ArticlePDF AvailableLiterature Review


Cultural influences on individual judgment and decision making are increasingly understood in terms of dynamic constructive processing and the structures in social environments that shape distinct processing styles, directing initial attentional foci, activating particular judgment schemas and decision strategies, and ultimately reinforcing some judgment and decision making (JDM) patterns over others. These structures include the society's observable patterns of normative actions and responses, its prevalent forms of interpersonal interaction, the typical size and density of social networks, the ideational frames represented publically in texts and institutions, and so forth. We review this emerging perspective on culture and JDM in both economic and social domains, noting the distinctive insights it yields. We suggest new ways that cultural research is becoming relevant to mainstream JDM researchers, while also recognizing issues in need of further research. © The Author(s) 2010.
Perspectives on Psychological
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/1745691610375556
2010 5: 410Perspectives on Psychological Science
Elke U. Weber and Michael W. Morris
Culture and Judgment and Decision Making: The Constructivist Turn
Published by:
On behalf of:
Association For Psychological Science
can be found at:Perspectives on Psychological ScienceAdditional services and information for Alerts:
at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 3, 2014pps.sagepub.comDownloaded from at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 3, 2014pps.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Culture and Judgment and Decision
Making: The Constructivist Turn
Elke U. Weber and Michael W. Morris
Center for Decision Sciences, Columbia University, New York
Cultural influences on individual judgment and decision making are increasingly understood in terms of dynamic constructive
processing and the structures in social environments that shape distinct processing styles, directing initial attentional foci,
activating particular judgment schemas and decision strategies, and ultimately reinforcing some judgment and decision making
(JDM) patterns over others. These structures include the society’s observable patterns of normative actions and responses,
its prevalent forms of interpersonal interaction, the typical size and density of social networks, the ideational frames
represented publically in texts and institutions, and so forth. We review this emerging perspective on culture and JDM in both
economic and social domains, noting the distinctive insights it yields. We suggest new ways that cultural research is becoming
relevant to mainstream JDM researchers, while also recognizing issues in need of further research.
judgment and decision making, culture, preference construction, social construction.
The field of judgment and decision making (JDM) encom-
passes the study of economic and policy choices that involve
assessing risks and benefits (Kahneman & Tversky, 1984) and
of interpersonal and social choices that involve attributions and
expectancies (Nisbett & Ross, 1980). Although traditionally
cultural psychology and JDM scarcely overlapped, an informal
analysis of representative journals
suggests that interest in
culture within JDM is increasing; the culture literature features
increasing rates of social choice (11% vs. 15%) and economic
choice (2% vs. 3%) research and, correspondingly, the rate of
culture-focused research is increasing in the social JDM
(1% vs. 5%) and economic JDM fields (2% vs. 3%).
The uptick in JDM attention to culture may reflect
changes in how psychologists model cultural influence. The
dominant past model accounts for country effects, usually
contrasts between Western and East Asian nations, in terms
of traits such as individualist versus collectivist value orienta-
tions (Schwartz, 1992; Triandis, 2001), independent versus
interdependent self-concepts (Markus & Kitayama, 1991), or
individuating versus holistic cognitive styles (Nisbett, 2003).
Drawing tools from personality psychology, the trait approach
offered a way to go beyond using nationality as a proxy for
culture. Yet it may be ultimately limited in its appeal to JDM,
a field in which theoretical tastes favor task and context effects
rather than individual difference effects.
In the past decade, trait approaches to culture have encoun-
tered empirical challenges. The central hypothesis that
cross-national differences in JDM would be mediated by
individual-difference measures of values, self-concepts, and
cognitive style has not found consistent support (Cole, 1996;
Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002). Whereas trait
accounts posit stable worldviews, cultural differences in JDM
have been found to vary with task conditions, such as atten-
tional load, time pressure, and choice format (e.g., Briley,
Morris, & Simonson, 2000; Chiu, Morris, Hong, & Menon,
2000; Knowles et al., 2001). Finally, whereas trait models hold
that to change worldviews imprinted by early socialization
requires a sustained and traumatic enculturation process
(Berry, 1992), recent research highlights that many immigrants
and other biculturals switch effortlessly between heritage and
host culture styles of judgment as the situation demands (Hong,
Morris, Chiu, & Benet-Martinez, 2000).
In response to such evidence, researchers increasingly pro-
pose that cultural styles of JDM reflect not fixed worldviews
but evoked frames of mind—situated meaning construction
Corresponding Author:
Elke U. Weber, Columbia University, 3022 Broadway, New York, NY 10027.
Perspectives on Psychological Science
5(4) 410–419
ª The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permission:
DOI: 10.1177/1745691610375556
at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 3, 2014pps.sagepub.comDownloaded from
processes reflecting internal cultural representations from
memory as well as external structures in the cultural environ-
ment (e.g., Morris, Menon, & Ames, 2001). On this constructi-
vist view, cultures are traditions of thought and practice,
and living in one imbues a person with a host of representations
(schemas, categories, rules, procedures, goals, etc.) that are
discrete yet loosely associated in memory. Cultural representa-
tions guide judgments and decisions to the extent that they
become activated in framing a problem so as to constrain atten-
tion, evidential search, and inference. Activation depends
largely on applicability and accessibility, which in turn hinges
on recency and frequency of use (Higgins, 1996). Frames
coalesce through integrating internally accessible schemas
with features of the external task as it is encountered by the
perceiver, including its many layers of context: the place, the
people present, the relationships a perceiver carries into the sit-
uation, the institutionalized practices or activities surrounding
the task, and so forth. In its attention to the many roles of exter-
nal environmental structures, constructivism has much in com-
mon with sociocultural approaches (Cole, 1996) rooted in
Vygotsky’s (1962/1986) emphasis on the proximal environ-
ment and also with contemporary models of situated cognition
(Smith & Semin, 2007).
Within JDM research, constructivist approaches are not new.
A theoretical impetus of JDM research on economic decisions
(Kahneman & Tversky, 1984; Simon, 1957) is challenging the
economists’ assumption of stable, prestored preferences by
demonstrating that decisions depend on features of the decision
and task context. These features affect constructed preferences
through selective attention (Weber & Johnson, 2009) and mem-
ory processes, including activation of knowledge structures
(Weber & Johnson, 2006) and task environment conditioned
retrieval processes (Johnson, Haubl, & Keinan, 2007; Weber
et al., 2007). Likewise, research on social judgment and choice
emphasizes the role of contextual and task features in activating
schemas and of schemas in constraining attention and interpre-
tation (Higgins, 1996; Nisbett & Ross, 1980). The constructivist
turn in cultural psychology has the potential to inform JDM
literatures by drawing attention to a yet wider range of construc-
tive processes, especially ways in which choice schemas and
procedures are primed or reinforced by culturally specific
features of the social environment that provide the contexts of
judgment and decision making.
In this article, we review emerging constructivist, structuralist
accounts in several JDM areas. In the social domain, we con-
sider causal attribution judgments and conflict decisions.
Turning to the economic domain, we examine the literature
on overconfidence, risk perception, and the related area of
risky choice. Finally, we consider the fast-growing area of
intertemporal choice.
Causal Attributions
The ‘fundamental attribution error’ (Nisbett & Ross, 1980)
refers to excessive attention to others’ personal dispositions
as an explanation of their behavior while overlooking
situational causes. Cultures differ in this tendency in everyday
explanations (Miller, 1984) and judgments of causal relevance
(Choi, Dalal, Kim-Prieto, & Park, 2003). Morris and Peng
(1994) tested online causal perceptions with animated dis-
plays—for example, one fish swimming in front of others could
be traced to internal goals (leading) or situational pressure
(being chased)—and found that American perceivers attributed
more to the actor’s internal properties, whereas Chinese
perceivers attributed more to the situational context. Masuda
and Nisbett (2006) presented fish displays followed by a mem-
ory task and found that American perceivers remembered more
about the central figure in the scene and that East Asians
remembered more about the surrounding context. Similar
differences show in saccadic eye movements (H.F. Chua,
Boland, & Nisbett, 2005) and change detection accuracy
(Boduroglu, Shah, & Nisbett, 2009). In sum, starting with basic
visual attention and continuing to attribution of causality for
behavior, Westerners tend to focus in on the central figure,
whereas Easterners focus more broadly on the context.
Could this difference in constructive processing reflect
features in the environments of Western and East Asian perceiv-
ers? One feature that differs between the two cultures is
behavioral norms. First, perceivers observe different norms of
action. The contingencies of action differ—for instance,
personality accounts for more variance and situational con-
straints account for less variance in Britain as compared with
Japan (Argyle, Shimoda, & Little, 1978). Investigating differ-
ences in the press of situations across 35 countries, Gelfand and
collaborators (Gelfand, 2008; Gelfand, Nishii, & Raver, 2006)
found that perceived situational constraint is associated with
institutional ‘tightness’ (e.g., strictness of rule enforcement
by family, school, and legal institutions) and psychological
‘uptightness’ about situations (e.g., high impulse control, self-
monitoring, and prevention focus). Situational action norms may
give rise to situational attribution biases: Frequent observation of
situation-driven behavior would render perceivers’ situational-
causality schemas chronically accessible, and the accuracy
(or ecological rationality) of situational attributions would rein-
force their use as a default attributional strategy.
