scholarly journals Characteristics of Good Poker Players

2015 ◽  
pp. 45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carrie A. Leonard ◽  
Robert J. Williams

Poker is characterized as a “mixed” game: a game that includes both skill and chance components. But what individual differences are characteristic of skilled poker players? No previous study has sought to evaluate the full scope of characteristics contributing to playing skill. The purpose of this study was to fill this void by attempting to comprehensively examining the individual characteristics associated with good poker players. Results from a sample of undergraduate students and community members (n = 100) showed that good players are more likely to be male, to have lower susceptibility to gambling fallacies, a greater tolerance for financial risk, superior social information processing skills, and less openness to aesthetic and imaginative experience. Evidence from this study also indicates that having sufficient levels of most of these attributes is more important for poker success than having exceptional strength in just one or two of these areas.

2002 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 242-261 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irene V. Blair

The present article reviews evidence for the malleability of automatic stereotypes and prejudice. In contrast to assumptions that such responses are fixed and inescapable, it is shown that automatic stereotypes and prejudice are influenced by, (a) self- and social motives, (b) specific strategies, (c) the perceiver's focus of attention, and (d) the configuration of stimulus cues. In addition, group members' individual characteristics are shown to influence the extent to which (global) stereotypes and prejudice are automatically activated. This evidence has significant implications for conceptions of automaticity, models of stereotyping and prejudice, and attitude representation. The review concludes with the description of an initial model of early social information processing.


2021 ◽  
pp. 216770262110163
Author(s):  
Rogier E. J. Verhoef ◽  
Anouk van Dijk ◽  
Bram O. de Castro

Children differ considerably in the social-information-processing (SIP) patterns underlying their aggressive behavior. To clarify these individual differences, we propose a dual-mode SIP model that predicts which processing steps children will take, which children will take them, and under which circumstances, and how this may lead to aggression. This dual-mode SIP model distinguishes between an automatic and reflective processing mode. The automatic mode is characterized by fast automatic processing and impulsive behavioral responses, whereas the reflective mode is characterized by deliberate processing and controlled behavioral responses. Whether children use the automatic or reflective processing mode is moderated by their level of arousal, which depends on an interplay between child-specific factors (i.e., emotional dispositions, motivational dispositions, and executive functioning) and dynamic factors (i.e., internal state and type of situation). The dual-mode SIP model provides new insights into children’s unique SIP styles and provides possibilities to tailor treatment to children’s individual needs.


2006 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 108-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana-Maria Vranceanu ◽  
Linda C. Gallo ◽  
Laura M. Bogart

The present study investigated whether a social information processing bias contributes to the inverse association between trait hostility and perceived social support. A sample of 104 undergraduates (50 men) completed a measure of hostility and rated videotaped interactions in which a speaker disclosed a problem while a listener reacted ambiguously. Results showed that hostile persons rated listeners as less friendly and socially supportive across six conversations, although the nature of the hostility effect varied by sex, target rated, and manner in which support was assessed. Hostility and target interactively impacted ratings of support and affiliation only for men. At least in part, a social information processing bias could contribute to hostile persons' perceptions of their social networks.


2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan M. Kurss ◽  
Anna E. Craig ◽  
Jennifer Reiter-Purtill ◽  
Kathryn Vannatta ◽  
Cynthia Gerhardt

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document