IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecl/stabus/1607.html

Reasons as Carriers of Culture: Dynamic vs. Dispositional Models of Cultural Influence on Decision Making

Author

Listed:
  • Morris, Michael W.

    (Stanford U)

  • Simonson, Itamar
  • Briley, Donnel A.

    (Hong Kong U of Science and Technology)

Abstract

We argue that a way culture influences decisions is through the reasons that individuals recruit when required to explain their choices. Specifically, we propose that cultures endow individuals with different rules or principles that provide guidance for making decisions, and a need to provide reasons activates such cultural knowledge. This proposition, representing a dynamic rather than dispositional view of cultural influence, is investigated in studies of consumer decisions that involve a tradeoff between diverging attributes, such as low price and high quality. Principles enjoining compromise are more salient in East-Asian cultures than in North American culture, and accordingly, we predict that cultural differences in the tendency to choose compromise options will be greater when the decision test requires that participants provide reasons. In Study 1, a difference between Hong Kong Chinese and North American participants in the tendency to select compromise products emerged only when they were asked to explain their decisions, with the Hong Kong decisions makers more likely and Americans less likely to compromise. Content analysis of participants' reasons confirmed that cultural differences in the frequency of generating particular types of reasons mediated the difference in choices. Studies 2 and 3 replicate the interactive effect of culture and the need to provide reasons in a comparison of North American versus Japanese participants and in a comparison on European-American and Asian-American participants, respectively. Study 4 and 5 found that Hong Kong Chinese participants, compared with Americans, evaluate proverbs and the reasons of others more positively when these favor compromise. We discuss the value of conceptualizing cultural influences in terms of dynamic strategies rather than as dispositional tendencies.

Suggested Citation

  • Morris, Michael W. & Simonson, Itamar & Briley, Donnel A., 2000. "Reasons as Carriers of Culture: Dynamic vs. Dispositional Models of Cultural Influence on Decision Making," Research Papers 1607, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
  • Handle: RePEc:ecl:stabus:1607
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://gsbapps.stanford.edu/researchpapers/detail1.asp?Document_ID=1082
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Aidin Hajikhameneh & Erik O. Kimbrough, 2019. "Individualism, collectivism, and trade," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(2), pages 294-324, June.
    2. Pechtl, Hans, 2011. "Die Präferenzwirkung nicht-verfügbarer Alternativen: Der Phantomeffekt," Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Diskussionspapiere 01/2011, University of Greifswald, Faculty of Law and Economics.
    3. Thomas Kramer & Suri Spolter-Weisfeld & Maneesh Thakkar, 2007. "The Effect of Cultural Orientation on Consumer Responses to Personalization," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(2), pages 246-258, 03-04.
    4. Fox, Stephen & Groesser, Stefan N., 2016. "Reframing the relevance of research to practice," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 34(5), pages 457-465.
    5. Lee, Byung-Kwan & Lee, Wei-Na, 2016. "The effect of structural alignment on choice-process satisfaction and preference formation: The moderating role of self-construal," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 2747-2755.
    6. David P. Ashmore & Roselle Thoreau & Corina Kwami & Nicola Christie & Nicholas A. Tyler, 2020. "Using thematic analysis to explore symbolism in transport choice across national cultures," Transportation, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 607-640, April.
    7. Claire I. Tsai & Min Zhao & Dilip Soman, 2022. "Salient knowledge that others are also evaluating reduces judgment extremity," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 366-387, March.
    8. Wen, Jinpeng & Gan, Hongcheng & Wang, Ke & Wang, Xinyu & Huang, Yue & Lu, Huan, 2025. "The effects of face consciousness on young travelers’ intention to adopt mobility as a service (MaaS): A case study in Shanghai, China," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    9. Heinz, Philip & Patel, Chris & Hellmann, Andreas, 2013. "Some theoretical and methodological suggestions for studies examining accountants' professional judgments and earnings management," Advances in accounting, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 299-311.
    10. Feng, Tianjun & Keller, L. Robin & Zheng, Xiaona, 2011. "Decision making in the newsvendor problem: A cross-national laboratory study," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 41-50, January.
    11. Fiona Maria Schweitzer & Matthias Handrich & Sven Heidenreich, 2019. "Digital Transformation In The New Product Development Process: The Role Of It-Enabled Plm Systems For Relational, Structural, And Npd Performance," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 23(07), pages 1-34, October.
    12. Shih-Chieh Chuang & Danny Tengti Kao & Yin-Hui Cheng & Chu-An Chou, 2012. "The effect of incomplete information on the compromise effect," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(2), pages 196-204, March.
    13. Valenzuela, Ana & Srivastava, Joydeep & Lee, Seonsu, 2005. "The role of cultural orientation in bargaining under incomplete information: Differences in causal attributions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 72-88, January.
    14. Dwight R. Merunka, 2013. "Reinterpreting cultural priming effects in cross-cultural consumer research," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 3(4), pages 232-248, December.
    15. Shavitt, Sharon & Barnes, Aaron J., 2020. "Culture and the Consumer Journey," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 40-54.
    16. Yin-Hui Cheng & Shin-Shin Chang & Shih-Chieh Chuang & Ming-Wei Yu, 2012. "The impact of purchase quantity on the compromise effect: The balance heuristic," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 7(4), pages 499-512, July.
    17. Alden, Dana L. & He, Yi & Chen, Qimei, 2010. "Service recommendations and customer evaluations in the international marketplace: Cultural and situational contingencies," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 38-44, January.
    18. Rašković, Matevž & Ding, Zhonghui & Hirose, Morikazu & Žabkar, Vesna & Fam, Kim-Shyan, 2020. "Segmenting young-adult consumers in East Asia and Central and Eastern Europe – The role of consumer ethnocentrism and decision-making styles," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 496-507.
    19. David Ackerman & Jing Hu & Liyuan Wei, 2009. "Confucius, Cars, and Big Government: Impact of Government Involvement in Business on Consumer Perceptions Under Confucianism," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 88(3), pages 473-482, October.
    20. Chen, Hong & Gangopadhyay, Partha & Singh, Baljeet & Shankar, Sriram, 2022. "Measuring preferences for energy efficiency in ACI and EU nations and uncovering their impacts on energy conservation," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    21. Bearden, William O. & Money, R. Bruce & Nevins, Jennifer L., 2006. "Multidimensional versus unidimensional measures in assessing national culture values: The Hofstede VSM 94 example," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(2), pages 195-203, February.
    22. Lect. Radu Ogarcă Ph. D, 2010. "Features Of The Decision-Making In Smes," Annals of University of Craiova - Economic Sciences Series, University of Craiova, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, vol. 3(38), pages 1-20, May.
    23. Sowon Ahn & Juyoung Kim & Young-Won Ha, 2015. "Feedback weakens the attraction effect in repeated choices," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 449-459, December.
    24. Hristina Nikolova & Cait Lamberton, 2016. "Men and the Middle: Gender Differences in Dyadic Compromise Effects," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 43(3), pages 355-371.
    25. 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.

    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:ecl:stabus:1607. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gsstaus.html .

    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.