Bocchiaro -2012

Question 1

what is social power and who has it ?

Answer 1

social power is the influence an individual has to change another thoughts, feelings behaviors. Authority figures have social power to influence those with lower status within the hiearachy

Question 2

define whistle blowing

Answer 2

This when someone challenges their superiors by informing the authorities about their unethical or immoral professional practice.

Question 3

Define a pilot study

Answer 3

It is a small scale preliminary study conducted before the main research to check for feasibilty or improve the design

Question 4

Define psychometric tests

Answer 4

Assessments of people to measure psychological attributes such as personality or intelligence

Question 5

Define social values

Answer 5

A broader understanding of value putting the emphasis on engaging people to understand the impact of decisions on their lives

Question 6

Define sensory deprivation

Answer 6

The lack of sensory stimulation either natural causes in cases of blindness of deafness or experimental study

Question 7

Define religiosity

Answer 7

Peoples varying tendencies to commit thetmselves to religious beliefs, principles activities

Question 8

Aim

Answer 8

To investigate the rates of obediance , disobediance and whistle-blowing in a situation where no physical violencce but in a situation where it was quite clear that the instructions were ethically wrong.
They also wanted to investigated :
- The accuracy of people’s estimates of obediance , disobediance and whistle-blowing in this situation
- The role of dispostional factors in obediance , disobediance and whistle blowing

Question 9

Method

Answer 9

• Conducted 8 pilot stuides with 92 ps to insure the procedure was credible and allow standardisation to occur ( belivable morally acceptable and experimenter was standardised )
• Controlled observation because no true iv was used

Question 10

Sample

Answer 10

149 undergraduate students, 96 women and 53 men, average age 20.8 years were given €7 or course credits.
* 11 participants had been removed because they were ‘suspicious’ about the study.
* A comparison group of 138 similar students was also used. and asked what they would do and what the average students at your university would do

Question 11

Procedure

Answer 11

• The study took place at the VU University in Amsterdam.
• Each participant was greeted by a ‘stern’ formally dressed male researcher and asked to suggest a few names of fellow students.
• Then the participant was told the following ‘cover story’:
  The experimenter and a colleague are investigating the effects of sensory deprivation on brain function. A recent experiment in Rome had disastrous effects on 6 participants who all panicked, whose cognitive ability was temporarily impaired, and who experienced visual and auditory hallucinations. 2 of the 6 had asked to stop, but were not allowed to withdraw because of the effect on data validity. All 6 participants said they had had a frightening experience. We want to replicate the study at VU University because scientists think that young brains may be more sensitive to sensory deprivation. A university research committee is evaluating whether to approve the study and is collecting feedback from students who know the details of the study.
• Participants were asked to write a statement, using atleast two of the words ‘exciting, incredible, great and superb’ but not mentioning the negative effects of sensory deprivation, to convince the students whose names they had previously given to participate in the experiment, and told that the statements would be sent to the students by mail.
• The participant was also told that if he or she believed that the proposed research violated ethical rules he or she could challenge it by putting a form in the mailbox.
• The experimenter left the room and the participant was taken into the next room where there was a computer on which to write their statement, a mail box and the research committee feedback forms.
• After 7 minutes the participant was taken back into the first room, completed two personality tests and was questioned about ‘any suspicions.
• The participants were then fully debriefed, and asked to sign a second consent form. The procedure lasted about 40 minutes.
• 138 comparison students from the VU University were provided with a detailed description of the student at your university do?’
  experimental setting. They were then asked ‘What would you do?’ and ‘What would the average

Question 12

sampling technique

Answer 12

Volunteering sample as flyers were posted in the university cafe

Question 13

weakness of the sample

Answer 13

• not representative - all from the same university to unable to generalise
• enthocentrism - west culture
• lack of population validity
• still in education
• uni-students are more likey to show disobediance

Question 13

What dispositional measures were used?

Answer 13

The HEXACO-PI-R personality test which assesses 6 basic personality traits – honesty, emotionality, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness and openness to experience - have a go at this yourselves using the QR code

The Decomposed games measure of social values which assesses how much importance a person places on the welfare of another person in relation to their own welfare – we will complete this on the next slide

A questionnaire measuring religiosity

Question 14

What happened after the study?

Answer 14

they were debrief on why they had been decieved and gave full written consent for their data to be used

Question 15

Results 1

Answer 15

• 76.5%(114)ps were obedient to the experiment when 3.6% was self predicted
• 14.1% (21)ps were disobediant when 31.9% was self predicted
• whistle blowers: 9.4% (14)
• open whistle blowers : 3.5% (4)
• anonymous whistle blowers : 6.0% (9)

Question 16

Define open and anonymous whistle blowers

Answer 16

O: Open whistle blower, refused to write the supporting statement

A: Anonymous whistle blower, wrote the supporting statement

Question 17

Results 2

Answer 17

There was no significant difference in relation to gender, religious affiliation or religious involvement (defined in terms of church attendance).

A significant difference was found in regard to religiosity - whistle blowers had more faith than obedient or disobedient participants.

There were no significant differences in terms of the six personality characteristics measured by the HEXACO-PI-R

There was no particular pattern of social orientation (only prosocial and individualistic types were considered because there were only three participants classed as ‘competitive’)

Question 18

Results 3 - qualitative data

Answer 18

The issue of responsibility
During the debrief Bocchiaro asked participants why they obeyed or disobeyed

Obedient Ps displayed an agentic shift – “it was expected of me, that’s why I continued”. Ps shifted responsibility for their actions onto the experimenter.

