The impact of the dosage of coffee on
risk-taking with a moderating effect of
priming
By
MARLEEN WILBRINK
University of Groningen Faculty of Economics and Business
The impact of the dosage of coffee on risk-taking with a moderating effect of priming Table of contents
Introduction p. 3
Theoretical background and hypotheses p. 5
Methodology p. 9
Results p. 14
Conclusion p. 18
Limitations and further research p. 20
References p. 23
Appendices p. 26
Abstract:
Is coffee really as powerful as previous research suggests? This research contributes to previous research by performing a field experiment on the effect that coffee consumption has on risk-taking. After having 98 participants, working at a contact center of ING in Groningen, participate in several tasks, conclusions were drawn. The findings suggest that the effect that a high dosage of coffee has on risk-taking is influenced by priming the participants with the concept of coffee in their minds, in line with the study of Bargh (2002). Surprisingly, the main effect of a high dosage of coffee on risk-taking was not found. Priming moderates the effect that a high dosage of coffee has on risk-taking, by boosting the effect of a high dosage of coffee on risk taking simply by activating the concept of coffee consumption in participants’ minds. The main effect of priming on risk-taking disappears when other variables are taken into account. Limitations and suggestions for further research are discussed.
INTRODUCTION
In the Netherlands, coffee is the most consumed beverage, even after the consumption of tea, soft drinks, and water has increased. On average, Dutch people drink 3.2 cups of coffee a day. Compared to other countries in the world, Scandinavian people drink the most coffee. The Netherlands rank fourth, behind Scandinavia, Luxembourg/Belgium, and Switzerland (Centraal Bureau van de Statistiek, 2007). Moreover, 84% of the Dutch population actually drink coffee (Koninklijke Nederlandse Vereniging voor Koffie en Thee, 2012). Due to the popularity of coffee consumption, it has gained attention in research. Previous research already found general effects of coffee on humans (Dreisbach and Pfeiffer, 1942; Graham, 1978; Sawyer, Julia, and Turin, 1982; Zuckerman, 1994; Lane and Phillips-Bute, 1998). However, until today, it is not clear whether coffee has an effect on consumer behavior. It is proven that coffee consumption is related to sensation seeking (Zuckerman, 1984; Jones & Lejuez, 2005). According to Zuckerman (1984), sensation seeking is not seen as a form of consumer behavior, but more as a personality trait. Several authors researched the
influence on sensation seeking, it is expected that the dosage of coffee will have a positive effect on risk-taking as well. This idea will be explained in further detail in the next section. Moreover, the study investigates whether the effect on risk-taking indeed comes from coffee consumption itself, or whether the effect also can be explained or boosted by the activation of the concept of coffee in participant’s minds (Bargh, 2002). This phenomenon is called
priming, which is thoroughly researched in previous studies (Bargh, Chaiken, Govender, and Pratto, 1992; Bargh, Chen & Burrows, 1996; North & Hargreaves, 1999; Chartrand,
The remainder of the paper is set up as follows:
The next section will elaborate on the theoretical background and hypotheses will be developed. Then, the methodology will be presented, after which the results are analyzed. This report will conclude with stating the limitations of the paper and some suggestions for further research.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES
In order to understand the effect of coffee on risk-taking, all relating concepts will be discussed in more detail below.
Theoretical Background
sensation seeking is high. According to Hoyle, Stephenson, Palmgreen, Lorch, and Donohew (2002) sensation seeking is expected to correlate with risk-taking, so it is expected that a high dosage of coffee also positively affects risk-taking. Although Zuckerman (1964) found a negative correlation between sensation seeking and anxiety, and Greden (1974) found a positive effect of high dosage of coffee on anxiety, it is still expected that coffee can have a positive effect on risk-taking, because this specific effect is not researched yet. When sensation seeking is high, there is low anxiety. Sensation seeking is expected to positively influence taking, so it is expected that there will be low anxiety for people high in risk-taking as well. Important to mention here is that Greden (1974) only shows high anxiety with really high levels of caffeine. As Smith (2002) discussed, high dosage of coffee may increase anxiety, but this effect is rarely seen in normal coffee consumption. So, when the intake of caffeine is normal, anxiety does not have to be high, and risk taking is expected to be higher as well according to the negative correlation expected.
positively influence risk-taking. Taking all effects of previous research into account, it is expected that a high dosage of coffee will have a positive effect on risk-taking.
H1: A high dosage of coffee will have a positive effect on risk-taking.
Priming. Priming is the activation of a concept in human minds with the idea that they will act according to this concept afterwards (Koningsbruggen & Stroebe, 2011). Not all cognitive processes are made within conscious awareness, or even with voluntary control (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). Only having the presence of an attitude object, for example, may activate an attitude (Bargh et al. 1992). So, when people are confronted with a certain behavior, it is possible that this behavior will be activated. The fact that simply activating a concept of a certain behavior in human minds results in the actual presence of that behavior is proven by several authors, and contributes directly to this article (Bargh et al. 1996; North & Hargreaves, 1999; Chartrand, Fitzsimons & Fitzsimons, 2008). In this study the activation of coffee consumption in participants’ minds is expected to have them behave as if they have consumed a cup of coffee. In this case, participants being primed are expected to show the effect that coffee consumption has on their behavior. So, it is expected that priming the consumption of coffee will result in the participants behaving more risky.
H2: The activation of the concept of coffee consumption (priming) in human minds will have a positive effect on risk-taking.
Research has proven that priming a concept in human minds serves as a moderator on the effect this concept has on an outcome variable (Bargh et al, 1996). A study performed by Lammers, Galinsky, Gordijn, and Otten (2008), showed that the way that power was
experienced (as legitimate or illegitimate), influenced the behavioral approach and action that followed. When power was primed to be legitimate, the powerful demonstrated more
powerless displayed as much approach as, or even more approach than the powerful. In line with this research, it is expected that the effect of coffee consumption on risk-taking will be stronger when participants are primed with the concept of coffee than when the participants are not primed with that concept, because for people primed with neutral words, there will only be the main effect of dosage of coffee on risk-taking, and for people primed with the concept of coffee consumption this effect of coffee consumption on risk-taking will be
influenced by the prime. Thus, the effect of priming the concept of coffee in people’s minds is expected to boost the effect of a high dosage of coffee on risk-taking. Even when people have a low dosage of coffee, the idea is that priming the concept of coffee in their minds will increase their risk-taking intentions compared to people who are not primed with that concept, due to the activation of the concept of coffee in their minds and their resulting behavior according to this concept.
H3: The effect that a high dosage of coffee has on risk-taking will be boosted by the activation of the concept of coffee (priming) in human minds.
Control variables. Since theory previously has proven that sensation seeking is a predecessor of risk-taking, the measure of sensation seeking needs to be controlled for in the experiment in order to capture the real effect of risk-taking. So, in order to make sure the effect of coffee on risk-taking does not come from high sensation seeking of participants, this study controls for that. Moreover, there are other factors that can influence the effect of coffee on risk-taking, which will be taken into account and elaborated on in the next section.
Conceptual Model
FIGURE 1: Conceptual Model
METHODOLOGY Participants and Design
be explained later in this section. Figure 2 displays the different conditions the study contained. FIGURE 2: Design Priming with consumption Coffee Control
Dosage High Condition 1 Condition 3
Low Condition 2 Condition 4
Procedure
perform the BART on a laptop. After having completed both tasks, the participants were asked to rate some statements on the questionnaire, which ultimately measured their sensation seeking. Again, later in this section, more details regarding the measurement and statements on sensation seeking will be provided. Furthermore, the participants were asked to fill in some questions on a printed piece of paper. They had to fill in answers to several questions, such as “How many cups of coffee did you drink today?”, and a question adopted from van
Koningsbruggen et al (2011), regarding how many cups of coffee participants drink each day of the week. They also had to fill out their age and gender. All details regarding the questions participants had to answer can be found in the Appendix, and information regarding the way these questions were measured will be provided next.
Independent Variables
The dosage of coffee was manipulated by giving participants a value of high or low dosage, depending on the time of the day they participated in the experiment. The value was given to participants by the observer. Participants who did the experiment in the morning (between 09.00 and 12.30 am) were assigned a low dosage value (0), and participants who did the experiment later in the afternoon (between 15.30 and 18.50 pm) were assigned a high dosage value (1).
