bocchiaro Flashcards
1
Q
aim
A
to find out whether people who disobey or ‘blow the whistle’ have different personal characteristics from those who obey.
2
Q
background
A
- devised a new research diagram based around a form of softer psychological aggression than the physical violence paradigm in milgrams research
3
Q
new paradigm
A
the new paradigm involved participants facing a dilemma in which self interest clashes with collective interest and it gave them a chance to obey, disobey or blow the whistle against authorities who were encouraging immoral behaviours
4
Q
procedure
A
- participants for the study were recruited by flyers posted in the campus cafeteria at the VU university at Amsterdam
- volunteer sampling
- received either 7euros or course credit for taking part
informed before the procedure that they had the right to withdraw and were assured confidentiality of the information collected and were given a consent form to sign - the main part of the study would then begin with a male dutch experimenter greeting each participant as they arrived at the laboratory formally dressed and with a stern demeanour, he then proceeded with a request for each participant to provide a few names of fellow students and then presented a cover story.
- in the second room, participants would find a mailbox and a research committee form saying that “
if you think that the research on sensory deprivation violates basic ethical norms please report this to the human ethical committee by checking the box below…” - after 7 minutes, the experimenter returned and invited the participants to follow him back into the first room
- 2 personality inventories (the HEXACO-PI-R test and SVO (social value orientation)) were then administered and the participant was probed for suspiciousness about the nature of the study
- After this, participants were given a full debrief by the experimenter who had been trained for to use simple language and to proceed slowly as he disclosed the true nature of the study
- care was taken to ensure that participants did not feel less uncomfortable about their performance.
- they were also told not to discuss the study with colleagues and friends
5
Q
participants
A
- 149 students
- 93 were women and 53 were men
- mean age of 20.8 years
6
Q
measures
A
- the researchers were interested in how participants would respond to the experimenters request to write the statement in support of the sensory deprivation study:
- those who complied with the request were considered ‘obedient’
- those who refused were considered ‘disobedient’
- those who reported the experimenters questionable conduct by ticking the box and putting it in the mailbox were considered ‘whistleblowers’
- whistleblowers were divided into 2 kinds:
- open whistleblowers: those who had refused to comply with the previous request to write the statement.
- anonymous whistle-blowers: those who had originally complied to it.
7
Q
how did researchers measure the characteristics of those who disobey or blow the whistle
A
- HEXACO-PI-R
- SVO
8
Q
HEXACO-PI-R
A
- an instrument that measures the 6 major dimensions of personality (honesty, emotionality)
- for each personality trait, there are 10 items and in the self report form used in this study, respondents were asked to indicate how much they agreed with each statement 1 (strongly disagree) 5 (strongly agree)
9
Q
SVO
A
- social value orientation
- participants competed a nine-item decomposed games measure
- based on the choices of the participants made for each item, they could be classified as having either: 1- pro-social orientation, 2- individualistic orientation or 3- a competitive orientation in terms of the patterns of outcomes they generally prefer for themselves and others.
10
Q
predicted results
A
- a separate sample of 138 students from VU university in Amsterdam were asked to imagine being in this research
- they were provided with a detailed description of the experiment and asked “what would you do?”
- 3.6% obedient “what would you do?”
11
Q
actual results
A
- obedient: 76.5%
- disobedient: 14.1%
- Whistleblower: 9.4%
12
Q
conclusions
A
behaving in a moral manner is challenging for people even when this reaction appears to observers as the simplest path to follow
- revealed how obedient participants justified their immoral behaviour by allocating personal responsibility to external forced (“it was expected of me thats why I continued).
- whereas defiant participants did not experience an ‘agentic shift’ remaining fully responsible for their actions inside the laboratory (“ I don’t want to do unethical things’
- suggested that participants who were disobedient might have stayed at this level because they lacked the concept or had a too vague one that in certain circumstances, such as the one that the were in, something more could be done.
13
Q
research method
A
- many features of an experiment but it lacked an independent variable
- highly standardised procedure made it replicable across its 149 participants aiding its reliability
14
Q
quantitate data
A
- compromised the numbers and percentages of participants who were obedient, disobedient or a whistle-blower
- the data that the researchers obtained on each participant from the 2 psychometric tests they completed would also have been quantitate
- quantitative data may prove particularly helpful if the study is replicated in other countries or with different groups of participants (non-students)
15
Q
qualitative data
A
- consisted of the comments made by participants during the debrief about why the shaved the way that they did
- these comments were helpful in making sense of why the participants had behaved in the ways that they did
