Search

In recent years a substantial body of research findings (based almost solely on responses to the Dilemmas-of-Choice instrument as the measure of risk), commonly referred to as the "risky shift" phenomenon, has suggested that groups take greater risks than individuals. This interpretation, if generalizable. would replace the commonly held belief that groups make decisions that are more conservative than. or the average of, individual decisions. This paper examines, empirically and analytically, some major limitations of the generalizability of the risky shift phenomenon. The major concerns of this paper are analysis of (1) the conventional method of statistically analyzing the data generated in risky shift studies, and (2) the measure of risk almost universally used by investigators of the risky shift phenomenon. In order to accomplish this task several experiments were designed. The conventional statistic used in the risky shift literature is analyzed and inferences appropriate to it are explored. The conventional test supports the risky shift findings. A revised measurement scale and alternative statistical testing procedures are discussed. The revised scale permits a continuum of response rather than the discrete choices permitted with the Dilemmas-of-Choice instrument. Results using the alternative methods of statistical analysis and the revised scale are presented. These results do not support the previous findings that groups accept a level of risk significantly greater than that acceptable to the average group member deciding alone. These findings strongly suggest that generalization of the risky shift phenomenon may be limited to individuals and groups using the Dilemmas-of-Choice instrument as the measure of risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]