What Are the Important Decisions in the Lives of German and Indian University Students? The Structure of Real-Life Decision-Making Processes
- 199 Downloads
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.
KeywordsDecision making Cross-cultural decision making Indian students German students Qualitative research
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Brislin, R. W., Lonner, W. J., & Thorndike, R. M. (1973). Cross-cultural research methods. New York, NY: John Wiley.Google Scholar
- 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.
- 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
- Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- 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
- Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. G. (1967). Grounded theory. Strategien qualitativer Forschung. Bern: Huber.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- Mann, L. (1982). Flinders Decision Making Questionnaire II. Unpublished questionnaire. The Flinders University of South Australia.Google Scholar
- 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.
- 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
- Minichiello, V., Aroni, R., Timewell, E., & Alexender, L. (1990). In-depth interviewing: Research people. Hong Kong: Longman Cheshire.Google Scholar
- Pothen, S. (1989). Divorce in Hindu society. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 20, 377–392.Google Scholar
- Saraswathi, T. S., & Pai, S. (1997). Socialization in the Indian context (vol. 19). New Delhi, India: Sage.Google Scholar
- Shiraev, E. B., & Levy, D. A. (2010). Cross-cultural psychology. Critical thinking and contemporary applications. Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Sonnenmoser, M. (2008). Vielfaltige Belastungen. Deutsches Ärzteblatt, 7, 120–121.Google Scholar
- 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
- Stewart, E. C. (1985). Culture and decision making. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- United Nations. (2010). Human development indicators. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/
- 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
- van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar