Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What Are the Important Decisions in the Lives of German and Indian University Students? The Structure of Real-Life Decision-Making Processes

  • Regular Article
  • Published:
Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In intercultural research, bias is sometimes introduced when a methodological approach that was mostly developed within one of the cultures (usually the Western one) is chosen. Instead of identifying and controlling such bias after data collection and during analysis, eliminating and minimizing bias during planning and while conducting the research is much more advisable. Particularly cross-cultural decision-making research has been hindered by the lack of instruments that are equally applicable in different cultures, resulting in biased findings. We have proposed a methodology for comparing cultures that uses qualitative methods and have used it in a comparison of German and Indian students’ most important decision-making situations. In the first study, we identified common and different decision-making situations and recommended major areas for further cross-cultural research on decision making. In the second study, we made an attempt to explore the factors underlying important decision-making areas in the two cultures. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to look for strong similarities and differences between cultures. Transcribed interview data were analyzed qualitatively using thematic analysis. Several themes were identified and descriptions of factors influencing decision making were derived inductively from interviews with students. Similarities and differences are explained in detail and a further, quantitative survey in different cultures is recommended.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arulmani, G., Van Laar, D., & Easton, S. (2001). Career planning orientations of Indian high school boys: A study of socio-economic and social cognitive variables. Journal of Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 27, 7–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bargel, T., Ramm, M., & Multrus, F. (2008). Studiensituation und studentische Orientierungen. 10. Studierendensurvey an Universitäten und Fachhochschulen. Langfassung. Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung. Bonn, Berlin.

  • Berry, J. W. (1969). On cross-cultural comparability. International Journal of Psychology, 4, 119–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, J. W. (1989). Imposed ethics-emics-derived ethics. International Journal of Psychology, 4, 119–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (2007). Cross-cultural psychology research and applications (2nd ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehnke, K., Frindte, W., Reddy, N. Y., & Singhal, S. (1993). Worries, stereotypes, and values of young adults: Germany and India compared. Psychologia: An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient, 36, 61–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brislin, R. W. (1976). Comparative research methodology: Cross cultural studies. International Journal of Psychology, 11, 213–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brislin, R. W. (1983). Cross cultural research in psychology. Annual Review of Psychology, 34, 363–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brislin, R. W., Lonner, W. J., & Thorndike, R. M. (1973). Cross-cultural research methods. New York, NY: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgos, L. R. (2011). Speaking of one’s Life: What can we learn from transcultural studies?, Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science 44, doi 10.1007/s12124-010-9151-6.

  • Buss, D. M., & Angleitner, A. (1989). Mate selection preferences in Germany and the United States. Personality and Individual Differences, 10, 1269–1280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K., Albrecht, G. L., Fitzpatrick, R., & Scrimshaw, S. C. (2000). Experiencing chronic illness. In G. L. Albrecht, R. Fitzpatrick, & S. C. Scrimshaw (Eds.), The handbook of social studies in health and medicine (pp. 277–292). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Demuth, C., Chaudhary, N., & Keller, H. (2011). Memories of me: Comparisons from Osnabrueck (Germany) and Delhi (India) students. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 45(1), 1–20. doi:10.1007/s12124-010-9136-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dion, K. K., & Dion, K. L. (1993). Individualistic and collectivistic perspectives on gender and the cultural context of love and intimacy. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 53–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dustmann, C. (2004). Parental background, secondary school track choice, and wages. Oxford Economic Papers, 56, 209–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egisdottir, S., Gerstein, L. H., & Cinarbas, D. C. (2008). Methodological issues in cross-cultural counselling research. The Counseling Psychologist, 36, 188–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fontaine, J. R. J. (2008). Traditional and multilevel approaches in cross-cultural research. In D. Fons, J. R. Van de Vijiver, A. van Hermert, & Y. H. Poortinga (Eds.), Multilevel Analysis of Individuals and Cultures. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. G. (1967). Grounded theory. Strategien qualitativer Forschung. Bern: Huber.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graf, A. (2004). Screening and training inter-cultural competencies: Evaluating the impact of national culture on inter-cultural competencies. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15, 1124–1148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenfield, P. M. (1997). Culture as process: Empirical methods for cultural psychology. In J. W. Berry, Y. H. Poortings, & J. Pandey (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, vol. 1 (pp. 301–346). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Güss, C. D. (2002). Decision making in individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Bellingham, WA: Online readings in psychology and culture (Unit 4, Chapter 3), retrieved from http://orpc.iaccp.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=30:guss43&catid=22:chapter&Itemid=15 on Jan 28th 2011.

