1

SOCIAL FACILITATION, RISK TAKING BEHAVIOR AND GAMBLING

BEHAVIOUR OF MALE ADULTS WITHIN THE POVERTY LINE

Ma. Ellen D. Alcaraz

Jovy M. Francia
Micko A. Dela Perre

An undergraduate thesis manuscript submitted to the faculty of Department of Arts and

Sciences, Cavite State University, Silang Campus. In partial fulfilment of the requirement
for the degree Bachelor of Science in Psychology with Contribution No.__________.
Prepared under the supervision of Mr Christian Villanueva.

INTRODUCTION

Filipino people part and own of their culture is to entertain themselves associated

with gambling. In the course of history, gambling is the predominant source of stimulation

and entertainment of man. According to Conrad, for most individuals, gambling provides

a harmless and entertaining diversion of everyday life. . However, gamblers knows that

when they engage their selves of this kind of activity, it can bring a lot of consequences to

their lives. the possibility that gamblers will lose their money is high, they also risk

experiencing a variety of adverse biological, psychological, and social consequences from

gambling American Psychiatric Association.

Gambling in the Philippines has been legal in the country since the 1976

presidential decree by then President Ferdinand Marcos created the Philippine Amusement
 2

and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR). Why the Filipinos are hooked to this kind of

activities despite of risk a risk and perceived consequences? Gambling is always connected

to Risk taking.

Risk taking is a variable of most of the studies about gambling. It is a

behavioural standard of participating in very dangerous or hazardous activities, often

correlated with drug addiction, gambling, and unsafe sexual practices Nugent, Pam M.S.,

(2013). Risktaking is strengthen by the emotional experiences that follow, such as relief ,

feelings of accomplishment, and the “rush” associated with seeking excitementand free

from boredom.

Commonly, gambling is for riches and elite people because of the great casinos.

Like here in the Philippines, they have Okada Manila, Resort World Manila and City of

Dreams. But in this study, it targets to the gambling behaviour of Male adults within the

poverty line. Poverty line are those people who has an average income of 325 to 512

Philippines Statistics Office, (2018). It is goes to the problem of why those male adults

within the poverty line still gamble? Is it because of the social facilitation?

By looking into the possibility to the role of others (co-actor and an audience) as a

factor in such gambling behaviour Zajonc, (2015). Taking to the account, social facilitation

can relate to risk taking behaviour and to the gambling behavior. This study will delve into

the relationship of social facilitation in gambling behaviour and the social facilitation of

more risky behaviour.

 3

Statement of the Problem

Generally the study aims to understand the relationship of social facilitation to risk

taking and gambling behavior of male adults within the poverty line.

Specifically this study sought to answer the following question:

1. What is the relationship of social facilitation to gambling behaviour of the

participants?

2. What is the relationship of social facilitation to risk taking behaviour of the

participants

Objective of the study

This study aimed to determine the relationship of social facilitation to risk taking

and gambling behavior of male adults within the poverty line

Specifically, it aimed to:

1. To determine the relationship of social facilitation to gambling behaviour of the

participants?

2. To determine the relationship of social facilitation to risk taking behaviour of the

participants

Significance of the Study

The study can offer insights on how the mere exposure to others (co-actors and

audience) affects the gambling habits, prolonging or debilitating such behavior. It can also
 4

shed light on how risk taking operates in condition such as uncertainty, can affect gamblers

gambling experience. Thus, this study can contribute to:

Family. Understanding how the mere presence of others can influence gambling

behaviour can help families to develop a way to limit such behaviour.

Researchers. This study can become a reference to researchers who want to study

the subject of social facilitation, gambling and risk taking.

Gamblers. This study can help gamblers to become aware on how other people

around them can affect their decisions including risk and gambling and employ techniques

to them to properly decrease such behaviour.

Community. It will enable people in the community to understand the situation of

people engage in gambling and how do the mere presence of others affects gambling

behaviour and risk taking. The result of the study can help generate techniques to weaken

this seemingly irrational behaviour and reduce the probability of gambling addiction in the

community.

Time and Place of the Study

This study will be conducted at certain areas in Cavite on September 2018 to

January 2019.
 5

Scope and Limitation of the Study

The study will only focus on the relationship of social facilitation to the risk taking

and gambling behavior of the participants. This study is only limited to the study of adult

male within the poverty line who engage in gambling. This study is a descriptive

correlational research study, and aims to investigate, social facilitation to prolong gambling

behavior and risk taking of the participants.

Definition of Terms

The following terms were conceptually and operationally defined for the better

understanding of the study.