In addition to norms of action, settings also differ in
norms of judgment. Perceivers notice the modal attributions
of their peers and consciously and nonconsciously imitate
these strategies. Several recent studies find strikingly that
East–West differences in attribution are mediated less by per-
sonal beliefs in values or implicit theories than by perceived
norms of judgment or perceived consensus (Shteynberg,
Gelfand, & Kim, 2009; Zou et al., 2009). Consistent with
this, Chiu et al. (2000) found that culturally typical
attribution differences are most likely when individuals are
motivated to think consensually or conventionally
(Kruglanski, Pierro, Mannetti, & De Grada, 2006).
If the dynamic through which norms influence people is like
marination (immersion and slow permeation), then the influ-
ence of cultural primes is more like detonation (triggering an
internal buried device). Cultural tendencies in judgment can
be primed in two distinct ways. Direct semantic priming of
Culture and JDM 411
at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 3, 2014pps.sagepub.comDownloaded from
individualism–collectivism, independence–interdependence,
and individuation–contextualization has been demonstrated by
engaging these schemas with prior tasks, such as reading and
commenting on stories (Trafimow, Triandis, & Goto, 1991) or
circling ‘I and ‘we’ (Gardner, Gabriel, & Lee, 1999). This
manipulation primes individuating and contextualizing process-
ing, even for nonsocial stimuli (Kuhnen & Oyserman, 2002;
Oyserman & Lee, 2008). East Asian environments contain
ubiquitous primes including collectivistically structured rela-
tionships, organizations, and institutions (Hofstede, 1991);
holistic intellectual and medical traditions (Nisbett, 2003);
and even contextually stimulating architecture and urban
design (Miyamoto, Nisbett, & Masuda, 2006). Self-
conceptions may also be differentially primed by distinctive
linguistic practices, such as the East Asian practices of drop-
ping first-person pronouns or addressing groups rather than
individuals (Kashima, 2008).
In addition to direct priming, there is indirect or associative
priming. In every culture there are representative emblems
and symbols—images, sounds, and activities—that act like
magnets of meaning in that they powerfully evoke or make
accessible other representations of the culture. For an Ameri-
can, the sound of jazz music, the taste of apple pie, or the sight
of a baseball game might stir up culturally related memories
and emotions, as well as independence, individualism, and
individuating schemas, not because of any semantic overlap,
but simply because these American icons are central nodes in
the cognitive network of American representations. Hong
et al. (2000) exposed Western-Chinese biculturals in Hong
Kong (HK) to iconic images of Western (Chinese) culture and
found shifts toward more dispositional (contextual) biases in
attributions. Cultural symbols are encountered not only
visually but verbally, in the subtle references to shared con-
cepts that ground ingroup conversations (Kashima, 2008). Fu
et al. (2007) showed that being primed by subtle verbal refer-
ences, like getting inside jokes, requires insider knowledge.
Chinese-American biculturals were primed by both American
references (e.g., ‘A game played with diamond, glove, and a
ball’ for baseball) and Chinese references (‘‘An underground
army’’ for the terra cotta soldiers of Xi’an), whereas monocul-
tural participants were only primed by references to their own
culture. In sum, associative priming can be triggered by the
culturally laden images and discourses that saturate a cultural
environment. Although the mechanism of behavioral norms
would contribute to the chronic accessibility of culturally
typical schemas, direct and associative priming would add
frequent bursts of enhanced temporary accessibility. Hence,
without positing fixed worldviews, it still may be the case that
these schemas shape frames of judgment much of the time.
Conflict Decisions
Cooperate or compete, accommodate or resist, conform or
dissent? Such decisions within social interactions involve con-
flict between collective interests and self interest. In ingroup
interactions, East Asians have a stronger tendency toward
collective-interest strategies than do Westerners (Triandis,
2001). These preferences may arise from Easterners’ broader
attentional focus and their more (charitably) contextualist
attributions (Morris, Leung, & Iyengar, 2004; Valenzuela,
Srivastava, & Lee, 2005). Also there is evidence that the
cross-national differences in group-oriented choices are
mediated by perceived norms beyond effects of personal values
(Ohbuchi & Saito, 2007; Zou et al., 2009), and, consistent with
the norm mechanism, differences are exhibited most when
individuals have motivations to think consensually or conven-
tionally (Fu et al., 2007). Priming is also important. In HK
biculturals, compromising tendencies are elicited by exposure
to collectivist (individualist) words (Briley & Wyer, 2002) or
Chinese (English) language instructions (Briley et al., 2000).
Questions about Chinese (American) holidays induced
Chinese-Americans toward more cooperative decisions in a
prisoner’s dilemma game and toward preferences for majority
rather than unique options in a set (LeBoeuf, Shafir, & Bayuk,
2009). Wong and Hong (2005) showed bicultural HK students
either Chinese (kung fu), American (football), or culturally
neutral pictures, and then gave them a prisoners’ dilemma
facing ingroup or outgroup counterparts. Cooperation was
highest in the Chinese prime condition for ingroup but not
outgroup counterparts; that is, more typically Chinese deci-
sions were made when the cultural schema was accessible and
In addition to behavioral norms and primes, other environ-
mental properties may figure in culturally typical conflict deci-
sions. Particularly important in formal negotiations are the
constituencies to whom a negotiator must answer. Gelfand and
Realo (1999) argued that because accountability to audiences
with known views creates a tendency to adhere to these views
(Lerner & Tetlock, 1999), negotiators accountable to cultural
ingroups would adhere to cultural norms about conflict resolu-
tion. They found that such accountability made collectivistic
negotiators more cooperative, whereas it made individualistic
negotiators more competitive.
In informal conflicts, the pattern of greater Eastern ingroup
cooperation may reflect differences in social networks.
Because of higher population density and lower levels of geo-
graphic, social, and career mobility, Eastern societies feature
dense networks, meaning that a person’s associates or contacts
are likely to be themselves interconnected. Network surveys
show for instance that Chinese managers have denser profes-
sional networks than matched American managers (R.Y.J.
Chua, Morris, & Ingram, 2009). Density entails that relation-
ships are embedded within ties to mutually known third parties,
which enables reputational sanctioning against defection and
hence provides social insurance (Menon & Morris, 2001). The
pattern of Asians being more likely than Americans to avoid
conflict and compromise with friends but not with strangers has
been traced to different values (Leung, 1988), but it may
instead reflect decision frames constructed in response to dif-
ferent network contexts (Morris, Podolny, & Ariel, 2000).
Likewise, whereas Kim and Markus (1999) interpreted cultural
differences in preference for unique rather than majority
412 Weber and Morris
at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 3, 2014pps.sagepub.comDownloaded from
options in terms of dispositional need for uniqueness, Yama-
gishi, Hashimoto, and Schug (2008) argued that Japanese
default to the collective-interest strategy because of the high
costs in dense networks being sanctioned for acting selfishly,
showing that the Japanese preference for majority options
declines when sanctioning is inapplicable (i.e., when the parti-
cipant is the last of the group to choose) or infeasible (when the
participant’s choice is anonymous). Similarly, Japanese in trust
games do not decide to trust more in general; they are more
likely to trust others with whom they have initiated a relation-
ship and they are less likely to trust strangers (Kuwabara et al.,
2007). In sum, a penchant to cooperate within enduring, com-
mitted relationships may be an equilibrium response to dense
Further research highlights the structure of interpersonal
interaction situations. In a research program on cultural differ-
ences in self-related emotions, Kitayama and colleagues
(Kitayama, Markus, Matsumoto, & Norasakkunkit, 1997;
Kitayama, Mesquita, & Karasawa, 2006; Morling, Kitayama, &
Miyamoto, 2002) sampled the everyday interaction situations
that Americans and Japanese experience most frequently, then
presented representative sets of described situations (with their
cultural provenance obscured) to fresh sets of participants, ask-
ing for their (simulated) response to each. They consistently
found situation–culture effects: American situations tend to
evoke feelings of self-enhancement and efficacy, and Japanese
situations tend to evoke self-critical feelings yet relatedness to
others. Kitayama et al. (1997) proposed that the American and
Japanese settings are conducive to these different modes of self
experience because they make different biased pools of sym-
bolic resources available for the construction of meanings and
emotional responses. Results also show participant–culture
effects in which Americans were generally more likely to exhi-
bit the independent-self responses and Japanese were more
likely to exhibit the interdependent responses, suggesting that
the responses afforded or invited by the modal situations in a
given society become default responses.
Taking this approach to the domain of conflict decisions,
Savani, Morris, Naidu, Kumar, and Berlia (in press) have pro-
posed that the situation-scapes found in America and those
found in India differentially reinforce accommodative
responses to influence attempts. Content analysis of sampled
situations showed that Indian influence attempts are twice as
likely to be driven by other-serving motives, whether sampled
from influencees or influencers. Participants were shown a
large set of representative Indian and American situations and
asked to report their expectation about the consequences of
accommodation and their decision to accommodate or not.
