↓ Skip to main content

Cultural Differences in Opportunity Cost Consideration

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cultural Differences in Opportunity Cost Consideration
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00045
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ning Zhang, Li-Jun Ji, Ye Li

Abstract

Two studies were conducted to investigate cultural differences in opportunity cost consideration between Chinese and Euro-Canadians. Opportunity cost is defined as the cost of a benefit that must be forgone in order to pursue a better alternative (Becker et al., 1974). In both studies, participants read about hypothetical purchase scenarios, and then decided whether they would buy a certain product. Opportunity cost consideration was measured in two ways: (1) participants' thoughts pertaining to other (nonfocal) products while making decisions; (2) participants' decisions not to buy a focal product (Study 1) or a more expensive product (Study 2). Across both indexes, we found that after controlling for individual difference variables and amount of pocket money, Chinese participants in China considered financial opportunity cost more than Euro-Canadians in Study 1. Similar results were observed in Study 2 when comparing Chinese in Canada with Euro-Canadians However, the cultural effect on opportunity cost consideration was confounded by family income in Study 2. Implications for resource management, limitations of the current research and directions for future research are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 19%
Student > Postgraduate 3 11%
Lecturer 1 4%
Unspecified 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 9 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 10 37%
Psychology 3 11%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Unspecified 1 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 10 June 2017.
All research outputs
#18,518,987
of 22,940,083 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,364
of 30,081 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#309,650
of 418,854 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#352
of 433 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,940,083 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,081 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 418,854 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 433 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.