Bocchario et al (disobedience and whistleblowing) Flashcards
What year did Bocchario happen?
2012
Background?,, Bocchario
People find it easy to obey legitimate authority without thinking.
Independent behaviour/ deviance involves the rejection of social influence and to behave in accordance with one’s own internal “loci of control”
However, disobedience to unjust authority is necessary for positive social progress (revolution/rebellion is not always bad)
A whistleblower is a person who exposes/ informs on as person or organisation for moral or legal reason etc (often a pro-social behaviour)
Milgram found that people have a natural drive to obey legitimate authority. However there is little understanding about the nature of disobedience.
Aim?,, Bocchario
An investigation into the dynamics of disobeying and whistleblowing. (not an experiment)
sampling technique ?,, Bocchario
Self- selected/ volunteer.
Sample used?,, Bocchario
149 undergraduate students. (from VU uni)
96 women and 53 men, They were given £7 or course credits to attend,
mean age= 20.8.
A total of 11 participants were removed from the sample because of their suspiciousness about the nature of the study.
Procedures for the experiment group (actually did it by believing they were addressing the ethics committee) ?,, Bocchario
Participants were met by a formally dressed man (the experimenter) who had a very strict teacher type manner. The participants were presented with an unjust (mean) task to perform.
The participants were then forcefully ordered to provide a few names who could take part in further trails and were given information. (Saying something like An italian colleague was investigating the effects of sensory depreciation on brain function, so far the experiment was having a devastating impact but they still wanted more people to complete the study. The experimenter wanted to complete this study but didn’t have enough student data so participants were told there were “ethic committee” forms in the next room and students wrote a statement )
The students then wrote up a statement in private, in a separate room, Once completed, they were debriefed and asked to sign a 2nd consent from. It lasted around 40 minutes.
Please note: In the experimental group they did a simple but boring/ mean task first. They thought that’s all they volunteered for.
The prod: You are getting paid, you must do it!
Procedures for Comparison group (were just asked for an opinion/ attitude without actually doing it) ?,, Bocchario
These participants were also met by a formally dressed man.
The comparison group was also provided with the same detailed description of the experimental procedure.
They were asked “what would you do?” and “what do you think average students at your uni would do?”
Conclusions?,, Bocchario
People tend to obey authority figures, even if the authority appears to be unjust.
What people think they would do, in certain situations often differs from what they would actually do, in a real situation (what you think you do vs what you actually do)
Individuals in unfamiliar and extreme circumstances, behave in completely different ways than expected (situational influence, rather than dispositional influence; hence individual differences appear not to be an important factor.
Behavioral acts of both disobedience and whistleblowing are psychologically demanding for people, notably whistle-blowers.
Behaving in a a moral manner is challenging for people, even when the reaction appears to observers as the simplest path to follow
With regard to faith, there appears to be a trend suggesting that whistle-blowers have more faith in someone to answer to be in the ‘after-life’ than disobedient individuals.
Findings in comparison group?,, Bocchario
Only 3.6% indicated they would obey the experimenter. Most believe they would be either disobedient (31.9%) or whistle-blowers (64.5%)
When asked to predict the behavior of other students at their uni, only 18.8% thought the average student would obey, while believed most other students would either disobey (43.9%) or whistle blow (37.3%)
Findings in Experimental group?,, Bocchario
76.5% obeyed and presented the experiment in a positive way. 14.1% disobeyed.
No significant differences were found in any of these groups in relation to gender, religious or religious involvement.
However a significant difference was observed with regard to strength of faith (confidence in belief in god or similar deity actually existing, equating with honesty)
Strengths,, Bocchario
The producers take in a highly controlled environment with a large sample group and would be easy to replicate.
High ecological validity, as this is exactly what happened in a real life setting (clever deception)
Religion etc was manipulated, making the study less ethnocentric.
Practical applications are important because of the publicity of whistle bowling, more and more people are coming forward and standing up to unethical treatments and procedures eg. health care, jimmy savile case.
Collected quantitative data so meaningful statistical analysis was performed.
Weaknesses?,, Bocchario
Ethical issues can be raised, people are deceived and put into a situation facing a normal dilemma and this can cause potential stress.
Using students from Dutch university meant that the sample was representative of a wider general population, other age groups and diverse cultural groups.
Also, more importantly did it like Milgram, just support obedience to authority rather than reveal any clues as to why people disobey; other than self-report over the perceived possibility of having answer to greater power in after life.
