bocchairo Flashcards
results
3.6% indicated they’d obey
76.5% obeyed
14.1% disobeyed
9.4% became whistleblowers
conclusions
people tend to obey authoritative figures if the authority is unjust
individuals behave in a completely different way than expected when they find themselves in certain circumstances that are unfamiliar
sample
149 undergraduate students
96 women
53 men
were paid €7 or given course credit
11 ps were removed from initial 160 ps because they grew suspicious
design
lab experiment
took place in VU university
data gathered by number of ps who obeyed by writing statements to support the sensory deprivation study
strength of research method
*
Weakness of research method
A weakness of using a lab experiment is it could introduce demand characteristics. This is because ps could potentially find out the aim of the study (disobedience and whistleblowing) and begin to act in a way that is most desirable to the experimenter. This will invalidate the findings as there is room to assume that other factors outsides the ones being controlled (like the cover story given about sensory deprivation) have dictated the results of the investigation
Strength of data collected
*
Weakness of data collected
A weakness of collecting quantitative data is the lack of depth and detail. This means that other researchers are less likely to be able to gain more knowledgeable insights on factors such as thoughts and emotions that could’ve contributed to how many people obeyed/disobeyed the experimenter, and who chose to blow the whistle.
Ethics
One way the study was ethical is through the ethical guideline of confidentiality. This is because ps were allowed to mail their statement anonymously if they believed the study into sensory deprivation violated any ethical guidelines
One way the study was unethical is through the ethical guideline of deception. The ps were deceived by being given a fake cover story into sensory deprivation that would convince them to take part in the study into disobedience and whistleblowing.
Validity
High ecological validity. This is because despite the fact it took place in an artificial environment, the tasks of the ps reflecting on action based decisions that were given to them and writing a statement about it is realistic and can happen in the real world by university students.
Lacked internal validity. This is because the investigation took place in a controlled environment and ps had to answer the scenario based research in a hypothetical way - the ps had to imagine what they would do in the situation and they weren’t out in the situation literally.
Reliability
High internal reliability. This is because of the standardisation of the procedure - allowing all ps to have the same experience like receiving the same cover story. This enables an increase in replicability of the study as the procedure can be kept the same for other researchers to use and carry out for their studies.
