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