Gambling- wagering of money or other belongings on chance activities or events

with random or uncertain outcomes

Gambling behaviour- the act of betting into specific games that involves risk.

Male Adults – participants of the study age ranging from 21 to 65 years of age

Poverty Line - a level of personal or family income below which one is classified

as poor according to governmental standards

Risk taking- behavioural standard of participating in very dangerous or hazardous

activities, often correlated with drug addiction, gambling, and unsafe sexual practices

Social Facilitation - improvement in performance produced by the mere presence of others

 6

Operational Definition

Gambling – playing games which involve risking of money and belongings

common in the community area, such as mah-jong, lotto, pusoy, tong-its, sabong, bingo,

and other forms of games that are common with gamblers that does not wage money more

than the standard income necessary to sustain the needs of the family.

Gambling behavior- the act of betting into specific games that involves risk.

Male. Adults – participants involves in gambling age ranging from 21 to 65 years

of age

Poverty Line – involves people that have a standard minimum income ranging

from 325 to 512 peso per day, exact or less to sustain the needs of a family.

Risk Taking – participation in activities which is considered uncertain and poses

danger in various aspect of life

Social Facilitation – improvement / weakening in performance produced by the

mere presence of others

 7

Conceptual Framework

Adult males within the poverty line

Gambling Behavior Risk Taking

Social Facilitation

Figure 1. The conceptual framework of the study

Figure 1 shows the gambling behavior and risk taking and its relation to social

facilitation of male adults within the poverty line. The gambling behavior and the risk

taking behavior will be determined among the participants. This study determined the

relationship of gambling behavior and risk taking behavior to social facilitation of the adult

males within the poverty line.

 8

Theoretical Framework

Drive Theory of Social Facilitation

Zajonc’s theory of social facilitation contended that an individual’s drive levels

automatically increase in the presence of others, and that the increase in drive or arousal

can either enhance performance of simple tasks or impair performance of complex tasks.

Drive theory posits that increased drive enhances their lease of dominant answers and

inhibits the release of subordinate answers. On simple tasks, the dominant response from

an individual is usually correct, leading to performance enhancement; on complex tasks,

the dominant response is usually incorrect, leading to performance impairment.

Prospect Theory

Prospect theory was conceptualized by describing the ways in which people make

decisions in risky situations, even if these decisions are irrational. ‘It was the first rational

theory of irrational behavior Wakker (2010). Among all its predictions, prospect theory

claims an effect of framing as well as inaccuracies in the estimation of probabilities (i.e.,

overestimation of small probabilities and underestimation of medium and large

probabilities). The prospect theory also postulates that people feel more displeasure after a

loss than they enjoy a win and therefore, it states that people tend to be risk averse. Tversky

and Kahneman, found that losses are perceived as 2–2.5 times more strongly than gains.

According to the prospect theory, people’s most frequent behavior is to be

conservative and to take low risk. This postulate is in line with results, which showed that
 9

people took lower risk when they were in the presence of an audience. Conversely, people

in this kind of situation can involve less in risk taking.

 10

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Social facilitation in gambling

The social facilitation literature gathers different types of social presence,

including co-action, mere presence, and the presence of an audience. Since Zajonc,

Wolosin, Wolosin, and Loh’s first experiment studying risk-taking in the social facilitation

context, only a few studies have examined the influence of social facilitation on gambling

behavior. Among those, some investigated co-action Cole, Barrett, & Griffiths, (2011)

Rockloff & Dyer (2017), Rockloff, Greer, & Fay (2016), one investigated the mere

presence Rockloff, Greer, & Evans, (2016) and one the presence of an audience Rockloff

& Greer, (2018).

In accordance with Guerin, (2015) and Houston, Harris, Moore, Brummett, and

Kametani (2016), different types of situations were distinguished on the one hand,

situations in which there is an audience, or even the mere presence of an audience, and on

the other hand, co-action that is considered here more as a competitive situation in which

people have ‘the desire to beat’ the other co-actors Triplett. In line with Guerin, we also

make a distinction between mere presence situations and situations with the presence of an

audience. Guerin defined mere presence as situations where ‘all influences of other persons

have been removed except the fact of their presence. In these situations, the audience

cannot be in contact with, see or judge the participants. While people who are performing

tasks in the presence of an audience can feel that they are being evaluated, those in mere
 11

presence situations know that people around them are not aware of their behavior and

therefore cannot assess their performance.

In this vein, Cole et al. (2017) conducted an experiment in which the participants

gambled in a roulette game, both in an online condition and in an offline condition. They

played either alone or in the presence of a confederate acting as another participant. The

goal of this experiment was, first of all, to identify the effect of the online situation on risk-

taking compared to the offline situation; secondly it aimed at testing the influence of the

presence of a co-actor compared to when playing alone. Results suggested that people take

more risks in an online situation and that they also take more risks in the presence of

another participant.

Rockloff and Greer (2016) and Rockloff et al. (2015) carried out two experiments

in which they studied the influence of both the mere presence of people and the presence

of an audience on risk-taking behavior while gambling. Both experiments were composed

of three conditions: playing alone, playing in front of a small audience (composed of 6

people) and playing in front of a larger audience (composed of 26 people). The two

experiments varied only in the behavior of the audience. In the mere presence experiment

Rockloff et al., (2015), the audience performed a task under sensory deprivation; in other

words, they were blindfolded and had to wear earphones playing music.

Therefore, they could not see or hear the participant who was gambling (the

participant was aware of the audience’s inability to see or hear him/her). In the audience

experiment Rockloff & Greer, (2017), people in the audience observed the participant

while the latter was gambling (in this condition, the participant was aware of being watched
 12

and heard by the audience). Results of the mere presence study indicated mixed effects on

gambling. These inconsistencies were due to participants’ past gambling experiences and

to their disorders relating to gambling. In mere presence conditions, gamblers without

gambling disorder bet larger amounts but stopped gambling quickly when they were facing

losses, whereas gamblers with gambling disorders bet smaller amounts and showed an

increase in persistence while they were confronted to losses. In the audience experiment,

it was predicted that participants in the alone condition would take lower levels of risk than

those in the audience conditions; however, results indicated the opposite effect: the

presence of an audience decreased the level of risk-taking.

The distinction between co-action, the mere presence and the presence of an
audience may explain the difference of results between Cole et al. (2016), Rockloff et al.
(2016), and Rockloff and Greer (2016).

Risk taking behavior

Most researchers have regarded risk-taking behavior as a one-dimensional

construct over the past few decades. In reality, individuals do not respond consistently to

different risky situations in real life, so risk-taking behavior is a multi-domain model that

is influenced by characteristics of the person, characteristics of the situation and the

interaction between these two factors rather than being influenced by a single personality

trait (Figner & Weber, 2011).

In light of this, Weber, Blais, and Betz (2002) constructed the Domain-Specific

Risk-taking Scale (DOSPERT) to assess both risk-taking preference and perceived-risk

attitudes in social, recreational, financial, health/safety and ethical domains. Individuals

 13

decompose risk-taking behavior into an evaluation of benefits and risks, so risk preference

is a trade-off between perceived benefits and perceived risks Weber, Hesee &Milliman

(2015). The difference in how adolescents and adults perceive risk and benefit can explain

age-related development tendency. Specifically speaking, adult risk taking decreased with

chronological age.

The DOSPERT has been translated into several languages (see Blais & Weber,

2006). However, those researchers also found that cultural differences exist between

Eastern and Western societies, and these differences are reflected in scale items or factor

structure, especially in the social and ethical domains. Based on this, the relationship

between relevance factors (i.e., sensation-seeking, risk perception) and different forms of

risk-taking behavior previously constructed in Western societies might be different for

Filipino adults.

According to the social facilitation theory, the presence of an audience watching

(which is different from a co-action situation in which the audience is also playing) should

lead people to adopt the most frequent behavior. Numerous theories have emerged from

the economic and the psychological fields to understand and predict people’s behavior in

risky situations. The one which received the most support and which is, nowadays, the

most shared and consensual one, is the prospect theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979;

Tversky & Kahneman, 1992). This theory is conceptualized by describing the ways in

which people make decisions in risky situations, even if these decisions are irrational. ‘It

was the first rational theory of irrational behavior’ (Wakker, 2010).

 14

Among all its predictions, prospect theory claims an effect of framing as well as

inaccuracies in the estimation of probabilities (i.e., overestimation of small probabilities

and underestimation of medium and large probabilities). The prospect theory also

postulates that people feel more displeasure after a loss than they enjoy a win (Kahneman,

2003; Kahneman, Knetsch, & Thaler, 1991; Tversky & Kahneman, 1991, 1992), and

therefore, it states that people tend to be risk averse. Tversky and Kahneman found that

losses are perceived as 2–2.5 times more strongly than gains.

According to the prospect theory, people’s most frequent behavior is to be

conservative and to take low risk. This postulate is in line with results, which showed that

people took lower risk when they were in the presence of an audience. Therefore, it was

hypothesized that, in a gambling situation, while being observed by an audience, people

would take lower risk than when being alone. Conversely, people in this kind of situation

can involve less in risk taking.

According to Rockloff and Greer’s (2011) results, it was also hypothesized that the

size of the audience would not influence the behavior. The presence of a small audience,

even if it consists of one person only, should be enough to reduce the level of risk-taking.

GAMBLING BEHAVIOR WITHIN THE POVERTY LINE

While gambling continues to generate nationwide revenues the economic costs of

gambling are increasingly shouldered by those who can least afford the monetary and social

losses. Indeed, people in the low-income spend a higher percentage of their household

income on games of chance than people in higher income. This is important given that the
 15

risk of gambling related harm increases significantly when more than 1% of gross family

income is spent on gambling activities. Problem gambling as difficulties in limiting money

andor time spent on the activity, which leads to problems for the gambler and others.

A developing body of evidence suggests that problem gambling prevalence rates

are higher in populations experiencing poverty when compared to the general population.

The temporal order of poverty and problem gambling remains unclear although some

research suggests problem gambling precedes poverty. Disadvantage at both the individual

and neighborhood level are risk factors for problem gambling. This link warrants further

research to disentangle the relationship. Enhanced awareness of the link between poverty

and problem gambling is required as are services and supports that are tailored to a

population that has complex needs including concurrent disorders. Public attitudes about

gambling have changed greatly over the past decades.

During the first half of the 20th century, gambling was considered a sin or a vice

McNeilly & Burke (2016). More currently, older adults generally possess positive attitudes

toward participating in gambling activities Martin et al, (2010) and consider gambling to

be a normative and harmless form of entertainment Hagen, Nixon, & Solowoniuk,

(2005) McNeilly & Burke, (2009) and a relatively new social outlet Hagen et al., (2015).
 16

METHODOLOGY

This section presents the research design, hypothesis of the study, sources of data,

participants of the study, sampling of the study, data gathering procedure, research

instrument and statistical treatment that will be used by the researchers to clarify the study.

Research Design

This study will utilize a descriptive co-relational research design. This descriptive

style will enable researchers to describe gambling behavior and risk taking with the use of

Gambling Motivation Scale and Domain Specific Risk Taking (DOSPERT) to male adult

within the poverty line.

The researchers then use correlation to identify the relationship of gambling

behavior and risk taking with the use of a self-made instrument designed to measure the

degree of social facilitation in terms of co-action and audience situation impact on

gambling performance and risk taking, since gambling is a domain of risk taking.

Systematic Sampling Procedure

This sampling technique is a probability sample method in which sample members

from a large population are selected according to random staring point and a fixed, period

interval. Investopedia (2018) and that is based on characteristics of a population and the

objective of the study. The researchers will use this sampling technique in order to choose
 17

participants based on their socio-economic status, sex, place, age, average monthly income,

and daily gambling playing patterns.

Sources of the Study

The primary source of the data used is participants; the second source used study

found in the past research came from the internet and the library in which the study were

based upon. Also, data gathered from the survey conducted upon the participants of the

study will be use.

Participants of the Study

The participants of the study were 140 male adults with the age of 21 to 65 years

of age, with a minimum income of 325 to 512 pesos per day enough / less to sustain the

needs of the family. The individual must involve in gambling regardless of long they were

into gambling.

Data Gathering Procedure

The researchers will send an informed consent to the Dean and Department Head

of the Cavite State University – Silang Campus. Once the letter have been approve, the

researcher will conduct a preliminary survey to choose possible participants. The

questionnaire was self-made and was based on the criteria set by the researchers. The

researchers will go to the gambling facilities in different areas of Cavite (GMA Coliseum,

EGM in Dasmarinas and other areas in Silang Cavite for data gathering.

Once the data has been collected through questionnaire and interview then the next

step is to summarize the data using a statistical table. This table will systematically arrange
 18

the data in columns and rows. The purpose of the table will be simplifying the presentation

and to organize the results of the study.

Hypothesis of the Study

The research paper will be formulated in connection to the following hypotheses:

Ho1. Social Facilitation has significant relationship to gambling behavior of the

participants

Ho2. Social Facilitation has significant relationship to risk taking behavior of the

participants

Research Instrument

Domain Specific Risk Taking Scale (DOSPERT) to generate a short version of the
scale with items that would be interpretable by a wider range of respondents in different
cultures, the 40 items of the original scale (Weber, Blais, & Betz, 2002) were revised and
eight new items were added. The response scale was modified slightly by decreasing the
number of scale points from 7to 5 and by labeling all of them (i.e., instead of just the two
endpoints) in an effort to increase the psychometric quality of the scale (Visser, Krosnick,
& Lavrakas, 2000). The new set of 24 items was administered to 140 participants. The
risk-taking responses of the 24-item version of the DOSPERT Scale evaluate behavioral
intentions -or the likelihood with which respondents might engage in risky
activities/behaviors- originating from five domains of life (i.e., ethical, financial,
health/safety, social, and recreational risks), using a 5-point rating scale ranging from 1
 19

(Never) to 5 (Always).1 Sample items include “Having an affair with a married

man/woman” (Ethical), “Investing 10% of your annual income in a new business venture”
(Financial), “Engaging in unprotected sex” (Health/Safety), “Disagreeing with an
authority figure on a major issue” (Social), and “drink an alcoholic liquors in one day ”
(Recreational). Item ratings are added across all items of a given subscale to obtain
subscale scores. Higher scores indicate greater risk taking in the domain of the subscale.

The risk-perception responses evaluate the respondents’ gut level assessment of how risky

each activity/behavior is, using a 5-point rating scale ranging from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always).

Item ratings are added across all items of a given subscale to obtain subscale scores, with

higher scores suggesting perceptions of greater risk in the domain of the subscale.

Table1: Scoring and Verbal Interpretation of Domain Specific Risk Taking Scale
(DOSPERT)

MEAN INTERPRETATION POINTS SCALE

SCORE VERBAL

4.20-5.00 High Risk Taking 5 Always

3.40-4.19 Above Average Risk Taking 4 Often
1.80-2.59 Average Risk Taking 3 Sometimes
1.0- 2.59 Below Average Risk Taking 2 Seldom
1.00- 1.79 Low Risk Taking 1 Never

Very High Risk taking- they are those extreme when it comes to take risk. Those

people who risk loss in the hope of gain of excitement or accepted greater potential for loss

in decisions and tolerates uncertainty.

 20

High risk taking- they are those who are moderately aggressive. They are prepared

to behave in a way that can potentially cause physically harm or financial loss, but might

also present an opportunity for a rewarding outcome.

Average Risk Taking- they are those who take risk in balanced. Those who wants

a diversified investment. They require strategy that will cope with the effect of inflation.

Low Risk Taking- those people are often does not try new things and is comfortable

with actions that the routine is comfortable.

Very Low Risk Taking- they are someone who likely to be safe or without

problems. They never take risk at all.

Gambling Motivation Scale

This scale assesses intrinsic and extrinsic motivation toward gambling. There are 7

constructs: intrinsic motivation toward knowledge, accomplishment, and stimulation, as

well as external, introjected and identified regulations, and amotivation. There are 28 items

(4 items for each of the 7 sub-scales) assessed on a 5-point scale. For each of the following

items, please circle the number that best represents the extent to which the item corresponds

to the reasons why you play your favorite gamble.

Table2. Scoring and Interpretation of the Gambling Motivation Scale

DESCRIPTIVE SCORE MEAN SCORE INTERPRETATION
RATING POINT VERBAL

Always 5 4.20-5.00 High Gambling

Motivation
Often 4 3.40-4.19 Above Average
Gambling Motivation
Sometimes 3 1.80-2.59 Average Gambling
Motivation
 21

Seldom 2 1.0-2.59 Below Average

Gambling Motivation
Never 1 1.00-1.79 Low Gambling
Motivation

Interpretation of scores. The verbal interpretations correspond to the Gambling

Motivation of the participants. To further differentiate all levels, descriptions of each level

are as follows.

Very High Gambling Behavior - they are those people who tends to be pathological

gamblers. They are more likely to lose than win. They tend to become addictive.

High Average Gambling Behavior – they are those people who gambles in order

to fill their emotional state. Even when they losses comes out they still feel happier.

Average Gambling Behavior – they are the gamblers who has in balanced state.

Even their house always win, it doesn’t push them to roll the dice again.

Low Average Gambling Behavior – they are the gamblers who plays not for every

single day. They play just for fun, when they lose their game that is enough to stop.

Very Low Average Gambling Behavior – those people are not totally gamblers.

They are just watching to the gambling facilities.

Social Facilitation Scale

The scale assesses Co-actor and Audience toward mere presents of others. There

are 10 items on the Co-Actor and 10 items on the Audience total of 20 items using a 5-

point rating scale ranging from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always).. Each item indicated duration,
 22

enjoyment, excitement financial control, Strong sensation, motivation and knowledge in

gambling.

Table3. Scoring and Verbal Interpretation of Social Facilitation Scale (SFS)

MEAN SCORE INTERPRETATION VERBAL

4.20-5.00 High Social Facilitation

3.40-4.19 Above Average Social Facilitation
1.80-2.59 Average Social Facilitation
1.0-2.59 Below Average Social Facilitation
1.00-1.79 low Social Facilitation

The following are the description of the verbal interpretations for the total scores

obtained from the Social Facilitation Scale.

High- performs efficiently on tasks which involve other peoples presence.

Above Average - performs effectively on tasks with the presence of other people.

Average- performs tasks positively in the presence of other.

Below- performs task with low efficiently in the presence of others.

Low- performs task with very low efficiency in the presence of others.

Statistical Analysis

The researchers used the following statistical treatment:

Mean- This was used to determine the significant relationship of Social Facilitation

as Mediating Factor to Risk Taking and Gambling Motivation in the participants (Male
 23

Adult within the poverty line). Mean were also used to derive the central tendency of the

data in question. It was determined by adding all the data points in a population and then

dividing the total by the number of point Jansen, (2010).

Standard Deviation- is used the measure of dispersion of a set of data from its

mean. It measures the absolute variability of a distribution; the higher the dispersion or

variability, the greater is the standard deviation and greater will be the magnitude of the

deviation of the value from their mean.

Pearson Rank Correlation-is the test statistics that measures the statistical

relationship, or association, between two continuous variables. It is known as the best

method of measuring the association between variables of interest because it is based on

the method of covariance. It gives information about the magnitude of the association, or

correlation, as well as the direction of the relationship.

 24

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter deals with the results and discussions gathered by the researchers

about the social facilitation, risk taking and gambling behaviour of male adults within the

poverty line. The findings of the data gathered through surveys were carefully analysed,

tabulated and interpreted to obtain accurate information regarding the topic of the study.

SOCIAL FACILITATION

Table 4. Mean and standard deviation table of the level of parent-child relationship of the
participants.

Indicator Mean SD Remarks

Social Facilitation 3.73 13.83 Above Average
Legend:
Mean Value Verbal Interpretation
4.20-5.00 High
3.40-4.19 Above Average
1.80-2.59 Average
1.0-2.59 Below Average
1.00-1.79 Low
SD- Standard Deviation
 25

The results shows an overall mean of 3.73 and a standard deviation of 13.83.

Meaning the social facilitation of the participants are in above average. Those participants

are often engaged by the mere presence of others.

It was supported by Blank (2015), in his study that individuals do make easier bets

in the presence of others engaged at the same task than they make in the presence of

experimenter. Since social facilitation is assumed to operate whenever people act in the

presence of other, it also applies to difference in individual.

RISK TAKING OF THE PARTICIPANTS

The result shows an overall mean of 2.97 and standard deviation of 21.9. It indicates

that the participants Male Adult within the poverty line have average result.

Table 5. The Mean and the Standard Deviation of Risk Taking to the participant

Indicator Mean SD Remarks

Risk Taking 2.97 21.9 Average
Legend:
Mean Value Verbal Interpretation
4.20-5.00 High Risk Taking
3.40-4.19 Above Average Risk Taking
1.80-2.59 Average Risk Taking
1.0-2.59 Below Average Risk Taking
1.00-1.79 Low Risk Taking

The result shows an overall mean of 2.97 and standard deviation of 21.9. It indicates

that the participants Male Adult within the poverty line have average result. The male

adults within the poverty line participating to take risk but in a balanced mode. Those

participants know their limits when it comes to taking risk.

 26

GAMBLING BEHAVIOR

Table 6.shows the gambling behavior of the participants. The results shows that the

gambling behavior responses of the participants has an overall mean. The results shows

that the gambling behavior of male adults within the poverty line has gained a high average.

It indicates that the participants participates highly average in gambling activities. The

results shows a general total mean of 3.24 and a total of standard deviation of 19.4.

Table 6: the Mean and Standard Deviation of Gambling Motivation of the Participants.

INDICATOR N MEAN STANDARD REMARKS

DEVIATION

Gambling 140 3.24 19.4 High gambling

Behavior behavior

Legend:
Mean: Verbal Interpretation:
4.20-5.00 Very High Gambling Behavior
3.00-4.19 High Gambling Behavior
2.31-2.59 Average Gambling Behavior
1.80-2.30 Low Gambling Behavior
1.00-1.79 Very Low Gambling Behavior
SD- Standard Deviation

It shows that even they are within the poverty line they still gamble just to gain

happiness and excitement they play win or lose. They can easily bet as long as they have

money.

It was supported by Mal Flack & Stevens (2018) people gamble for social and

monetary reasons. The findings revealed excitement, escape and monetary expectancies
 27

increase with concert and gambling risk for both men and women. But it was said that men

was strongly endorsed gambling for money and social reasons.

Relationship between Social Facilitation and Risk taking of the Participants

Table 7 presents the relationship of Social Facilitation and Risk taking of the

participant. The result shows that there is no significant relationship between Social

Facilitation and Risk taking behavior of the Male adult within the poverty line. The table

has shown a correlation of -.128. It shows that the relationship is with a p-value of .133

which is not greater than to 0.05, hence the null hypothesis which stated that there is no

significant relationship between social facilitation and risk taking of male adults within the

poverty

Indicator N Correlation P-Value Remarks

Coefficient
Social Facilitation 140 -.128 .133 Accept Ho
& Risk taking
Reject Ho, if/p/-value < 0.05. Accept Ho otherwise.

The result shown no significant relationship between social facilitation and risk

taking behavior of the participants. As the researchers gathered data, the risk taking

behavior of male adults within the poverty line has no significant relationship by the mere

presence of others. Meaning when the participants do take a risk, it is not push by having

the influence of an audience or co- actor.

As supported by Richard Moreland and Mary Cullen the gamblers performance

may be affected even though the factors and processes commonly associated with the

presence of othersare eliminated. This study examined the influence of the “mere” presence
 28

of others on behavior when the evaluative and directive properties of others’ presence are

minimized. Mere presence is what is left when the present other does not offer the chance

for imitation or competition, cannot control the performer’s reinforcement, and is unable

to evaluate the performance or provide any relevant information. An individual’s

performance may be affected even though the factors and processes commonly associated

with the presence of others (such as giving cues, delivering reinforcement, or lending help)

are eliminated.

According to Cottrell (2017), was dissatisfied with the mere presence explanation

of social facilitation effects. He proposed that the drive increment resulting from the

presence of others is produced by the performer’s concern that these others will be

evaluating his performance. In other words, the increase in risk taking is generated by

evaluation apprehension. The ability of the audience to evaluate the performer is

manipulated. To decrease evaluation, the audience or spectator is blindfolded or in some

other way prevented from appraising the performer’s responses. The presence of another

person who faced away from the risk taker, worked on another task, and did not attend to

the subject at all was sufficient to enhance performance on the well-learned tasks and to

impede performance on the transfer tasks.

Relationship between Social Facilitation and Gambling Motivation of the

Participants

The table 9 shows the relationship between the Social Facilitation and Gambling

Motivation of the participants. The result shows that there is no significant relationship

between Social Facilitation and Gambling Motivation of male adult within the poverty line.

The table indicates a correlation of .162.

 29

Table 8. The relationship between the Social relationship and social behavior response of
the participants
Indicator N Correlation P-Value Remarks
Coefficient

Social Facilitation & 140 .162 .056 Accept HO

Gambling Motivation

Reject Ho, if/p/-value < 0.05. Accept Ho otherwise.

The results shows that the gambling behavior of the participants has no significant

relationship to social facilitation. The gamblers do gamble not because of the facilitators.

It is because of their strong sensation of happiness and excitement.

The presence of others is assumed to intensify gambling behaviour. However,

empirical findings are mixed. Contrary to expectations, participants gambling alone

gambled on average more trials, placed their bets faster and lost fewer credits over time

compared to those gambling with other participants. Participants receiving reinforcements

mainly during the first part of the session showed more persistence within the gambling

session in comparison with participants receiving winnings mainly at a later stage of the

session. The results indicates that while the mere presence of others can affect gambling

behavior of the gamblers, in some way other factors can explain why people had prolonged

gambling behavior. Prior to the fact that previous gambling experiences affects gambling
 30

behavior but not in the social facilitation. The possibility that adult participants

involvement in gambling were just to stimulation seeking to satisfy their need to gamble

can be a strong indication to say that the mere presence of others doesn’t affect their

gambling behavior. Thus, social facilitation can’t explain gambling behavior alone.

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents the summary, conclusion and recommendations based on the

results of the study. The main goal of this research was to determine the relationship of

Social Facilitation, Risk taking and Gambling Motivation of male adult within the poverty

line.

SUMMARY

This study was conducted to determine that the social facilitation as a mediating

factor of risk taking and gambling behavior of male adults within the poverty line. It aimed

to determine if the gambling behavior of the participants will increase or decrease by the

“mere presence of others or the social facilitation; to determine the significant relationship

of social facilitation to gambling behavior; gambling behavior to risk taking; and risk

taking to social facilitation. Also to determine the effects of social facilitation to risk taking

behavior of male adults within the poverty line.

