AbstractThe purpose of this study was to examine whether or not a subject betting in the presence of a high betting lucky confederate would be more likely to bet higher, as well as go along with that confederate on the last betting trial. The participants in the study were all female Mount Holyoke College who were placed into one of four conditions- lucky-high, lucky-low, 50/50-high, or 50/50-low.After betting on the races, they filled out a questionnaire to measure their confidence in their betting choices, and the confederate’s influence upon them. There was a significant difference between the number of tickets that the subject bet while in the presence of a high-lucky confederate and the number of tickets bet while in the presence of a low-lucky subject. There was no significant difference between the number of subjects who bet along with the lucky-high confederate on the last betting trial, and number who bet along with the 50/50 low confederate. IntroductionGambling has long been an activity enjoyed by people around the world.There is speculation that Mayan athletes would bet their lives on theoutcome of sporting events. Losing the game could well have meant losingyour life! What prompts people to take these extreme risks? While extremesports that involve risking one’s own life are increasing in popularity inmodern society, the average person does not engage in such activities. Risktaking is a daily occurrence, but it is more common for people to take minorrisks, such as buying a lottery ticket or going on a blind date, than to engagein extreme risk behavior that could cost a person's life. But what wouldcause someone to engage in a major risk, potentially losing his or her ownlife? Are people intrinsically motivated to take risks or does the addition of areward influence their actions and increase their likelihood to take a majorrisk? Would someone be more willing to go skydiving or bungee-jumping ifthey stood to gain a monetary reward? How much impact do friends or peersplay in individuals' willingness to take risks? Reward may be the influencingfactor in human risk taking behavior, but peers may also play a role ininfluencing others to behave dangerously. Previous Research Salminen (1995) researching peer influence in the workplace versus the influence of deadlines and pressure to save time. Christensen and Morrongiello (1997) ran a study on the peer influenceof children in choosing a potentially hazardous path down a hill. Ungar (2000) ran a series of interviews with troubled teens with the intention of looking at their relationships and peer pressure. Chau, Phillips, and Von Baggo (2000) showed that peoples’ own perceptions of chance versus skill played a major role in their betting habits.  Ladouceur and Dube (1997) found that people are more likely to bet higher amounts of money when they believe they can accurately predict the outcome of the eventPurpose of our studyThe purpose of our study was to look at how peer pressure could influencean individual in a risk- taking situation.HypothesisWe hypothesized that a subject placed with a lucky confederate in a highbetting situation would most likely follow the confederate's betting patternon the final race.ResultsChi-Square to assess whether participants were more likely to select same horse as confederate in lucky condition than in 50/50 condition. Results not significant, X2 (2,N=53)=.81, p>.05ANOVA used to determine whether partipants were more likely to be influenced by a lucky confederate than a 50/50 confederate on final betting trial. Self-reported influence: Lucky condition (M=2.54) 50/50 condition (M=1.72) Significant results, F(1,49)=4.04, MSE=8.54, p=.05ANOVA used to determine whether participants in lucky condition were more likely to have greater self confidence on horse selection in final bettingtrial than participants in 50/50 condition. Self-reported confidence: Lucky condition (M=3.04) 50/50 condition (M=2.80) Results not significant, F(1,49)=.43, MSE=.73, p>.05Chi-Square to assess whether participants in lucky high condition were morelikely to bet same amount as confederate on final betting trial than participants in lucky low condition. Results not significant, X2 (2,N=26)=.09, p>.05DiscussionOur hypothesis was not fully supported. There was a significant difference between the lucky condition and the 50/50 condition on self-reported influence levels. This may indicate the presence of peer influence; however, participants’ reports do not reflect their actions. Participants did not always select the same horse as the confederate on the final betting trial. This inconsistency may be due to other factors. For example, participants may have been more influenced by horse descriptions than by the confederate horse selection, but still felt influenced by the presence of the confederate. Our Likert scale did not require participants to compare level ofinfluence by confederate and level of influence by horse descriptions. Therefore, in spite of the apparent inconsistency with participant behavior, we must accept the significance of self-reported influence level. There were a few problems with our study. First, hypothesis guessing may have been present, and social desirability bias may have occurred, each affecting betting selections. Second, inconsistent lab settings (Blanchard Center, Reese Building, Torrey Hall), with five experimenters may have resulted in varying participant behavior and response. Similarly, last-minutechanges in test setting required adjustment on the parts of both the experimenter and the participant, influencing the administration of the experiment and its results.Possible alterations to our experiment may include: Making horse names less influential to maximize peer influence (i.e. “Repent” becomes “Horse #1”) Having participants bet their own money to increase risk factor, emphasize confederate presence Making the confederate’s betting condition less consistent (not 1 or 5 for each race) Having an “unlucky” condition and a 50/50 condition Based on the results of our study, we conclude that the actions of Mount Holyoke women are not easily influenced by others. For further research on peer influence and risk behaviors such as gambling, experimenters may choose to study particpants from other college campuses. How might the actions of Smith students differ