural decision-making models has provided a more comprehensive framework. For instance, the availability heuristic helps explain why individuals in collectivist cultures, exposed to narratives of social harmony, may exhibit greater risk aversion. Similarly, framing effects highlight how cultural differences influence responses to marketing campaigns or public health messages. By integrating JDM insights, these models account for the complex interactions between cultural values, cognitive biases, and situational factors, offering a more detailed understanding of decision-making across cultures.

Nudging and Decision-Making

Nudging is a behavioral science concept that influences decision-making by subtly altering choice architecture. Unlike mandates, nudges guide behavior by making certain options more intuitive or accessible while preserving individual freedom of choice.

Negative nudging on the New York subway

Defaults and Simplification

Defaults are a powerful nudge, as people often stick with pre-selected options due to inertia or the endowment effect. For example, automatically enrolling employees in retirement savings plans or making organ donation the default option increases participation rates. Simplifying processes also enhances desired behaviors; offering on-site bank account registration during financial literacy workshops has been shown to boost sign-ups.

Social Norms

Nudges often leverage social norms, where individuals align with what others are doing. For instance, informing hotel guests that most previous visitors reused towels significantly increased towel reuse rates.

Cultural Contexts

While nudging is widely studied in economic contexts, its application to culturally influenced decisions is less explored. Cultural values and cognitive differences suggest that effective nudges may need to be tailored for diverse populations. Further research could enhance their global applicability. Nudging remains a versatile tool for promoting positive behavior across domains like health, finance, and sustainability.

Priming

The literature on automatic cognition suggests that behavior is shaped by exposure to elements of the social world in a way that occurs below awareness or intention. We learn the stereotyped attitudes which later influence our decisions from the shared schematic representations in a certain culture. When an individual is primed with a concept, often by but not always an implicit instruction to think about it, all the aspects of relevant information become activated and influence decision-making. Generally speaking, there are two distinct ways to insert cultural prime that influence cultural tendencies in judgment. The first way is through direct priming in which priming could be triggered by situational cues that quickly bring specific cultural schemas to mind: individualism vs collectivism, independence vs interdependence, individuation vs contextualization. For example, the individuals who are instructed to underlie all first person plural pronouns in the text are thus primed with the concept of collectivism and then show a statistically significant increase in the inclination to make decisions according with the values of the concept they have been primed with. On the other hand, the second way to insert cultural prime would be through associative or indirect priming. This type of priming involves cultural symbols and elements that implicitly activate related cultural schemas through association rather than explicit instruction seen in direct priming. For instance, Western-Chinese bicultural in Hong Kong were shown iconic images of Western and Chinese culture and results have shown they there is shifts towards more dispositional biases in attribution when seen western iconic images, while there is a shift towards more contextual biases in attribution when seen easter iconic images. Overall, both the direct and associative priming seems to be able to provide a "burst" of temporary accessibility to cultural schema, which influence cognitive process including making judgments by activating relevant cultural representations. Thus, even without conscious endorsement of a specific worldview, priming encourages cultural aligned judgments and decision making process much of the time through the automatic activation of deeply ingrained, culturally specific schemas.

Time pressure

All individuals across cultures have cultural and personal knowledge. Cultural knowledge tends to reflect a large sample of life's events, whereas personal knowledge focuses more on individual or atypical experiences. The other distinction between cultural and personal knowledge is their accessibility. Day after day members of a cultural group are primed with a set of beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral patterns, which contributes to the building-up, storing and reinforcing this cultural knowledge. As a result, cultural knowledge is very accessible, even under high cognitive work load. In contrast, Personal knowledge is a recording of a single experience and doesn't undergo so many repetitions. That's why it takes a deliberate attempt to access it, which requires more time and effort. Consider the following example. Independent individuals are believed to better respond to promotion-based information, whereas individuals with interdependent self construal are believed to better respond to prevention-based information. In high time pressure condition, this hypothesis is borne out: North Americans are more likely to make up their mind to buy a sun screen having watched a promotion-based commercial, and East Asians are more likely to make the purchase having watched a prevention-based commercial. In the low time pressure condition, when the subjects have more time to deliberate, this difference becomes less salient, or even disappears altogether.

