Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Social appraoch > bocchiaro - 2012 > Flashcards

bocchiaro - 2012 Flashcards

1
Q

What is whistleblowing?

A

involved reporting an unethical incident to higher authorities - taking on immediate superiors who have authority over you

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What are they key elements of whistleblowing in the real world?

A
  • unethical issues
  • criminal acts (money laundering)
  • safety of the general public
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

How can whistleblowing be described?

A

The challenging moral path

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is the personal characteristic which affects the likelihood of whistleblowing?

A

faith - more faith = more likely to whistle blow

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What was Bocchiaro’s false aim?

A

to investigate the effects of sensory deprivation on brain function

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What is Bocchiaro’s aim?

A

to find out what types of people disobey, or blow the whistle and if there are personal characteristics that differentiate them from those who obey

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What is Bocchiaro’s ethical aim?

A

to have mundane realism and be ethically sound so no psychological harm occurred

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What is the DV?

A

obeying, disobeying, or blowing the whistle

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What are the 4 hypotheses?

A

1- Participants will be more obedient than those
in Milgram’s study
2- Participants will be less likely to whistle-blow than obey because whistleblowing will involve direct contact with an unjust authority figure
3- Participants will overestimate the tendency to disobey or blow the whistle when asked to predict others’ behaviour
4- Personality will not have much effect

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What are the pilot study details?

A
  • 8 total
  • 92 participants
  • checks for credibility and ethically acceptable
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What was the sample?

A
  • 149 undergraduate VU University of Amsterdam students
  • 96 women and 53 men
  • volunteers
  • further 138 surveyed
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What are the strengths of the sample?

A
  • large = representative = generalisable
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What are the weaknesses of the sample?

A
  • lacks population validity
  • culture bias (Amsterdam)
  • age bias (all uni students)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What was the sampling technique?

A

Self-selected (volunteer)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

How was the sample recruited?

A

flyers in the university cafeteria

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What are strengths of this sampling technique?

A
  • less chance of attrition
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What are the weaknesses of this sampling technique?

A
  • only a certain type of person volunteers - not representative of everyone therefore not generalisable
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What was the method?

A

laboratory study

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What are the weaknesses of this method?

A
  • lacks mundane realism
  • not ecologically valid
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What are the strengths of this method?

A
  • high control over EVs
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

What was the setting for this study?

A

two rooms specifically prepared in a VU uni lab

22
Q

What was the role of the 138 undergraduates?

A
  • given a detailed description of the study
  • asked two questions:
    1- What would you do?
    2- What would an average student at your university do?
23
Q

How long does the main experiment last?

A

40 minutes

24
Q

What did the participants get told at the start of the study?

A
  • given the right to withdraw
  • signed consent forms which guaranteed confidentiality in results
25
Q

Who was the experimenter?

A
  • Dutch male
  • formally dressed
  • possessed a stern demeanour
26
Q

What was the first thing the experimenter asked the participants do?

A

provide a few names of fellow students and then presented the cover story

27
Q

What is the gist of the cover study?

A
  • investigating the effects of sensory deprivation
  • previous research in Rome had disastrous effects
  • majority said it was a frightening experience
28
Q

What did the cover story require the participants to do?

A
  • write a statement to convince students to participate in the experiment
  • using words like ‘superb’ and ‘exciting’
29
Q

What happened after the experimenter told the participant about what they want them to do?

A

He left the room for 3 minutes in order to let them to reflect on whatever decision they want to make

30
Q

What were participants instructed not to do in these statements?

A

not to mention the negative effects of the sensory deprivation

31
Q

What conditions did participants write their statement in?

A
  • 7 minutes
  • no experimenter in the room
32
Q

What could participants do if they did not want to write the statement?

A

anonymously challenge it by putting a form in the mailbox

33
Q

What happened after the statement?

A
  • experimenter comes back and invites the participant into the first room where they take 2 personality inventories
  • they are fully debriefed and asked to sign a second consent form
34
Q

What are the two personality inventories?

A

1- HEXACO-PI-R
2) Decomposed Games Measure

35
Q

What does the HEXACO-PI-R measure?

A

6 basic personality traits by rating agreement on 60 statements using a Likert Scale
1= strongly disagree
5 = strongly agree

36
Q

What are the 6 traits measured?

A
  • humility/honesty
  • openness to experiences
  • emotionality
  • extraversion
  • agreeableness
  • conscientiousness
37
Q

What does the Decomposed Games Measure assess?

A

how much importance a person places on the welfare of another person in relation to their own welfare

38
Q

How many items is the DGM?

A

9

39
Q

What is the DGM?

A
  • point system
  • asked to imagine that they had been randomly paired with another person who is not someone they will ever know or meet
40
Q

What are the 3 options of the DGM?

A

A= ‘you’ - 500 ‘other’ - 100
B= ‘you’ - 500 ‘other’ - 500
C = ‘you’ - 550 ‘other’ - 300

41
Q

What are the different classifications of the DGM?

A

prosocial, individualistic, competitive - if score 6/9 in any of the categories

42
Q

How was religiosity measured?

A

asking participants about their religious affiliation (what their religion was) - frequency of worship and extent of faith

43
Q

What are key results of the comparison students?

A

‘What would you do?’
- 3.6% = obey
- 64.5% = whistle-blow
- 31.9% = disobey
‘Average student’
- 18.8% = obey
- 43.9% = disobey
- 37.3% = whistle-blow

44
Q

What were the results of the study?

A
  • 76.5% obeyed
  • 14.1% disobeyed
  • 9.4% whistle-blew
45
Q

What are the factors which did not affect whether participants obeyed, disobeyed, or whistle-blew?

A
  • personality does not explain obedience (HEXACO-PI-R)
  • no sig. gender or religious differences
46
Q

What are the conclusions of the study?

A
  • estimates of ones own behaviours and the behaviours of others are wildly inaccurate
  • no personality differences distinguished between those who obey, disobey, or whistle-blow
  • the belief that people think they are better than others makes them blind to social pressures
47
Q

Is this study reductionism or holism?

A

reductionism

48
Q

What is a strength of reductionism?

A

scientific - contributes to the understanding of behaviour as key variables are studied in a controlled way - more valid

49
Q

What is a weakness of reductionism?

A

reductionist - only suggests a situational explanation - oversimplifies why people obey, disobey, or whistle-blow - decreases validity

50
Q

What are the ethical issues in the study?

A
  • deception

Social appraoch (5 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions