Edited by: Andrew G. Ryder, Concordia University, Canada
Reviewed by: Kosuke Takemura, Shiga University, Japan; Nuwan Jayawickreme, Manhattan College, USA; Carl Francis Falk, Michigan State University, USA
*Correspondence: Li-Jun Ji
This article was submitted to Cultural Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
Two studies were conducted to investigate cultural differences in opportunity cost consideration between Chinese and Euro-Canadians. Opportunity cost is defined as the cost of a benefit that must be forgone in order to pursue a better alternative (Becker et al.,
Will you choose to buy a luxury stereo system with your $2000 holiday bonus or spend the money on a wonderful holiday at a Caribbean island resort? Though this may seem to be an easy decision at first glance, you may hesitate before making one choice and forgoing the alternative. Your final decision will depend on how you weigh the opportunity cost of your choice.
Opportunity cost, originally an economics term, is typically defined as “benefits foregone as a result of rejecting the next best alternative action” (Becker et al.,
In classic economic theory, it is assumed that people think and behave rationally to maximize their benefits and minimize their losses; however, research in behavioral economics and psychology has demonstrated that this is not always the case. Instead, irrationality is a common characteristic of human judgments and behavioral decision-making (Tversky and Kahneman,
Why do people neglect opportunity costs in making decisions? Researchers from multiple disciplines have attempted to address this question over the past several decades. The explanations include focusing bias in judgment and decision-making (Legrenzi et al.,
One proposed cause of “opportunity cost neglect” is focusing bias in judgment and decision-making. Legrenzi et al. (
Consumer behavior researchers have documented a related phenomenon known as the brand positivity effect (Posavac et al.,
Another factor influencing opportunity cost consideration is decision-markers' perceived resource constraints. Specifically, the more resource constraints people perceive, the more likely they will consider opportunity cost in decision-making. In a single lab session, Spiller (
Zauberman and Lynch (
Research has shown that individual differences also moderate the extent to which people consider opportunity costs (Frederick et al.,
Most of the research on opportunity cost consideration has been conducted in North America with participants of European descent (Northcraft and Neale,
Previous research in culture and cognition has demonstrated that East Asians are generally more sensitive and attentive to context than are North Americans (Ji et al.,
In everyday life, people frequently face decisions that involve choosing one option among multiple alternatives. The nonfocal alternatives can be considered as the context for decision-making. In most situations, however, alternative options are not explicitly presented. Given that East Asians are more sensitive to contexts than European North Americans, would they also be more readily attentive to alternative options and therefore consider opportunity cost more in purchase decision-making? The present research aims to address this question by comparing hypothetical purchase decisions of Chinese and Euro-Canadians.
Based on previous research on opportunity cost consideration and on research considering cultural differences in sensitivity to context, we hypothesized that Euro-Canadians would consider opportunity cost less than would Chinese. Furthermore, we predicted that making opportunity cost information salient would significantly increase European Canadian participants' likelihood of considering opportunity cost, compared to those in the control condition, whereas the salience of opportunity cost information would have a weaker or no effect on Chinese participants' opportunity cost consideration. We conducted two studies to test these hypotheses.
