Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 900

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Cross-Cultural Differences in Risk Perception, but Cross-Cultural Similarities in Attitudes Towards Perceived Risk

Weber, Elke U., Hsee, Christopher·1998·Management Science

Abstract

In this study, respondents from the P.R.C., U.S.A., Germany, and Poland were found to differ in risk preference, as measured by buying prices for risky financial options. Chinese respondents were significantly less risk-averse in their pricing than Americans when risk preference was assessed in the traditional expected-utility framework. However, these apparent differences in risk preference were associated primarily with cultural differences in the perception of the risk of the financial options rather than with cultural differences in attitude towards perceived risk. In all cultures, an equal proportion (the majority) of respondents was willing to pay more for options perceived as less risky, i.e., were perceived-risk averse. These results are most naturally explained within a risk-return conceptualization of risky choice. They have practical implications for cross-cultural negotiation and commerce by suggesting the locus of cultural differences in risky choice that may allow for the creation of joint gains.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1287/mnsc.44.9.1205

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. 10.1287/mnsc.41.1.23 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1997.tb00888.x · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1007/BF01539781 · DOI
  4. Brislin R., Field Methods in Cross-Cultural Research and Methodology Series, 8, 137
  5. Brockhaus R. H., 1982, The Encyclopedia of Entrepreneurship
  6. 10.1016/0883-9026(88)90020-1 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1287/mnsc.28.8.875 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1177/000276427301700206 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Hofstede G., 1980, Culture's Consequences
  10. 10.1287/mnsc.42.12.1691 · doi:10.1287/mnsc.42.12.1691
  11. 10.1177/0022022191221004 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Levy H., 1979, Amer. Econom. Rev., 69, 308
  13. Markowitz H. M., 1959, Portfolio Selection
  14. Mellers B. A., 1997, Choice, Decision and Measurement: Essays in Honor of R. Duncan Luce, 59
  15. Pruitt D. G., 1981, Negotiation Behavior
  16. 10.1016/0377-2217(93)90033-J · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1037/h0043608 · DOI · Paper page
  18. Slovic P., 1997, Psychological Perspectives to Environmental and Ethical Issues in Management, 277
  19. Slovic P., 1991, Canadian J. Public Health, 82, S15
  20. Tylor E. B., 1871, Primitive Culture
  21. Triandis H. C., 1989, Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 41
  22. Weber E. U., 1997, Choice, Decision, and Measurement: Essays in Honor of R. Duncan Luce, 45
  23. 10.1016/0749-5978(92)90030-B · DOI
  24. 10.1287/mnsc.43.2.123 · DOI · Paper page
  25. 10.1006/obhd.1998.2788 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 900

Metadata

Authors
Weber, E. U., & Hsee, C.
Venue
Management Science
Published
1998-09
Volume
44
Issue
9
Pages
1205-1217
ISSN
  • 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-5501
OpenAlex
W3124682773
Cited by
900
References
0
FWCI
6.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cross-Cultural Differences in Risk Perception, but Cross-Cultural Similarities in Attitudes Towards Perceived Risk. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/mnsc.44.9.1205
The paper
Weber, E. U., & Hsee, C. (1998). Cross-Cultural Differences in Risk Perception, but Cross-Cultural Similarities in Attitudes Towards Perceived Risk. Management Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.44.9.1205

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.