This study aimed to investigate the influence of bilingualism on the decision making behavior of Chinese-Western bilinguals. Three tasks, including gain-loss asymmetry, loss aversion and myopic loss aversion, were conducted with 30 Chinese-Western bilingual participants. The results indicated that Chinese-Western bilinguals behaved more rationally in a Chinese language context than in an English language context.
BenartziS.ThalerR. H. (1995). Myopic loss aversion and the equity premium puzzle. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(1), 73–92.
2.
BialystokE.CraikF. I. M.LukG. (2012). Bilingualism: Consequences for mind and brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(4), 240–250.
3.
BondM. H.CheungM.-K. (1984). Experimenter language choice and ethnic affirmation by Chinese trilinguals in Hong Kong. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 8(4), 347–356.
4.
BrileyD. A.MorrisM. W.SimonsonI. (2005). Cultural chameleons: Biculturals, conformity motives, and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(4), 351–363.
5.
BrislinR. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 1(3), 185-216.
6.
BrumagimA. L.XianhuaW. (2005). An examination of cross-cultural differences in attitudes towards risk: Testing prospect theory in the People’s Republic of China. Multinational Business Review, 13(3), 67-86.
7.
Carrasco-OrtizH.MidgleyK. J.Frenck-MestreC. (2012). Are phonological representations in bilinguals language specific? An ERP study on interlingual homophones. Psychophysiology, 49(4), 531–543.
8.
HofstedeG. (1980). Cultures Consequences: Individual differences in work-related values, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
9.
HongY.-Y.MorrisM. W.ChiuC.-y.Benet-MartinezV. (2000). Multicultural minds: A dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition. American Psychologist, 55(7), 709–720.
10.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 47(2), 263–292.
11.
KeltnerD.BuswellB. N. (1997). Embarrassment: Its distinct form and appeasement functions. Psychological Bulletin, 122(3), 250.
12.
KeysarB.HayakawaS. L.AnS. G. (2012). The foreign-language effect: Thinking in a foreign tongue reduces decision biases. Psychological Science, 23(6), 661–668.
13.
LiY. (2012). Cross-cultural communication within American and Chinese colleagues in multinational organizations. Proceedings of the New York State Communication Association, 2010, 7.
14.
MorrisM. W.MenonT.AmesD. R. (2001). Culturally conferred conceptions of agency: A key to social perception of persons, groups, and other actors. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(2), 169–182.
15.
RossM.XunW. Q. E.WilsonA. E. (2002). Language and the bicultural self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(8), 1040–1050.
16.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In AustinW. G.WorchelS. (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
17.
TrafimowD.SilvermanE. S.FanR. M.-T.Fun LawJ. S. (1997). The effects of language and priming on the relative accessibility of the private self and the collective self. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28(1), 107–123.
18.
TriandisH. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96(3), 506–520.
19.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458.
20.
WeberE. U.HseeC. (1998). Cross-cultural differences in risk perception, but cross-cultural similarities in attitudes towards perceived risk. Management Science, 44(9), 1205-1217