The purpose of Study 1 was to examine whether culture and the salience of opportunity cost information would influence opportunity cost consideration in a purchase decision. Study 1 also measured individual difference variables, including habits of considering opportunity cost, propensity to plan for money, and spending habits, as previous research has shown that these variables are relevant to opportunity cost consideration (Frederick et al.,
One hundred and twenty-one European Canadian students recruited from the subject pool at a Canadian University (100 women, 21 men;
Participants read a decision-making scenario adapted from Frederick et al. (
For the main dependent variables, participants indicated their likelihood of choosing option A or B on an 8-point bipolar scale (1 =
Next, we measured individual differences in participants' spending styles on some rating scales. Heine et al. (
Finally, participants reported demographic information, including age, gender, ethnicity, amount of pocket money they typically had each month, and family income
Following previous research, responses to the Opportunity Cost Consideration Scale (unstandardized Cronbach α = 0.82, and 0.76 for Euro-Canadians and Chinese, respectively) and the Propensity to Plan for Money Scale (unstandardized Cronbach α = 0.90, and 0.87 for Euro-Canadians and Chinese, respectively) were averaged, respectively, and responses to the STS (unstandardized Cronbach α = 0.78, and 0.67 for Euro-Canadians and Chinese, respectively) were summed up as an index of being a spendthrift (i.e., people with low pain of spending money). The self-reported individual difference variables indicated that Euro-Canadians (
Although Euro-Canadians reporting a stronger habit of considering opportunity cost than Chinese did not seem to support our hypothesis, correlation analyses indicated that this self-reported tendency of considering opportunity cost was not significantly correlated with either of the opportunity cost consideration indexes (choice or presence of opportunity cost thoughts) for Chinese and only significantly correlated with the presence of opportunity cost thoughts for Euro-Canadians (See Table
1. OCC | 5.01 | 1.32 | ||||
2. PPM | 4.43 | 1.44 | 0.405 |
|||
3. STS | 14.59 | 4.58 | −0.466 |
−0.416 |
||
4. Choice | 2.58 | 1.76 | 0.089 | 0.112 | −0.247 |
|
5. OC thoughts | 0.24 | 0.43 | 0.262 |
0.156 | −0.211 |
0.394 |
1. OCC | 3.98 | 1.45 | ||||
2. PPM | 3.22 | 1.25 | 0.280 |
|||
3. STS | 15.92 | 3.61 | −0.238 |
−0.242 |
||
4. Choice | 2.88 | 1.71 | 0.168 | 0.170 | −0.323 |
|
5. OC thoughts | 0.30 | 0.46 | 0.166 | 0.128 | −0.018 | 0.243 |
Blind to the hypothesis, Two English-Chinese bilingual research assistants coded the thoughts that participants listed in terms of whether or not participants mentioned opportunity cost (e.g., other items they planned to buy) in making the decision. The inter-coder agreement on thoughts was 94% for Euro-Canadian, and 92% for Chinese. Disagreements between coders were resolved through discussion.
After effect coding the two categorical variables—culture (−1 = Euro-Canadians, 1 = Chinese) and condition (−1 = control, 1 = opportunity cost salient), we first conducted a binary logistic regression analysis with culture, condition, and the interaction between culture and condition as independent variable and presence of opportunity cost thoughts (1 = present, 0 = absent) as the dependent variable. Only condition was a significant predictor of the presence of opportunity cost thoughts,
Next, we conducted a similar binary logistic regression, but adding all the individual difference measures, and amount of pocket money as covariates. As differences in amount of pocket money may influence people's likelihood of considering opportunity cost, we controlled for the amount of pocket money (after converting Chinese yuan into Canadian dollars based on the exchange rate at the time of data collection and standardizing it within each culture). The results revealed a main effect of condition,