A total of (N=140) male adult gamblers within the poverty line in the different areas

of Cavite (Silang, GMA, Dasmarinas) were the respondents of the study. Domain Specific

Risk Taking Scale, Gambling Motivation Scale, and Social Facilitation Scale were used to

measure the relationship of social facilitation, gambling behavior and risk taking of male
 31

adults within the poverty. The researcher used Descriptive Correlational Design where

Mean and Standard Deviation were utilized to determine the Social Facilitation, Risk

Taking and Gambling Behavior of the participants. While (Pearson R) Correlation was

used to determine the relationship between Social Facilitation, Risk Taking and Gambling

Behavior of the participants.

The researchers found out that the Gambling Behavior of male adults within the

poverty line has no significant relationship to Social facilitation. The gambling motivation

of the participants are not increase or decrease by the mere presence of others. When it

comes to social facilitation and risk taking behavior the results is also no significant

relationship. Participants do risk because of their inner motivation and not by the mere

presence of others.

CONCLUSIONS

After a careful analysis and inertpretation of data, the researchers had come up

with some generalizations.

This study concluded how essential it is to the individual cognition. Gambling have

developed all over the world. Every countries have different types of gambling, and every

people of them who participating to this activities are totally engaged to risk taking.

Gambling is a thriving form of entertainment. When a person gambles expecting taking a

risk will happen. Easily says that gamble is just only for easy money and getting money,

but gamblers do gamble not just only for this reasons but to fulfill their emotional state. It

also concluded that the growing problem gambling is not enhance by the mere presence of
 32

others or affects the risk taking and gambling behavior of the participants that will explain

more the supporting variables.When you are a beginner in the task you want to perform

and there is someone watching on your side definitely it depends how you performed well

or impaired.

And this study conclude that it has no concrete relationship or effect the social

facilitation to gambling behavior of male adults within the poverty line also, a social

facilitation to risk taking.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the results of the study, the following recommendations were made:

It is recommended for the next study to include the other important factors/

mediating variables or other important variables to explain Gambling Behavior.

It also recommended to make a qualitative study for this research, to look the depth

side of risk taking and gambling behavior.

For Quantitative research, get more no. of population of participants. Go to different

wide gambling facilities. More focus on Age/ gender/ family back ground/ and personality.

It also recommended to conduct a comparative study in this research.

 33

REFERENCES

ALLISON, W. (2011). An Extension of Social Facilitation Theory to the Decision-Making

Domain.

CONRAD. M., (2008) College Student Gambling: Examining the Effects of Gaming

Education within the College Curriculum

GLUSHAKOW, J. M. (2011) Social Facilitation: Salience and Mediated, Anticipatory,

and Illusory Optimism and the BART.

JIANBIN, S., ZIYING, M. (2016) Risk Propensity, Gambling Cognition and Gambling

Behavior: TheRole of Family and Peer Influences.

KELLER, L., GOLLWITZER, P. Mindsets Affect Risk Perception and Risk-Taking

Behavior

LIAD, U. (2006) Individual differences in the social facilitation effect: A review and meta-

analysis.

RENATE. L., REINERS. P., MURPHY. L., LIN. A., PARA BARTOLOME. S., WOOD.

S., (2016) Risk Perception and Risk-Taking Behaviour during Adolescence: The

Influence of Personality and Gender Residual Presence.

 34

SAXENA. N., DR. PURI. P., Department. Of Psychology, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur

(Raj.) India (2013) Relationship between Risk Taking Behaviour, Personality and

Sensation Seeking Tendencies among N.C.C cadets

ZAJONC, R., WOLOSIN, R. J., WOLOSIN, M. A., LOH, W. D. (1970) Social Facilitation

and Imitation in Group Risk-Taking.

MAL FLACK, MATTHEW R. STEVENS (2018) Gambling Motivation: Comparissons

Across Gender & Preferred Activity.

B. GUERIN, J.M. INNES (2013) Explanation To Social Facilitation: A Review

JOHN BRYAN E. SMITHS (2015) Motivations To Gamble Younger And Older Adults

TARA E. HAHMANN AND DR. FLORA I. MATHESON, PH.D (2017) Problem

Gambling and Poverty

SAMSON TSE SONG, IEE HONG CHONG, WEN WANG RENEE M.

CUNNINGHAM, WILLIAMS (2012) Gambling Behavior and Problems Among Older

Adults: A Systematic Review of Empirical Studies.

H. MOLDE,R. MENTZONI,D. HANSS,D. SAGOE,S. L. ANDERSEN &S. PALLESEN

(2017) People around you – do they matter? An experimental gambling study