Participants were given a scrambled sentence task in which they were either primed with coffee or with other words, implemented from Srull & Wyer (1979). Participants were told this served as a language ability task. The priming task worked as follows: Each item
‘window’, ‘book’, and ‘dog’ in the series. Each of the priming tasks consisted of 12 sentences. This variable was manipulated by assigning the participants a value 0 when they were primed with the words as ‘coffee’, ‘espresso’ etc, and a value 1 when they were primed with words as ‘bus’, ‘window’, and ‘ship’.
Dependent Variable
When measuring risk-taking behavior, previous research let people engage in the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). The BART was introduced to provide the ability to measure actual risky behavior (Lejuez et al. 2002). This experiment used a laptopto present the BART to the participants. Implemented from Lejuez et al. (2002) the laptop showed a simulated balloon, a blank space in which participants could fill out the amount of times they wanted the balloon to be pumped up, potential earnings, the balloon number (1 to 10), the number of current pumps, and the total winnings in points. How the test looked like on the laptop can be seen in Appendix 2.The task worked as follows: The participant filled out a number in the blank space, which stands for the amount of times the balloon needed to be inflated. Then the participant clicked on the button ‘Click here’, and the balloon was pumped up automatically. With each pump, the balloon was inflated by 1 degree, and one point could be earned. When the balloon was pumped past its individual explosion point, a ‘pop’ sound emerged, which had as effect that the amount of points was lost, and the participants could start to try it on a new balloon. When the balloon did not explode the sound of a slot machine payoff appeared. Participants could receive a ranking of people who earned the most points at this task by leaving their e-mail address at the debriefing session. Each participant had to pump up 10 balloons in total (see Lejuez et al. 2002, for further details). The higher the number a
Another way risk-taking behavior could be measured was by looking at the total number of pumps participants filled out over all 10 balloons.
Control Variables
Zuckerman was the first to measure sensation seeking in 1964 by developing a sensation seeking scale (SSS) (Zuckerman, 1964). “Individuals high in sensation seeking appear to be drawn to activities that are high in risk such as sexual risk-taking (Hoyle, Fejfar, and Miller, 2000), reckless driving (Heino, van der Molen, and Wilde 1996), smoking (Zuckerman, Ball, and Black, 1990) alcohol use (Stacy, Newcomb, and Bentler, 1993), and use of illicit drugs (Newcomb & McGee, 1991; Zuckerman, Kuhlman, Joireman, Teta, and Kraft, 1993)” (Hoyle et al, 2002: 401-402). To measure sensation-seeking, the Brief Sensation Seeking Scale (BSSS), developed by Hoyle et al (2002) was used. This scale consists of questions regarding thrill, experience seeking, adventure seeking, and more. The participants were asked to rate 8 statements on a Likert-scale from 1 to 5 (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Whenever participants rated the 8 statements highly, they had a high score on the sensation seeking scale, and it was expected that they also had high risk taking behaviors. The opposite effect was expected for participants who rated the 8 statements lowly (low sensation seeking, so also low risk taking behavior). By looking at the means of the scale, there was a high level of internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s Alpha of .75. As Lejuez et al (2002) state, the BART can be combined with a paper-and-pencil measure of risk-related constructs to improve the assessment of real-world risk behaviors, which is exactly what was done in this study. Lejuez et al (2003) found a correlation between BART and Sensation Seeking Scale with
Furthermore, the participants were asked to indicate the amount of coffee they drink at each day of the week, the real number of cups of coffee they drank during the day of the
experiment, and the size of that coffee (espresso, latte), the time at which they drank their last cup of coffee, their age and gender, and their intrinsic motivation to have a cup of coffee at the moment of participating in the experiment (on a Likert-scale from 1 to 7). The observer noted the exact time that participants participated in the experiment for each individual separately. In this way it was possible to calculate ourselves how much time had passed since their last cup of coffee. It is important to measure the time between the consumption of coffee, and participating in the study, because when this time is very long (6 hours), the chance exists that the caffeine is not having any effect anymore. Caffeine is rapidly absorbed by the body. Between half an hour and 2.5 hours after the intake of caffeine, the effects are experienced. Between 2.5 and 4.5 hours after caffeine intake only half of the caffeine is demolished (Fredholm, Bättig, Holmén, Nehlig, and Zvartau, 1999). The exact piece of paper with these questions, which was used in the experiment, can be found in the Appendix. At the end of the experiment, participants were first thanked for their participation and after that, they were given the opportunity to leave their e-mail address with us in case they wanted to be informed about the research intentions and results.
