Aim:
To investigate whether people make riskier decisions when they are in groups or as individuals.
Alternate Hypothesis:
There will be significant difference between the ratings of likelihood of gambling money in a given scenario when people are in groups as opposed to as individuals. The ratings will be higher when people are in groups.
Null Hypothesis:
There will be no difference between the ratings of likelihood of gambling money in a given scenario when people are in groups as opposed to as individuals. Any difference will be due to chance.
IV:
Whether the decision is made in a group or individual situation
DV:
The rating of likelihood of gambling money in a given scenario
Method
Design
To conduct this research, an experiment using an independent groups design was used to control for order effects.
Sample
To obtain the sample, opportunity sampling was used with quota sampling for gender. 12 groups of 4 containing 2 males and 2 females made the group condition. The individual condition consisted of 6 males and 6 females. All participants were aged 16-19 from a selective sixth form college in London. Participants were randomly assigned to each condition using the ABBA method.
Materials
The materials included a sheet of paper participants were given outlining the scenario created by the experimenter with a rating scale where they could circle their response (appendix I). The rating scale measured the dependant variable; the level of risk indicated on a rating scale. A scoring chart was used to write the responses on (Appendix II). The experimenter used standardized instructions (appendix III).
Procedure
The participants were approached in the library of a selective sixth form college in London. The experimenter used standardised instructions. If the participants stated they weren’t busy they were asked if they would like to read scenario and answer a question on it. Participants were randomly allocated to the individual or group condition. Participants in the individual condition were taken to a cubicle read the scenario and left with it for 5 minutes to make their decision. Participants in the group condition were taken to a table with others in that condition. Upon collecting four participants, the same procedure was used. Upon completing the experiment, the participants were fully debriefed and told what the experiment was about.
Controls
Standardised procedures and instructions were used during the experiment (appendix III). Participants were randomly assigned to each group using the ABBA method controlling for participant variables. Equal amounts of people from each gender were in each condition controlling for participant variables. The scenario and experimental conditions were the same for all participants.
Ethics
All participants gave their consent; informed consent could not be given due to demand characteristics. Participants were aware that the results were anonymous and confidential and that they could leave the experiment at any time. Distressing questions weren’t asked and participants were de-briefed.
Data
The dependant variable was measured using the nine point rating scale question, “How likely is it that you would gamble the money in this double-or-nothing situation? ¨
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
This gave ordinal data.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
These calculations appear in appendix II.
The table shows that, on average the rating of unlikelihood was greater in the individual condition than the group condition and the spread of scores was greater in the individual condition.
Frequency Polygon to show the distribution of the difference between individuals and groups on their rating of likelihood of gambling money in a given Scenario
This table shows that neither the individual or group condition had a normal distribution. The highest score for the group condition (5) was greater than the individual condition (3).
Inferential Statistics
The Mann-Whitney U test was used as the objective of the investigation was to investigate a difference between two conditions represented by two set of data which are not normally distributed. This is the function of the Mann-Whitney U test. Another reason why the Mann-Whitney test was used was because the design was an independent measures design and ordinal data was used.
The observed value of U=70.0 is greater than the critical value of U=42, where N1=12 and N2=12 for a one tailed test for the P≤0.05. This means that the null hypothesis is accepted and it can be concluded that there is no difference between the participants’s rating of likelihood of gambling money in a given scenario when people are in groups as opposed to as individuals.
Discussion
Previous research on risk taking behaviour suggested that people in groups make riskier decisions than individuals. The results of this investigation, however, suggested that there is no difference in the level of risk taking behaviour when people are in groups as opposed to as individuals.
An aspect of the investigation that could be criticised is the sample. The sample consisted of 16-19 year olds from a selective sixth form college in London. This sample does not represent people of other ages, regions or people who aren’t in full time education. There fore, the results cannot be generalised to other groups. To improve this problem, a more representative sample could be used. The sample could be obtained from public locations such as libraries or shopping centres producing a more representative sample and more generalisable results. The experiment had little ecological validity; the rating of risk given in the scenario may not represent the decision participants would have made had they been in the situation. This meant that the results couldn’t be applied to real life. To make the investigation more ecologically valid, the scenario could relate to something most students could relate to such as whether or not to retake an exam. This would make the investigation more valid and generalisable to the lives of the sample. The experiment may not have been completely ethical; the participants may have felt evaluation apprehension due to the time limit. Therefore, some of the participants may not have given the response they believed to be true. To improve this problem, the sample could be given the scenario and told that they could return it whenever they chose to. However, this could result in low response rates. The investigation had positive attributes. During the course of the investigations, ethical guidelines where followed and the results although not generalisable to wider society, were generalisable to 16-19 year olds from selective sixth form colleges in London.
The results suggested that group decisions aren’t riskier than individual decisions. However, it is possible that there is an optimum group size that results in the Risky Shift. To investigate this further the experiment could be repeated with group size as the independent variable. It is possible that a group size of four is not sufficient to generate the Risky Shift.
This investigation could be applied to group situations such as team sports. When decisions are made as a team, some may assume that players are more likely to play in a risky way. They may take more of an offensive position than a defensive position. However, this study suggests that this may not be the case; players may play with the same level or risk as they would without group decisions.
References
Wallach and Kogan (1965) Chapter 4: Psychology and Organisations. Gadson, G, Phillipe, H, Legge, K, Sherry, L, Heinemann Psychology A2 for OCR, Oxford: Heinemann
Mann-Whitney U Test
Psychology Statistics – Curriculum Press
2003 Cath Brown
Appendix I
Double or Nothing
Fred has £1000 and has the opportunity to gamble his money in a bet. If he wins he will end up with £2000, if he loses he will end up with nothing.
How likely is it that you would gamble the money in this double-or-nothing situation?
(Please circle your response)
Appendix II
Scoring Sheet
Individual Condition
Mean==5.83
Median=2 2 3 3 5 7 7 7 8 8 9 9=7
Mode= 7
Range=9-2=7
Group Condition
Mean= =5.33
Median= 3 3 3 3 3 4 5 7 8 8 9 9==4.5
Mode=3
Range=9-3=6
Appendix III
Standardised Instructions
Hello, are you busy?
(If they were not busy)
Would you like to read a short scenario and answer a question on it?
(After giving the participants the scenario)
This is the scenario, you have five minutes to read the scenario and write your answer to the question. If you at some point not longer want to participate, feel free to say so.
(Once the five minutes had gone)
Thank you for your assistance. This was actually an experiment on risk taking behaviour. I am currently investigating whether people make riskier decision in groups or individually. Your result will be kept anonymous and confidential.
Appendix IV
Mann-Whitney U Test
