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