Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T18:15:55.428Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘How Do I Choose Thee? Let me Count the Ways’: A Textual Analysis of Similarities and Differences in Modes of Decision-making in China and the United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2015

Elke U. Weber ,
Daniel R. Ames  and
Ann-Renée Blais
Elke U. Weber
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Business, Columbia University, USA Defence Research and Development Canada, Toronto, Canada
Daniel R. Ames
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Business, Columbia University, USA Defence Research and Development Canada, Toronto, Canada
Ann-Renée Blais
Affiliation:
Graduate School of Business, Columbia University, USA Defence Research and Development Canada, Toronto, Canada
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper investigates the effect of decision-makers' culture on their implicit choice of how to make decisions. In a content analysis of major decisions described in American and Chinese twentieth-century novels, we test a series of hypotheses based on prior theoretical and empirical investigations of cross-cultural variation in human motivation and decision processes. The data show a striking degree of cultural similarity in the relationships between decision content, situational characteristics and the decision mode(s) employed, but also support several hypotheses about cultural differences. As predicted, Chinese decision-makers more frequently used role-based logic (a form of recognition-based decision-making) to arrive at decisions, by virtue of their greater awareness of and need for relational obligations. The hypothesis (based on conjectures about Chinese thinking style and personality differences) that Chinese decision-makers would show more rule-and case-based decision-making (two other variants of recognition-based decision-making) than decision-makers in American novels was also supported. After controlling for other predictor variables, there also was support for the hypothesis (based on comparative analyses of Chinese and Western philosophy) that analytic modes which base decisions on the calculation of best consequences would be used less frequendy by Chinese decision-makers. There was no evidence of greater prevention focus in Chinese decisions. These and other observed cultural similarities and differences in the dynamics of decision mode selection have implications for the study and practice of decision-making in managerial settings.

Type
Research Article
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , March 2005 , pp. 87 - 118
Copyright
Copyright © International Association for Chinese Management Research 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ames, D. R., Flynn, F. J. and Weber, E. U. (2004). ‘It's the thought that counts: On perceiving how helpers decide to lend a hand’. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blais, A-R. and Weber, E. U. (2001). ‘Domain-specificity and gender differences in decision making’. Risk Decision and Policy, 6, 47–69.Google Scholar
Bontempo, R. N., Bottom, W. P. and Weber, E. U. (1997). ‘Cross-cultural differences in risk perception: A model-based approach’. Risk Analysis, 17, 479–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chua, H. F., Yates, J. F., Oe, T. O. and Yamagushi, S. (2003). ‘Positive vs. negative emphasis: Cultural variations in effort decisions’. Presentation, Society for Judgment and Decision Making Meeting, 9 November 2003, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
Dake, K. (1991). ‘Orienting dispositions in the perception of risk: An analysis of contemporary worldviews and cultural biases’. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22, 61–82.Google Scholar
Damasio, A. R. (1993). Descartes' Error. New York: Avon Books.Google Scholar
Douglas, M. (1985). Risk acceptability according to the social sciences. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Douglas, M. and Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and Culture: An essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ellsworth, P. C. (1994). ‘Sense, culture, and sensibility’. In Kitayama, S. and Markus, H., Emotion and Culture. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Epstein, S. (1994). ‘Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious’. American Psychologist, 49, 709–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frisch, D. and Clemen, R. T. (1994). ‘Beyond expected utility: Rethinking behavior decision research’. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 46–54.Google Scholar
Gaenslen, F. (1986). ‘Culture and decision making in China, Japan, Russia, and the United States’. World Politics, 39, 87–103.Google Scholar
Goldstein, W. M. and Weber, E. U. (1995). ‘Content and its discontents: The use of knowledge in decision making’. In Busemeyer, J. R., Hastie, R. and Medin, D. L. (Eds), Decision Making from a cognitive perspective. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Vol. 32 (pp. 83–136). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Graham, A. C. (1967). ‘Chinese logic’. In Edwards, P. (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (pp. 522–5). New York: Macmillan Publishing.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1972). Knowledge and Human Interests, trans. Shapiro, J.J.. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Hammond, K. R. (1996). Human judgment and social policy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Higgins, E. T. (1999). ‘Promotion and prevention as a motivational duality: Implications for evaluative processes’. In Chaiken, S. and Trope, Y. (Eds), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 503–25). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Hilgard, E. R. (1987). Psychology in America: A Historical Survey. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture's Consequences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Hsee, C. and Kunreuther, H. (2000). ‘Affection effect in insurance decisions’. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 20, 141–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsee, C. K. and Weber, E. U. (1999). ‘Cross-national differences in risk preference and lay predictions’. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12, 165–79.Google Scholar
Hsu, F. L. K. (1970). Americans and Chinese: Purpose and fulfillment in great civilization. Garden City, NY: Natural History Press.Google Scholar
Janis, I. L. and Mann, L. (1977). Decision making: A psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and commitment. New York NY: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Kruglanski, A. W., Thompson, E. P., Higgins, E. T., Atash, M. N., Pierro, A., Shah, J. Y. and Spiegel, S. (2000). ‘To “do the right thing” or to “just do it”: Locomotion and assessment as distinct self-regulatory imperatives’. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 79, 793–815.Google Scholar
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). ‘Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion’. American Psychologist, 46, 819–834.Google Scholar
