Groupdrink: The effects of alcohol and group process on vigilance errors.

Abstract

This research examined how group processes alter the impact of alcohol on a judgment task requiring vigilance. The authors compared two competing explanations, deindividuation and group monitoring, for the possible effects of alcohol. Two hundred and eighty-six undergraduates with normal drinking habits undertook a vigilance task alone or in four-person groups having consumed either alcohol (calculated to achieve up to .08 blood alcohol content) or a placebo. The vigilance task required them to count occurrences of the word "the" in a spoken passage. Alcohol significantly impaired the performance of individuals but not groups. Group members performed at a similar level in both conditions, making fewer errors than individuals in the alcohol condition. The fit of different decision-making models were tested. In both the alcohol and placebo conditions, group consensus was predicted by processes consistent with the group monitoring hypothesis. The evidence highlights that under certain conditions, group process can compensate for the cognitively impairing effects of alcohol on individuals.

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

“…Reynolds, Ortengren, et al, 2006), therefore encompassing both impulsive actions and more thought-out analytical decisions. Furthermore, previous research has found decisions to differ in group contexts dependent of whether these are made with groups (collectively) or in groups (privately but in the presence of others) (Frings, Hopthrow, Abrams, Hulbert, & Gutierrez, 2008). Here, collective group decisions were found to be less erroneous on vigilance tasks, thus supporting the notion that 'two heads are better than one'.…”

“…However, previous investigations of intoxication effects have been based on collective group decisions following discussion, rather than on individual decisions in the presence of others (as in the current study). Importantly, decisions made privately in the presence of peers differ from those made collectively as a group both when sober (Centifanti et al, 2016) and intoxicated (Frings et al, 2008). Therefore, these differences may, in part, explain the contrasting findings between the present study and previous work (c.f., Abrams et al, 2006;Hopthrow et al, 2014;).…”

“…An alternative way of examining group influence is by collecting individual measures of risk-taking in group contexts, thereby examining how being in a group influences the individual. Indeed, previous research (Frings et al, 2008) has found collective group decisions to differ from individual decisions made in group contexts. As such, it seems pertinent to examine further the effect of intoxication on individual risky decision making in group contexts.…”

“…For this reason, it is necessary to acknowledge the possibility of task discussion as a limitation of the study. Future research would therefore benefit from comparing collective and individual decisions in group contexts as in Frings et al (2008), whilst monitoring group communication.…”

“…Both Abrams et al (2006) and examined group risk-taking as one collective decision within the group, as opposed to group member's personal decisions. Notably, Frings et al (2008) found intoxication to increase vigilance errors in individuals, whereas errors made in groups (collectively and privately by group members) remained unaffected by alcohol consumption. However, vigilance errors did appear to differ depending on whether group members made their judgements privately, or collectively.…”