Factors limiting the generality of the risky‐shift phenomenon

Lamm, Helmut; Ochsmann, Randolph

doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420020410

Cited by 11 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When the expected value of the bet is held at zero, then the direction of the shift may be seen to vary with other parameters in accord with the affect of these parameters on pregroup betting tendencies. Using a procedure adapted from Pruitt and Teger (1969), Zaleska (1974Zaleska ( , 1976 and Lamm and Ochsmann (1972) we observed that group risk taking exceeded that by individuals only when the stake (potential loss) was small. Zaleska found that it is in precisely this condition that individual pregroup inclinations also tend to be quite risky.…”

Section: Risk Takingmentioning

confidence: 98%

The group polarization phenomenon.

Myers

Lamm²

1976

Psychological Bulletin

Self Cite

895

501

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Experiments exploring the effects of group discussion on attitudes, jury decisions, ethical decisions, judgments, person perceptions, negotiations, and risk taking (other than the choice-dilemmas task) are generally consistent with a "group polarization" hypothesis, derived from the risky-shift literature. Recent attempts to explain the phenomenon fall mostly into one of three theoretical approaches: (a) group decision rules, especially majority rule (which is contradicted by available data), (b) interpersonal comparisons (for which there is mixed support), and (c) informational influence (for which there is strong support). A conceptual scheme is presented which integrates the latter two viewpoints and suggests how attitudes develop in a social context.

show abstract

Section: Risk Takingmentioning

confidence: 98%

The group polarization phenomenon.

Myers

Lamm²

1976

Psychological Bulletin

Self Cite

895

501

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the instructions it was specified that only one of the six bets, chosen at random, would be actually played off for a monetary price after the booklet had been filled in. This was done in order to reduce the possibility of the Ss striving for a balanced set of choices, rather than treating each bet independently, a procedure that was also followed by Pruitt and Teger (1969) and Zaleska and Kogan (1971).…”

Section: Instrumentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In some experimental studies on the other hand Ss have to take risk for themselves. They are able to increase or decrease their own outcomes by gambling successfully or unsuccessfully (e.g., Lamm and Ochsmann, 1972;Pruitt and Teger, 1969;Zajonc et at., 1969). The experimental procedure in both groups of experiments is the same.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual risk taking for self and others

Wilke

Meertens

1973

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A bstractIn this experimental study, individual risk taking for self and others was observed for three experimental situations (the choice dilemma situations of Wallach, 1964, the Pruitt and Teger gambling situation, 1969, and a simple onetrial gamble game). The results of the present study suggest that one takes as much risk for oneself as for somebody else. A n attempt was made to determine to what degree the results could be explained by properties of the experimental situations. * The authors are grateful to Jan Pieters and Eli Meijer for their assistance in the conduct of the experiments. This study was partially made possible by a stipend of the Netherlands Organization for the Advancement of Pure Research (Z.W.O.).Eur. J . soe. Psyehol. 3 (4), pp. 403-413 1. There are approximately 8 dfl. to 1 English pound and there are exactly 100 cts in 1 dfl.

show abstract

Social Influence and Group Dynamics

Nowak¹,

Vallacher²,

Miller³

2003

Handbook of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social influence is fundamental to group dynamics and is arguably the core feature of interpersonal relations generally. This chapter outlines the key aspects of social influence and depicts their manifestation in dyadic, group, and societal contexts. We first distinguish among influence processes based on external control (e.g., differential power, reward and punishment), manipulation (e.g., flattery, commitment, reciprocity), and interpersonal coordination (e.g., conformity, suppression of individuality). We then discuss how global properties of a social system (e.g., norms, public opinion) emerge from influence processes operating between individuals, and how these group‐level properties in turn influence individual thought and behavior. This reciprocal influence between the individual and society is discussed in terms of recent developments in the study of complex systems and illustrated in research employing models of cellular automata. Different scenarios of societal change (e.g., incremental vs. catastrophic) are documented in terms of the complex systems perspective, as are basic dimensions of cultural variation (e.g., individualism vs. collectivism, stability vs. change). In a concluding section, we suggest that although the various forms of social influence can be understood and investigated in terms of distinct mechanisms and consequences, they all represent manifestations of a press toward coherence in mental and social systems.

show abstract

Factors limiting the generality of the risky‐shift phenomenon

Cited by 11 publications

References 4 publications

The group polarization phenomenon.

The group polarization phenomenon.

Individual risk taking for self and others

Social Influence and Group Dynamics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About