Components of group risk taking

Teger, Allan I.; Pruitt, Dean G.

doi:10.1016/0022-1031(67)90022-4

Cited by 194 publications

(120 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

112

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There has been little previous research in this area and, as such, not much is known about the effects of groups size and alcohol-related risk-taking in different environments. However, research in support of the 'risky shift', where groups appear to engage in riskier choices than individuals (Isenberg, 1986;Moscovici & Zavalloni, 1969), does suggest that such effects are pronounced as group size increases (Teger & Pruitt, 1967), supporting the current findings in the non-alcohol-related environments. The absence of group size influences in the SU bar environment, may therefore in part be understood through alcohol myopia explanations, whereby intoxication causes focal narrowing (Steele & Josephs, 1988;Steele & Josephs, 1990), resulting in reduced attention towards group size.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The influence of groups and alcohol consumption on individual risk-taking

Erskine-Shaw

Monk

Qureshi

et al. 2017

Drug and Alcohol Dependence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 80%

“…Further, this effect is suggested to be pronounced in larger groups (Teger & Pruitt, 1967), that being, the larger the group, the riskier they become. In this case, it may be suggested that risktaking behaviour in social drinking contexts is partly influenced by the number of peers present.…”

Section: Group Polarisation and The Risky Shiftmentioning

confidence: 97%

The influence of groups and alcohol consumption on individual risk-taking

Erskine-Shaw

Monk

Qureshi

et al. 2017

Drug and Alcohol Dependence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…4 This regression provides a detailed picture of how a member's influence on the group decision 2 The investigation of risk attitudes of groups versus individuals started with Stoner (1961). See also Teger and Pruitt (1967), Burnstein, Vinokur and Trope (1973), and Brown (1974). Recent papers in economics include Shupp and Williams (2008), Baker, Laury and Williams (2008) and Masclet, Colombier, Denant-Boemont and Loheac (2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Individual Preferences Get Aggregated in Groups - An Experimental Study

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper experimentally investigates how individual preferences, through unrestricted deliberation, get aggregated into a group decision in two contexts: reciprocating gifts, and choosing between lotteries. In both contexts we find that median group members have a significant impact on the group decision, but particular other members also have some influence. Non-median members closer to the median tend to have more influence than other members. By investigating the same individual's influence in different groups, we find evidence for relative position in the group having a direct effect on influence. We do not find evidence that group choice exhibits a shift in a particular direction that is independent of member preferences and caused by the group decision context itself. We also find that group deliberation not only involves bargaining and compromise, but it also involves persuasion: preferences tend to shift towards the choice of the individual's previous group, especially for those with extreme individual preferences.

show abstract

“…Teger and Pruitt (1967) Attention has been focused upon individual and group responsibility (Marquis, 1962;Wallach, Kogan and Bern, 1964;Bern, Wallach and Kogan, 1965), leadership (Rim, for example, 1965) group size (Teger and Pruitt, 1967) The chances are in 10 that the second project, the one involving the crippling disease, will be a success (i.e., the project is certain to be a failure).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%