Results showed predicted situation–culture and participant–
culture effects; situations from India evoked more positive
expectations and more accommodation decisions, and Indian
participants generally accommodated more than did the Ameri-
can participants. It is interesting to note that the participant–
culture effect diminished over the many trials (with increasing
exposure to situations from the other culture), whereas the sit-
uation–culture effect did not. This suggests participants’
decision tendencies are tuned to the affordances of their
society’s situation-scape while still being dynamically adaptive
to recent experiences.
Confidence Judgments
Judging the accuracy of one’s beliefs is important in both social
and economic domains. Although overconfidence is present in
Western cultures, Yates, Lee, and Bush (1997) found it to be
stronger in East Asian societies (albeit not Japan). A common
strategy for constructing confidence judgments is comparing
reasons for and against one’s answer. Yates, Lee, and Shinot-
suka (1996) prompted American, Japanese, and Chinese
respondents to generate reasons that argued either for or against
the correctness of their answers to general knowledge
questions. For the Japanese and American sample, 48% and
41% of generated reasons were reasons that critically argued
against respondents’ answers. This was only true for 24% of
reasons for the Chinese sample. Yates et al. (1996) traces this
to differences in educational practices encouraging critical
thinking, which reinforce counterarguing as a mental habit.
Risk Perception
Perceptions of risk in a societal policy or choice option are not
just reflections of objective information; they are constructed
judgments that differ across individuals and cultures. Luce and
Weber (1986) proposed that such perceptions can be modeled
as conjoint expected risk (CER): the linear combination of the
probability of breaking even, of a gain, and of a loss; and the
conditional expectations of power-function transformed gains
and losses, respectively. The CER model captures both simila-
rities in people’s risk judgments (by a common functional form
through which probabilities and outcomes of risky options are
combined) and individual and group differences (by model
parameters that reflect the relative attention and thus weight
given to different components). When the CER model was
fitted to financial risk judgments of business students and
security analysts in HK, Taiwan, the Netherlands, and the
United States, the differences in model parameters corre-
sponded to a Chinese–Western division (Bontempo, Bottom, &
Weber, 1997) consistent with country level differences in
uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 1991). Also, positive out-
comes reduced risk perceptions less for the Chinese than it did
for the Western samples, and the magnitude of losses had a
larger effect on the risk perceptions for the Chinese samples.
The psychometric paradigm (Slovic, Fischhoff, &
Lichtenstein, 1986) treats risk perception as a multidimensional
construct, incorporating more than just possible outcomes and
their probabilities. Laypeople’s perceptions of risk are system-
atically biased (compared with experts) in the way they
overweight risk associated with infrequent, catastrophic, and
involuntary events and underweight the risk associated with
frequent, familiar, and voluntary events. Although some cul-
tural differences in risk perception for technological hazards
have been found, respondents across countries or cultures seem
Culture and JDM 413
at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 3, 2014pps.sagepub.comDownloaded from
to share the same factor structure. Differences in where cultures
placed a particular hazard (e.g., nuclear power) within this fac-
tor space are interpretable given their specific national expo-
sures and socioeconomic concerns (see Weber & Hsee, 2000).
Hypotheses about cultural differences in perceptions of
technology hazards and other societal risks follow from
Douglas and Wildavsky’s (1982) theory that, through
collective-level processes of selectively attending and ignoring
evidence, cultures construe particular activities as dangerous in
order to maintain their structure of social relationships and cor-
responding cultural worldviews. According to the theory, indi-
vidualist cultures where people interact according to market
logic should dismiss risks of environmental catastrophe from
overconsumption, as it suggests failure of market institutions,
yet should exaggerate risks associated with socialized medi-
cine. Hierarchist cultures should minimize the risk of nuclear
power, as such technologies inherently involve deference to
experts, yet should exaggerate the dangers of civil disobe-
dience, as this empowers nonelites. While rejecting the func-
tionalist assumptions of Douglas and Wildavsky’s theory,
researchers have investigated its assertions about the affinities
between particular risk perceptions and worldviews by survey-
ing individual and group differences. Dake (1991) found indi-
vidual differences in social attitudes related to the cultural
dimensions correlated systematically with perceived political
and technological risks (albeit not with economic risks). Much
evidence suggests that White males have more individualistic
and hierarchist attitudes and more reduced perceptions of tech-
nological risks than do other Americans (e.g., Finucane et al.,
2000). In a representative sample of Americans (Kahan,
Braman, Gastil, Slovic, & Mertz, 2007), attitudinal measures
of cultural worldviews predicted perceived policy risks beyond
that predicted by race and gender. Results suggest risk percep-
tions are distorted by identity-protective motivated reasoning.
A question for future research is to what extent the distinctive
cultural attitudes and risk perceptions of White males are
evoked constructively by their distinctive interaction, relation-
ship, and institutional structures.
Risky Choice
Preference for risk in the financial domain has traditionally
been modeled within the expected utility framework, inferring
risk aversion or risk seeking from the shape of the utility func-
tion inferred from a set of choices. However, alternative forma-
lizations exist, including the risk–return framework (Weber &
Milliman, 1997), in which willingness to pay (WTP) for a risky
option is seen as a compromise between the option’s return and
its risk, a tradeoff between greed and fear. Whereas finance
models equate ‘return’ with the expected value of the option
and ‘risk’ with its variance and assume that decision makers
seek to minimize the risk of a portfolio for a given level of
expected return, psychophysical models treat risk and return
as psychological variables that can vary as a function of situa-
tional contexts, including cultural settings. Weber and Hsee
(1998) presented American, German, Polish, and Chinese
participants with a set of financial investment options and mea-
sured WTP and perceived riskiness, finding cross-national dif-
ferences on both. Chinese showed lowest risk perception and
highest WTP, and Americans were the opposite extreme. In a
regression of WTP on expected return and perceived risk, the
coefficient on perceived risk (i.e., risk attitude) did not differ
as a function of nationality. Cross-national differences in WTP
were completely accounted for by those in risk perception.
How is it that Chinese and Americans construct and act on
different perceptions of the same financial choice options?
Compelling evidence suggests the perceived risk of financial
choices depends on the implicit context of the decision maker’s
social network (Weber & Hsee, 1999). Collectivist societies are
often described as tightly knit social fabrics in which individu-
als are suspended in a web of interdependent relationships.
Hsee and Weber (1999) compared the size and nature of social
networks of students in the United States, the People’s Repub-
lic of China, and a range of other Western countries and found
that economic support networks tend to be larger in collectivist
settings than they are in individualist settings. Recent research
reveals that, compared with Americans, Chinese managers’
economic support relationships overlap more with their friend-
ships and are more likely to be imbued with affective trust; in
short, Chinese society involves more relationships combining
economic support and affectivity, like family ties (R.Y.J. Chua,
Morris, & Ingram, 2009). The cushion hypothesis (Weber &
Hsee, 1998) argues that large networks of these economic
support ties insure individuals against financial worst-case out-
comes, and Hsee and Weber (1999) found that the size of this
network mediated cross-cultural differences in risk prefer-
ences. The cushion hypothesis also correctly predicted that
cross-cultural differences in risk preference between Chinese
and Americans were restricted to outcomes that can be trans-
ferred between members of a network (i.e., money, but not
health or grades; Hsee & Weber, 1999).
Weber, Hsee, and Sokolowska (1998) compared the content
of Chinese and American proverbs, using ratings by both
Chinese and American evaluators, to gain further insight into
the sources of cultural differences in risk taking—in particular,
whether observed differences in behavior reflect long-standing
differences in cultural values or differences in the current
socio-economic or political situation. Regardless of the nation-
ality of the raters, Chinese proverbs were judged to advise
greater risk taking than American proverbs, suggesting that
observed differences in risk-taking stem, at least in part, from
norms encoded in traditional teachings. In addition, Chinese
raters perceived both Chinese and American proverbs to advo-
cate greater risk taking than did American raters, but only for
financial risks and not for social risks, as expected because col-
lective financial (or material) risk insurance requires that social
networks will be maintained and social risks avoided.
Intertemporal Choice
Economic choices often involve dilemmas between options
that vary in amount and timing. Surprisingly little research has
414 Weber and Morris
at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 3, 2014pps.sagepub.comDownloaded from
examined cultural influences on intertemporal choice, given
that cultures differ in perceptions of time, attitudes towards
time, and valuation of the long term (Gell, 1992; Hoftstede,
1991). Researchers may assume that the drivers of people’s dis-
counting of delayed outcomes are mostly biological and
thus (more) universal across cultures. A hyperbolic discount
function, which models steep discounting for initial delays and
more moderate discounting for subsequent delays, seems to fit
not just human choices but those of a wide range of other
species (Green & Myerson, 2004). For instance, a recent
paper reporting Japanese studies of delay discounting does
not consider cultural influence (Ohmura, Takahashi, &
Kitamura, 2005).