Model 1 (without controlling individual difference variables | Condition | 0.387 | 0.150 | 6.657 | 1 | 0.01 | 1.473 |
Culture | 0.156 | 0.150 | 1.082 | 1 | 0.298 | 1.169 | |
Condition by Culture | 0.032 | 0.150 | 0.044 | 1 | 0.833 | 1.032 | |
Constant | −1.023 | 0.150 | 46.486 | 1 | 0.000 | 0.36 | |
Model 2 (controlling all individual difference variables and pocket money) | Condition | 0.447 | 0.162 | 7.602 | 1 | 0.006 | 1.564 |
Culture | 0.541 | 0.203 | 7.11 | 1 | 0.008 | 1.717 | |
Condition by Culture | 0.104 | 0.160 | 0.42 | 1 | 0.516 | 1.11 | |
Pocket money | −0.406 | 0.267 | 2.314 | 1 | 0.128 | 0.666 | |
OCC average | 0.359 | 0.138 | 6.767 | 1 | 0.009 | 1.432 | |
PPM average | 0.175 | 0.130 | 1.815 | 1 | 0.178 | 1.192 | |
TS total | 0.031 | 0.046 | 0.465 | 1 | 0.495 | 1.032 | |
Constant | −3.081 | 1.232 | 9.918 | 1 | 0.002 | 0.021 | |
Model 3 (similar to analysis 2, without controlling OCC average) | Condition | 0.407 | 0.157 | 6.697 | 1 | 0.01 | 1.503 |
Culture | 0.441 | 0.196 | 6.058 | 1 | 0.025 | 1.554 | |
Condition by Culture | 0.059 | 0.156 | 0.144 | 1 | 0.704 | 1.061 | |
Pocket money | −0.471 | 0.282 | 2.79 | 1 | 0.095 | 0.624 | |
PPM average | 0.252 | 0.126 | 3.987 | 1 | 0.046 | 1.287 | |
TS total | −0.002 | 0.043 | 0.002 | 1 | 0.969 | 0.998 | |
Constant | −2.016 | 0.959 | 4.422 | 1 | 0.035 | 0.133 |
After effect coding the two categorical variables—culture (−1 = Euro-Canadians, 1 = Chinese) and condition (−1 = control, 1 = opportunity cost salient), we first conducted a regression analysis to explore the effects of culture, condition, and the interaction between culture and condition on choice without covariates. The overall model was marginally significant,
Next, we conducted a linear regression analysis while controlling for the individual difference variables and the amount of pocket money. The overall model was significant,
Model 1 (without controlling individual difference variables | Condition | 0.272 | 0.113 | 0.154 | 2.403 | 0.017 | [0.049, 0.496] |
Culture | 0.106 | 0.113 | 0.06 | 0.936 | 0.35 | [−0.117, 0.329] | |
Condition by Culture | −0.089 | 0.113 | −0.051 | −0.788 | 0.431 | [−0.313, 0.134] | |
Constant | 2.694 | 0.113 | 23.769 | 0.001 | [2.47, 2.917] | ||
Model 2 (controlling all individual difference variables and pocket money) | Condition | 0.287 | 0.115 | 0.161 | 2.508 | 0.013 | [0.062, 0.513] |
Culture | 0.242 | 0.138 | 0.136 | 1.751 | 0.081 | [−0.03, 0.515] | |
Condition by Culture | −0.062 | 0.115 | −0.035 | −0.538 | 0.591 | [−0.288, 0.164] | |
Pocket money | −0.068 | 0.132 | −0.038 | −0.516 | 0.606 | [−0.329, 0.192] | |
OCC average | 0.025 | 0.092 | 0.021 | 0.273 | 0.785 | [−0.156, 0.206] | |
PPM average | 0.076 | 0.093 | 0.063 | 0.812 | 0.418 | [−0.108, 0.259] | |
TS total | −0.095 | 0.032 | −0.225 | −2.959 | 0.003 | [−0.159, −0.032] | |
Constant | 3.768 | 0.826 | 4.558 | 0.001 | [2.138, 5.395] | ||
Model 3 (similar to analysis 2, without controlling OCC average) | Condition | 0.286 | 0.114 | 0.160 | 2.504 | 0.013 | [0.061, 0.511] |
Culture | 0.234 | 0.135 | 0.131 | 1.735 | 0.084 | [−0.032, 0.501] | |
Condition by Culture | −0.065 | 0.114 | −0.036 | −0.569 | 0.57 | [−0.289, 0.16] | |
Pocket money | −0.068 | 0.132 | −0.038 | 0.512 | 0.609 | [−0.328, 0.192] | |
PPM average | 0.082 | 0.090 | 0.068 | 0.911 | 0.363 | [−0.095, 0.259] | |
TS total | −0.098 | 0.031 | −0.231 | −3.158 | 0.002 | [−0.169, −0.037] | |
Constant | 3.892 | 0.685 | 5.678 | 0.000 | [2.541, 5.243] |
In Study 1, participants generally considered opportunity cost to a greater extent in the opportunity cost salient condition than in the control condition, indexed by participants' likelihood of reporting opportunity cost thoughts while making the purchase decision and by their choice of not to buy the backpack. When individual difference variables and the amount of pocket money were controlled for, Chinese were in general more likely than Euro-Canadians to report opportunity cost thoughts and to make choices consistent with opportunity cost consideration.
