↓ Skip to main content

Generalized Trust and Financial Risk-Taking in China – A Contextual and Individual Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 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
Generalized Trust and Financial Risk-Taking in China – A Contextual and Individual Analysis
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, July 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01308
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yi Xu

Abstract

Previous evidence from developed nations has suggested that more trusting individuals are more likely to take financial risks, such as investing in the stock market. Previous studies have found that Chinese citizens have particularly high generalized trust and are more risk-seeking in investment compared with Americans, which makes China an interesting case. The current study examines the relation between generalized trust and stock market participation in China at both a contextual and individual level. Across provinces, a lower level of generalized trust was associated with stock market participation. For example, the stock market participation was four times higher in provinces with the lowest level of perceived fairness than in provinces with the highest level of perceived fairness. The contextual effects of less generalized trust suggest an association between risk-taking behaviors and societal level inequality. At the individual level, trust of strangers was associated with risk preference in highly educated and wealthy people but its effect on risk behaviors was not clear. The findings suggest that trust may affect financial risk-taking behavior at different levels through different pathways, and that cultural differences in understanding of trust also need to be considered.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 11%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 5%
Lecturer 1 5%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 9 47%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 11%
Psychology 1 5%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 47%
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 26 July 2018.
All research outputs
#18,071,482
of 26,443,530 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#21,872
of 35,410 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#224,886
of 345,129 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#553
of 731 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,443,530 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 35,410 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 345,129 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 731 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.