groups. H2. High disagreement groups will exhibit greater group polarization than low disagreement groups. H3. Complete networks will exhibit greater group polarization than chains. To quantify group polarization, we use the “group shift” defined as the change in the mean wager of the group after discussion: δ = ¯ w$_{f}$ − ¯ w$_{0}$ where ¯ w$_{0}$ and ¯ w$_{f}$ are, respectively, the initial and post-discussion mean wagers. A positive δ indicates an increase in the mean wager and hence group polarization, more specifically, a risky shift. A negative δ indicates a cautious shift. We restrict our analysis to consensus groups in which all members make the same final wager. The focus on consensus is in keeping with the great majority of past experiments and also reflects the low sample sizes of the non-consensus outcomes. Table 1 shows the mean group shift ¯ δ for specified variable conditions along with the difference between the ¯ δ values for the paired conditions. For policy side, the favorite groups exhibit a risky shift of $1.44 which is highly significant compared with a null shift whereas the underdogs show an insignificant positive shift of $0.19. The difference between their shifts is similarly highly significant. Consequently, we conclude that the favorite groups exhibit a risky shift and the underdog groups do not. Regarding disagreement level and network structure, for favorite groups: high disagreement shows a significantly greater shift than low; and the complete network shows a significantly greater shift than the chain. In addition, each favorite condition displays a shift that is significantly greater than null. The underdog groups show no disagreement or network effects consistent with the overall absence of an underdog risky shift. These results confirm all three hypotheses above. 7 24