Advertisement

What Are the Important Decisions in the Lives of German and Indian University Students? The Structure of Real-Life Decision-Making Processes

  • Arun TipandjanEmail author
  • Thomas Schäfer
  • Suresh Sundaram
  • Peter Sedlmeier
Regular Article

Abstract

In intercultural research, bias is sometimes introduced when a methodological approach that was mostly developed within one of the cultures (usually the Western one) is chosen. Instead of identifying and controlling such bias after data collection and during analysis, eliminating and minimizing bias during planning and while conducting the research is much more advisable. Particularly cross-cultural decision-making research has been hindered by the lack of instruments that are equally applicable in different cultures, resulting in biased findings. We have proposed a methodology for comparing cultures that uses qualitative methods and have used it in a comparison of German and Indian students’ most important decision-making situations. In the first study, we identified common and different decision-making situations and recommended major areas for further cross-cultural research on decision making. In the second study, we made an attempt to explore the factors underlying important decision-making areas in the two cultures. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to look for strong similarities and differences between cultures. Transcribed interview data were analyzed qualitatively using thematic analysis. Several themes were identified and descriptions of factors influencing decision making were derived inductively from interviews with students. Similarities and differences are explained in detail and a further, quantitative survey in different cultures is recommended.

Keywords

Decision making Cross-cultural decision making Indian students German students Qualitative research 