Disobedient Ps felt responsible for their actions – “I don’t want to do unethical things; I would be very disappointed in myself”

So perhaps it’s not a matter of whether to obey authority or not, but which authority to obey?

Question 19

Conclusion 1

Answer 19

Situational rather than dispositional factors may offer a better explanation for disobedience - no significant difference in relation to genger , religious affiation and religious involvement

Question 20

Conclusion 2

Answer 20

People obey authority figures, even unjust authority figures - In the experiment 76.5% were obediant to the unethical experiment

Question 21

Conclusion 3

Answer 21

As individuals we believe that we would behave differently to how we actually behave - 3.6% predicated themselves would the obediant however 76.5%were obediant

Question 22

Conclusion 4

Answer 22

Bocchiaro argued that this could be because we each believe we are ‘special and rational and able to resist social influences.’
But this leads us to completely underestimate our own vulnerabilities to social pressure which actually makes us more vulnerable because we have no awareness that we are being influenced

Question 23

Evaluation 1

Answer 23

one strength of a controlled lab method is that extraneous variables can be reduced.for example, in Bocchiaro’s study, Ps completed the letter of recommendation alone and in silence . this is a strength because it means any findings regarding obedience, disobedience or whistleblowing are more likely to be due to the unjust request and not other variables like noise distractions

Question 24

Evaluation 2

Answer 24

on strength of a controlled lab method is that everything within the study is standardised. This is done through the experiment ( conferdate ) who was the same for the participants as his role was rehearsed so much through the 8 pilot studies timings were the same for each participants and each ps was given the same research committe forms and the same computer , same room to write their statements. this is a strength because everything is the same and increase the internal validity

Question 25

Evaluation 3

Answer 25

strength of quantitative data
A strength of using quantitative data is that it is easy to anaylse. An example of this is in the results were the findings were in percentages and 76.5% of percentages were obedient to the unethical experiment. This is a strength cause we are able to make comparisons between the sets of data , comprise graphs , draw accurate data conclusions
weakeness of quantiative data
A weakness of quatitative data is that it lacks insight. for example , the findings just state there was no significant difference in relation to gender and those who were obediant when filling the research commitee forms and supporting statements on why students should ps in this unetical study and not a reason why there was no difference and why they were so disobediant. This is a weakness because we have to make inferences why ps were obediant , disobediant in the study

Question 26

Ethical considerations

Answer 26

• Protection of participants - They upheld this as they were not place in overwheming distress and not in any harm
• Debrief - They upheld this as participants were fully debriefed with emphasis on why they were decieved
• Informed consent - They broke this as intially they were decieved as they did give informed consent but after the stdy they gave full consent for their data to be used
• Right to withdraw - They upheld this as no one was forced in to the study and probs were not used
• Confidentiality - they were kept anoyomous and no identifable features were released
• Free from deception - This was broke as they need to aviod demand characteristics and this was done by presenting a fake story

Question 27

Similarities between Bocchiaro study and milgrams

Answer 27

• self-selected sampling
• both samples were decieved
• controlled observations with excessive debriefs
• both had qualitative and quatitative data

Question 28

Differences between boccharios and milgrams study

Answer 28

• Different samples : milgram was only males aged 20-50 years old from new haven. boccharios was 149 students 96 males and 53 females all from the VU university in amsterdam
• right to withdraw difficult in milgrams
• Lack of stress in boccharios
• Self report in bocchiaros

Question 29

What has Bocchiaro et al’s research told us in relation to the key theme of responses to people in authority [3]

Answer 29

Responses to people in authority looks at how others, specifically figures of legitimate authority influence our behaviour.
Bocchiaro found that 76.5% of participants obeyed the experimenter, who was seen as a person of authority by writing a statement to convince their peers to take part in an unethical study.
This shows that the majority of people will obey an authority figure, even if it means going against their own moral judgement.

Question 30

Example - To what extent has Bocchiaro’s study advanced our understanding of the key theme compared with Milgram’s classic study?

Answer 30

Bocchiaro et al., has advanced our understanding of responses to people in authority to a certain extent as it provides us with an understanding that there are some dispositional differences that may determine how individuals respond to an unjust request from an authority figure.
Milgram’s research showed us that 65% of participants will obey an authority figure even when what they are being told to do is unethical. Milgram concluded that the reason participants obeyed was a result of situational factors such as the study taking place at Yale University which is a prestigious setting.
Bocchiaro et al.,’s research built on Milgram’s study by investigating whether participants decision to obey, disobey or whistle-blow when given unethical instructions to follow was as a result of dispositional factors. Bocchiaro measured participants personality traits using the HEXACO-PI-R, their social values using the Decomposed Games and also their religiosity. It was found that an individual’s personality and social orientation had no impact on their decision, however, participants who had more faith were more likely to whistle-blow.
Both Milgram and Bocchiaro et al., allow us to see that situational factors may offer a better explanation of individual’s responses to people in authority. However, Bocchiaro et al., show that there is a distinction between people who whistle-blow and those who don’t in terms of their religiosity and so there may be certain dispositional factors that play a role.