Study 1 had several limitations. First, the price of the backpack ($29.99/¥110) seemed too low, which led to a floor effect such that there was a high level of intention to buy the backpack and therefore little intention not to buy it. Indeed, a majority of the participants' (105 Euro-Canadians and 101 Chinese) responses to the 8-point bipolar scale were below or equal to four (i.e., “slightly likely to buy the backpack”). Strong preference for buying the backpack could suppress participants' likelihood of considering opportunity cost in making the choices. Second, as the decision involved whether or not to buy the backpack (instead of choosing between two products), participants who did not need a backpack (or were not interested in getting one) were more likely to choose not to buy it regardless of whether they considered opportunity cost or not. Lastly, although we intended to make the price equivalent by using the Big Mac index to convert Canadian dollars to Chinese Yuan, it was still possible that $29.99 to Euro-Canadians was not equivalent to 110 Yuan to Chinese, which may confound the results.
Study 2 was conducted to test the same predictions as in Study 1 with the following improvements. First, we introduced a more expensive product for university students—a laptop, which should help to prevent the floor effect observed in Study 1. Second, rather than deciding whether or not to buy a product such as in Study 1, participants in Study 2 had to choose between two similar products. This should render participants' need for or interest in the product less relevant in their decisions. Third, we recruited both Chinese and Canadian participants at a Canadian university and presented the product price in Canadian dollars. This excluded the possibility that price difference and product information might confound participants' responses. Study 2 also explored whether the condition effect observed in Study 1 would be replicated with a different way of manipulating the salience of opportunity cost information—opportunity cost priming through a purchase-listing task.
Seventy-five European Canadian students (61 women, 14 men;
Adapting a design from Frederick et al. (
Participants then read the laptop scenario and indicated their choice on a scale from 1 to 8, with 1 meaning they would definitely choose the more expensive laptop, and 8 meaning that they would definitely choose the cheaper laptop. Thus, a higher number in choice indicated a higher level of opportunity cost consideration. Next, they listed any thoughts they had while deciding which option to choose and indicated to what extent making the purchase would influence their ability to buy other things (1 =
The Cronbach's alpha for the Opportunity Cost Consideration (OCC) scale is 0.86 and 0.80 for Euro-Canadians and East Asians, respectively. Unlike in Study 1, Euro-Canadians (
As seen in Table
OCC | 5.24 | 1.29 | ||
Choice | 4.41 | 2.31 | 0.012 | |
OC thoughts | 0.12 | 0.33 | −0.052 | 0.306 |
OCC | 4.91 | 1.32 | ||
Choice | 5.37 | 2.20 | −0.276 |
|
OC thoughts | 0.29 | 0.46 | 0.011 | 0.444 |
Two research assistants, blind to the research hypothesis, coded participants' thoughts using the same scheme as in Study 1. The inter-coder agreement was 86%; disagreements were resolved through discussion. After effect coding for the two categorical variables—Culture (−1 = Euro-Canadians, 1 = Chinese) and Condition (−1 = control, 1 = opportunity cost priming), a binary logistic regression was conducted to examine how participants' opportunity cost thought (0 = not present, 1 = present) could be predicted by culture, condition, and the interaction between culture and condition. Only culture was a significant predictor of the presence of opportunity cost thoughts,