  • Kim, U. (2001). Culture, science, and indigenous psychologies. In D. Matsumoto (Ed.), The handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 51–76). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirton, M. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and measures. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 622–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krawietz, M., & Heine, C. (2006). Wahlmotive und Bewertungen des Studienortes bei Studienanfängern im Vergleich der neuen und der alten Länder: Ergebnisse aus der Befragung der Studienannfänger Retrieved from http://www.his.de/publikation/archiv/X_Pub/index_html?reihe_nr=X921.

  • Mann, L. (1982). Flinders Decision Making Questionnaire II. Unpublished questionnaire. The Flinders University of South Australia.

  • Mann, L., Burnett, P., Radford, M., & Ford, S. (1997). The Melbourne Decision Making Questionnaire: An instrument for measuring patterns for coping with decisional conflict. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 10, 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis (28 paragraphs). [Electronic Version]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2). Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1089/2386 on Jan 28th 2011.

  • Medora, N. P., Larson, J. H., Hortacsu, N., & Dave, P. (2002). Perceived attitudes towards romanticism: A cross-cultural study of American, Asian-Indian, and Turkish young adults. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 33, 155–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minichiello, V., Aroni, R., Timewell, E., & Alexender, L. (1990). In-depth interviewing: Research people. Hong Kong: Longman Cheshire.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Poortinga, Y. H., & van de Vijver, F. J. R. (1987). Explaining cross-cultural differences: Bias analysis and beyond. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 18, 259–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pothen, S. (1989). Divorce in Hindu society. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 20, 377–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radford, M. H., Mann, L., Ohta, Y., & Nakane, Y. (1991). Differences between Australian and Japanese students in reported use of decision processes. International Journal of Psychology, 26, 35–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saraswathi, T. S., & Pai, S. (1997). Socialization in the Indian context (vol. 19). New Delhi, India: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiraev, E. B., & Levy, D. A. (2010). Cross-cultural psychology. Critical thinking and contemporary applications. Boston: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinha, D. (1984). Some recent changes in the Indian family and their implications for socialisation. The Indian Journal of Social Work, 45, 271–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinha, D., & Tripathi, R. C. (1994). Individualism in a collectivist culture: A case of coexistence of opposites. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.-C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 123–136). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sonnenmoser, M. (2008). Vielfaltige Belastungen. Deutsches Ärzteblatt, 7, 120–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiess, C. K., & Wrohlich, K. (2008). Does distance determine who attends a university in Germany? Institut zur Zukunft der Arbeit, Bonn, Discussion paper No. 3615.

  • Stewart, E. C. (1985). Culture and decision making. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tanaka-Matsumi, J. (2001). Abnormal psychology and culture. In D. Matsumoto (Ed.), The handbook of culture and psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Triandis, H. C. (2000). Dialectics between cultural and cross-cultural psychology. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 185–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Triandis, H. C., Malpass, R. S., & Davidson, A. R. (1972). Cross-cultural psychology. In B. J. Siegel (Ed.), Biennial review of anthropology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Triandis, H. C., Malpass, R. S., & Davidson, A. R. (1973). Psychology and culture. Annual Review of Psychology, 24, 355–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsui, A. S., Nifadkar, S. S., & Ou, A. Y. (2007). Cross-national, cross-cultural organizational behavior research: Advances, gaps, and recommendations. Journal of Management, 33, 462–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (2010). Human development indicators. Retrieved from http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

  • van de Vijver, F. J. R. (2001). The evolution of cross-cultural research methods. In D. Matsumoto (Ed.), Handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 77–97). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis for cross-cultural research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • van de Vijver, F. J. R., & Poortinga, Y. H. (1997). Towards an integrated analysis of bias in cross-cultural assessment. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 13, 29–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, G., Mitchell, W. V., & Thurau, T. H. (2001). German consumer decision-making styles. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 35, 73–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, E. U., & Hsee, C. K. (2000). Culture and individual judgment and decision making. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 32–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Chemnitz University of Technology, 09120, Chemnitz, Germany

    Arun Tipandjan, Thomas Schäfer & Peter Sedlmeier

  2. Annamalai University, 608002, Chidambaram, Tamil Nadu, India

    Suresh Sundaram

Authors
  1. Arun Tipandjan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas Schäfer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Suresh Sundaram
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Peter Sedlmeier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arun Tipandjan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tipandjan, A., Schäfer, T., Sundaram, S. et al. What Are the Important Decisions in the Lives of German and Indian University Students? The Structure of Real-Life Decision-Making Processes. Integr. psych. behav. 46, 205–234 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-011-9189-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-011-9189-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation