Cullen and Priddey et al (Lone) 09 – Investigation into the Contribution of Conformity in Pathologic Gambling
This is based upon publications and studies in the field of Addiction from Prof. P Collins, E.M. Jellinek and Basil Browne. Prof. Collins’ publications were directed at the public factors that contribute to Pathologic Gambling. This research is relevant as it focuses upon public factors and their influence upon Pathologic Gambling. E.M. Jellinek was more of an author in the field of Addiction in Psychology and has contributed greatly in the alcohol addiction field. He published many books, one being ‘Alcohol Addiction and Chronic Alcoholism’. This book provided an
insight into Addiction as it ranks the types of alcoholic addiction to Beta and Gamma – he also summarised characteristics of alcoholics as being aggressive, socially inferior and emotionally stressed.
Bagby et al. used cognitive tests, diagnostic interviewing, and the completion of a number of self-report questionnaires. All participants were reimbursed $150.00 upon completing the full battery of interviewing and testing. Bagby et al concluded features of borderline Personality Disorders (PD) are impulsivity and extreme affect dysregulation
Aim – To link conformity (all or any type) with the development of pathologic gambling and establish which is most effective in doing so.
Hypothesis – The participants may demonstrate a form of conformity when placed under peer pressure where the number of the confederates is a third of the total amount of the group. This will demonstrate minority influence or informative compliance. When testing the majority influence, participants will conform to the majority and display normative compliance.
Null Hypothesis – In either condition, the participants will not comply with the group norms or try to resist compliance.
This will occur if the participant attains information regarding the task e.g. has experience at playing poker.
Ethical issues – Participants may experience stress or be distressed as this is testing conformity, so therefore the right to withdraw will be an option for any participant at any time during the experiment. Deception is annulled as the participants will be debriefed thoroughly after the experiment is carried out.
Methodology
Design
This is a controlled experiment involving two groups of participants. One group will test the effect of minority influence while the other tests majority influence. The groups will each include nine people – Group 1 (majority) will include at least 6 confederates and 1 participants while Group 2 will include 2 confederates. One confederate (Cue Ball) will be ‘active’ in raising in this condition and 15 Ball takes over with aggressive play once Cue Ball is bankrupt.
Materials
We will obtain a quiet room with a sizeable poker table. We will also require a standard un-marked deck of playing cards and a set of 180 poker chips.
Procedure
Before the participants arrive, the confederates will set up the table, giving each player five of each chip denomination. The chip denominations will be as follows:
Red – 5 chips
Blue – 10 chips
Green – 20 chips
White – 50 chips
TOTAL: 425 chips each
With each place set, the confederates leave, returning as the participants arrive and choose their own seats at the table. This allows the reality of the poker game to be preserved and makes sure that the there are no suspicions aroused.
One confederate – given the code of Stripe Ball for future reference – will take the role of the dealer and the game will commence. A concealed tally chart will be on the laps of Stripe Ball (Cullen), Cue Ball (Priddey) and 15 Ball (Lone), the three experimenters.
Standardised Instructions
The chart will be used to record the actions of the participants. The confederates will play aggressively by raising the bet significantly at set intervals of hands. Each confederate will call the raised bet and the dealer will analyse the decisions of each participant based on the percentage strength of their cards before and after the community cards are dealt.
Stripe Ball will covertly signal to Cue Ball by means of finger gestures the degree of conformity shown by each player. The signals are as follows:
Thumbs Up – conformed wisely (called with good hand)
Two fingers – conformed foolishly (called with bad hand)
Concealed thumb – resisted wisely (folded with bad hand)
Fist – resisted foolishly (folded with good hand)
The perceived strength of each hand is based on:
Pre-flop
Strong: high suited cards, high pairs (JJ and above), high cards (10+)
Weak: unsuited low cards, low pairs (22 – 88) 99, 10 borderline
Post-flop
Strong: high pair or better, four of suit, straight draw
Weak: high cards, lowest pair, 2nd pair with weak kicker
Post-turn
Strong: 2 pair or higher, straight, flush etc
Borderline: one pair with high kicker, flush and straight draws
Weak: high cards, low pairs, low straights, low flushes
Post-river
Strong: 2 pair or higher, straight, flush etc
Borderline: one pair with high kicker, flush and straight draws
Weak: high cards, low pairs, low straights, low flushes
While the confederates raise aggressively in both groups, there is the danger of confederates being out of the game prematurely. This will be countered by ‘sympathetic play’, with confederates losing hands deliberately to each other if possible.
We will record the table positions of the confederates and participants, giving further ball codes to the participants. The real names of the participants will be destroyed and not included in the final report of this investigation.
Intervals of aggressive raising
Majority Influence Condition
Majority Influence
|
Intervals
|
Pre-flop |
Post-flop |
Turn |
River |
|
1 |
100 |
- |
- |
- |
|
2 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
3 |
- |
- |
50 |
- |
|
4 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
5 |
80 |
80 |
- |
- |
|
6 |
80 |
- |
- |
- |
|
7 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
8 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
9 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
10 |
50 |
- |
- |
100 |
|
11 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
|
12 |
- |
60 |
- |
- |
|
13 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
14 |
- |
- |
20 |
20 |
|
15 |
Chip leader 100, others fold |
- |
- |
- |
|
16 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
17 |
1 confed with strong hand ALL IN, others fold |
- |
- |
- |
|
18 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
19 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
20 |
- |
30 |
60 |
120 |
|
21 |
20 |
20 |
100 |
20 |
If the participants re-raise, then fold unless you are confident of your hand. After hand 21, confederates may play as they would normally.
- signals that the confederates may act on their own free-will
Minority Influence
|
Intervals
|
Pre-flop |
Post-flop |
Turn |
River |
|
1 |
40 |
- |
- |
- |
|
2 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
3 |
- |
- |
50 |
- |
|
4 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
5 |
40 |
40 |
- |
- |
|
6 |
50 |
- |
- |
- |
|
7 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
8 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
9 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
10 |
50 |
- |
- |
50 |
|
11 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
30 |
|
12 |
- |
60 |
- |
- |
|
13 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
14 |
- |
- |
20 |
20 |
|
15 |
Chip leader 100, others fold |
- |
- |
- |
|
16 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
17 |
1 confed with strong hand ALL IN, others fold |
- |
- |
- |
|
18 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
19 |
- |
- |
- |
- |
|
20 |
- |
30 |
60 |
120 |
|
21 |
20 |
20 |
100 |
20 |
Sampling
Our sampling will be conducted through an opportunity sample of teenagers in a school common room with those willing to play poker at the given time selected. The first 11 to express an interest will be selected.
Variables
Independent Variable: the behaviour of the confederates
Dependent Variable: the reactant behaviour of the participants, measured in the tally chart as explained.