Lee, A. Y., Aaker, J. L. and Gardner, W. L. (2000). ‘The pleasures and pains of distinct self-construals: The role of interdependence in regulatory focus’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1122–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C.K. and Welch, E. (2001). ‘Risk as feelings’. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 267–86.Google Scholar
March, J. G. (1994). A Primer of Decision Making: How Decisions Happen. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
March, J. G. (1997). ‘Understanding how decisions happen in organizations’. In Shapira, Z. (Ed.), Organizational Decision Making (pp. 9–32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Markus, H. R. and Kitayama, S. (1991). ‘Culture and self: Implications for cognition, emotion and motivation’. Psychological Review, 98, 224–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, M. W., Menon, T. and Ames, D. R. (2001). ‘Lay theories and cultural psychology: Synthesizing the traditions through a focus on conceptions of individual and group agency’. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 169–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, M. W. and Peng, K. (1994). ‘Culture and cause: American and Chinese attributions for social and physical events’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 949–71.Google Scholar
Murray, H. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nakamura, H. (1960). The Ways of Thinking of Eastern People. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Nisbett, R. E. (2003). The geography of thought. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Northorp, F. S. C. (1946). The Meeting of East and West. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
O'Connor, E. S. (1997). ‘Telling decisions: The role of narrative in organizational decision making’. In Shapira, Z. (Ed.), Organizational Decision Making (pp. 304–23). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Palmer, C. G. S. (1996). ‘Risk perception: An empirical study of the relationship between worldview and the risk construct’. Risk Analysis, 16, 717–24.Google Scholar
Payne, J. W. (1997). ‘The scarecrow's search: A cognitive psychologist's perspective on organizational decision making’. In Shapira, Z. (Ed.), Organizational Decision Making (pp. 353–74). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R. and Johnson, E. J. (1993). The Adaptive Decision Maker. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Peters, E. and Slovic, P. (1996). ‘The role of affect and worldview as orienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance of nuclear power’. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 1427–53.Google Scholar
Pollock, S. M. and Chen, K. (1986). ‘Strive to conquer the big stink: Decision analysis in the People's Republic of China’. Interfaces, 16, 31–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prelec, D. and Herrnstein, R. (1991). ‘Preferences or principles: Alternative guidelines for choice’. In Zeckhauser, R.J. (Ed.), Strategy and Choice. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Segall, M. H., Campbell, D. T. and Herskovitz, M. J. (1966). The influence of culture on visual perception. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Shapira, Z. (Ed.) (1997). Organizational Decision Making. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1990). ‘Invariants of human behavior’. Annual Review of Psychology, 41 , 1–19.Google Scholar
Tada, Y. and Weber, E. U. (1998). ‘Representing psychological dimensions of decisions: Implications for behavioral decision models’. Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1049–54). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tetlock, P. E. (1992). ‘The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: Toward a social, contingency model’. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 331–76.Google Scholar
Triandis, H. C. (1989). ‘Cross-cultural studies of individualism and collectivism’. In Berman, J. (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 41–133). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Tse, D. K., Lee, K., Vertinsky, I., and Wehrung, D. A. (1988). ‘Does culture matter? A cross-cultural study of executives' choice, decisiveness, and risk adjustment in international marketing’. Journal of Marketing, 52, 81–95.Google Scholar
Weber, E. U. (1998). ‘From Shakespeare to Spielberg: Predicting modes of decision making’. Presidential Address, Annual Meeting, Society of Judgment and Decision Making, Dallas, TX.Google Scholar
Weber, E. U., Blais, A-R. and Betz, N. (2002). ‘A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors’. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15, 263–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, E. U., Böckenholt, U., Hilton, D. J. and Wallace, B. (2000). ‘Confidence judgments as expressions of experienced decision conflict’. Risk Decision and Policy, 5, 1–32.Google Scholar
Weber, E. U. and Hsee, C. K. (1998). ‘Cross-cultural differences in risk perception, but cross-cultural similarities in attitude towards perceived risk’. Management Science, 44, 1205–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, E. U. and Hsee, C. K. (1999). ‘Models and mosaics: Investigating cross-cultural differences in risk perception and risk preference’. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 611–17.Google Scholar
Weber, E. U. and Hsee, C. K. (2000). ‘Culture and individual decision-making’. Applied Psychology: An International Journal, 49, 32–61.Google Scholar
Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K. and Sokolowska, J. (1998). ‘What folklore tells us about risk and risk taking: A cross-cultural comparison of American, German, and Chinese proverbs’. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75, 170–86.Google Scholar
Weber, E. U. and Lindemann, P. (2002). ‘Decision modes or choosing how to choose: Making decisions wkh our head, our heart, or by the book’. Working Paper, Center for the Decision Sciences, Columbia University.Google Scholar
Weber, M. (1921). Soziologische Grundbegriffe. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr.Google Scholar
Windschitl, P. D. and Weber, E. U. (1999). ‘The interpretation of “likely” depends on context, but “70%” is 70%, right? The influence of associative processes on perceived certainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25, 1514–33.Google Scholar
Yates, J. F. and Lee, J. W. (1996). ‘Chinese decision making’. In Bond, M. H. (Ed.), Handbook of Chinese Psychology. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yates, J. F., Lee, J-W. and Bush, J. G. (1997). ‘General knowledge overconfidence: cross-national variations, response style, and “reality”’. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70, 87–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, B. (1992). ‘Cultural conditioning in decision making: A prospect of probabilistic thinking. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Department of Information Systems, London School of Economics.Google Scholar
Zhou, X. (1997). ‘Organizational decision making as rule following’. In Shapira, Z. (Ed.), Organizational Decision Making (pp. 257–81). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar