Models and Mosaics: Investigating Cross-cultural Differences in Risk Perception and Risk Preference
Elke U. Weber
Columbia Business School - Management & Psychology
Christopher K. Hsee
University of Chicago - Booth School of Business
Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, Vol. 6, No. 4, 1999
In this article, we describe a multistudy project designed to explain observed cross-national differences in risk taking between respondents from the People's Republic of China and the United States. Using this example, we develop the following recommendations forcross-cultural investigations. First, like all psychological research, cross-cultural studies should be model based. Investigators should commit themselves to a model of the behavior under study that explicitly specifies possible causal constructs or variables hypothesized to influence the behavior, as well as the relationship between those variables, and allows for individual, group, or cultural differences in the value of these variables or in the relationship between them. This moves the focus from asimple demonstration of cross-national differences toward a prediction ofthe behavior, including its cross-national variation. Ideally, the causal construct hypothesized and shown to differ between cultures should be demonstrated to serve as a moderator or a mediator between culture and observed behavioral differences. Second, investigators should look for converging evidence for hypothesized cultural effects on behavior by looking at multiple dependent variables and using multiple methodological approaches. Thus, the data collection that will allow for the establishment ofconclusive causal connections between acultural variable and some target behavior can be compared with the creation of amosaic.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 7
Keywords: risk preference, risk attitude, cultural difference, China
JEL Classification: D81, D11, D12, D91
Date posted: October 11, 2006
© 2015 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo6 in 0.281 seconds