Bocchiaro Flashcards
Area
Social area
Background
To achieve a greater understanding about the nature of disobedience to unjust authority.
To investigate this experimentally by giving participants a paradigm that gives the participants the chance to obey, disobey or whistle-blow against authorities encouraging immoral behaviours.
The personality characteristics of whistleblowers.
Open whistle blower
Disobedient and reports
Anonymous whistleblower
Is obedient and reports after.
Hypothesis
- They thought more people would obey than in Milgrams study because they are using a form of softer, psychological aggression rather than Milgrams physical violence paradigm.
- They predicted a lower level of whistleblowing than disobedience because it involves a potential direct confrontation of the defiant person and the authority.
- They expected a substantial overestimation of the tendency to disobey and blow the whistle because of people’s inclination to see themselves as better than others their difficulty to take into account the subtle situational force that can shape human behaviour.
- The ‘unusual and somewhat extreme’ situation that participants would be placed in, it can be expected that this will reduce the power of individual factors in predicting behaviour.
Research method
Lab experiment
Standardised procedure
DV (how they behave)
But NO IV.
Sample
149 participants, undergraduate students. VU university in Amsterdam. 53 men, 96.
Mean age 20.8 years
How did he obtain his sample?
Flyers posted in the campus of cafeteria at the VU university in Amsterdam.
Received 7 dollars or course credit for taking part.
Sampling method
Self-selecting
Procedure
What happened in room 1?
A male Dutch experimenter met them: formally dressed and stern demeanour.
They were asked to provide a few names of fellow students.
They were then given the cover story.
They were asked to write a statement to convince the students to participate in the sensory deprivation study.
The experimenter left the room for 3 minutes to provide time for reflection on the action-based decision.
What was the cover story?
Investigating the effects of sensory deprivation on brain function.
Procedure
What happened in room 2?
Room 2 had a computer.
In the statement they were encouraged to write at least 2 of these adjectives: exciting, incredible, great, superb.
They weren’t supposed to mention the negative effects of sensory deprivation.
There was also a mailbox that encourages studies to be reported to the ‘human ethics committee’ if it violates ethical norms to protect participants from psychological harm.
Experimenter left for 7 minutes so they could write the statement.
Procedure.
The follow up.
Participants were taken back to the first room and filled in two personality inventories:
- HEXACO-PI-R
- A measure of social value orientation.
After this, participants were probed for suspiciousness about the nature of the study; given a full debrief by the experimenter; asked not to discuss the study with colleagues and friends.
They were given a form consenting for their data to be used and given an email address to complain or ask further questions.
Results from main study
- 5% were obedient
- 1% disobedient
- 4% open whistle blower 6% anonymous whistle blower.
Results from comparison group.
What would you do?
What would the average student at uni do?
- 6% said they’d be obedient
- 7% said disobedient
- 5% said whistle blow.
- 8% obedient
- 9% disobedient
- 3% whistle blower
Results from personality inventories.
Who’s most likely to whistleblow?
A trend suggesting toward whistleblowers having more faith than obedient or disobedient participants.
Qualitative findings
‘It was expected from me, that’s why I continued’
‘I would be very mad and disappointed in myself if I would cooperate because it is unethical and goes against my principles’
Ethics
Broken and upheld
Upheld:
Consent: self- selecting sample
Withdrawal: they were allowed to be disobedient (were given 3 mins to consider).
Confidentiality: given consent form for their data to be used.
Debrief: were fully debriefed and given an email to complain to or ask questions.
Broken:
PFH: emotional harm and regret caused by potentially causing harm to others.
Deception: participants didn’t know the study was on obedience and whistleblowing.
Internal and external reliability
Internal:
Controlled and standardised: same cover story, formal, stern demeanour of experimenter, 3 mins and 7 mins when experimenter left the room, same cover story.
Replicable.
External:
149 participants- large enough to suggest a consistent effect.
Internal, external (population) and external (ecological) validity.
Internal:
No demand characteristics as aim wasn’t known and they thought it was on sensory deprivation.
They were by themselves so there’s no influence from others.
Population:
Not representative sample: only students from VU university in Amsterdam, similar age (20.8 mean) so the results about obedience/ disobedience/ whistleblowing can’t be generalised to other cultures or ages.
Ecological:
A normal situation in a university campus office, needing participants for research reflects real life.
Whistleblowing when not working for the company is unusual.
Ethnocentrism
Only in Holland, not representative of other countries.
However obedience was strong in Milgram (in USA) as well.
How does this study relate to psychology as a science?
Quantitative data, reliable and replicable (same cover story so standardised).
Individual/situational
Situational
Most people thought most would whistleblow but due to the authority figure (formal, stern demeanour) most were obedient.
Freewill/ determinism
Determinism+ freewill
It’s a situation where we feel we have no choice but to be obedient.
However some chose to be disobedient and whistleblow.
