2- Bocchiaro et al: SOCIAL

Question 1

Background

Answer 1

1. Disobedience
   Milgram showed people have a strong tendency to obey authority but didn’t tell us about the nature of disobedience to unjust authority.
   When ordered to obey there are options open; follow orders (obey), refuse (disobey), or report (whistle-blowing).
2. Unjust authority
   Unjust authority gives instructions which require a person to behave in an antisocial way to others, such as not giving them an electric shock (Milgram).
   Just authority gives instructions that are reasonable to follow berceuse it is protecting the social group.

Question 2

Aim(s)

Answer 2

1. To investigate how people deal with an unethical and unjust request.
   (Ps have the option of obeying, disobeying, or whistle-blowing).
2. Also aimed to investigate the difference between now people think they will behave and how they actually behave.
3. Finally the study aimed to see if people who disobey / blow the whistle show different personality characteristics than those who don’t.

Question 3

Design

Answer 3

Controlled observation (in a laboratory)

Researchers created a paradigm to enable them to investigate the dynamic processes involved in obedience / disobedience.
This consisted of:
- describing a hypothetical unethical study on sensory deprivation and then seeing whether Ps would obey a request to write a statement to a fellow student and or whether they would blow the whist by filling in an ethics form.

Paradigm definition:
A model or pattern for doing something.

Question 4

Sample

Answer 4

Self-selected sample
- Responded to a flyer in University cafeteria
- Paid €7 or given course credit

149 Dutch University students
- (96 women and 53 men)

2 further groups of Ps
- 92 students took part in the pilot tests and 138 ‘comparison’ students were asked to predict obedience behaviour

Question 5

Materials / apparatus

Answer 5

1. A research committee ethics form.
Ps fill this in and post anonymously to the Human Ethics Committee (whistle-blowing)

2. Two personality tests:
- HEXACO-PI-R
To assess 6 basic personality traits (honesty-humility, emotionality, extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness and openness to experience).
Ps indicated agreement with each item on a 5-point Likert scale.

-Decomposed Games Measure
Assesses how much importance a person places on the welfare of another person in relation to their own welfare, called social value orientation (SVO).
Enables Ps to be categorised as prosocial, individualistic, or competitive.

Question 6

Procedure

Answer 6

1. Eight pilot tests were conducted with one group of Ps to check that the procedure was believable and morally acceptable. Data was used to gain ethical approval for the project.
2. A second ’comparison’ group of Ps were asked to predict how they would behave if they were a participant in the study and how other Ps would behave.
3. The study took place in a laboratory at the University of Amsterdam. An experimenter discussed a future research project with each Ps. The experimenter role was played by a confederate.
4. The experimenter gave each Ps these instructions:
   - The experimenter was seeking the names of a few fellow students for a study on sensory deprivation. Ps were requested to write a statement encouraging their nominated fellow students to take part. They were told to be enthusiastic in writing the statement and not mention the negative effects of sensory deprivation. (Their willingness measured their degree of obedience / disobedience).
   - The experimenter was also seeking ethical approval for the study from the Uni research committee. Thus Ps also asked to fill in the Research Committee form. (Measured whistleblowing)
5. Ps were taken to a second room to write their statement and fill in the ethics form.
6. Finally Ps were asked to complete the 2 psychological tests (HEXACO-PI-R and the decomposed games).
7. The entire session lasted about 40 mins.
8. All Ps were carefully debriefed, with especial attention paid to understanding the need for the deception.

Question 7

Results

Answer 7

1. ‘Comparison’ group thought obedience very unlikely (3.6% said they would obey) but thought others would be more likely to obey (18.8% said others would obey).
2. By contrast 76.5% of the ‘real’ Ps obeyed.
3. The ‘comparison’ group thought that they were most likely to blow the whistle (65.5% said they would whistle-blow) whereas 31.9% thought they would just disobey.
4. By contrast the opposite was true for the ‘real’ Ps. 9.4% blew the whistle and 14.1% disobeyed.
5. 14 Ps were whistleblowers (9.4%):
   - 5 open whistle blowers who not only ‘blew the whistle’ but also disobeyed.
   - 9 anonymous whistle-blowers blew the whistle but obeyed
6. When comparing the three groups (obeyed, disobeyed, blew the whistle):
   - There were no significant differences in terms of gender or religious affiliation.
   - Whistle-blowers tended to have more faith than other Ps.
   - There were no significant differences in terms of the 6 personality characteristics.
   - There was no particular pattern of social orientation (only prosocial and individualistic types were considered bc there were only 3 Ps classed as ‘competitive’).

