Bocchiaro (contemporary study)

Question 1

What is whistleblowing?

Answer 1

The act of reporting wrong doing to higher authority such as the general public

Question 2

Possible Responses to unjust authority figures

Answer 2

Obey
Disobey
Whistleblow

Question 3

Main Aim

Answer 3

Create a paradigm where Ps can choose to obey, disobey or whistleblow or do both in a controlled setting where self interest (money) clashes with collective interest (harm to others) that is ecologically valid and less psychologically harmful

Question 4

Aim in regards to prediction

Answer 4

See if there is a difference in how people predict others to obey/disobey/whistleblow and how they act themselves

Question 5

Sample

Answer 5

149 undergrad students from VU University in Amsterdam

Question 6

Gender split in sample

Answer 6

96 female
53 male

Question 7

Participants discounted from original sample of 160

Answer 7

Because they were suspicious of the study so removed demand characteristics
Those who guessed aim/story was fake were removed so the results affected by demand characteristics weren’t analysed
Increases validity: only naturalistic behaviour measured

Question 8

Sample method

Answer 8

Self selected sample in cafeteria of university offering 7 euros/course credit to take part in study

Question 9

Strength of self selected sample method

Answer 9

Obtained a large range of students from different courses

Question 10

Weakness of self selected sample

Answer 10

Ps feel more obliged to obey because they volunteered so behaviour not naturalistic

Question 11

Was the sample reliable?

Answer 11

Yes, 149 is enough to measure consistent effect as well as having large number of men/women to measure consistent effect within genders

Question 12

Problem with using student samples

Answer 12

Does not represent children, older people or those of different socioeconomic status (low population validity)
Students may have qualities eg higher cognitive skills or higher obedience
So not generalisable to what everyone in the target population’s response to unjust authority may be

Question 13

Pilot study

Answer 13

Small study beforehand to ensure the paradigm (fake story) designed would work before completing the main study

Question 14

What did the designed paradigm have to be? (When testing it for the pilot study)

Answer 14

Standardised so presented the same to all participants
Ethical so study won’t be distressing for participants (protection from harm)
Credible so study has high eco validity: accurate measure of participants response as they believe it’s real

Question 15

How did we know the paradigm was affective based on pilot study responses?

Answer 15

‘Cool and interesting research’
‘I thought it was altogether real’

Question 16

What was good about completing a pilot study?

Answer 16

Ensure paradigm is standardised (reliable) + ethical
Story is believed to be real so ensures ecological validity because it measures real behaviour (whistleblow or not) of Ps and removes demand characteristics, as Ps will not guess aim

Question 17

All 4 stages of the procedure

Answer 17

Preliminary stage
The task
Personality test
Debrief

Question 18

Preliminary stage

Answer 18

Individually testing Ps by meeting a male experimenter who asks them to write names of 5 students and tells cover story

Question 19

What was the BACKSTORY to the paradigm given to participants by the experimenter?

Answer 19

He had conducted study on sensory deprivation but it was distressing to Participant
Want to conduct at their Uni, but ethics committee haven’t approved it yet

Question 20

Options for students presented by the experimenter after telling them the backstory

Answer 20

Write a letter to 5 students encouraging them to take part in the study (destructive behaviour)
And potentially receive future promotions for money (self interest)
Or write letter to research committee that the study is unethical

Question 21

What did the experimenter do after telling the participants the cover story and instructions?

Answer 21

Left the room for 3 mins so they could decide what to do

Question 22

Why did the experimenter leave the room for 3 mins?

Answer 22

So the participant isn’t influenced by impulsive behaviour or the thought that the experimenter was watching them
So the behaviour displayed (whistleblow, obey etc) is thought out

Question 23

The main task room after backstory was told

Answer 23

Participants taken into room with computer to either write the letter or post a letter to ethics committee by ticking a box on a form that they thought it was unethical

Question 24

How is whistleblowing measured in this study?

Answer 24

If participant checks a box on the ethics committee form and posts it

Question 25

How does this study measure obedience

Answer 25

Participant wrote the letter to the 5 named students to take part in traumatic sensory deprivation study

Question 26

How does this study measure complete disobedience?

Answer 26

Participant did not write the letter to 5 students to take part in the sensory deprivation study

Question 27

Types of whistleblowing

Answer 27

If someone obeyed but whistleblew
Or disobeyed but whistleblew

Question 28

Personality tests completed by participants after

Answer 28

HEXACO = characteristics
Social value orientation = individualist, pro social, competitive?

Question 29

Debrief

Answer 29

Explained true nature and aim of the study: revealed deception that the whole cover story is fake and no one would actually be in sensory deprivation study
And their response was normal
Asked if anyone was suspicious it was fake?

Question 30

Strengths of debrief

Answer 30

More ethical
Discounts results affected by demand characteristics (participants who were suspicious the backstory was fake) so only behaviour of Ps who believed it to be real measured