CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 168Categorization, perception, and languageDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsCultural Differences and Values

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cultural Differences in Probabilistic Thinking

Wright, George N., Phillips, Lawrence D., Whalley, Peter C., Choo, Gerry T., Ng, Kee-Ong, Tan, Irene, Wisudha, Aylene·1978·Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
DOI 10.1177/002202217893002
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Cultural differences in three aspects of "probabilistic thinking" were studied. The study re-presents part of earlier work in Hong Kong and Britain and combines it with the results from a further study in Indonesia and Malaysia. The largest cultural difference was found between Asian and British student groups. The British adopted a more finely differentiated view of uncertainty, both verbally and numerically, than the Asians in response to uncertain situations. These differences are predictable neither on the basis of the relative abundance of probability expressions in the Indonesian language nor by the Malay samples' ability to discriminate English probability words on a meaningful probability discrimination dimension. For numerical probabilities assigned to almanac questions, the British were less extreme and better calibrated than the Asian students. Potential cultural influences which could account for the cultural differences were examined, and the possibility that Asian ways of dealing with uncertainty do not involve the verbal or numeric response modes studied is presented.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/002202217893002

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 16 references

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. LINDLEY, D. V., 1971, Making Decisions
  2. PHILLIPS, L. D., 1976, "Group differences in probabilistic thinking."
  3. TSCHUDI, F. (1972) "The latent, the manifest and the reconstructed in multivariate data reduction models." Ph.D. thesis, University of Oslo.
  4. WILSON, D., 1970, Asia Awakes
  5. WRIGHT, G. N., 1976, "A pilot study of the multidimensional scaling of probability words and phrases."

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–168 of 168

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Wright, G. N., Phillips, L. D., Whalley, P. C., Choo, G. T., Ng, K.-O., Tan, I., & Wisudha, A.
Affiliations
Brunel University of London (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
1978-09
Volume
9
Issue
3
Pages
285-299
ISSN
  • 0022-0221 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-5422
DOI
10.1177/002202217893002
OpenAlex
W2114810361
Cited by
168
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
FWCI
1.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Cultural Differences and Values
Keywords
probabilistic reasoning, cultural differences, uncertainty, probability judgment, calibration, Asian students, British students, cross-cultural comparison

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review