Griffiths

Question 1

One of the hypotheses investigated

Answer 1

Regular gamblers would produce more irrational verbalisations than non-regular gamblers.

Question 2

Sample used and one weakness

Answer 2

60 participants, mean age 23.4 years.
Half were regular gamblers (29 males, 1 female) and half were non-regular gamblers (15 males, 15 females) drawn from Devon, UK

Drawn from Devon so not generalisable

Question 3

One advantage of the sample

Answer 3

All participants were volunteers recruited via small poster adverts so were willing to participate fully and co-operatively in the study.

Question 4

One way in which the sample may be representative

Answer 4

Although there was a strong male gender bias in the regular gamblers, in real life fruit machine gambling is very male dominated

Question 5

One way in which sample may be unrepresentative

Answer 5

All participants were based in the Exeter area of Devon so their gambling behaviours may differ from those in other areas

Question 6

The aim

Answer 6

To examine a number of factors and variables in the cognitive psychology of gambling

Question 7

How the results could support one of its hypotheses

Answer 7

Regular gamblers produced a total of more irrational verbalisations (14%) than non-regular gamblers (2.5%)

Question 8

Quasi experiment

Answer 8

A quasi experiment is an experiment where the conditions already exists and participants cannot be randomly allocated to them. Here participants were either gamblers or non gamblers so Griffiths could not randomly allocate them to the two conditions.

Question 9

Gambling task

Answer 9

To stay on the fruit machine for 60 gambles to break even and win back the £3.

Question 10

Findings of this study

Answer 10

RGs had a playing rate of 8 gambles per minute.
NRGs had a playing rare of 6 gambles per minute.
14 RGs managed to ‘break even’ in their 60 gambles.
7 NRGs managed to ‘break even’ in their 60 gambles.
10 RGs stayed on the machine until they had lost all their money.
2 NRGs stayed on the machine until they had lost all their money.
RGs made significantly more irrational verbalisations (14%) than NRGs (2.5%).

Question 11

Why it could be considered ethical

Answer 11

Consent - as participants volunteered to take part, they all gave their consent.
Confidentiality - was maintained as no gamblers or non gamblers identities were published.

Question 12

High in ecological validity

Answer 12

The study was conducted in a real amusement arcade, in a natural environment.

Question 13

Low in ecological validity

Answer 13

Participants were asked to gamble on the Fruitskill machines whereas in real life they may have preferred an alternative machine.

Question 14

Two pieces of quantitative data

Answer 14

1) Total number of gambles for each participant.

2) The number of irrational verbalisations by each participant.

Question 15

One advantage of quantitative data

Answer 15

Numbers allow statistics to be applied and comparisons of participants in different conditions to be made.