↓ Skip to main content

Culture and gambling fallacies

Overview of attention for article published in SpringerPlus, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
Title
Culture and gambling fallacies
Published in
SpringerPlus, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40064-015-1290-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Li-Jun Ji, Kayla McGeorge, Ye Li, Albert Lee, Zhiyong Zhang

Abstract

Euro-Canadians and Chinese typically hold different theories about change; Euro-Canadians often engage in linear thinking whereas Chinese often engage in non-linear thinking. The present research investigated the effects of culture-specific theories of change in two related gambling fallacies: the gambler's fallacy (GF; the belief that one is due for a win after a run of losses) and the hot-hand fallacy (HHF; the belief that one's winning streak is likely to continue). In Study 1, participants predicted the outcome of a coin toss following a sequence of tosses. Study 2 involved predicting and betting on the outcome of a basketball player's shot following a sequence of shots. In Study 1, Asians (mainly Chinese) were significantly more likely than Euro-Canadians to believe that they would win (correctly predict the coin toss) after a series of losses (a non-linear thinking pattern), suggesting greater susceptibility to the gambler's fallacy. In Study 2, Euro-Canadians were more likely than Chinese to predict outcomes consistent with a basketball player's streaks (a linear thinking pattern), suggesting greater susceptibility to the hot hand fallacy. By illustrating the role of cultural differences in cognition, these findings contribute to our understanding of why certain cultural groups, such as Chinese, are more susceptible to gambling.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 25%
Student > Master 4 11%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 9 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 7 19%
Social Sciences 5 14%
Sports and Recreations 3 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 6%
Other 8 22%
Unknown 9 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 October 2015.
All research outputs
#13,448,315
of 22,829,083 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#692
of 1,850 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,523
of 272,398 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#42
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,829,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,850 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 272,398 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 121 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.