Question 8

Conclusion(s)

Answer 8

1. What people believe they will do is quite different from what they actually do. This belief that they are ‘better than average’ may make them blind to social pressures and thus more vulnerable to them.
2. Situational rather than dispositional factors may offer a better explanation for disobedience.

Question 9

Evaluation

Answer 9

1. Research method and techniques
   This study was conducted in a controlled laboratory environment.

Strengths:
- The researchers could ensure that all Ps experienced standardised conditions.
In a less controlled environment there might have been other people or distractions in the room, which might have made the Ps more willing to disobey.

• It enabled the researchers to test obedience in an ethical manner.
  One alternative to this technique is to use ‘scenario studies’ however this method does not produce results that are valid. When the researchers asked Ps to imagine the scenario, their estimates of their own and others behaviour was considerably different from what was actually discovered.

Weaknessess:
- Ps are alert to the contrived situation and may try to guess the aims of the study which creates demand characteristics.
However the researchers reported that the Ps did appear to believe the cover story. During the debrief Ps reported ’I thought it was altogether real… it was a big surprise that it was not true’. This suggests that the behaviour observed represented something real.

2.Sampling bias
The Ps were all university students.
Weakness of the sample:
There are unique characteristics in such a sample.
They are young adults with fewer responsibilities than older adults. University students are also more proactive than the target population in protesting about unfair practices, Therefore we might expect such Ps to be more likely to be disobedient and blow the whistle than the general population.
This means that the sample is biased.

One strength of the sample:
Included both men and women. This meant that the final analysis could consider whether gender differences might explain the observed behaviour.

3. Ethnocentrism
   The authority figure (the experimenter) was perceived as a member of the same ethnic group as the Ps. This means that the student Ps are more likely to obey the experimenter than if the individual was an ‘outsider’. Therefore obedience would be high in this situation. It might have been lower in some other social situations when Ps identified less with the authority figure.
4. Validity and reliability
   The tests to measure personality characteristics reported good levels of validity and reliability.
   The HEXACO-PI-R test is well established, it has high levels of self observed agreement (validity) and of internal consistency (reliability).
   **Criterion validity*g: Decomposed games measures have criterion validity of behaviour I.social situations and good test retest reliability.
5. Types of data
   Some of the results can be described as quantitative data and other results as qualitative.

Strength of quantitative data
Provides a direct means of assessing levels of obedience and personality traits e.g., knowing each Ps’s score in the personality test.
This enables simple conclusions to be drawn that personality was not a factor.

Weakness of quantitative data
Is an oversimplified explanation of a complex behaviour. E.g., the personality test may not be a very sensitive measure of differences between people and or it was not testing the appropriate characteristics.
It also reduces personality to a number. This means that false conclusions might be drawn.

Qualitative data
In this study the qualitative data were the comments made by Ps during the study and during debriefing. These were very useful in assessing what Ps really felt and permitted Ps to say unexpected things. Ps might have been asked to indicate their thoughts on a questionnaire with closed questions. This would restrict the insights gained.

6. Ethical considerations

Low in ethics:
Deception: The Ps were told the researchers were seeking help recruiting Ps for an unethical study and were also told that they required help getting this unethical study past an ethics committee. This was all untrue.

High in ethics:
The researchers were very careful and sensitive about deception and ensured that many safeguards were in place. E.g.,
- Informed consent: Ps were able to give informed consent as they knew what was involved, though they didn’t know the true aims.
- The right to withdraw: Ps were fully aware of the right to withdraw and were not forced to continue at any point.
- Debrief: Ps were all fully debriefed at the end.