Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
  • Log in
  1. Home
  2. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
  3. Article
Models and mosaics: Investigating cross-cultural differences in risk perception and risk preference
Download PDF
Your article has downloaded

Similar articles being viewed by others

Slider with three articles shown per slide. Use the Previous and Next buttons to navigate the slides or the slide controller buttons at the end to navigate through each slide.

Cross-cultural assessment and comparisons of risk tolerance across domains

14 February 2022

Yiyun Shou, Joel Olney & Meng-Cheng Wang

General trust scale: Validation in cross-cultural settings

12 September 2019

Dorota Jasielska, Radosław Rogoza, … Mary Bower Russa

Parsing cultural impacts on regret and risk in Iran, China and the United Kingdom

14 September 2018

Li Li, Shiro Kumano, … Nicholas D. Wright

Towards a typology of risk preference: Four risk profiles describe two-thirds of individuals in a large sample of the U.S. population

22 December 2022

Renato Frey, Shannon M. Duncan & Elke U. Weber

A latent profile analysis of the link between sociocultural factors and health-related risk-taking among U.S. adults

19 March 2021

Jessica K. Perrotte, Eric C. Shattuck, … Thankam Sunil

Strong Ties and Weak Ties Rationality: Theory and Scale Development

03 September 2021

Louise Sundararajan & Kuang-Hui Yeh

Baseline Target Moderation and Baseline Target Moderation Mediation Approaches: Reflections on Cultural Adaptation and Social Justice

24 October 2022

Rubén Parra-Cardona

Cultural dimensions in online purchase behavior: Evidence from a cross-cultural study

07 April 2021

Francesca Pratesi, Lala Hu, … Monica Faraoni

Inherent Tensions and Possibilities: Behavior Analysis and Cultural Responsiveness

04 April 2019

Kristin L. Miller, Alicia Re Cruz & Shahla Ala’i-Rosales

Download PDF
  • Published: December 1999

Models and mosaics: Investigating cross-cultural differences in risk perception and risk preference

  • Elke U. Weber1 &
  • Christopher K. Hsee2 

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review volume 6, pages 611–617 (1999)Cite this article

  • 3266 Accesses

  • 90 Citations

  • 6 Altmetric

  • Metrics details

Abstract

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 for cross-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 a simple demonstration of cross-national differences toward a prediction of the 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 of conclusive causal connections between a cultural variable and some target behavior can be compared with the creation of a mosaic.

Download to read the full article text

Working on a manuscript?

Avoid the common mistakes

References

  • Bajtelsmit, V. L., Bernasek, A., &Jianakoplos, N. A. (1997).Gender differences in pension investment allocation decisions. Working Paper in Economics and Political Economy, Colorado State University, Fort Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bontempo, R. N., Bottom, W. P., &Weber, E. U. (1997). Cross-cultural differences in risk perception: A model-based approach.Risk Analysis,17, 479–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brachinger, H.-W.,Schubert, R.,Weber, E. U.,Brown, M., &Gysler, M. (1997).Gender differences in risky choice: A theoretical framework and methodological approaches. Working Paper, Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, ETH Zurich.

  • Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,1, 185–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brockner, J., &Chen, Y.-R. (1996). The moderating roles of self-esteem and self-construal in reaction to a threat to the self: Evidence from the People’s Republic of China and the United States.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,71, 603–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bromiley, P., &Curley, S. P. (1992). Individual differences in risk taking. In J. F. Yates (Ed.),Risk-taking behavior (pp. 87–132). Chichester, U.K.: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, G. (1990).Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y.-R., Brockner, J., &Katz, T. (1998). Toward an explanation of cultural differences in in-group favoritism: The role of individual versus collective primacy.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,75, 1490–1502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole, M. (1996).Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deregowski, J. B. (1989). Real space and represented space: Crosscultural perspectives.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,12, 51–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erev, I., Wallsten, T. S., &Budescu, D. V. (1994). Simultaneous over- and underconfidence: The role of error in judgment processes.Psychological Review,101, 519–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaenslen, F. (1986). Culture and decision making in China, Japan, Russia, and the United States.World Politics,39, 87–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haddon, A. C. (Ed.) (1901).Report of the Cambridge anthropological expedition to the Torres Straits (Vol. 2). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hersch, J. (1996). Smoking, seat belts, and other risky consumer decisions: Differences by gender and race.Managerial & Decision Economics,11, 471–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. H (1980).Culture’s consequences: International differences in word-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsee, C. K., &Weber, E. U. (1999). Cross-national differences in risk preference and lay predictions.Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,12, 165–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, B. B. (1991). Risk and culture research: Some cautions.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,22, 141–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacCrimmon, K. R., &Wehrung, D. A. (1990). Characteristics of risk taking executives.Management Science,36, 422–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markowitz, H. M. (1959).Portfolio selection. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markus, H. R., &Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and self: Implications for cognition, emotion and motivation.Psychological Review,98, 224–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClelland, D. C. (1961).The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDaniels, T. L., &Gregory, R. S. (1991). A framework for structuring cross-cultural research in risk and decision making.Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology,22, 103–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, M. W., &Peng, K. (1994). Culture and cause: American and Chinese attributions for social and physical events.Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,67, 949–971.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, C. G. S. (1996). Risk perception: An empirical study of the relationship between worldview and the risk construct.Risk Analysis,16, 717–724.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pollack, R. H. (1989). Pictures, maybe; illusions, no.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,12, 92–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarin, R. K., &Weber, M. (1993). Risk-value models.European Journal of Operations Research,70, 135–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segall, M. H., Campbell, D. T., &Herskovitz, M. J. (1966).The influence of culture on visual perception. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Segall, M. H., Dasen, P. R., Berry, J.W., &Poortinga, Y. H. (1990).Human behavior in global perspective: An introduction to crosscultural psychology. New York: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shweder, R. A. (1990). Cultural psychology: What is it? In J. W. Stigler, R. A. Shweder, & G. Herdt (Eds.),Cultural psychology: Essays on comparative human development (pp. 35–48). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P. (1997). Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. In M. Bazerman, D. Messick, A. Tenbrunsel, & K. Wade-Benzoni (Eds.),Psychological perspectives to environmental and ethical issues in management (pp. 277–313). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thelen, E. (1995). Time-scale dynamics and the development of an embodied cognition. In R. F. Port & T. van Gelden (Eds.),Mind as motion: Explorations in the dynamics of cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Winterfeldt, D., &Edwards, W. (1986).Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warner, J. (1995, October 30). The world is not always your oyster: Why cross-border mergers so often come to grief.Business Week, pp. 132–134.

  • Weber, E. U. (1998). Who’s afraid of a little risk? New evidence for general risk aversion. In J. Shanteau, B. A. Mellers, & D. Schum (Eds.),Decision research from Bayesian approaches to normative systems: Reflections on the contributions of Ward Edwards (pp. 53–64). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, E. U., &Hsee, C. K. (1998). Cross-cultural differences in risk perception, but cross-cultural similarities in attitude toward perceived risk.Management Science,44, 1205–1217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 Behavior & Human Decision Processes,75, 170–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, E. U., &Milliman, R. (1997). Perceived-risk attitudes: Relating risk perception to risky choice.Management Science,43, 122–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, G. N., &Phillips, L. D. (1980). Cultural variation in probabilistic thinking: Alternative ways of dealing with uncertainty.International Journal of Psychology,15, 239–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yates, J. F. (1990).Judgment and decision making. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yates, J. F., Lee, J.-W., &Bush, J. G. (1997). General knowledge overconfidence: Cross-national variations, response style, and “reality.”Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,70, 87–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yates, J. F., Zhu, Y., Ronis, D. L., Wang, D. F., Shinotsuka, H., &Toda, W. (1989). Probability judgment accuracy: China, Japan, and the United States.Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes,43, 147–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Columbia University, MC-5501, 1190 Amsterdam Ave., 10027, New York, NY

    Elke U. Weber

  2. University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois

    Christopher K. Hsee

Authors
  1. Elke U. Weber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christopher K. Hsee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elke U. Weber.

Additional information

This research was supported by Grant SBR-9631860 from the National Science Foundation. We thank Kwok Leung, Doug Medin, Paul Slovic, Pete Suttmeier, and Frank Yates for valuable discussions related to the topic of the paper.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Weber, E.U., Hsee, C.K. Models and mosaics: Investigating cross-cultural differences in risk perception and risk preference. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 6, 611–617 (1999). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212969

Download citation

  • Received: 16 July 1998

  • Accepted: 23 March 1999

  • Issue Date: December 1999

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212969

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Keywords

  • Risk Perception
  • Risk Preference
  • Risk Averse
  • Risky Choice
  • Probability Judgment
Download PDF

Working on a manuscript?

Avoid the common mistakes

Advertisement

Over 10 million scientific documents at your fingertips

Switch Edition
  • Academic Edition
  • Corporate Edition
  • Home
  • Impressum
  • Legal information
  • Privacy statement
  • California Privacy Statement
  • How we use cookies
  • Manage cookies/Do not sell my data
  • Accessibility
  • FAQ
  • Contact us
  • Affiliate program

Not logged in - 34.239.152.207

Not affiliated

Springer Nature

© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG. Part of Springer Nature.