RESULTS
no significant main effect for prime (F(1,94) =.27, p =.60). A main effect for dosage was not found either (F(1,94) = .00, p = .97). This means that it did not matter whether participants were in the condition of coffee prime or control prime, or in the morning or afternoon condition; there was no significant difference in risk-taking. The interaction also failed to reach significance (F(1,94) = .07, p = .78).
However, after performing the ANOVA with total pumps performed by participants as the dependent variable instead of the adjusted average pump count, the results turned out to be different. Now, the two-way ANOVA showed a significant main effect for prime (F(1,94) = 3.92, p = .05). The main effect for dosage, however, still did not reach significance (F(1,94) = .47, p = .49). The main effect of prime indicated that participants primed with the concept of coffee demonstrated higher risk taking behavior (M = 680.84, SD = 27.76) than participants primed with regular words (M = 603.88, SD = 27.18). This main effect was qualified by a significant interaction effect between prime and dosage (F(1,94) = 5.84, p = .02), which shows that priming serves as a moderator. The priming condition participants were in, resulted in significant differences for the afternoon condition. Participants who were primed with coffee in the afternoon displayed higher risk-taking (M = 741.24, SD = 209.83) than participants who were primed with neutral words (M = 570.36, SD = 126.05). For the morning condition there were no significant differences in risk-taking for the different priming
conditions; coffee prime (M = 620.43, SD = 137.64), neutral prime (M = 637.40, SD = 259.58). This suggests that participants with a high dosage of coffee demonstrated even higher risk-taking after being primed with the concept of coffee consumption, compared to participants with a high dosage of coffee who were primed with neutral words. For
neutral words. So, priming only positively moderated the effect of a high dosage of coffee on risk-taking.
The fact that the main effect of dosage was not significant indicated that people with a low dosage of coffee (in the morning condition) did not significantly demonstrate lower risk-taking than people with a high dosage of coffee (in the afternoon condition). An explanation can be that the average number of cups of coffee that participant drank before the experiment did not differ that much between the morning condition (M = 1.86, SD = .69) and the
2.27, p = .14). So, due to all other variables, the effect that priming had on risk-taking in the ANOVA disappeared when entering the covariates into the ANCOVA. Thus, it can be said that people who score high on sensation seeking score high on risk-taking anyway, so it does not matter whether they are in the prime condition of coffee consumption or control anymore. The fact that sensation seeking and risk-taking are closely related eliminates the effect of the prime. This can also be explained for other covariates, such as the amount of coffee
participants drank during the day of the experiment. The main effect of dosage still is insignificant (F(1,78) = .20, p = .66). However, since the interaction is still significant (F(1,78) = 8.52, p = .00), the same holds true as for the ANOVA results, which is illustrated in Figure 3. Further explanations will be elaborated on in the conclusion section.
CONCLUSION
In the results section the first test was done with the adjusted average pump counts as the measurement variable for risk-taking. This did not produce any significant results. However, according to the data collection, it was already thought that this was not a good variable to use as a measure of risk-taking. An example is that the adjusted average pump count only takes a look at the balloons which were not exploded (all exploded balloons are excluded from analysis). There was one participant who let all 10 balloons be pumped up for 127 times, which had as effect that all 10 balloons exploded. The resulting value for the adjusted average pump count became 0 for this participant, even though this participant took a huge risk. Since the value of 0 was not interpretable, in the end the total pumps participants used for all 10 balloons was used as a measure of risk-taking. For this specific participant the total pump count was 1275, which shows that he took a lot of risk. With regard to the hypotheses that were set in the beginning of this study, conclusions can be drawn now. The first hypothesis stated that a high dosage of coffee will have a positive effect on risk-taking. Unfortunately this hypothesis was rejected. The fact that this relationship was insignificant, has several reasons. First of all, there were 30 participants who did not drink coffee on the day of the experiment. These participants were not under influence of caffeine, so whatever their risk-taking was, it was not directly influenced by the dosage of coffee. The second reason is that the average number of cups of coffee that participant drank before the experiment did not differ that much between the morning condition and the afternoon condition. This implies that the morning condition was not necessarily a low dosage, and the afternoon condition was not necessarily a high dosage. However, the graph shows that in the afternoon the average risk-taking was higher than in the morning.
people who were primed with other words. This hypothesis was accepted in the ANOVA test. There was a significant effect of priming participants with the concept of coffee on their risk-taking. Participants who were primed with words as coffee, espresso, and caffeine before participating in the risk-taking task, showed higher risk-taking than participants who were primed with words as bus, ship, and window. However, for the ANCOVA this effect became insignificant, which means that the hypothesis is not accepted anymore. Other variables, such as sensation seeking, need state, expectation, and the amount of coffee participants drank on the day of the experiment decreased the effect that priming has on risk-taking.
LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Managerial Implications
The results of this study can have implications for managers in several sectors. Whenever customers are confronted with words about coffee consumption, there is a chance that this concept is activated in their minds, and that they will behave as if they have consumed a cup of coffee. This can be advantageous for stock brokers or investment companies, for example, because these type of companies deal with risky products. It is possible that people are
tempted to buy stocks or shares of a company when they are primed with coffee consumption. So, whenever a manager of an investment company wants people to invest, they have to make sure that the customers are primed with coffee consumption first. This can be achieved by, for example, putting a message on the website, or in the store, that coffee is always ready or that people can apply for an appointment with one of the managers while enjoying a cup of coffee. It is also possible that a coffee company (e.g. Starbucks, Nespresso) has more luck in selling stocks due to the fact that buyers are confronted with coffee before buying or not buying the stock. Since people are willing to take more risk when they are primed with the concept of coffee, this can result in people buying more stock or buying stock more easily than when they were not primed with coffee.
Theoretical Implications
In line with previous research, priming caused the participants to behave in line with the concept that was primed, and in this study it resulted in a boost on the effect of the dosage of coffee on risk-taking (Bargh et al, 1992; Bargh, Chen, and Burrows, 1996; North &
dosage on risk-taking. This indirect effect is present due to the moderating role of priming. However, against expectations of Hoyle et al (2002), no significant effect was found for a high dosage of coffee on risk-taking. Still, according to Graham (1978), a high dosage of coffee results in more alertness, which could result in higher risk-taking as well. There were several reasons why this main effect was not found. A lot of other variables influenced the risk-taking participants showed.When this research could be refined, and people in the morning condition really have a significant lower dosage of coffee than people in the
afternoon condition, it is still expected that the dosage of coffee will have a positive effect on risk-taking. Only for this specific study the results did not come out as expected. As also found by Lammers et al (2008), priming served as a moderating variable in this study. So, this experiment confirmed their results.
Limitations
This study was aimed to find the effect that priming has on the relationship between the dosage of coffee and risk-taking. The limitations of this study should be mentioned as well. Since an experiment was done in the field, a lot of things can go wrong. First of all, two participants did not hand in the questionnaire. However, this did not influence the results of the study, because the data of these two participants was deleted from the analysis. A second limitation is that not all participants drank coffee before the experiment, and even some participants (17) do not drink coffee at all. The fact that 30 participants out of 98 in total did not drink coffee during the day of the experiment definitely affected the results. The expected main effect of the dosage of coffee on risk-taking was not significant, and this is probably due to this reason. Another limitation is that the experiment was performed with another
way, participants could have been biased before doing the BART. They could have guessed that the amount of coffee they drank should have an impact on their results in the BART test. Fourth, the experiment was done in an office of the ING, so only people who work in the finance sector participated. It is possible that people working in other sectors, such as
REFERENCES
Aronson, E., Wilson, T.D., and Brewer, M.B. 1998. The handbook of social psychology, New York, NY, US: McGraw-Hill
Bargh, J.A. 2002. Losing consciousness: Automatic influences on consumer judgement, behavior, and motivation. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(2): 280-285.
