Bocchiaro

Question 1

Aim

Answer 1

investigate:
- rates of obedience/disobedience/whistle-blowing in situation where ppt should carry out unethical request
- accuracy of ppls’ estimate o/d/wb
- role of dispositional factors in o/d/wb

Question 2

Research method/Design

Answer 2

• lab experiment: can control all variables BUT could lead to demand characteristics
• independent design: 2 diff groups + 2 diff situations

Question 3

Sample

Answer 3

• approx 150 undergraduate (20y) students in both experimental + comparison groups
• 2/3 women, 1/3 men
• self-selected sample: recruited by flyers, exp group paid €7 or course credit

Question 4

Procedure 1

Answer 4

• pilot study to ensure believable/ethical
• given previous info ab investigating (drastic) impacts of sensory deprivation on brain function
• asked to write others convincing to do exp by not mentioning - effects + saying its ‘great’/’superb’, also offered paid work
• exp left 3 mins to allow ppts to reflect

Question 5

Procedure 2

Answer 5

• 7 mins later personality tests: HEXACO-PI-R, decomposed games, measured religious beliefs
• ppts fully debriefed + informed + filled consent form
• O: statement
• D ✕statement
• WB: ethics form

Question 6

RESULTS:
comparison (own behaviour) group VS experimental (actual behaviour) group

Answer 6

approx believed vs actual:
- 4% o vs 77% o
- 32% d vs 14% d
- 64% wb vs 9% wb (14)
> 9 ethics form + statement
> 5 ethics form + refused statement

• quantitative:
  > objective/easy to analyse
  > missing insight as to why they did certain things/human experience

Question 7

RESULTS:
personality test

Answer 7

• PT: no statistical differences
• social values orientation: ✕ sig diff ; o/d/wb equally distributed between proself + prosocial
• religiosity: ✕ sig diff in gender/religion/worship frequency
  > BUT sig diff w faith’s strength
  > strong religious belief = slightly more likely to wb

Question 8

Conclusions

Answer 8

• wb + v o ppl = uncommon
• ppl overestimate wb tendency + underestimate o likelihood
• what ppl say they and others will do in given situation often differs from what acc happens
• individuals behave in completely diff ways than expected in unfamiliar/extreme circumstances
• tend to see ourselves as ‘special’ + self–biased + rate ourselves as less likely to follow destructive orders
• d/wb = psychologically, socially + economically demanding

Question 9

Sampling bias

Answer 9

• ✓ 140 ppl = large sample + each session 40mins
• ✓ males + females (BUT slight fm bias)
• ✕ just undergraduate students
• ✕ volunteered, paid or course credit
  > could be diff from ppl who wouldn’t volunteer

Question 10

Ethnocentrism

Answer 10

• ✓ looked at diff religions
• ✕ based on only Amsterdam students

Question 11

Reliability

Answer 11

• research = replicable
• standardized procedure
  > all ppts had same experience ; all extraneous v controlled, eg. 7mins to complete form ~ same results when repeated

Question 12

Validity

Answer 12

• high internal validity: successfully tested whether ppl o/d/wb
• low ecological validity: all same age
• BUT realistic so EV higher than in Milgram

Question 13

Practical applications

Answer 13

• gives insight on wb/ how uncommon it is
• useful for organisations to have wb procedures incase of malpractice (improper, illegal, negligence professional behaviour)

Question 14

Ethics

Answer 14

• some deception ; false form
• ✓ protection from harm
• fully informed consent after debrief
• pilot study to check ethical/believable