Cultural differences in intertemporal decision making: A comparison between Chile and China.

A cross-cultural comparison is made of delay discounting in samples of participants from Chile and China. Comparisons are made based on previous literature that suggests that individuals from an Asian culture should be willing to postpone delayed rewards more than are individuals from a Latin American culture. To test the cross-cultural validity of a hyperbolic discounting model, the model was fitted to both data sets. Additionally, a self-enhancement measure was evaluated as a potential mediator between culture of origin and delay discounting. Seventy-eight college students from China and 120 college students from Chile, with similar demographic backgrounds, discounted hypothetical monetary outcomes using an adjusting-amount titration procedure. Additionally, participants completed a self-enhancement measure. Age, academic major, gender, and grade point average were controlled. Chilean participants discounted much more steeply than Chinese nationals did. No support was obtained for the mediation of self-enhancement between culture of origin and degree of delay discounting. In both samples, delay discounting was better described by a hyperboloid than an exponential function, the only exception being the $10,000 condition in which the medians for Chilean participants' present subjective value were equally well explained by a hyperboloid and an exponential function.

The Reciprocal Relationships Between Escalation, Anger, and Confidence in Investment Decisions Over Time.

Research on escalation of commitment has predominantly been studied in the context of a single decision without consideration for the psychological consequences of escalating. This study sought to examine (a) the extent to which people escalate their commitment to a failing course of action in a sequential decision-making task, (b) confidence and anger as psychological consequences of escalation of commitment, and (c) the reciprocal relationship between escalation of commitment and confidence and anger. Participants were 110 undergraduate students who completed a series of investment decisions regarding a failing endeavor. Results revealed that although a high proportion of individuals escalate through all decisions, the extent to which they escalated decreased with each decision as they were less willing to invest money in the project. Furthermore, as participants escalated, confidence in one's decision decreased and anger increased. Lastly, the analyses revealed that the relationship between escalation and confidence is reciprocal. Escalation was negatively associated with confidence, and confidence predicted escalation in the subsequent decision. These results highlight the importance of considering both the determinants and psychological consequences of escalation of commitment.

The Language of Fairness: how Cross-Linguistic Norms in Spanish and English Influence Reactions to Unfair Treatment.

We integrate recent findings from the linguistics literature with the organizational justice literature to examine how the language used to encode justice violations influences fairness perceptions. The study focused on the use of non-agentive syntax to encode mistakes in Spanish ("The vase was broken") versus using agentive syntax in English ("She broke the vase") influences event fairness perceptions. We hypothesized that when justice violations are encoded using Spanish, because the non-agentive syntax makes the responsible party less salient, the event would be perceived as less unfair. In Study 1 (n = 111), English-speaking participants rated the fairness of an event in which a mistake was made and an employee received a negative outcome. They rated it as more unfair (p < .01, η2 = .06) when the scenario was presented in agentive syntax. Experiment 2 (n = 70) used native English- and Spanish-speakers who watched a video of manager making a mistake. We found that Spanish-speakers used less agentive syntax (p < .01, η2 = .21), perceived the event as less unfair (p < .001, η2 = .23), and were more willing to help the manager who made the mistake. In Experiment 3 (n = 101) we replicated this effect controlling for cross-cultural differences and native language; further, we found an interaction between entity fairness (event vs. entity) and native language (Spanish vs. English) on citizenship intentions (p < .01, η2 = .08). These results extend our understanding of how language may influence relevant workplace attitudes.

The language of fairness: how cross-linguistic norms in Spanish and English influence reactions to unfair treatment

We integrate recent findings from the linguistics literature with the organizational justice literature to examine how the language used to encode justice violations influences fairness perceptions. The study focused on the use of nonagentive syntax to encode mistakes in Spanish ('The vase was broken') versus using agentive syntax in English ('She broke the vase') influences event fairness perceptions. We hypothesized that when justice violations are encoded using Spanish, because the non-agentive syntax makes the responsible party less salient, the event would be perceived as less unfair. In Study 1 (n = 111), English-speaking participants rated the fairness of an event in which a mistake was made and an employee received a negative outcome. They rated it as more unfair (p < .01, η2 = .06) when the scenario was presented in agentive syntax. Experiment 2 (n = 70) used native English- and Spanish-speakers who watched a video of manager making a mistake. We found that Spanish-speakers used less agentive syntax (p < .01, η2 = .21), perceived the event as less unfair (p < .001, η2 = .23), and were more willing to help the manager who made the mistake. In Experiment 3 (n = 101) we replicated this effect controlling for cross-cultural differences and native language; further, we found an interaction between entity fairness (event vs. entity) and native language (Spanish vs. English) on citizenship intentions (p < .01, η2 = .08). These results extend our understanding of how language may influence relevant workplace attitudes (AU)

No disponible

Are groups more rational than individuals? A review of interactive decision making in groups.

Many decisions are interactive; the outcome of one party depends not only on its decisions or on acts of nature but also on the decisions of others. Standard game theory assumes that individuals are rational, self-interested decision makers-that is, decision makers are selfish, perfect calculators, and flawless executors of their strategies. A myriad of studies shows that these assumptions are problematic, at least when examining decisions made by individuals. In this article, we review the literature of the last 25 years on decision making by groups. Researchers have compared the strategic behavior of groups and individuals in many games: prisoner's dilemma, dictator, ultimatum, trust, centipede and principal-agent games, among others. Our review suggests that results are quite consistent in revealing that group decisions are closer to the game-theoretic assumption of rationality than individual decisions. Given that many real-world decisions are made by groups, it is possible to argue that standard game theory is a better descriptive model than previously believed by experimental researchers. We conclude by discussing future research avenues in this area. WIREs Cogn Sci 2012, 3:471-482. doi: 10.1002/wcs.1184 For further resources related to this article, please visit the WIREs website.

Bases metodológicas para la evaluación de edificaciones estructuradas con pórticos, elementos arquitectónicos y equipamientos

Este documento presenta una descripción de los procedimientos requeridos para realizar una evaluación de la vulnerabilidad sísmica de sistemas estructurales y no estructurales. Su objetivo es servir de guía para la gestión, desarrollo y evaluación de proyectos en edificios hospitalarios de gran importancia, en los cuales se ha establecido como criterio de diseño la protección de la operación y el control del daño debido a sismos. (AU)