Bargh, J. A., Chaiken, S., Govender, R., and Pratto, F. 1992. The generality of the automatic attitude activation effect. Journal of personality and social psychology, 62(6): 893.
Bargh, J. A., Chen, M., and Burrows, L. 1996. Automaticity and social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71: 230–244.
Bechara, A. 2004. The role of emotion in decision-making: evidence from neurological patients with orbitofrontal damage. Brain and cognition, 55(1): 30-40.
Blais, A. R., & Weber, E. U. 2006. A domain-specific risk-taking (DOSPERT) scale for adult populations. Judgment and Decision Making, 1(1): 33-47.
Centraal Bureau van de Statistiek. (2007, December 10). Accessed on February 27, 2015, from Nederlanders drinken minder koffie: http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/themas/inkomen-bestedingen/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2007/2007-2344-wm.htm
Chartrand, T. L., Fitzsimons, G. M., and Fitzsimons, G. J. 2008. Automatic effects of anthropomorphized objects on behavior. Social Cognition, 26(2), 198-209.
Debeer, E., Raes, F., Williams, J. M. G., and Hermans, D. 2013. Reduction in memory specificity following an Approach/Avoidance Scrambled Sentences Task relates to cognitive avoidant coping. Psychological Record, 63(1): 73-84.
Dijksterhuis, A., & Bargh, J. A. 2001. The perception-behavior expressway: Automatic effects of social perception on social behavior. Advances in experimental social
psychology, 33: 1-40.
Dreisbach, R.H., & Pfeiffer, C. 1943. Caffeine withdrawal headache. Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine, 28: 1212.
Epley, N., & Gilovich, T. 1999. Just Going Along: Nonconscious Priming and Conformity to Social Pressure. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 35: 578-589.
Fredholm, B. B., Bättig, K., Holmén, J., Nehlig, A., and Zvartau, E. E. 1999. Actions of caffeine in the brain with special reference to factors that contribute to its widespread use. Pharmacological reviews, 51(1): 83-133.
Greden, J.F., 1974. Anxiety or caffeinism: A diagnostic dilemma. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 131: 1089-1092.
Greenwald, A.G., & Banaji, M.R. 1995. Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1): 4-27.
Hebb, D. O. 1955. Drives and the CNS (conceptual nervous system).Psychological review, 62(4): 243.
Heino, A., van der Molen, H. H., and Wilde, G. J. S. 1996. Differences in risk experience between sensation avoiders and sensation seekers. Personality and Individual Differences, 20: 71–79.
Horvath, P., & Zuckerman, M. 1993. Sensation seeking, risk appraisal, and risky behavior. Personality and individual differences, 14(1): 41-52.
Hoyle, R. H., Fejfar, M. C., and Miller, J. D. 2000. Personality and sexual risk-taking: a quantitative review. Journal of Personality, 68: 1203–1231.
Hoyle, R.H., Stephenson, M.T., Palmgreen, P., Lorch, E.P., and Donohew, R.L. 2002. Reliability and validity of a brief measure of sensation seeking. Personality and Individual Differences, 32: 401-414.
Jones, H.A., & Lejuez, C.W. 2005. Personality correlates of caffeine dependence: the role of sensation seeking, impulsivity, and risk taking. Experimental and clinical
psychopharmacology, 13(3): 259
Koningsbruggen, G. M., & Stroebe, W. 2011. Lasting effects of alcohol: Subliminal alcohol cues, impairment expectancies, and math performance. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 41(7): 807-811.
Koninklijke Nederlandse Vereniging voor Koffie en Thee. (2012, January 1). Accessed on February 27, 2015, from Koffie - Consumptie in beeld 2012: http://www.knvkt.nl/de-nederlandse-koffie-en-theemarkt/item/254-koffie-consumptie-in-beeld-2012
Lammers, J., Galinsky, A. D., Gordijn, E. H., and Otten, S. 2008. Illegitimacy moderates the effects of power on approach. Psychological Science, 19(6): 558-564.
