Tutorial: Decision making, Research Ethics
Group Polarisation Experiment
Design: Experimental within-subjects
IV: Forum for making the decision: Alone, Group
Group Polarisation
Implications
Causes
Effect
Experimental methodology
Ethics Committee Activity
Experiments
Field Studies
Ethical concerns
Court/jury decision making, 2nd jury: different decision
"Risky shift" phenomenon: Groups make riskier decisions than individuals (8/10 times)
Some groups more cautious than individual decisions
Group polarisation: Whatever the direction of the individual mean, the group mean is usually more extreme (attitudes become polarised through discussion)
Informational influence: Exposed to more arguments in favour of consensus option than individual can generate on own
Social comparison: When members see others share their "extreme" view, they adjust their opinions to be even more extreme
DV: Decision score of risk out of 10 for each senario
Deception = more reliable scores
Group norm; conformity
Advantages
Disadvantages
Able to control potentially confounding variables
Test very specific hypothesis
Is lab = artificial environment for social phenomenon
Generalisable to real life setting?
Advantages
Disadvantages
Can restrict self to simple observations
EG. number of drivers who fail to give way (male/female)
Can set up experiments
EG. Deliberately stalling and counting number of drivers who blast horn; fake a situation
Lack of control
Observation can affect natural behaviour; drivers may see you observing and drive more carefully
Greater realism
Can informed consent change experimental manipulation
Is deception necessary & acceptable
Balance need for individual rights (safety, privacy) with need for scientific knowledge
Zimbardo (prison experiment): showed possibilities of long-term damage to participants (extreme emotional stress, degrading, deprive of dignity)
Milgram studies: authority & obedience (electric shocks)
Role of Ethics Committees:
Review research proposal to check acceptability
Makes decision as a group: group polarisation
Becoming more conservative
Desire for knowledge VS protect from harm/informed consent
Helping behaviour in mall: electrocution
Racism
Tea-room Trade
Dynamics of a self-help group
Cult Infiltraton
No informed consent; deception & lack of privacy, researcher involvement
Change to informed consent; maybe observation
Self-report is sufficient; does not require field work
(For disease prevention; motivated to give honest answers)
Would only yield a small sample
No informed consent, lack of privacy
Alcoholics "Anonymous"
Selection bias: people who attend
Participants: self-censor?
Hard to opt out
Has got informed consent:
Access student records
Deception: De-brief; informed consent
15mins: too frequent; contaminated sample
Controlled waiting room environment = better location
Can't control stress reaction of bystanders
Desensitisation: Paramatta Shopping Centre sucide
Ties up emergency services