Culture Matters: Individualism vs. Collectivism in Conflict Decision-Making
Does culture matter in decision-making? Existing literature largely assumes that the cognitive processes that inform decision-making are universally applicable, while only very few studies indicate that cultural norms and values shape cognitive processes. Using survey based quasi-experimental design, this research shows that subjects with higher levels of individualism tend to be more rational in their decision processing, while those with higher levels of collectivism tend to be more dependent and less likely to betray the interests of members of more central ingroups in favor of less central ingroups. Furthermore, the results indicate that in conflict settings that seem familiar, individuals are more likely to compromise in order to achieve peace.
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Cook, Philip J & Clotfelter, Charles T, 1993.
"The Peculiar Scale Economies of Lotto,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 83(3), pages 634-643, June.
- Philip J. Cook & Charles T. Clotfelter, 1991. "The Peculiar Scale Economies of Lotto," NBER Working Papers 3766, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Xiao-Ping Chen & Shu Li, 2005. "Cross-national differences in cooperative decision-making in mixed-motive business contexts: the mediating effect of vertical and horizontal individualism," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 36(6), pages 622-636, November.
- Bradley L Kirkman & Kevin B Lowe & Cristina B Gibson, 2006. "A quarter century of Culture's Consequences: a review of empirical research incorporating Hofstede's cultural values framework," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 37(3), pages 285-320, May.
- Schoemaker, Paul J H, 1982. "The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 20(2), pages 529-563, June. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:3:y:2013:i:1:p:128-146:d:24209. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (XML Conversion Team)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.