Next, we conducted another binary logistic regression analysis with effect coded culture, condition, and the interaction between culture and condition as predictor, while controlling for individual differences in OCC, family income, pocket money, and perceived financial security. The results revealed a significant effect of family income on the presence of opportunity cost thoughts,
Model 1 (without controlling individual difference variables | Condition | 0.201 | 0.229 | 0.778 | 1 | 0.378 | 1.223 |
Culture | 0.533 | 0.229 | 5.428 | 1 | 0.02 | 1.703 | |
Condition by Culture | 0.181 | 0.229 | 0.628 | 1 | 0.428 | 1.199 | |
Constant | −1.462 | 0.229 | 40.905 | 1 | 0.001 | 0.232 | |
Model 2 (controlling OCC average and financial variables) | Condition | 0.415 | 0.253 | 2.681 | 1 | 0.102 | 1.514 |
Culture | 0.254 | 0.269 | 0.888 | 1 | 0.346 | 1.289 | |
Condition by Culture | 0.289 | 0.251 | 1.327 | 1 | 0.249 | 1.336 | |
OCC average | −0.218 | 0.19 | 1.315 | 1 | 0.251 | 0.804 | |
Family income | −0.481 | 0.174 | 7.629 | 1 | 0.006 | 0.618 | |
Pocket money | −0.002 | 0.001 | 2.734 | 1 | 0.098 | 0.998 | |
Financial security | 0.382 | 0.212 | 2.407 | 1 | 0.121 | 1.388 | |
Constant | 0.251 | 1.443 | 0.03 | 1 | 0.862 | 1.285 | |
Model 3 (similar to analysis 2, without controlling OCC average) | Condition | 0.365 | 0.247 | 2.191 | 1 | 0.139 | 1.44 |
Culture | 0.279 | 0.267 | 1.092 | 1 | 0.296 | 1.322 | |
Condition by Culture | 0.28 | 0.249 | 1.262 | 1 | 0.261 | 1.323 | |
Family income | −0.473 | 0.173 | 7.478 | 1 | 0.006 | 0.623 | |
Pocket money | −0.002 | 0.001 | 2.113 | 1 | 0.146 | 0.998 | |
Financial security | 0.346 | 0.209 | 2.741 | 1 | 0.098 | 1.413 | |
Constant | −1.003 | 0.944 | 1.129 | 1 | 0.288 | 0.367 |
To further understand cultural differences in the presence of opportunity cost thoughts when making purchase decisions, we explored whether Chinese were more likely than Euro-Canadians to report opportunity cost thoughts even when they were both choosing the cheaper option. Among all participants who chose the cheaper option, Chinese participants (40.9%) were marginally more likely than Euro-Canadians (21.6%) to report opportunity cost thoughts,
After effect coding for the two categorical variables—Culture (−1 = Euro-Canadians, 1 = Chinese) and Condition (−1 = control, 1 = opportunity cost priming), we firstly conducted a linear regression analysis to explore the effect of culture, condition, and the interaction between culture and condition in predicting people's decisions. The overall model was significant,
Next, we conducted another linear regression analysis while controlling for OCC, family income, pocket money, and perceived financial security
Model 1 (without controlling individual difference variables | Condition | −0.052 | 0.193 | −0.023 | 0.272 | 0.786 | [−0.434, 0.329] |
Culture | 0.479 | 0.193 | 0.208 | 2.480 | 0.014 | [0.097, 0.861] | |
Condition by Culture | −0.296 | 0.193 | −0.129 | −1.533 | 0.128 | [−0.678, 0.086] | |
Constant | 4.87 | 0.193 | 25.218 | 0.000 | [4.488, 5.251] | ||
Model 2 (controlling OCC average and financial variables) | Condition | 0.087 | 0.198 | 0.037 | 0.438 | 0.662 | [−0.305, 0.478] |
Culture | 0.138 | 0.221 | 0.059 | 0.623 | 0.534 | [−0.30, 0.575] | |
Condition by Culture | −0.249 | 0.196 | −0.107 | −1.274 | 0.205 | [−0.636, 0.138] | |
OCC average | −0.288 | 0.153 | −0.164 | −0.188 | 0.063 | [−0.592, 0.015] | |
Family income | −0.456 | 0.141 | −0.233 | −3.243 | 0.002 | [−0.735, −0.178] | |
Pocket money | −0.001 | 0.001 | −0.141 | −1.585 | 0.116 | [−0.002,0.000] | |
Financial security | 0.203 | 0.168 | 0.114 | 1.205 | 0.231 | [−0.13, 0.536] | |
Constant | 7.443 | 1.193 | 6.23 | 0.000 | [5.071, 9.795] | ||
Model 3 (similar to analysis 2, without controlling OCC average) | Condition | 0.032 | 0.198 | 0.014 | 0.163 | 0.871 | [−0.359, 0.423] |
Culture | 0.184 | 0.222 | 0.079 | 0.830 | 0.408 | [−0.255, 0.623] | |
Condition by Culture | −0.248 | 0.198 | −0.107 | −1.256 | 0.211 | [−0.639, 0.143] | |
Family income | −0.447 | 0.142 | −0.327 | −3.148 | 0.002 | [−0.728, −0.166] | |
