IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jbrese/v64y2011i8p871-878.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Extending prospect theory cross-culturally by examining switching behavior in consumer and business-to-business contexts

Author

Listed:
  • Marshall, Roger
  • Huan, Tzung-Cheng (T.C.)
  • Xu, Yingzi
  • Nam, Inwoo

Abstract

Prospect theory states that an individual in a loss situation is more likely to make a risky financial decision than when they are in a gain frame. Some researchers observe that Asians tend to have a more positive attitude toward risk in financial decisions than Westerners. The first of two studies tests these two phenomena. The study finds Singaporeans and Chinese to be less risk averse than Dutch and New Zealand people over both a gain and a loss frame when making a personal financial decision. A second study extends this finding to individuals in a business relationship switching suppliers, and finds that when switching is framed as a risky decision the same pattern of behavior occurs. New Zealand and American consumers are more risk averse than those from Japan and Singapore, who are more likely to change suppliers under both a gain and a loss frame.

Suggested Citation

  • Marshall, Roger & Huan, Tzung-Cheng (T.C.) & Xu, Yingzi & Nam, Inwoo, 2011. "Extending prospect theory cross-culturally by examining switching behavior in consumer and business-to-business contexts," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(8), pages 871-878, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jbrese:v:64:y:2011:i:8:p:871-878
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014829631000189X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mongin, Philippe, 1998. "The paradox of the Bayesian experts and state-dependent utility theory," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 331-361, April.
    2. Arkes, Hal R. & Hirshleifer, David & Jiang, Danling & Lim, Sonya, 2008. "Reference point adaptation: Tests in the domain of security trading," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 67-81, January.
    3. Levy, David M, 1997. "Adam Smith's Rational Choice Linguistics," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 35(3), pages 672-678, July.
    4. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    5. Chris Starmer, 2000. "Developments in Non-expected Utility Theory: The Hunt for a Descriptive Theory of Choice under Risk," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(2), pages 332-382, June.
    6. Soares, Ana Maria & Farhangmehr, Minoo & Shoham, Aviv, 2007. "Hofstede's dimensions of culture in international marketing studies," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 277-284, March.
    7. Yates, J. Frank & Lee, Ju-Whei & Shinotsuka, Hiromi, 1996. "Beliefs about Overconfidence, Including Its Cross-National Variation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 138-147, February.
    8. Czepiel, John A., 1990. "Service encounters and service relationships: Implications for research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 13-21, January.
    9. Pankaj Aggarwal & Meng Zhang, 2006. "The Moderating Effect of Relationship Norm Salience on Consumers' Loss Aversion," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 33(3), pages 413-419, October.
    10. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1986. "Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 251-278, October.
    11. Petersen, Mitchell A & Rajan, Raghuram G, 1994. "The Benefits of Lending Relationships: Evidence from Small Business Data," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 49(1), pages 3-37, March.
    12. Gremler, Dwayne D. & Gwinner, Kevin P., 2008. "Rapport-Building Behaviors Used by Retail Employees," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 308-324.
    13. Elke U. Weber & Christopher Hsee, 1998. "Cross-Cultural Differences in Risk Perception, but Cross-Cultural Similarities in Attitudes Towards Perceived Risk," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(9), pages 1205-1217, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Tchai Tavor & Sharon Garyn-Tal, 2016. "Further examination of the demographic and social factors affecting risk aversion," Financial Markets and Portfolio Management, Springer;Swiss Society for Financial Market Research, vol. 30(1), pages 95-110, February.
    2. Nagengast, Liane & Evanschitzky, Heiner & Blut, Markus & Rudolph, Thomas, 2014. "New Insights in the Moderating Effect of Switching Costs on the Satisfaction–Repurchase Behavior Link," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 90(3), pages 408-427.
    3. Sue Ling Lai & Hiep-Hung Pham & Hong-Kong To Nguyen & The-Cuong Nguyen & Anh-Vinh Le, 2019. "Toward Sustainable Overseas Mobility of Vietnamese Students: Understanding Determinants of Attitudinal and Behavioral Loyalty in Students of Higher Education," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-17, January.
    4. Munazza Saeed & Ilhaamie Binti Abdul Ghani Azmi, 2016. "Brand Switching Behaviour of Muslim Consumers: Development of a Conceptual Model," International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science (2147-4478), Center for the Strategic Studies in Business and Finance, vol. 5(4), pages 31-39, July.
    5. Hong-Youl Ha, 2017. "The moderating roles of status of B2B evaluator and dependence in the switching costs – switching intentions – performance causal chain in Korea," Asia Pacific Business Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(3), pages 420-437, May.
