Effects of familiarization and group discussion upon risk taking.

Abstract

Results of a 2 X 2 factorial experiment with 180 male college students replicated previous findings concerning the main effects of the independent variables of group discussion and familiarization upon shifts in risk-taking dispositions and revealed a significant interaction between these variables, indicating that group discussion produces risk-taking shifts among unfamiliarized Ss but has no effect upon familiarized Ss. Predictions concerning this interaction based upon previously elaborated explanations of the risky shift effect in terms of group processes (responsibility diffusion and interpersonal influence) were unconfirmed. The observed risky shifts can be interpreted in terms of a process of increased comprehension, which is theorized to be the outcome of interpolated familiarization or discussion procedures. '•This research was partially supported by a Public Health Service Predoctoral Fellowship (NH-32,672) awarded to the senior author and is based upon a master's thesis submitted to Vanderbilt University. The authors are indebted to Norman E. Wheeler for facilitating the computer analysis of the results.

Familiarity, Group Exposure, and Risk-Taking Behavior in Gambling

“…The results revealed that all subjects bet more during the second session than in the first, and that those gambling in groups assumed higher risks than those playing alone. The increase in risk taking observed in subjects playing alone supported the hypothesis of familiarity (Bateson, 1966;Flanders & Thistlethwaite, 1967).…”

“…Wallach et al explained this increase in risk taking as a group process in which the individuals share the responsibility and therefore each group member feels less individually responsible for the risk-taking decision. But according to Bateson (1966) and Flanders and Thistlethwaite (1967), as a result of group discussion the individual becomes more familiar with the situation, and this increases a tolerance for risk taking regardless of whether the individual becomes familiar with the situation individually or in a group. Blascovitch, Veach, and Ginsburg (1973) used blackjack as a dependent variable in a natural risk-taking situation.…”

No risky shift effect with real groups and real risks

“…Explanations of the apparent risky-shift phenomenon have included diffusion of responsibility among members of the group (Rem, Wallach, & Kogan, 1965), a general "choice-shift" effect (Levinger & Schneider, 1969), the effect of relative amounts of information conceming available choices that are discussed by the group (Brown, 1965), increased comprehension of the ehoices (Flanders & Thistlethwaite, 1967), and a change in the social perception of the relative value of risk-taking (Brown, 1965;Teger & Pruitt, 1967;Wallach & Wing, 1968). Although interesting, aIl these hypotheses are oflittle practical value if the risky shift is an artifact of the relatively meaningless situations under which it has been obtained.…”

Risky shift in a naturalistic setting

“…The essence of the rationahty hypothesis is that the group discussion ehmmates errors and mcreases the average level of information m the group The familiarization hypothesis argues that it is not the group process which creates the nsky shift, but the mtellectual or cogmtive discussion per se. The basic assumption of these hypotheses, that it is the rationahty factor which leads to the risky shift, IS supported by the findings of Bateson (1966) and Flanders and Thistlethwaite (1967), who were able to ehcit a nsk shift from mdividuals asked to restudy the nsk situation in preparation for group debate.…”

“…This argument would encompass the hypothetical situation used m most nsky shift studies There have been only a few studies that have succeeded in demonstratmg the nsky shift m tasks different from the hypothetical choice dilemmas Wallach, Kogan and Bem (1964) found the nsky shiiFt when the risk mvolved an alternative of suffermg side effects as well as loss of money Recently, Pruitt and Teger (1969) demonstrated that group discussion can produce a shift toward nsk m choices among bete A second methodological liinitation of risky shift experiments, besides the use of the hypothetical life situations which the present study circumvents, is the use of repeated measures or an mtrasubject expenmental design By this design, the subjects take the measure two or three times, and the shift is defined by the change of scores of individuals' pre-discussion scores and the group consensus This research strategy runs the risk of the arousal of strong demand characteristics conveyed to the subjects by the experimental design (Ymon, 1970, Dion, Baron, & Miller, 1970 There have been a variety of hypotheses offered to account for the ridky shift phenomenon, the leadership hypothesis (Wallach, Kogan, & Bem, 1^, Nrardoy, 1962, Rim, 19153, 1964, the diffusion of respraisibility hypothesis , the famihanzation hypothesis (Bateson, 1966, Flanders & Thistlethwaite, 1^), the rationality hypothesis (Clausen, 1965), the "Rhetonc of Risk" hypothesis (Brown,19^) and the conformily hypothesis (Vindkur, 1969). Two of these hypothes^, the rationality hypothesis (Clausen, 1965), and the comprehension interpretation of the famihanzation hypothesis (Flanders & Thistlethwaite, 1967) stress the notion of rationahty. The essence of the rationahty hypothesis is that the group discussion ehmmates errors and mcreases the average level of information m the group The familiarization hypothesis argues that it is not the group process which creates the nsky shift, but the mtellectual or cogmtive discussion per se.…”