Pocket money | −0.001 | 0.001 | −0.105 | −1.194 | 0.235 | [−0.002, 0.001] | |
Financial security | 0.222 | 0.170 | 0.125 | 1.308 | 0.193 | [−0.114, 0.558] | |
Constant | 5.779 | 0.814 | 7.101 | 0.000 | [4.168, 7.389] |
In Study 2, we found a higher degree of opportunity cost consideration among Chinese than among Euro-Canadians, but this effect was no longer significant when OCC, family income, pocket money, and perceived financial security were included in the analysis. Indeed, family income confounded the effect of culture on decision. Overall, compared to Euro-Canadians, Chinese participants reported a lower level of family income, suggesting they may be more constrained in resource. However, there was no cultural difference in responses to the question, “how would making this purchase influence your ability of buying other things?” This is also inconsistent with the “cushion hypothesis” proposed by Hsee and Weber (
In the present study, opportunity cost priming did not have any significant effect on participants' purchase decisions, which did not replicate Frederick et al. (
Across two studies, we explored whether opportunity cost consideration varies across cultures. Our first hypothesis was that Euro-Canadians would be less likely to consider opportunity cost than Chinese. Study 1 revealed that, while controlling for individual differences in habits of considering opportunity cost or propensity to plan for money, Chinese were more likely than Euro-Canadians to think about opportunity cost and to make decisions consistent with opportunity cost consideration. However, in Study 2, the cultural differences in opportunity cost consideration disappeared when family income was included as a covariate. We discussed the limitations of the study in the limitation section.
The second hypothesis, that Euro-Canadians would benefit more than Chinese from the salience of opportunity cost information, was not supported. In Study 1, the results indicated that participants from both culture groups benefited equally from the opportunity cost salience manipulation. In Study 2, salience of opportunity cost information did not have a significant effect on either culture group. It is unclear to what extent other factors unexamined in the present research, such as the particular product used in each study, might have influenced the impact of the opportunity cost salience manipulation. Future research should investigate these other factors.
In Study 2, family income confounded the effect of culture on choice, however, it is not clear how family income accounted for the cultural difference in opportunity cost consideration. One possibility is that cultural differences in family income may lead to different levels of perceived resource constraint. However, the two cultural groups did not differ in perceived affordability to buy other things, financial security, or average amount of pocket money in Study 2, and none of these factors explained the relationship between family income and choice. Another possibility is that family income may have afforded people with different family environments and life experiences, which could foster different attitudes toward spending money and therefore influence their purchasing behaviors. For example, lower family income may foster a stronger intention of planning for spending money or a stronger habit of comparing different products before making a purchase decision. As indicated in Study 1, however, propensity to plan for spending money, based on self-report, was actually higher among (rich) Euro-Canadians than among (less rich) Chinese. Furthermore, greater planning propensity among Euro-Canadians did not lead to greater opportunity cost consideration, in either thoughts or decisions. Thus, future research is warranted to disentangle the effects of culture and family income on opportunity cost consideration.