Yet there is also much evidence that delay decisions vary
with individual and contextual differences, suggesting they
involve constructive processing and not just hardwired biologi-
cal responses. Age greatly affects delay discounting (Read &
Read, 2004). Discounting is greater for delayed gains than
for losses, for smaller outcomes than for larger outcomes, and
for health than for monetary or environmental outcomes
(Hardisty & Weber, 2009). Discounting is also lower in the
context of accelerating consumption than it is for delaying con-
sumption (Weber et al., 2007). Further, the link between Asian
cultures and patience is suggested by the higher savings rates
and educational attainments among Asian-Americans in com-
parison with White Americans (Springstead & Wilson, 2000;
Sue & Okazaki, 1990). An initial test by Du, Green, and
Myerson (2002) compared American, Chinese, and Japanese
graduate students in the United States in both an intertemporal
and a risky choice task. The risky choice results replicated
Weber and Hsee’s (1998) results (i.e., the Chinese were signif-
icantly less risk averse than the Americans and Japanese stu-
dents). The intertemporal choice results showed hyperbolic
discount functions for all three groups, but Americans and
Chinese discounted delayed rewards more than the Japanese.
Cross-national differences in pace of life are unable to account
for these differences, as Japan and Western countries are simi-
larly fast-paced (Levine & Norenzayan, 1999). On measures of
long-term orientation (Hofstede, 1991), Japan scores far higher
than the U.S. but so do the culturally Chinese countries. So
what features of Japanese communities may be conducive to
cultural patience? Perhaps their financial-support networks are,
if not larger, more enduring and this cushions against delay.
Also, it may be that Chinese societies as well as Japanese soci-
eties have relational and institutional structures conducive to
patience, yet Chinese graduate students in the U.S. are
comparatively more cut off from these than are their Japanese
counterparts. More research is needed, and constructivist anal-
yses call our attention to the influence of decision makers’ pres-
ent, proximal environment and not just their cultural heritage.
Evidence that Chinese culture supports financial patience
like other East Asian cultures comes from priming studies
with bicultural populations. Chen, Ng, and Rao (2005) exposed
bicultural Singaporean students to Western (vs. Singaporean)
icons and found they increased several measures of impatience,
including WTP for 1-day book delivery as opposed to 5-day
book delivery. Benjamin, Choi, and Strickland (in press) made
Asian-Americans’ ethnic identity salient by varying the pres-
ence of questions about family languages and immigration his-
tory within a background questionnaire and then presented
them with dozens of intertemporal choices, finding that Asian
identity salience begets more patient choices.
Insights From the Constructivist Approach
Although cultural constructivist research is just beginning in
some areas of JDM, our review illustrates ways in which this
approach elucidates novel aspects of cultural influences. Two
distinguishing features of the constructivist view are its empha-
sis on the dynamics of schema activation and the external
features of social environments that play numerous roles in
perpetuating cultural patterns of judgments and decisions.
The premise that cultural representations are dynamic sche-
mas rather than ever-present personality traits has sensitized
researchers to the variability in how much a person’s cultural
background affects his or her judgments and decisions from
one occasion to the next. The notion that cultural representa-
tions are not always active also enables an understanding of
how bicultural or polycultural individuals can be fluent in more
than one culture without simply blending their biases. In these
ways, the premise of dynamic representations moves cultural
psychology away from some simplifying assumptions of the
trait model that bordered on stereotyping.
The assumption of dynamism has opened up new topics of
research. Whereas previously mixed findings with different
task conditions discouraged cultural researchers, for construc-
tivists task context effects suggest insights about how the
cultural influence operates. The question has shifted from
‘Does culture matter?’’ to ‘‘When does culture matter?’’ Some
task conditions (attentional load) increase reliance on prior
knowledge rather than attention to stimulus details. Some
response formats (requiring reasons) lead people to recruit ver-
balizable decision rules rather than more intuitive perceptual
processes. Hence, for constructivists, the conditions under
which a cultural difference appears and disappears are proba-
tive to what cultural representations or environmental features
are at play in the frames that produce the cultural difference.
The constructivist emphasis on dynamism underlies the
method of studying bicultural participants with priming experi-
ments. This method is appealing to JDM researchers, as it has
greater internal validity than is possible in comparative, quasi-
experimental studies. It has also elucidated the psychological
process of switching between cultural frames in response
to situational cues. This process is by no means unique to
biculturals—it is descriptive of anyone who balances a cultural
identity with other identities. Constructivism views people as
active rather than passive in the interpretations that guide their
responses, and hence predicts that conscious and nonconscious
motivations moderate individuals’ assimilation to salient
cultural cues (Briley, Morris, & Simonson, 2005; Fu et al.,
2007). Moreover, recent research documents reactance to
cultural primes in the judgments of biculturals with
Culture and JDM 415
at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 3, 2014pps.sagepub.comDownloaded from
disidentification motives or conflicted identities (Benet-
Martinez, Leu, Lee, & Morris, 2002; Zou, Morris, & Benet-
Martinez, 2008).
Other insights relate to the constructivist emphasis on the
role of external environments. The notion that cultural habits
of thinking in some ways are reflections of cultural environ-
ments suggests that adopting those of another culture may not
always require the traumatic process of internalizing a new
worldview. Intriguing evidence shows that Western sojourners
in Japan take on East Asian processes of attending to context,
even in nonsocial judgments (Kitayama, Duffy, Kawamura, &
Larsen, 2003). Perhaps only moderate familiarity with a culture
is enough to begin marinating in its behavioral norms and
thereby internalizing some of its norms of judgment. Sojourners
would also experience priming from the environment, such as
the direct semantic priming or all the associative priming that
affects natives. Although sojourners are likely excused from
social sanctioning for many norm violations, to the extent that
a culture’s situations directly present rewards that reinforce par-
ticular response tendencies, newcomers to a culture should also
be acculturated this way. Overall, some external mechanism of
cultural influence may help newcomers swiftly take on some
cultural patterns of judgment and decision making.
The emphasis on external carriers of culture also suggests
novel insights about persistence and change in cultural pat-
terns. Persistence across generations is a defining feature of
cultural patterns. A trait-centered view, like national character
theories in anthropology, accounts for persistence in terms of
the early inculcation of traits that reproduce themselves by
shaping childrearing in the next generational cycle. An empha-
sis on external carriers of culture, instead, elucidates that much
of the persistence of cultural patterns arises from the continuity
of institutions, texts, practices, and designs. Also, structures of
interaction, like game-theoretic equilibria, can become self-
sustaining through the incentive structures they create (Yama-
gishi et al., 2008).
Constructivist emphasis on external carriers of culture also
elucidates cultural change. Cultural values and practices
sometimes shift dramatically, even within a generation. For
instance, when tendencies are perpetuated by people’s adher-
ence to perceived behavioral norms, then shifts in the behavior
of a fraction of the community can cascade into larger shifts in
constructed preferences, as the perceived norm passes its
tipping point (Cohen, 2001). This dynamic suggests quite dif-
ferent strategies for fostering change than are implied by a view
of cultural preferences as expressing deeply inculcated values.
Future Research Directions
A challenge ahead for cultural constructivist research is map-
ping the mechanisms that underlie different cultural patterns
of judgments and decisions. Such mapping should also be done
for more than a single behavior at a time, to see which different
cultural affordances and/or values determine which clusters of
behavior. Whereas there has been a fair amount of research on
risky choice, there is a need for more cultural research on
intertemporal choice and its connection to other tasks (e.g.,
risky choice). There is also a need for research that looks at
connections between JDM in the social and economic domains.
It is unfortunate that these two lines of inquiry have advanced
in parallel—largely published in different sets of journals—
when they would have benefitted more from mutually inform-
ing each other.
There is a need for more research that investigates (rather
than casually invokes) external structural mechanisms. For
instance, Chinese social networks are more dense, enduring,
and multiplex than American social networks, and these are
independent dimensions (Morris, Podolny, & Sullivan,
2008), so researchers need to test which features of networks
relate to particular judgment and decision biases. Finally,
there is a need for research integrating constructivist mechan-
isms with trait mechanisms. Some cultural differences in
behavior are more directed by values and some by norms
(Fischer et al, 2009), and it is likely that the same is true for
differences in JDM.
Research on JDM has traditionally focused on the contextual
factors that influence on-line constructive processes. Individual
differences and, by extension, cultural differences conceptua-
lized as value- or trait-based differences in judgment and
choice have gotten short(er) shrift. The movement of reconcep-
tualizing cultural differences from differences in modal person-
alities to differences in constructive processes, cued and
maintained by differences in the structure of a culture’s social
environment, should result in a much closer alignment of the
explanatory frameworks of JDM and culture research, with the
hope for more fruitful interactions.
1. Weber and Hsee (2000) tallied the rate of economic judgment and
choice articles in the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology and of
cultural articles in the economic JDM journals Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes and Journal of
Behavioral Decision Making for the two decades from 1976 to
1995. Following their method, we tallied the same for 2000–
2009. In the culture journal for both periods, we tallied social JDM
and narrowly defined it as person judgments and interaction
choices (excluding self-judgments, face perception, attitudes, val-
ues, or stereotypes, etc.). Finally, we also tallied the rate of cultural
articles for both periods in a social JDM journal, Journal of Perso-
nality and Social Psychology.
2. Gibson (1979) defined affordances as directly perceived invar-
iances in the person–environment relationship; for example, retinal
optical flow indicates direction of heading and thereby affords
wayfinding (Warren, Morris, & Kalish, 1988). Kitayama’s con-
structivist account is more compatible with Baron and Boudreau’s
(1987) definition of social affordances as everything an interaction
invites subjectively or objectively, which encompasses many dif-
ferent specific mechanisms such as priming and sanctioning.
416 Weber and Morris
at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 3, 2014pps.sagepub.comDownloaded from
We thank Michele Gelfand for her constructive feedback and patience.
We thank Sooyun Baik and Ilona Fridman for their help with our
literature search and trend analysis.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest with respect
to their authorship or the publication of this article.
Argyle, M., Shimoda, K., & Little, B. (1978). Variance due to persons
and situations in England and Japan. British Journal of Social and
Clinical Psychology, 17, 335–337.
Baron, R.M., & Boudreau, L.A. (1987). An ecological perspective on
integrating personality and social psychology. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology , 53, 1222–1228.
Benet-Martinez, V., Leu, J.X., Lee, F., & Morris, M.W. (2002). Nego-
tiating biculturalism: Cultural frame switching in biculturals with
oppositional versus compatible cultural identities. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 492–516.
Benjamin, D.J., Choi, J.J., & Strickland, A.J. (in press). Social identity
and preferences. American Economic Review.
Berry, J.W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation.
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46, 5–68.
Boduroglu, A., Shah, P., & Nisbett, R. (2009). Cultural differences in
allocation of attention in visual information processing. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40, 349–360.
Bontempo, R.N., Bottom, W.P., & Weber, E.U. (1997). Cross-cultural
differences in risk perception: A model-based approach. Risk Ana-
lysis, 17, 479–488.
Briley, D., Morris, M.W., & Simonson, I. (2000). Reasons as carriers
of culture: Dynamic vs. dispositional models of cultural influence
on decision making. Journal of Consumer Research, 27, 157–178.
Briley, D., Morris, M.W., & Simonson, I. (2005). Cultural chame-
leons: Biculturals, conformity motives, and decision making.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15, 351–363.
Briley, D. & Wyer, R.S. (2002). The effect of group membership
salience on the avoidance of negative outcomes: Implications for
social and consumer decisions. Journal of Consumer Research,
29, 400–415.
Chen, H., Ng, S., & Rao, A. (2005). Cultural differences in consumer
impatience. Journal of Marketing Research, 42, 291–301.
Chiu, C.-Y, Morris, M.W., & Hong, Y.-Y, & Menon, T. (2000). Moti-
vated cultural cognition: The impact of implicit cultural theories on
dispositional attribution varies as a function of need for closure.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 247–259.
Choi, I., Dalal, R., Kim-Prieto, C., & Park, H. (2003). Culture and
judgment of causal relevance. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 84, 46–59.
Chua, H.F., Boland, J.E., & Nisbett, R.E. (2005). Cultural variation in
eye movements during scene perception. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, USA, 102, 12629–12633.
Chua, R.Y.J., Morris, M.W., & Ingram, P. (2009). Guanxi vs network-
ing: Distinctive configurations of affect- and cognition-based trust
in the networking of Chinese vs American managers. Journal of
International Business Studies, 40, 490–508.
Cohen, D. (2001). Cultural variation: Considerations and implications.
Psychological Bulletin, 127
, 451–471.
Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline.
Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
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.
Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and Culture: An essay on
the selection of technological and environmental dangers.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Du, W., Green, L., & Myerson, J. (2002). Cross-cultural comparisons
of discounting delayed and probabilistic rewards. Psychological
Record, 52, 479–492.
Finucane, M., Slovic, P., Mertz, C.K., Flynn, J., & Satterfield, T.A.
(2000). Gender, race, and perceived risk: The ‘‘white male’’ effect.
Health, Risk & Society, 2, 159–172.
Fischer, R., Ferreira, M.C., Assmar, E., Redford, P., Harb, C.,
Glazer, S., et al. (2009). (2009). Individualism-collectivism as
descriptive norms: Development of a subjective norm approach
to culture measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology ,
40, 187–213.
Fu, H.-Y., Morris, M.W., Lee, S.L., Chao, M., Chiu, C.-Y., &
Hong, Y.-Y. (2007). Epistemic motives and cultural conformity:
Need for closure, culture, and context as determinants of conflict
judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92,
Gardner, W.L., Gabriel, S., & Lee, A.Y. (1999). ‘I’ value freedom,
but ‘we’ value relationships: Self-construal priming mirrors cul-
tural differences in judgment. Psychological Science, 10, 321–326.
Gelfand, M.J., (2008, August). Culture and social situations: A multi-
level analysis of situational constraint across 35 nations. Paper
presented at the annual conference of the American Psychological
Association, Boston.
Gelfand, M.J., Nishii, L.H., & Raver, J.L. (2006). On the nature and
importance of cultural tightness-looseness. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91, 1225–1244.
Gelfand, M.J. & Realo, A. (1999). Individualism-collectivism and
accountability in intergroup negotiations. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 84, 721–736.
Gell, A. (1992). The anthropology of time. Oxford, United Kingdom:
Gibson, J.J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Green, L., & Myerson, J. (2004). A discounting framework for choice
with delayed and probabilistic rewards. Psychological Bulletin,
130, 769–792.
Hardisty, D.H., & Weber, E.U. (2009). Temporal discounting of envi-
ronmental outcomes: Effects of valence outweigh domain differ-
ences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 3, 329–340.
Higgins, E.T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicabil-
ity and salience. In E.T. Higgins & A.E. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social
psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 133–168). New
York: Guilford.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Intercultural
cooperation and its importance for survival. London:
McGraw-Hill International.
Culture and JDM 417
at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 3, 2014pps.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Hong, Y.-Y., Morris, M.W., Chiu, C.-Y., & Benet-Martı´nez, V.
(2000). Multicultural minds: A dynamic constructivist approach
to culture and cognition. American Psychologist, 55, 709–720.
Hsee, C.K., & Weber, E.U. (1999). Cross-national differences in risk
preference and lay predictions. Journal of Behavioral Decision
Making, 12, 165–179.
Johnson, E.J., Haubl, G., & Keinan, A. (2007). Aspects of endowment:
A query theory of value construction. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 461–474.
Kahan, D.M., Braman, D., Gastil, J., Slovic, P., & Mertz, C.K. (2007).
Culture and identity-protective cognition: Explaining the white
male effect in risk perception. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies,
4, 465–505.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values and frames.
American Psychologist, 39, 341–350.
Kashima, Y. (2008). A social psychology of cultural dynamics: How
cultures are formed, maintained, and transformed. Social and
Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 107–120.
Kim, H., & Markus, H.R. (1999). Deviance or uniqueness, harmony or
conformity? A cultural analysis. Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology, 77, 785–800.
Kitayama, S., Duffy, S., Kawamura, T., & Larsen, J.T. (2003).
Perceiving an object and its context in different cultures: A cultural
look at New Look. Psychological Science, 14, 201–206.
Kitayama, S., Markus, H.R., Matsumoto, H., & Norasakkunkit, V.
(1997). Individual and collective processes in the construction of
the self: Self-enhancement in the United States and self-criticism
in Japan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 72,
Kitayama, S., Mesquita, B., & Karasawa, M. (2006). Cultural affor-
dances and emotional experience: Socially engaging and disenga-
ging emotions in Japan and the United States. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 890–903.
Knowles, E., Morris, M.W., Hong, Y., & Chiu, C.-Y. (2001). Culture
and the process of person perception: Evidence for automaticity
among East Asians in correcting for situational influences on beha-
vior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1344–1356.
Kruglanski, A.W., Pierro, A., Mannetti, L., & De Grada, E. (2006).
Groups as epistemic providers: Need for closure and the unfolding
of group-centrism. Psychological Review, 113, 84–100.
Kuhnen, U., & Oyserman, D. (2002). Thinking about the self
influences thinking in general. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 38, 492–499.
Kuwabara, K., Willer, R., Macy, M.W., Mashima, R., Shigeru, T., &
Yamagishi, T. (2007). Culture, identity, and structure in social
exchange: A Web-based experiment in the United States and
Japan. Social Psychology Quarterly, 70, 461–479.
LeBoeuf, R.A., Shafir, E., & Bayuk, J. B. (2009). The conflicting
choices of alternating selves. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 111, 48–61.
Lerner, J.S., & Tetlock, P.E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of
accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 265–275.
Leung, K. (1988). Some determinants of conflict avoidance. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 19, 125–136.
Levine, R.V., & Norenzayan, A. (1999). The pace of life in 31 coun-
tries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 178–205.
Luce, R.D., & Weber, E.U. (1986). An axiomatic theory of
conjoint, expected risk. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 30,
Markus, H.R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and self: Implications
for cognition, emotion and motivation. Psychological Review, 98,
Masuda, T., & Nisbett, R.E. (2006). Culture and change blindness.
Cognitive Science, 30, 381–399.
Menon, T., & Morris, M.W. (2001). Social structure in North Amer-
ican and Chinese cultures: Reciprocal influence between objective
and subjective structures. Journal of Psychology in Chinese
Societies, 2, 27–50.
