2354518
| Pregunta | Respuesta |
| Griffiths | Individual differences |
| Aim | To investigate cognitive bias involved in gambling behaviour |
| Name the two hypotheses | 1 - There are significant differences in the thought processes of regular and non-regular gamblers 2- There are significant differences in the behaviour of RG and NRG |
| Name the one independent variable | RG and NRG |
| Name the two subjective variables and what they are measured by | 1- Cognitive activity - Thinking aloud (TA) 2- Perception of skill - Post experiment semi-structured interview |
| Name three objective dependent variables | 1- Win rate (times between wins) 2 - End stake (total winnings) 3- Total plays per minute |
| Describe the two groups in the study | 1- RG, 29 males, 1 female (gambled at least once a week) 2- NRG, 15 male, 15 female (gambled at least once a month or less) |
| How was the sample gathered? | Volunteer sample - recruited via poster |
| Name three controls | 1- Same fruit machine 2- Randomly assigned TA and NTA 3- All recording transcribed within 24 hours (no bias) |
| Participants were given £ _ and were asked to try and stay on the machine for _ gambles. To break even and win back £_. Once _ gambles were achieved they could _______ or _______. | 1- 3 2- 60 3- 3 4- 60 5- Keep the money 6- Carry on gambling |
| What type of study was it | Quasi experiment |
| Name five significant differences in subjective dependent variable (verbalisation) | 1- More personification with RG (irrational) 2- More reference to numbers with RG (rational) 3- Questions about game with NRG (rational) 4- Statements about confusion with NRG (rational) 5- Miscellaneous thoughts (bag of chips) with NRG (rational) |
| Name two significant differences in subjective dependent variable (skill judgements) | 1) RG thought skill was involved - NRG thought it was about luck and chance 2) RG thought they were really skilled |
| Out of _ RG's who managed to break even, _ stayed on until they lost all the money. Out of _ NRGs who managed to break even, _ stayed on until they lost all the money. | 1) 14 2) 10 3) 7 4) 2 |
| What is the conclusion | RG play with money not for money RG believe they are more skilful than they actually are RG make more irrational verbalisations demonstrating cognitive bias |
| Application - Strength/Weakness | Strength- Rehabilitation of gamblers (addiction) |
| Validity - Strength/Weakness | Weakness- Sample of NRG's 29 males and 1 female but control is 15 males and 15 females which could be a confounding variable of maleness. |
| Generalisability- Strength/ Weakness | Weakness- RGs mostly young males (mean age 24) so cannot be generalised to older gamblers and females |
| Reliability - Strength/Weakness | Strength- Standardised procedure so can be checked for reliability and repeated |
| Face Validity- Strength/Weakness | Strength- TA seemed to be uncensored and therefore valid |
| Ethics | Ethics is a strength as informed consent was taken from the participants as informed consent was taken |
| Improvements | Sample to match gender ratio of RGS Other types of gambling |
¿Quieres crear tus propias Fichas gratiscon GoConqr? Más información.