Culture and Judgment and Decision Making

2010 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 410-419 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elke U. Weber ◽  
Michael W. Morris

Cultural influences on individual judgment and decision making are increasingly understood in terms of dynamic constructive processing and the structures in social environments that shape distinct processing styles, directing initial attentional foci, activating particular judgment schemas and decision strategies, and ultimately reinforcing some judgment and decision making (JDM) patterns over others. These structures include the society’s observable patterns of normative actions and responses, its prevalent forms of interpersonal interaction, the typical size and density of social networks, the ideational frames represented publically in texts and institutions, and so forth. We review this emerging perspective on culture and JDM in both economic and social domains, noting the distinctive insights it yields. We suggest new ways that cultural research is becoming relevant to mainstream JDM researchers, while also recognizing issues in need of further research.

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shankha Basu ◽  
Krishna Savani

When choosing among multiple options, people can view the options either one at a time or all together. In this article, we review an emerging stream of research that examines the ways in which viewing options sequentially as opposed to simultaneously influences people’s decisions. Multiple studies support the idea that viewing options simultaneously encourages people to compare the options and to focus on the ways in which the options differ from each other. In contrast, viewing options sequentially encourages people to process each option holistically by comparing the option with previously encountered options or a subjective reference point. Integrating research from judgment and decision making, consumer behavior, experimental economics, and eyewitness identification, we identify ways in which the different processing styles elicited by sequential- and simultaneous-presentation formats influence people’s judgment and decision making. This issue is particularly important because presenting options either sequentially or simultaneously is a key element of choice architecture.


2000 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-61 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elke Weber ◽  
Christopher Hsee

2005 ◽  
Vol 24 (s-1) ◽  
pp. 41-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Nelson ◽  
Hun-Tong Tan

This paper discusses judgment and decision making research in auditing—i.e., research that uses a psychological lens to understand, evaluate, and improve judgments, decisions, or choices in an auditing setting. Much of this work uses the laboratory experiment approach, but we also cover related studies that use survey and field study approaches. We classify extant auditing judgment and decision making (JDM) literature as covering three broad areas: (1) the audit task, (2) the auditor and his/her attributes, and (3) interaction between auditor and other stakeholders in task performance. We use this task, person, and interaction categorization to assess the cumulative knowledge generated in the past 25 years, as well as to identify knowledge gaps and opportunities for future research.


2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rahmat Hidayat

Humans are often viewed as rational beings. Studies on behavioral economics regarding rationality depend on both economic theories of rational decision making, as well as psychological cognitive theories behind mental and behavioral processes. Experimental research over the last half century has shown systematic deviations from the principle of rationality, also called anomaly, in individual judgment and decision-making. The theoretical explanation for the anomaly currently emphasizes on the limitations of individual rationality. Furthermore, limitations in rationality are seen as a universal feature of the individual. However, in recent times, there have been studies that attempt to prove individual differences as a factor behind anomalies in judgment and decision making. This paper attempts to summarize both points of view, and discusses the need to develop an instrument to measure rationality as an individual discriminatory factor in judgment and decision making.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document