References

  1. Arulmani, G., Van Laar, D., & Easton, S. (2001). Career planning orientations of Indian high school boys: A study of socio-economic and social cognitive variables. Journal of Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 27, 7–17.Google Scholar
  2. Bargel, T., Ramm, M., & Multrus, F. (2008). Studiensituation und studentische Orientierungen. 10. Studierendensurvey an Universitäten und Fachhochschulen. Langfassung. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung. Bonn, Berlin.Google Scholar
  3. Berry, J. W. (1969). On cross-cultural comparability. International Journal of Psychology, 4, 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berry, J. W. (1989). Imposed ethics-emics-derived ethics. International Journal of Psychology, 4, 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (2007). Cross-cultural psychology research and applications (2nd ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Boehnke, K., Frindte, W., Reddy, N. Y., & Singhal, S. (1993). Worries, stereotypes, and values of young adults: Germany and India compared. Psychologia: An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient, 36, 61–72.Google Scholar
  7. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brislin, R. W. (1976). Comparative research methodology: Cross cultural studies. International Journal of Psychology, 11, 213–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brislin, R. W. (1983). Cross cultural research in psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 34, 363–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brislin, R. W., Lonner, W. J., & Thorndike, R. M. (1973). Cross-cultural research methods. New York, NY: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Burgos, L. R. (2011). Speaking of one’s Life: What can we learn from transcultural studies?, Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science 44, doi  10.1007/s12124-010-9151-6.
  12. Buss, D. M., & Angleitner, A. (1989). Mate selection preferences in Germany and the United States. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 1269–1280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Charmaz, K., Albrecht, G. L., Fitzpatrick, R., & Scrimshaw, S. C. (2000). Experiencing chronic illness. In G. L. Albrecht, R. Fitzpatrick, & S. C. Scrimshaw (Eds.), The handbook of social studies in health and medicine (pp. 277–292). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Demuth, C., Chaudhary, N., & Keller, H. (2011). Memories of me: Comparisons from Osnabrueck (Germany) and Delhi (India) students. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 45(1), 1–20. doi: 10.1007/s12124-010-9136-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Dion, K. K., & Dion, K. L. (1993). Individualistic and collectivistic perspectives on gender and the cultural context of love and intimacy. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dustmann, C. (2004). Parental background, secondary school track choice, and wages. Oxford Economic Papers, 56, 209–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Egisdottir, S., Gerstein, L. H., & Cinarbas, D. C. (2008). Methodological issues in cross-cultural counselling research. The Counseling Psychologist, 36, 188–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fontaine, J. R. J. (2008). Traditional and multilevel approaches in cross-cultural research. In D. Fons, J. R. Van de Vijiver, A. van Hermert, & Y. H. Poortinga (Eds.), Multilevel Analysis of Individuals and Cultures. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  21. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. G. (1967). Grounded theory. Strategien qualitativer Forschung. Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
  22. Graf, A. (2004). Screening and training inter-cultural competencies: Evaluating the impact of national culture on inter-cultural competencies. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15, 1124–1148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Greenfield, P. M. (1997). Culture as process: Empirical methods for cultural psychology. In J. W. Berry, Y. H. Poortings, & J. Pandey (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, vol. 1 (pp. 301–346). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  24. Güss, C. D. (2002). Decision making in individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Bellingham, WA: Online readings in psychology and culture (Unit 4, Chapter 3), retrieved from http://orpc.iaccp.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30:guss43&catid=22:chapter&Itemid=15 on Jan 28th 2011.
  25. Kim, U. (2001). Culture, science, and indigenous psychologies. In D. Matsumoto (Ed.), The handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 51–76). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Kirton, M. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 622–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Krawietz, M., & Heine, C. (2006). Wahlmotive und Bewertungen des Studienortes bei Studienanfängern im Vergleich der neuen und der alten Länder: Ergebnisse aus der Befragung der Studienannfänger Retrieved from http://www.his.de/publikation/archiv/X_Pub/index_html?reihe_nr=X921.
  28. Mann, L. (1982). Flinders Decision Making Questionnaire II. Unpublished questionnaire. The Flinders University of South Australia.Google Scholar
  29. Mann, L., Burnett, P., Radford, M., & Ford, S. (1997). The Melbourne Decision Making Questionnaire: An instrument for measuring patterns for coping with decisional conflict. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 10, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis (28 paragraphs). [Electronic Version]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2). Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1089/2386 on Jan 28th 2011.
  31. Medora, N. P., Larson, J. H., Hortacsu, N., & Dave, P. (2002). Perceived attitudes towards romanticism: A cross-cultural study of American, Asian-Indian, and Turkish young adults. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 33, 155–178.Google Scholar
  32. Minichiello, V., Aroni, R., Timewell, E., & Alexender, L. (1990). In-depth interviewing: Research people. Hong Kong: Longman Cheshire.Google Scholar
  33. Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Poortinga, Y. H., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (1987). Explaining cross-cultural differences: Bias analysis and beyond. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 259–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pothen, S. (1989). Divorce in Hindu society. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 20, 377–392.Google Scholar
  36. Radford, M. H., Mann, L., Ohta, Y., & Nakane, Y. (1991). Differences between Australian and Japanese students in reported use of decision processes. International Journal of Psychology, 26, 35–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Saraswathi, T. S., & Pai, S. (1997). Socialization in the Indian context (vol. 19). New Delhi, India: Sage.Google Scholar
  38. Shiraev, E. B., & Levy, D. A. (2010). Cross-cultural psychology. Critical thinking and contemporary applications. Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  39. Sinha, D. (1984). Some recent changes in the Indian family and their implications for socialisation. The Indian Journal of Social Work, 45, 271–286.Google Scholar
  40. Sinha, D., & Tripathi, R. C. (1994). Individualism in a collectivist culture: A case of coexistence of opposites. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 123–136). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  41. Sonnenmoser, M. (2008). Vielfaltige Belastungen. Deutsches Ärzteblatt, 7, 120–121.Google Scholar
  42. Spiess, C. K., & Wrohlich, K. (2008). Does distance determine who attends a university in Germany? Institut zur Zukunft der Arbeit, Bonn, Discussion paper No. 3615.Google Scholar
  43. Stewart, E. C. (1985). Culture and decision making. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  44. Tanaka-Matsumi, J. (2001). Abnormal psychology and culture. In D. Matsumoto (Ed.), The handbook of culture and psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Triandis, H. C. (2000). Dialectics between cultural and cross-cultural psychology. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 185–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Triandis, H. C., Malpass, R. S., & Davidson, A. R. (1972). Cross-cultural psychology. In B. J. Siegel (Ed.), Biennial review of anthropology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Triandis, H. C., Malpass, R. S., & Davidson, A. R. (1973). Psychology and culture. Annual Review of Psychology, 24, 355–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tsui, A. S., Nifadkar, S. S., & Ou, A. Y. (2007). Cross-national, cross-cultural organizational behavior research: Advances, gaps, and recommendations. Journal of Management, 33, 462–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. United Nations. (2010). Human development indicators. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/
  50. van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2001). The evolution of cross-cultural research methods. In D. Matsumoto (Ed.), Handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 77–97). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  52. van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Poortinga, Y. H. (1997). Towards an integrated analysis of bias in cross-cultural assessment. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 13, 29–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Walsh, G., Mitchell, W. V., & Thurau, T. H. (2001). German consumer decision-making styles. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35, 73–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Weber, E. U., & Hsee, C. K. (2000). Culture and individual judgment and decision making. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 32–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arun Tipandjan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Thomas Schäfer
    • 1
  • Suresh Sundaram
    • 2
  • Peter Sedlmeier
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyChemnitz University of TechnologyChemnitzGermany
  2. 2.Annamalai UniversityChidambaramIndia

Personalised recommendations