Lane, J.D., & Phillips-Bute, B.G. 1998. Caffeine Deprivation Affects Vigilance Performance and Mood. Physiology & Behavior, 65(1): 171-175.
Lejuez, C. W., Read, J. P., Kahler, C. W., Richards, J. B., Ramsey, S. E., Stuart, G. L., and Brown, R. A. 2002. Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8(2): 75.
Lorist, M. M., & Tops, M. 2003. Caffeine, fatigue, and cognition. Brain and cognition, 53(1): 82-94.
Newcomb, M. D., & McGee, L. 1991. Influence of sensation seeking on general deviance and specific problem behaviors from adolescence to young adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61: 614–628.
North, A. C., & Hargreaves, D. J. 1999. Can music move people? The effects of musical complexity and silence on waiting time. Environment and Behavior, 31(1): 136-149. Sawyer, D.A., Julia, H.L., and Turin, A.C. 1982. Caffeine and Human Behavior: Arousal, Anxiety and Performance Effects. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 5(4): 415-439.
Schmidt, B., Mussel, P., and Hewig, J. 2013. I'm too calm—Let's take a risk! On the impact of state and trait arousal on risk taking. Psychophysiology, 50(5): 498-503.
Smith, A. 2002. Effects of caffeine on human behavior. Food and chemical toxicology, 40(9): 1243-1255.
Srull, T.K., & Wyer, R.S. 1979. The role of category accessibility in the interpretation of information about persons: Some determinants and implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(10): 1660-1672.
Stacy, A. W., Newcomb, M. D., and Bentler, P. M. 1993. Cognitive motivations and sensation seeking as long-term predictors of drinking problems. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 12: 1–24.
Zuckerman, M. 1964. Development of a Sensation-Seeking Scale. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 28(6): 477-482.
Zuckerman, M. 1979b. Sensation seeking and risk taking. In Izard, C. E. (Ed.), Emotions in personality and psychopathology (pp. 1633197). New York: Plenum.
Zuckerman M. 1994. Behavioral Expressions and Biosocial Bases of Sensation Seeking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zuckerman, M., Eysenck, S., and Eysenck, H. J. 1978. Sensation seeking in England and America: Cross-cultural, age, and sex comparisons. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46: 139–149.
Zuckerman, M., Ball, S., and Black, J. 1990. Influences of sensation seeking, gender, risk appraisal, and situational motivation on smoking. Addictive behaviors, 15(3): 209-220.
APPENDICES Appendix 1: Form with questions used during experiment
Hallo, ik ben Marleen Wilbrink, en ik ben momenteel bezig met mijn master thesis Marketing aan de Faculteit Economie en Bedrijfskunde hier aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Het onderzoek bestaat uit enkele ongerelateerde deelstudies. Deelname is vanzelfsprekend geheel anoniem en je gegevens zullen uitsluitend vertrouwelijk worden gebruikt voor dit onderzoek en niet verder worden verspreid. Ik zou het enorm waarderen als je meedeed. Het onderzoek zal slechts enkele minuten van je tijd vergen. Werk a.u.b. zelfstandig aan het onderzoek en overleg niet met anderen.
Zinsconstructietaak
In deze taak moet U woorden combineren zodat er een correcte grammaticale zin ontstaat. U ziet telkens vijf woorden en van vier van deze woorden moet U een correcte zin maken. U moet dus telkens een correcte zin maken van vier woorden. Deze zin schrijft U vervolgens eronder op. Hier is een voorbeeld:
Stel, U ziet de volgende vijf woorden.
sappig zijn de sinaasappelen rijp U zou dan de zin kunnen maken:
De sinaasappelen zijn rijp. Een andere mogelijkheid is:
Zijn de sinaasappelen sappig?
Onthoud goed dat U maar vier van de vijf woorden gebruikt. U mag GEEN andere woorden gebruiken of woorden veranderen.
