Decision-Making in Emerging Adulthood: A Cultural Lens

This post is written by Bhavleen Singh, research affiliate at the Department of Economics, Monk Prayogshala.

At 18, society often labels us as adults, yet this milestone merely scratches the surface of the complex journey of adulthood. Jeffrey Arnett’s conceptualization of “emerging adulthood” challenged the conventional wisdom, ushering in a paradigm shift from Erik Erikson’s earlier model tailored to an era of early marriages and career stability in one’s twenties. Today, societal norms have evolved drastically, pushing significant life events such as marriage and career stability into the late 20s, fostering a period characterized by experimentation and deferred commitments.

Arnett’s framework delineates emerging adulthood as a distinct developmental stage, underscored by identity explorations, instability, self-focus, feeling in between, and possibilities. This nuanced perspective underscores the unique challenges faced by individuals navigating this phase amidst societal pressures that both foster and constrain decision-making autonomy. In this context, young adults grapple with pivotal decisions often fraught with uncertainty and lacking the requisite foresight and information crucial for informed choices. Moreover, a shift toward individualism implies less institutional support, further complicating decision-making.

The backdrop of decision-making, rooted in the Rational Choice Theory, assumes individuals systematically evaluate the risks and benefits of options to maximize utility. However, reality shows a stark divergence from these assumptions. Emotional and social processes often overshadow deliberative rationality, particularly in emotionally charged scenarios like sexual decision-making, where outcomes remain uncertain. This interplay between deliberate and emotional decision-making underscores the need for more nuanced decision-making research, especially in young adults.

Further insights emerge when considering cultural influences on decision-making paradigms, prompting scrutiny of Arnett’s theory primarily rooted in Western industrialized societies. Research in behavior science has been notorious for being predominantly WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic).

Cultural dimensions, notably individualism-collectivism, wield profound impacts on decision-making styles, preferences, and negotiation strategies. Individualistic cultures prioritize personal autonomy and self-expression, whereas collectivistic cultures prioritize group harmony and societal norms, shaping decision-making processes accordingly. For instance, in her paper, Ma-Kellams argues that while culture may push individuals toward certain reasoning styles, there may not necessarily be consistent variation in susceptibility to cognitive biases across cultures.

Moreover, cultural attitudes toward authority and social hierarchy mold biases in decision-making, while social pressures and peer influence amplify cognitive biases. Cultural variations even influence how individuals interpret information, as evidenced by studies comparing interpretations of negative life events between Chinese and American participants.

In cultures with strict or “tight” hierarchical structures, individuals may defer to authority figures or established norms, leading to biases such as authority bias or status quo bias. Conversely, cultures that value equality and egalitarianism or have “loose” cultural norms may exhibit biases related to fairness and distributive justice, where perceptions of equity and fairness influence decisions. These cultural nuances highlight the intricate interplay between societal values, social norms, and decision-making processes.

Cross-national investigations shed light on cultural inclinations toward incorporating others’ input into decision-making processes, as observed in Indian participants’ tendency to value familial advice. Such insights underscore the need for a nuanced understanding of cultural nuances beyond the Western-Eastern binary.

Despite decades of research in judgment and decision-making, significant progress has been elusive, primarily due to the oversimplification of findings. Weiss and Shanteau argue that focusing on fitting behaviors into models rather than understanding behavioral differences has hindered progress. Additionally, oversimplifying decisions limits the depth of understanding and hinders the development of comprehensive models that accurately represent decision-making processes in various contexts.

In conclusion, there’s a pressing need for a more nuanced understanding of cognition, especially among young adults, given the differences in cognitive faculties between age groups and cultural contexts. Such an approach can foster a deeper comprehension of decision-making processes and pave the way for more effective interventions and policies tailored to diverse populations.