IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v5y2010i5p380-390_6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cultural differences in risk: The group facilitation effect

Author

Listed:
  • Kim, Do-Yeong
  • Park, Junsu

Abstract

We compared South Koreans with Australians in order to characterize cultural differences in attitudes and choices regarding risk, at both the individual and group levels. Our results showed that Australians, when assessed individually, consistently self-reported higher preference for risk than South Koreans, regardless of gender. The data revealed that South Koreans, regardless of gender composition, were willing to take greater risks when making decisions in group decision-making situations than when they were alone. This is a different pattern from that seen in the Australian sample, in which a risky shift was noted only among males. This difference was attributed to the influence of various cultural orientations (independent vs. interdependent relationship styles). This study also provides a discussion of the implications of these results in terms of cultural differences in attitudes and decisions regarding risk.

Suggested Citation

  • Kim, Do-Yeong & Park, Junsu, 2010. "Cultural differences in risk: The group facilitation effect," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(5), pages 380-390, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:5:p:380-390_6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500002187/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    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:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:5:p:380-390_6. 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .

    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.