Miller, J.G. (1984). Culture and the development of everyday social
explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46,
Miyamoto, Y., Nisbett, R.E., & Masuda, T. (2006). Culture and phy-
sical environment: Holistic versus analytic perceptual affordances.
Psychological Science, 17, 113–119.
Morling, B., Kitayama, S., & Miyamoto, Y. (2002). Cultural practices
emphasize influence in the USA and adjustment in Japan. Person-
ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 311–323.
Morris, M.W., Leung, K., & Iyengar, S. (2004). Person perception in
the heat of conflict: Attributions about opponents and dispute
resolution preferences. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 7,
Morris, M.W., Menon, T., & Ames, D.R. (2001). Culturally conferred
conceptions of agency: A key to social perception of persons,
groups, and other actors. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 5, 169–182.
Morris, M.W., & Peng, K. (1994). Culture and cause: American and
Chinese attributions for social and physical events. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 949–971.
Morris, M.W., Podolny, J., & Ariel, S. (2000). Missing relations:
Incorporating relational constructs into models of culture. In
P.C. Earley & H. Singh (Eds.), Innovations in international
and cross cultural management (pp. 52–90). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Morris, M.W., Podolny, J., & Sullivan, B. (2008). Culture and
co-worker relations: Patterns of interpersonal interaction in Amer-
ican, Chinese, German, and Spanish divisions of a global retail
bank. Organization Science, 19, 517–532.
Nisbett, R.A. (2003). The geography of thought: How Asians and
Westerners think differently...and why
. New York: Free Press.
Nisbett, R.E., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and
shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Ohbuchi, K., & Saito, T. (2007). Cognitive causes of conflict avoid-
ance among Japanese: An approach from pluralistic ignorance.
Progress in Asian Social Psychology, 6, 83–97.
Ohmura, Y., Takahashi, T., & Kitamura, N. (2005). Discounting
delayed and probabilistic monetary gains and losses by smokers
of cigarettes. Psychopharmacology, 182, 508–515.
Oyserman, D., Coon, H.M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002).
Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoreti-
cal assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128,
418 Weber and Morris
at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 3, 2014pps.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Oyserman, D., & Lee, S. (2008). Does culture influence what and how
we think? Effects of priming individualism and collectivism.
Psychological Bulletin, 34, 311–342.
Read, D., & Read, N.L. (2004). Time discounting over the lifespan.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 94,
Savani, K., Morris, M.W., Naidu, N.V.R., Kumar. S., & Berlia, N.
(in press). Cultural conditioning: Understanding interpersonal
accomadation in India and the U.S. in terms of the modal character-
istics of interpersonal influence situations. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology.
Schwartz, S.H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of
values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries.
In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology
(Vol. 25, pp. 165). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Shteynberg, G., Gelfand, M.J., & Kim, K. (2009). Peering into the
‘Magnum Mysterium’ of culture: The explanatory power of
descriptive norms. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40, 46–69.
Simon, H.A. (1957). Models of man. New York: Wiley.
Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., & Lichtenstein, S. (1986). The psychometric
study of risk perception. In V.T. Covello, J. Menkes &
J. Mumpower (Eds.), Risk evaluation and management (pp. 3–24).
New York: Plenum Press.
Smith, E.R., & Semin, G.R. (2007). Situated social cognition. Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 132–135.
Springstead, G.R., & Wilson, T.M. (2000). Participation in voluntary
individual savings accounts: An analysis of IRAs, 401(k)s, and
TSP. Social Security Bulletin, 63, 34–39.
Sue, S., & Okazaki, S. (1990). Asian-American educational achieve-
ments: A phenomenon in search of an explanation. American
Psychologist, 45, 913–920.
Trafimow, D., Triandis, H.C., & Goto, S.G. (1991). Some tests of the
distinction between the private self and the collective self. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 649–655.
Triandis, H.C. (2001). Individualism-collectivism and personality.
Journal of Personality, 69, 907–924.
Valenzuela, A., Srivastava, J., & Lee, S. (2005). The role of cultural
orientation in bargaining under incomplete information: Differ-
ences in causal attributions. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 96, 72–88.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1986). Thought and Language. Cambridge, Mass:
MIT Press. (Original work published 1962)
Warren, W.H., Morris, M.W., & Kalish, M. (1988). Perception of
translational heading from optical flow. Journal of Experimental
Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 14, 646–660.
Weber, E.U., & Hsee, C.K. (1998). Cross-cultural differences in risk
perception, but cross-cultural similarities in attitude towards
perceived risk. Management Science, 44, 1205–1217.
Weber, E.U., & Hsee, C.K. (1999). Models and mosaics: Investigating
cross-cultural differences in risk perception and risk preference.
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 6, 611–617.
Weber, E.U., & Hsee, C.K. (2000). Culture and individual decision-
making. Applied Psychology: An International Journal,
49, 32–61.
Weber, E.U., Hsee, C.K., & Sokolowska, J. (1998). What folklore tells
us about risk and risk taking: A cross-cultural comparison of
American, German, and Chinese proverbs. Organizational Beha-
vior and Human Decision Processes, 75, 170–186.
Weber, E.U., & Johnson, E.J. (2006). Constructing preferences from
memory. In S. Lichtenstein & P. Slovic (Eds.), The construction
of preference (pp. 397–410). New York: Cambridge University
Weber, E.U., & Johnson, E.J. (2009). Mindful judgment and decision
making. Annual Review of Psychology , 60, 53–86.
Weber, E.U., Johnson, E.J., Milch, K.F., Chang, H., Brodscholl, J.C., &
Goldstein, D.G. (2007). Asymmetric discounting in intertemporal
choice: A query-theory account. Psychological Science, 18,
Weber, E.U., & Milliman, R. (1997). Perceived risk attitudes: Relating
risk perception to risky choice. Management Science, 43, 122–143.
Wong, R.Y., & Hong, Y. (2005). Dynamic influences of culture on
cooperation in the prisoner’s dilemma. Psychological Science,
16, 429–434.
Yamagishi, T., Hashimoto, H., & Schug, J. (2008). Preferences versus
strategies as explanations for culture-specific behavior. Psycho-
logical Science, 19, 579–584.
Yates, J.F., Lee, J.-W., & Bush, J.G. (1997). General knowledge over-
confidence: cross-national variations, response style, and ‘reality.’
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70,
Yates, J.F., Lee, J.W., & Shinotsuka, H. (1996). Beliefs about over-
confidence, including its cross-national variation. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70, 138–147.
Zou, X., Morris, M.W., & Benet-Martı´nez, V. (2008). Identity motives
and cultural priming: Cultural (dis)identification in assimilative
and contrastive responses. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 44, 1151–1159.
Zou, X., Tam, K., Morris, W.M., & Lee, L. Lau, I. & Chiu, C.Y.
(2009). Culture as common sense: Perceived consensus vs.
personal beliefs as mechanisms of cultural influence. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 579–597.
Culture and JDM 419
at COLUMBIA UNIV on September 3, 2014pps.sagepub.comDownloaded from
... Whether the unique regional culture creates a 29 influence enterprise decisions (Hambrick & Mason, 1984). The existing research on the 23 characteristics of senior managers and corporate behaviour or performance focuses on 24 dominant features of the executives-namely, age, gender, and educational level-while 25 ignoring the exploration of recessive and periodic features such as the zodiac year. Based on 26 upper echelons theory, this study uses the recessive characteristics of the 12-year cycle zodiac 27 year as an entry point to identify the factors influencing CIE, which not only expands the scope 28 of application of upper echelons theory but also enriches the connotation of upper echelons 29 theory. ...
... It plays a key 22 role in shaping individual preferences and moral behaviour (Harrison & Huntington, 2013). 23 Informal institutions such as social customs and cultural traditions also influence business 24 decision-makers, who demonstrate different decision-making styles and exhibit behavioural 25 characteristics, which then affect corporate business behaviour. In addition to formal 26 institutions, informal institutions such as culture, social norms, and traditional customs also 27 currently exert a significant effect on company operations, as viewed from a general academic with widespread influences or a relatively indistinct division and high subjectivity. ...
... This perception then alters their risk appetite 17 both for a brief period and cyclically, setting an implicit constraint on their behaviour. From the 18 perspective of behavioural decision theory, the zodiac year is an important factor influencing 19 the psychological deviation and limited rationality of senior managers; in addition, it is mainly 20 embodied in risk cognition and risk appetite (Weber et al., 1998;Weber & Morris, 2010). 21 Studies show that uncertainty interferes with rational thinking, prompting individuals to 22 become more anxious and sensitive to risks (Tversky & Kahneman, 1982). ...
Based on the unique folk belief of the zodiac year, this study explores the effect of senior managers' zodiac year on corporate inefficient investment (CII) using data from Chinese A-share listed companies from 2006 to 2019. The study findings are as follows: (1) senior managers are more conservative and cautious in their zodiac year. Increasing risk aversion prevents blind investment and inhibits CII. (2) The restraining effect of the zodiac year on CII is more apparent in nonstate-owned enterprises, regions with low marketization levels, Central China, and Northeast China. This effect is attributed to the degree of superstitious belief of senior managers and becomes more pronounced with increasing age. The zodiac years of the Year of the Ox, Year of the Dragon, and Year of the Pig affect the Annual Year Taboo the most; meanwhile, the zodiac years of the CEO and the chairman exert a more significant effect than that of the vice-chairman. In addition, the restraining effect is only reflected in the zodiac year and draws a significantly negative market reaction. (3) The level of cash holdings is a potential channel for senior managers to improve corporate investment efficiency in managers' zodiac year. By providing unique evidence from the Eastern cultural context, this study enriches the research literature on emerging market culture and business management.
