SELF-OTHER DISCREPANCY IN ETHICAL RISK TAKING

Abstract

There is a body of literature which shows a change in the amount of S's risk taking from an individual to a group situation. A currently popular explanation for the risky shift is Brown's (1) view that there is a norm in our society to be risky. Upon entering a group, one or more of the individuals in the group find that they are not as risky as the other members and change their judgments accordingly. If Brown's cultural value of risk exists, then to live up to the norm an individual should view himself as being at least as risky as some hypothetical other individual. This discrepancy has been found by Wallach and Wing (8) using the choice-dilemma items. Similarly, Levinger and Schneider (4) found Ss tended to admire a position more risky than their own. Rettig's ( 5 ) Behavior Prediction Scale has also been used as a measure of risk taking. The scale is somewhat unique in that (a) it involves unethical behavior and ( b ) it breaks down the risk taking situation into several components. Rettig has found from an individual to a group condition an increase in both total risk taking and in emphasis of the reinforcement value of gain (RVgn). Horne ( 3 ) and Schulman ( 7 ) have found respectively a self-other discrepancy and an admire-shift for total scale's risk taking in a direction opposite to what one would predict from Brown's value position. Both Horne and Schulman ascribe their findings to the unethical content of Rettig's scale. Neither author, however, reports any data for the RVgn component of the scale. Twenty-three undergraduate introductory psychology students from Bowdoin College volunteered to take part in the study. Ss were first requested to respond as individuals to Rettig's scale under the usual instructions. After completing all 16 items, they were then requested to go back and for each item mark an M where they thought an average introductory psychology student at Bowdoin would respond. Consistent wlth Hotne's ( 3 ) finding, significantly (z = 3.06, p < .01, 2-tail) more Bowdoin Ss judged their fellow students to be more risky than themselves on the total score. Of 23 Ss, 3 had positive discrepancies and 18 had negative discrepancies in Total score; 2 showed no discrepancy. These results seem to indicate that Brown's value hypothesis does not explain the increase in Total risk taking on the scale. However, Ss themselves were significantly ( z = 2.62, p < .01, 2-tail) more sensitive to the RVgn component than was the hypothetical average other student. On RVgn, 17 students had positive discrepancies and 4 had negative discrepancies. These data indicate that the value interpretation may explain the increase in S's sensitivity to RVgn. There are three other component scores to the scale. None of these have shown a group shifc in past literature and none showed a significant sel€-other discrepancy in the present study, suggesting values may be a mediator of the shift on the RVgn component. On the total score, the unethical nature of the act may be in conflict with the value of risk or some other force acting to produce the risky shift. Presence of conflict is supported by the observation that shifts in total score are not as consistent between studies as is the shift in reinforcement value of gain (2, 6 ) .

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 2 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.