1. bewolkt lijkt regen het behoorlijk
………. 2. dronk hij koffie veel morgen
………. 3. goed voorbereid was hij gezegd
4. appartement zij de ramen reinigden
………. 5. smaakte espresso de sterk zwaaide
………. 6. makkelijk papier winkel scheurde het
………. 7. koffie me maakt wakker koos
………. 8. mist Jan familie zijn zonlicht
………. 9. Geniet cappuccino zij van president
………. 10. de weg kapitein voer schip
………. 11. cafeïne concentratie maar voor zorgt
………. 12. kapot computer is mijn wordt
……….
Zinsconstructietaak
In deze taak moet U woorden combineren zodat er een correcte grammaticale zin ontstaat. U ziet telkens vijf woorden en van vier van deze woorden moet U een correcte zin maken.
U moet dus telkens een correcte zin maken van vier woorden. Deze zin schrijft U vervolgens eronder op. Hier is een voorbeeld:
Stel, U ziet de volgende vijf woorden.
U zou dan de zin kunnen maken: De sinaasappelen zijn rijp.
Een andere mogelijkheid is:
Zijn de sinaasappelen sappig?
Onthoud goed dat U maar vier van de vijf woorden gebruikt. U mag GEEN andere woorden gebruiken of woorden veranderen.
1. bewolkt lijkt drank het behoorlijk
………. 2. boek schrijver schreef het Marie
………. 3. goed voorbereid was hij gezegd
………. 4. appartement zij de ramen reinigden
………. 5. zijn ook we zelfstandig hebben
………. 6. riep hond de hij zwaaide
………. 7. makkelijk papier winkel scheurde het
………. 8. klas ik liep de koos
………. 10. laat is heeft bus de
………. 11. de weg kapitein voer schip
………. 12. koop ik morgen gehucht melk
……….
Kunt u aangeven, op een schaal van 1 tot 5 (1 = zeer oneens, 5 = zeer mee eens), in hoeverre u het eens bent met de volgende 8 stellingen?
Ik wil graag vreemde plaatsen verkennen. 1 2 3 4 5 Ik zou graag op reis gaan zonder vooraf geplande routes en informatie. 1 2 3 4 5
Ik word onrustig als ik teveel tijd thuis ben. 1 2 3 4 5 Ik prefereer vrienden die opwindend en onvoorspelbaar zijn. 1 2 3 4 5
Ik doe graag angstaanjagende dingen. 1 2 3 4 5
Ik zou graag bungeejumping willen proberen. 1 2 3 4 5
Ik hou van wilde, gekke feesten. 1 2 3 4 5
Ik zou graag nieuwe, opwindende ervaringen hebben, zelfs als het illegaal is. 1 2 3 4 5
Beste deelnemer,
Geslacht
M F
Leeftijd
…………..
Wil je hieronder aangeven hoeveel koppen koffie (dat mag ook espresso, cappuccino, macchiato of een andere koffievariant zijn) je meestal drinkt op
elk van de onderstaande dagen van de week:
Aantal koppen koffie:
Maandag ………… Dinsdag ………… Woensdag ………… Donderdag ………… Vrijdag ………… Zaterdag ………… Zondag …………
Hoeveel koppen koffie heeft u vandaag gedronken?
Op welk tijdstip heeft u uw laatste kop koffie gedronken? Geef ook de grootte en soort koffie aan
(espresso, latte)
Koppen koffie
……… Hoe laat heeft u uw
laatste kop koffie gedronken?
……….
Grootte (S/M/L) Soort
Op een schaal van 1 tot 7, hoe graag zou u op dit moment een kop koffie willen? (1= helemaal niet, 7 =
heel erg graag) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Als ik 2 koppen koffie drink in 1 uur wordt mijn vaardigheid in keuze- en behendigheidsspelletjes:
(1 = Veel slechter; 5= Geen invloed; 9= Veel beter) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Tijd van observatie:
Je bent nu aan het eind van het onderzoek gekomen. Hartelijk dank voor je medewerking. Ik zou je willen vragen in verband met de vertrouwelijkheid niet over het onderzoek met anderen te praten. Als je benieuwd bent naar de achtergronden van het onderzoek, schrijf dan
hieronder je emailadres, dan stuur ik je zodra de resultaten bekend zijn een volledig overzicht van doel, opzet en resultaten van het onderzoek. Je emailadres zal voor geen ander doel dan dit gebruikt worden