... Previous research has shown that there are cultural influences on judgment and decision-making, 49 and this might deem what is socially acceptable in terms of video game playing. For example, in some cultures, what constitutes excessive gaming may be viewed differently, and even if the IGDS9-SF identifies severe IGD, this might not be an issue culturally, as problematic dimensions are seemed to be shaped by culture-specific expressions. ...
Full-text available
It is estimated that 16.8 million in Spain (41% female) are involved in gaming, and approximately 8.3% of Spanish gamers are problematic gamers (i.e., endorsing five or more of the nine criteria for Internet Gaming Disorder [IGD]). Given the high prevalence of IGD in Spain, this study evaluated construct validity and concurrent validity of the Spanish Version of the Video Game Functional Assessment-Revised (SP-VGFA-R), by examining the correlational coefficients with the nine-item Internet Gaming Disorder Scale-Short-Form (IGDS9-SF). A total of 434 adults 18 years of age or older participated in the study (15.1% female). Results showed that the SP-VGFA-R was positively and significantly associated with the IGDS9-SF (bivariate coefficients ranging from 0.411 to 0.610). Four distinct factors in the SP-VGFA-R were identified in confirmatory factor analysis, including (a) social attention, (b) tangible/intangible rewards, (c) escape/avoidance of demands or pain, and (d) sensory stimulation. Other findings showed that IGDS9-SF scores increased as (a) the escape/avoidance of demands or pain function increased and (b) two or more function scores increased. The SP-VGFA-R can be used in combination with the IGDS9-SF to assess Spanish gamers with IGD internationally, and to develop evidence-based behavioral interventions.
... In addition, research shows that these differences in cultural dimensions are also accompanied by a difference in the way people judge and decide in different cultures (Fu and Yukl, 2000). Despite the extensive research conducted all over the world on the impact of socio-cultural background on decision-making (e.g., Li et al., 2015;Markus and Kitayama, 1991;Nisbett, 2010;Weber and Morris, 2010), the question is still unaddressed regarding the influence of psychotherapists' cultural background on clinical decision-making. Concerning these research findings in the realm in reference the role of culture as a frame of reference in a decision-making process makes, we hypothesize that many decisions made by a therapist over the course of treatment stem from their expertize. ...
The therapeutic communication between psychotherapist and client is highly dependent on their socio-cultural background. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of culture on decision-making style of psychotherapists in three dimensions of decision-making: expedience vs. realism, individualism vs. collectivism, and long-term orientation vs. short-term orientation. The sample of this study consisted of 144 psychotherapists (40 Iranians educated in Iran, 33 Iranians educated in the west, 36 Americans, and 35 Canadians). Each of the participants were presented with three scenario that involved clinical challenging situations. For each area of decision-making a statement was considered and the psychotherapist was requested to rate them based on importance in his/her clinical decision-making. Findings indicated that the groups differed significantly on all dimensions with few exceptions when American and Canadian psychotherapists were compared. The decision-making style of Iranian psychotherapists was more with expediency, collectivism and long-term orientation, while the decision-making style of American and Canadian psychotherapists was more with realism, individualism, and short-term orientation. According to the results of current study, socio-cultural background of psychotherapists, as a frame of reference, significantly influenced their clinical decision-making style.
... Despite the long history of research on risk perceptions, there has been substantial debate on how people perceive and respond to risks, and why they do so (e.g., Douglas, 1996;Finkel, 2008;Glendon & Clarke, 2016;Weber & Morris, 2010;Weinstein, 2003;Wilkinson, 2001;Wilson et al., 2019). A prominent approach in research on risk perception is the psychometric paradigm (e.g., Slovic, Fischhoff, & Lichtenstein, 1985a; see also Slovic, 2000, and the critical review by Sjöberg, Moen, & Rundmo, 2004), which provides insight into the accurateness of risk perception in laypeople. ...
... The groundwork for the study of decision making in operational environments was laid when Herbert Simon first advanced the idea that the psychology behind decision making was a fundamental aspect of organizational management (Simon 1959;Simon 1979). Since then, scholars have continuously sought to understand the contextual factors surrounding the decision-making process (Nunamaker, Dennis et al. 1991;Brodbeck, Kerschreiter et al. 2007;Weber and Morris 2010;Appelt, Milch et al. 2011). Driven by the understanding that decision making is a major factor for organizational success (Ireland and Miller 2004), numerous theories of decision making have been put forward which attempt to describe the conditions under which the optimum decision-making environment can be achieved. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Newer information systems development approaches such as agile methods, which emphasize a sense-and-respond approach, increase the number of operating decisions made regularly within the development team. These methods are being used by an increasing number of organizations as a means of improving the agility of the development process. Development teams are required to make regular group decisions and team members work closely with each other to develop software in time-boxed iterations. However, the literature lacks a clear understanding about how the cohesion of the development teams impacts the decisions made under the time pressures imposed on teams by the agile methodology. There is a paucity of literature examining the impact team cohesion has on the decision-making quality of an agile process. This research-in-progress paper seeks to fill this void by examining the impact the group cohesiveness of decision-making teams have on the relationship between time pressure and decision quality during the software development process. By reviewing and analyzing the literature on group decision making, time pressure, group cohesion and decision quality we begin to develop a group decision-making model for better predicting decision quality based on time pressures and group cohesiveness. 1 INTRODUCTION The groundwork for the study of decision making in operational environments was laid when Herbert Simon first advanced the idea that the psychology behind decision making was a fundamental aspect of organizational management (Simon 1959; Simon 1979). Since then, scholars have continuously sought to understand the contextual factors surrounding the decision-making process (Nunamaker, Dennis et al. 1991; Brodbeck, Kerschreiter et al. 2007; Weber and Morris 2010; Appelt, Milch et al. 2011). Driven by the understanding that decision making is a major factor for organizational success (Ireland and Miller 2004), numerous theories of decision making have been put forward which attempt to describe the conditions under which the optimum decision-making environment can be achieved. As information becomes more readily available and decision-making scenarios become increasingly complex. One major stream of research on decision making focuses on the behavioural features and cognitive abilities of the decision makers. Making informed decisions involves the gathering of all pertinent information and the processing of that information to establish an output choice from a number of possibilities. While there have been major technological advances in group decision support systems (GDSS), the behavioural side of the decision making process lags behind the technology, with many reporting that decision makers often do not use the technology at their disposal (Kayande, De Bruyn et
... To recognize and make sense of existing risks and opportunities, individuals rely on mental representations which guide rule or role-based decisions when needed. Constructivist approaches within judgement and decision science literature have found that decisions often rely on cultural representations in memory (which can include internalized schemas, rules, categories, and goals) to make judgements especially with regard to risk assessments (Weber and Morris 2010). This is particularly true when cultural representations are activated within a framing or restriction of attributes rendering the mental representations more accessible (Higgins 1996). ...
Full-text available
Hydraulic fracturing is a highly technical method for accessing unconventional sources of oil and gas. Despite being perceived by some as promising and innovative, the technique remains highly controversial in the U.S. Uncertainties regarding the consequences of its use and contested issue frames support entrenched policy debates around this issue. This research investigates local policy elites' perception of the utility of hydraulic fracturing using original survey data (n=322). The study examines how culturally-biased values and aspects of issue frames are used by policy elites to think about and assess this issue.
... Whereas exposure to climate-change-related risk messages, no matter whether framed as urgent or not urgent, increases feelings of dread in both country samples, climate-change-related risk messages increase policy support for general and demand-side mitigation more strongly and consistently in Germany than in the United States. Hence, rather than finding evidence of cultural, geographical, or sociopolitical differences in the effects of temporal reframing, 69 our study detects general cross-country differences with regard to responses to messages that emphasize climate risks as such. ...
Full-text available
Although many people are concerned about climate change, active public support for ambitious policies is still lagging behind. How can this gap be closed? Recent work has theorized that the perceived urgency of climate change drives public support for climate policy, but this lacks empirical evidence. Using advanced sparse regressions and comparative survey-embedded framing experiments with 9,911 eligible voters in Germany and the United States, we empirically studied the role of perceived urgency. Our study provides two findings. First, although perceived urgency is key in driving support for “low-cost” mitigation policies, it does not lead to more support for “high-cost” mitigation policies where the behavioral implications are visible. Second, while temporal reframing does not increase policy support or feelings of dread, context information about demand-side mitigation increases support for such costly climate policies. The results are particularly relevant for democracies, where ambitious policies require the support of citizens.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
We, humans, live in a time of continuous change through constant flux. Technological advancements have enabled people from different backgrounds, cultures, and countries to engage in business activities. To acquire a competitive advantage in the world market, there is a need to have a better understanding of how people behave, think through, and implement decisions. This study shall aim to study cross-cultural decision-making and quantify the factors that bring about this behavior. Following a similar study carried out on cross-cultural decision-making between USA and China, the author carries out a similar comparative study between European countries and China; a typical East-West study. Firstly, the comprehensive literature review is presented. Afterward, the behaviors for each region are quantified using the Cross-Cultural Decision Index (CCDI) scheme, formulated by the Cardinal Issues Perspective (CIP) theory of decision-making in a previous related study. The results reaffirm the notion that on the whole, Chinese and European societies show individualistic and collectivistic types of culture respectively. A comparison of the results with the previous studies shows how accurately the model predicts cross-cultural behavior of the model used and recommendations are made on how it may be used for numerous future studies as well.
