IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cmr/mor101/v1y2004i1p87-118.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Do I Choose Thee? Let me Count the Ways': A Textual Analysis of Similarities and Differences in Modes of Decision-making in China and the United States

Author

Listed:
  • Elke U. Weber

    (Columbia University)

  • Daniel R. Ames

    (Columbia University)

  • Ann-Renee Blais

    (Defence Research and Development Canada)

Abstract

This paper investigates the effect of decision-makers'culture on their implicit choice of how to make decisions. In a content analysis of major decisions described in American and Chinese twentieth-century novels, we test a series of hypotheses based on prior theoretical and empirical investigations of cross-cultural variation in human motivation and decision processes. The data show a striking degree of cultural similarity in the relationships between decision content, situational characteristics and the decision mode(s) employed, but also support several hypotheses about cultural differences. As predicted, Chinese decision-makers more frequently used role-based logic (a form of recognition-based decision-making) to arrive at decisions, by virtue of their greater awareness of and need for relational obligations. The hypothesis (based on conjectures about Chinese thinking style and personality differences) that Chinese decision-makers would show more rule- and case-based decision-making (two other variants of recognition-based decision-making) than decision-makers in American novels was also supported. After controlling for other predictor variables, there also was support for the hypothesis (based on comparative analyses of Chinese and Western philosophy) that analytic modes which base decisions on the calculation of best consequences would be used less frequently by Chinese decision-makers. There was no evidence of greater prevention focus in Chinese decisions. These and other observed cultural similarities and differences in the dynamics of decision mode selection have implications for the study and practice of decision-making in managerial settings.

Suggested Citation

  • Elke U. Weber & Daniel R. Ames & Ann-Renee Blais, 2004. "How Do I Choose Thee? Let me Count the Ways': A Textual Analysis of Similarities and Differences in Modes of Decision-making in China and the United States," Management and Organization Review, International Association of Chinese Management Research, vol. 1(1), pages 87-118, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:cmr:mor101:v:1:y:2004:i:1:p:87-118
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118676244/HTMLSTART
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118676244/PDFSTART
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lalwani, Ashok K. & Wang, Jessie J. & Silvera, David H., 2020. "How does cultural self-construal influence regulatory mode?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 368-377.
    2. Engel, Christoph & Weber, Elke U., 2007. "The impact of institutions on the decision how to decide," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(3), pages 323-349, December.
    3. Rottenstreich, Yuval & Kivetz, Ran, 2006. "On decision making without likelihood judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 74-88, September.
    4. Yates, J. Frank & de Oliveira, Stephanie, 2016. "Culture and decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 106-118.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Cultural Similarity; Decision; Decision Making; Decision Modes; Decision Processes; Motivation; Situational Characteristics;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • M10 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cmr:mor101:v:1:y:2004:i:1:p:87-118. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Karin Heffel Steele or Red Ng (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.iacmr.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.