• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

IA - Griffiths - 1994

Extracts from this document...


INDIVIDUAL APPROACH Griffiths - 1994 Aim of study: * To consider whether gamblers are actually more skilful or whether behaviour is better characterised by certain cognitive distortions. * Do regular gamblers 'think' & 'behave' differently to non-regular gamblers? Participants: * 60 participants - mean age 23 RGs - 29 males; 1 female. - Gambled at least once a week. NRGs - 15 males; 15 females. - Gambled once a month or less (used fruit machines at least once) * Recruited via: posters around local university + college campuses. A number of RGs recruited via gambler known to author. Method and Design: * Quasi experiment - IV already occurring - whether they're gamblers or not. * Not true experiment, though. * Independent measures design. I.V./D.V. * IV - Gamblers / Non-Gamblers. * DV - Subjective 1. Cognitive activity - Measured by 'thinking out loud' 2. ...read more.


Controls: * Thinking aloud (say what they're thinking at the time)/ Not thinking aloud So 4 groups altogether. * All participants played same machine 'Fruitskill' * Randomly assigned to thinking aloud / non-thinking aloud * All recordings transcribed within 24 hours -Say everything that goes through your mind -Do not censor your thoughts -Keep talking continuously -Don't have to speak in complete sentences Results: * 14 regular gamblers managed to 'break even' (60 gambles) and 10 stayed on the machine until they lost all the money. 7 non regular gamblers broke even and 2 stayed on machine until they lost all the money. Also, see the tables of subjective and behavioural findings. * Irrational behaviour - personification of machine - "machine likes me" * Rational behaviour - general swearing/cursing - "damn" DV: Behavioural Findings Non regular NTA Regular NTA Non regular TA Regular TA Total 47.8 56.3 55.7 65.6 Total time 8.4 8.5 11.5 9.9 Play rate ** 6.5 7.5 5.3 8.4 ...read more.


* Regular gamblers make more irrational verbalisations demonstrating cognitive bias. Explanation: * When talking on the microphone, they may've felt as if they had to say anything, so they may've made some things up. Evaluation: * Research Method - Quasi experiment - Ad. - Already occurring IV- no need to manipulate. Real setting. High mundane realism - Dis. Lapel microphone. Demand characteristics - artificial behaviour. * Ecological Validity - Low - "Thinking aloud" technique may be questioned. It's a very hard thing to do. - High - Experiment conducted in local arcade. * Generalisation - Can't generalise to other 'gambling' - horse racing, dice, etc. * Ethics - Ad. Consent given. Can't generalise to other cultures/countries. * Type of Data - Qualitative - Recording of verbalisations + semi-structured interviews. Ad. - Rich data. Dis. - Harder to analyse. Lack of qualitative self-reports. - Quantitative - Observation of behaviour. Ad. - Easy to analyse and compare. Dis. - Lack of rich data. * Applications - Rehabilitate "gambling addicts". * One Change - Carry the study in another country. ?? ?? ?? ?? ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level The Psychology of Individual Differences section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work