Climate change knowledge can inform regional and local adaptation decisions. However, estimates of future climate are uncertain and methods for assessing uncertainties typically rely on the results of climate model simulations, which are constrained by the quality of assumptions used in model experiments and the limitations of available models. To strengthen scientific knowledge for climate services and climate change adaptation decisions, we explore the use of structured expert elicitation to assess future regional climate change. Using the Lower Yangtze region in China as a case study, we elicit judgements from six experts on future changes in temperature and precipitation as well as uncertainty sources, and compare it with climate model outputs from the Couple Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5). We find high consensus amongst experts that the Lower Yangtze region will be warmer in the coming decades, albeit with differences in the magnitude of change. There is less consensus about the direction and magnitude of future precipitation change. Compared with CMIP5 climate model outputs, experts provide similar or narrower uncertainty ranges for temperature change and very different uncertainty ranges for precipitation. Experts considered additional factors (e.g. model credibility, observations, theory and paleo-climatic evidence) and uncertainties not usually represented in conventional modelling approaches. We argue that, in context of regional climate information provision, expert-elicited judgements can characterise less predictable, or less explored, elements of the climate system and expert-elicited reasoning provides additional information and knowledge that is absent from modelling approaches. We discuss the value in bringing together multiple lines of evidence, arguing that expert elicited information can complement model information to strengthen regional climate change knowledge and help in building dialogue between climate experts and regional stakeholders, as part of a more complete climate service.
This chapter analyzes the differences of decision-making process in the EU member countries, caused by differences in main dimensions of national culture of each of them. The influence of different cultural dimensions on decision-making process is explained. Thanks to the application of qualitative research method and deductive approach, there are conclusions about specificities of decision-making process, in particular EU countries. Using the inductive approach, content analysis method and method of synthesis, the EU countries were grouped regarding to the decision-making styles that are the most appropriate in each of them, based on the characteristics of the cultural framework that exist within them. Obtained results may help managers to better understand their decision-maker role in different cultural environment and it would enable them to apply the appropriate decision-making style, which would increase the quality of business decisions that are being made.
Full-text available
In order to assess the cross-cultural generality of monetary decision-making processes, American, Chinese, and Japanese graduate students were studied on two tasks: In the delay discounting task, participants made choices between immediate and delayed hypothetical monetary rewards; in the probability discounting task, participants made choices between certain and probabilistic rewards. Some notable cross-cultural similarities were observed. Two-parameter hyperbola-like functions described both delay and probability discounting for all three groups. Moreover, for all three groups the rate at which delayed rewards were discounted was higher for the smaller amount whereas the rate at which probabilistic rewards were discounted was lower for the smaller amount. Some group differences were also observed. As measured by the area under the empirical discounting curve, the Americans and Chinese discounted delayed rewards more steeply than the Japanese. In addition, the Americans discounted probabilistic rewards the most, whereas the Chinese discounted probabilistic rewards the least. Despite these differences, the similarities in the form of the discounting functions and in the effects of amount suggest that there are fundamental commonalities among the three groups with respect to the processes underlying their evaluation of delayed and probabilistic rewards.
Cultural systems vary widely across the world. Partly this is due to different cultures' occupying different ecological and environmental niches. But partly it is due to similar circumstances giving rise to multiple stable equilibriums, each with a distinct cultural form. Using insights and examples from various fields, this article illustrates the way that multiple equilibriums can emerge and the forces that push a culture toward one equilibrium point or another. Considerations of game theory principles, mutual interdependence, historical circumstance, dependence on initial conditions, and crucial choice points are highlighted in discussing the ways humans create and re-create their culture. Cultural traits develop within physical, social, intracultural, and intercultural niches, and implications of this for how culture might be studied and the benefits of combining an "equilibrium" perspective and a "meaning" perspective are discussed.
This study tested whether priming of cultural symbols activates cultural behavioral scripts and thus the corresponding behaviors, and also whether the behaviors activated are context-specific. Specifically, to activate the cultural knowledge of Chinese-American bicultural participants, we primed them with Chinese cultural icons or American cultural icons. In the control condition, we showed them geometric figures. Then, the participants played the Prisoner's Dilemma game with friends or strangers (the context manipulation). As expected, participants showed more cooperation toward friends when Chinese cultural knowledge was activated than when American cultural knowledge was activated. By contrast, participants showed a similarly low level of cooperation toward strangers after both Chinese and American culture priming. These findings not only support previous evidence on culture priming of social judgment and self-construals, but also (a) provide the first evidence for the effects of culture priming on behaviors and (b) demonstrate the boundary condition of culture priming.
We discuss the cognitive and the psy- chophysical determinants of choice in risky and risk- less contexts. The psychophysics of value induce risk aversion in the domain of gains and risk seeking in the domain of losses. The psychophysics of chance induce overweighting of sure things and of improbable events, relative to events of moderate probability. De- cision problems can be described or framed in multiple ways that give rise to different preferences, contrary to the invariance criterion of rational choice. The pro- cess of mental accounting, in which people organize the outcomes of transactions, explains some anomalies of consumer behavior. In particular, the acceptability of an option can depend on whether a negative outcome is evaluated as a cost or as an uncompensated loss. The relation between decision values and experience values is discussed. Making decisions is like speaking prose—people do it all the time, knowingly or unknowingly. It is hardly surprising, then, that the topic of decision making is shared by many disciplines, from mathematics and statistics, through economics and political science, to sociology and psychology. The study of decisions ad- dresses both normative and descriptive questions. The normative analysis is concerned with the nature of rationality and the logic of decision making. The de- scriptive analysis, in contrast, is concerned with peo- ple's beliefs and preferences as they are, not as they should be. The tension between normative and de- scriptive considerations characterizes much of the study of judgment and choice. Analyses of decision making commonly distin- guish risky and riskless choices. The paradigmatic example of decision under risk is the acceptability of a gamble that yields monetary outcomes with specified probabilities. A typical riskless decision concerns the acceptability of a transaction in which a good or a service is exchanged for money or labor. In the first part of this article we present an analysis of the cog- nitive and psychophysical factors that determine the value of risky prospects. In the second part we extend this analysis to transactions and trades. Risky Choice Risky choices, such as whether or not to take an umbrella and whether or not to go to war, are made without advance knowledge of their consequences. Because the consequences of such actions depend on uncertain events such as the weather or the opponent's resolve, the choice of an act may be construed as the acceptance of a gamble that can yield various out- comes with different probabilities. It is therefore nat- ural that the study of decision making under risk has focused on choices between simple gambles with monetary outcomes and specified probabilities, in the hope that these simple problems will reveal basic at- titudes toward risk and value. We shall sketch an approach to risky choice that
This research explores whether there are systematic cross-national differences in choice-inferred risk preferences between Americans and Chinese. Study 1 found (a) that the Chinese were significantly more risk seeking than the Americans, yet (b) that both nationals predicted exactly the opposite - that the Americans would be more risk seeking. Study 2 compared Americans and Chinese risk preferences in investment, medical and academic decisions, and found that Chinese were more risk seeking than Americans only in the investment domain and not in the other domains. These results are explained in terms of a cushion hypothesis, which suggests people in a collectivist society, such as China, are more likely to receive financial help if they are in need (i.e. they could be cushioned if they fell), and consequently, they are less risk averse than those in an individualistic society such as the USA.
Cross-cultural psychology has demonstrated important links between cultural context and individual behavioural development. Given this relationship, cross-cultural research has increasingly investigated what happens to individuals who have developed in one cultural context when they attempt to re-establish their lives in another one. The long-term psychological consequences of this process of acculturation are highly variable, depending on social and personal variables that reside in the society of origin, the society of settlement, and phenomena that both exist prior to, and arise during, the course of acculturation. This article outlines a conceptual framework within which acculturation and adaptation can be investigated, and then presents some general findings and conclusions based on a sample of empirical studies.
Research on perception and cognition suggests that whereas East Asians view the world holistically, attending to the entire field and relations among objects, Westerners view the world analytically, focusing on the attributes of salient objects. These propositions were examined in the change-blindness paradigm. Research in that paradigm finds American participants to be more sensitive to changes in focal objects than to changes in the periphery or context. We anticipated that this would be less true for East Asians and that they would be more sensitive to context changes than would Americans. We presented participants with still photos and with animated vignettes having changes in focal object information and contextual information. Compared to Americans, East Asians were more sensitive to contextual changes than to focal object changes. These results suggest that there can be cultural variation in what may seem to be basic perceptual processes.