    6. Lindner, Thomas & Puck, Jonas & Stocco, Giulia, 2023. "Asymmetric risk perception and firm financing in the institutional envelope," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(3).
    7. Tarnanidis, Theodore & Owusu-Frimpong, Nana & Nwankwo, Sonny & Omar, Maktoba, 2015. "Why we buy? Modeling consumer selection of referents," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(C), pages 24-36.
    8. Huerta, Esperanza & Glandon, TerryAnn & Petrides, Yanira, 2012. "Framing, decision-aid systems, and culture: Exploring influences on fraud investigations," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 316-333.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Arkes, Hal R. & Hirshleifer, David & Jiang, Danling & Lim, Sonya S., 2010. "A cross-cultural study of reference point adaptation: Evidence from China, Korea, and the US," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 112(2), pages 99-111, July.
    2. Michael Birnbaum, 2005. "A Comparison of Five Models that Predict Violations of First-Order Stochastic Dominance in Risky Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 263-287, December.
    3. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2019. "Taming models of prospect theory in the wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2019.
    4. Gijs Kuilen & Peter Wakker, 2006. "Learning in the Allais paradox," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 155-164, December.
    5. Robison, Lindon J. & Shupp, Robert S. & Myers, Robert J., 2010. "Expected utility paradoxes," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 187-193, April.
    6. David Faro & Yuval Rottenstreich, 2006. "Affect, Empathy, and Regressive Mispredictions of Others' Preferences Under Risk," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(4), pages 529-541, April.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:11:y:2016:i:5:p:424-440 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2018. "Why do young women marry old men?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 85(3), pages 509-525, October.
    9. Attema, Arthur E. & Brouwer, Werner B.F. & l’Haridon, Olivier, 2013. "Prospect theory in the health domain: A quantitative assessment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1057-1065.
    10. Birnbaum, Michael H., 2004. "Tests of rank-dependent utility and cumulative prospect theory in gambles represented by natural frequencies: Effects of format, event framing, and branch splitting," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(1), pages 40-65, September.
    11. Jasna Auer Antoncic & Bostjan Antoncic & Matjaz Gantar & Robert D. Hisrich & Lawrence J. Marks & Alexandre A. Bachkirov & Zhaoyang Li & Pierre Polzin & Jose L. Borges & Antonio Coelho & Marja-Liisa Ka, 2018. "Risk-Taking Propensity and Entrepreneurship: The Role of Power Distance," Journal of Enterprising Culture (JEC), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 26(01), pages 1-26, March.
    12. Giannikos, Christos I. & Kakolyris, Andreas & Suen, Tin Shan, 2023. "Prospect theory and a manager's decision to trade a blind principal bid basket," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    13. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Ning Liu & Peter P. Wakker, 2016. "Group decision rules and group rationality under risk," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 99-116, April.
    14. Guo, Peijun, 2019. "Focus theory of choice and its application to resolving the St. Petersburg, Allais, and Ellsberg paradoxes and other anomalies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(3), pages 1034-1043.
    15. Mark Schneider, 2016. "Dual Process Utility Theory: A Model of Decisions Under Risk and Over Time," Working Papers 16-23, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    16. Geng, Kexin & Wang, Yacan & Cherchi, Elisabetta & Guarda, Pablo, 2023. "Commuter departure time choice behavior under congestion charge: Analysis based on cumulative prospect theory," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    17. Meraner, Manuela & Musshoff, Oliver & Finger, Robert, 2018. "Using involvement to reduce inconsistencies in risk preference elicitation," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 22-33.
    18. repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i:7:p:528-546 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Guotao Hu & Aruna Sivakumar & John Polak, 2012. "Modelling travellers’ risky choice in a revealed preference context: a comparison of EUT and non-EUT approaches," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(4), pages 825-841, July.
    20. Arkes, Hal & Hirshleifer, David & Jiang, Danling & Lim, Sonya, 2007. "Prospect Theory and Reference Point Adaptation: Evidence from the US, China, and Korea," MPRA Paper 4009, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    21. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Luis Pinto-Prades, 2006. "A New Type of Preference Reversal," Working Papers 06.18, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics.
    22. Tian, Qi & Zhao, Jinhua, 2018. "Regret Minimization in Decision Making: Implications for Choice Modeling and Policy Design," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274016, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    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:eee:jbrese:v:64:y:2011:i:8:p:871-878. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres .

    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.