Peer pressure

In collectivist culture, it emphasize on the notion that individuals tend to prioritize group goals over personal preferences, and they want to pursue harmony in their social relationship. Personal attitudes in collectivist contexts are often less prominent as decision guides since the self is defined as interconnected and embedded with members of in-groups. Therefore, prioritizing one’s individual wants may signal an undesirable focus on the self over group needs in collectivist culture. In accordance with what collectivist culture dictates, Japanese and Chinese students are more likely, compared with American and Italian students, to decide whether they will eat in a fast food restaurants contingent on the norms adopted in their societies, and less likely to make choices contingent on their personal attitudes. However, this peculiarity is much more salient when they make plans whether to eat with their friends and less salient when they decide whether to eat in a fast food restaurant on their own. In the latter context, theses individuals shows a greater likelihood of acting based on personal preferences as the context reduces social interdependence, allowing individual attitudes to play a larger role in their decisions. Such a result suggests that individuals in collectivist are less likely to act according to their cultural scripts or beliefs when they do not experience peer pressure.

The pressure to provide reasons for the decision

Generally speaking, individuals from different culture, mainly culture with independent construal or interdependent construal, uses different model of agency: conjoint model and disjoint model. Conjoint model is prominent in Asia cultural context and emphasize on the idea that agency is responsive to the desires and expectations of important others, while disjoint model is prominent in North America cultural context and emphasize on the idea that people should choose freely on the basis of their preferences. For instance, in consumer choices, Americans are found to choose the consumer item according to their preference more than Indian. However, when individuals need to provide reasons for their decision, the differences in model selection seem to be affected. The need to provide reasons evokes an information-processing strategy that relies on top-down application of rules and principles instead of bottom-up processing that relies on personal knowledge, across culture. Thus, Cultural knowledge is often recruited when individuals need to provide reasons for their decision. This can be explained with the help of the supposition that individuals feel the pressure to conform when asked to provide reasons, as they don't want to be the outsiders. When they are not asked to explain their choices, they feel freer to rely on their personal knowledge. It has been found that Chinese have a significantly lower tendency to compromise, which earlier on has been found to be one of their characteristic traits, when not asked to provide reasons for their consumer decisions. Americans, on the contrary, are more likely to compromise when they are not accountable to provide explanations for their choice.

The individual tolerance for cognitive ambiguity

Widely shared cultural knowledge provides individuals with a validated framework to interpret otherwise ambiguous experience, thus providing its followers with a sense of epistemic security and providing protection from the uncertainty and unpredictability. For instance, there is strong evidence to show that mainland Chinese individuals seems to be more decisive and this is being attributed to the Chinese traditions of classifying the world into distinct categories - Black or white. Generally speaking, indecisiveness is said to be one of the characteristics of East Asian culture, except for mainland china individuals. Such a characteristics is often said to be attributed to the cultural framework of naive dialecticism, which stresses on the idea to embrace conflicting beliefs of the world, which could be reflected in the case of decision making where individuals that values naive dialeticism would value both the positive and negative side of a decision. The individuals of all cultures vary in the degree they have a need for firm answers. The individuals with high tolerance for ambiguity are found to be less likely to act with the accordance of their culture.

The universal effects of situational demands on decision mode selection across cultures

Culture shapes the prevalence of cultural factors: decision content, decision motives, and situational demands and affordances. For instance, consider the mundane action of opening the refrigerator; Americans are said to labelled this action as a "decision" more than the Indian counterparts. A possible explanation is that people from individualistic cultures might actively seek opportunities to make decisions or, at the very least, interpret more of their actions as decisions. Therefore, a mundane action like opening a refrigerator might be labeled a "decision" in individualistic cultures, as people see even small acts as exercises in personal control. On the other hand, in collectivist cultures, people may not frame these same actions as decisions, because decision-making is not seen as a central expression of individual autonomy. The act of choosing is less tied to identity or individualism.

It also shapes how functional factors translate into decision modes – calculation-, recognition-, rule-, role-, and affect-based decision modes. For instance, previous work have suggested that factors such as decision content, individual differences in decision motives, as well as situational characteristics all affect what type of decisions mode to be in play. There are, however, a number of universal tendencies across cultures. For example, when action is called for, members of both independent and interdependent social orientations tend to employ role-, rule-, or case-based decision making, as they are much more accessible and allow for less cognitive load, whereas calculation-based mode will be less frequent for relationship decisions in both orientations.