The current research contributes to research on culture and decision-making. Previous research on opportunity cost consideration was predominantly conducted with North American participants (Becker et al.,
The present study also highlights the importance of using multiple indices in cross-cultural research on judgment and decision-making. In the current research, results based on participants' self-report on the opportunity cost consideration scale were inconsistent across two studies. Self-reported opportunity cost consideration was not in line with the other two indices (i.e., choice rating and presence of opportunity cost thoughts) of opportunity cost consideration either. For example, Chinese participants' intention to choose the cheaper laptop was negatively correlated with their self-reported level of opportunity cost consideration in Study 2 (
One limitation of the present research is that factors not measured in the current research may have attenuated the effect of priming opportunity cost in decision-making. The priming method affected opportunity cost consideration among American participants in Frederick et al. (
Second, choosing whether or not to buy a product (or the likelihood of choosing to buy a product) might not be an optimal index of opportunity cost consideration because the decision is hypothetical, and it is likely influenced by multiple factors such as price, need, and preference. This problem is especially true in the cross-cultural context, as previous research has demonstrated substantial cross-cultural differences in the determinants of consumer behavior (Luna and Gupta,
Furthermore, measurement invariance tests suggested that the individual difference variables included in the current studies (i.e., self-reported opportunity cost consideration, propensity to plan for money, and experience of pain in spending money) only reached configural invariance but not for metric or scalar invariance across cultures
This limitation precludes meaningful cross-cultural comparisons on these individual differences. The inconsistencies in the correlations between the self-reported individual difference measures and the target dependent variables (e.g., presence of opportunity cost thoughts, choice) also suggest problems that make it not valid to compare them cross-culturally.
The results of Study 2 revealed that family income difference confounded the relationship between culture and opportunity cost consideration. However, it is not clear how family income led to opportunity cost consideration in the current study and whether there are psychological variables (other than the socioeconomic variables) responsible for cultural differences in opportunity cost consideration. Thus, future research is warranted to further investigate the effects of culture and family income on opportunity cost consideration. For instance, future research could compare Euro-Canadians and Chinese with similar family incomes to explore whether the culture main effect observed in the current study could be replicated. If there are indeed cultural differences in opportunity cost consideration after matching socioeconomic variables (e.g., family income), a fruitful next step would be to investigate the underlying mechanisms of this phenomenon, such as holistic thinking or sensitivity to context. Although we speculated that sensitivity to the decision context was one potential factor to influence cultural differences in people's likelihood of considering opportunity cost, we did not manipulate or measure sensitivity to decision context in the current research. Future research is worthwhile to explore the role of cultural differences in decision contexts sensitivity in accounting for cultural differences in opportunity cost consideration.
While the current research focuses on opportunity cost involving money, future research can expand it to other types of opportunity costs, such as time, relationships, and environmental impact. Exploring cultural differences in opportunity cost consideration in these nonfinancial domains not only has the advantage of circumventing the interfering effect of culturally contingent socioeconomic indices (e.g., family income) encountered in the current research, but will also enrich our understanding of cultural effects on decision making and resource management in general.
Joan Stevenson, Ph.D. Professor and Chair, General Research Ethics Board, Queen's University. Participants were provided with a hard copy or online version of the consent form when came to the lab to participate in the studies. The study only began after they sign the consent form and they have freedom to withdraw from the study at any time.
NZ designed the study under the supervision of LJ. NZ collected the data in Canada, YL collected the data in China. NZ analyzed the data and drafted the manuscript under the supervision of LJ. LJ provided critical revisions for the manuscript.
The research was supported by a grant from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRCC Grant 435-2012-1279).
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
1Data analysis showed no order effect; therefore, it will not be discussed further.
2Chinese (
3Participants reported the amount of pocket money they have per month in Canadian dollars (for Euro-Canadians,
4Including OCC (scale) average as a covariate in the model or not produced a similar pattern of results.
5Including OCC (scale) average as a covariate in the model or not produced a similar pattern of results.
6Only 24 Chinese participants answered the question regarding how long they had lived in North America (Canada/US). The average was 12.02 years (
7There were no significant differences between Euro-Canadians and Chinese in their perceived affordability to buy other things, in their self-reported financial security, and in the amount of pocket money they had each month,
8For those curious readers, we conducted a similar binary logistic regression analysis as in Study 1, with OCC and pocket money as covariates. We found that only culture was a significant predictor of the presence of opportunity cost thoughts,
9We did another linear regression on decision, with culture and condition, and the interaction between culture and condition as predictors, and controlling for OCC and pocket money. The overall model was significant,
10Including OCC (scale) average as a covariate in the model or not produced a similar pattern of results.
11We conducted further analyses using LISREL to test measurement invariance of the individual difference measures included in Study 1 and 2. The results revealed that the Opportunity Cost Consideration Scale (OCC) used in Study 1 only reached configural invariance [