Bocchiaro (contemporary study) Flashcards
What is whistleblowing?
The act of reporting wrong doing to higher authority such as the general public
Possible Responses to unjust authority figures
Obey
Disobey
Whistleblow
Main Aim
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
Aim in regards to prediction
See if there is a difference in how people predict others to obey/disobey/whistleblow and how they act themselves
Sample
149 undergrad students from VU University in Amsterdam
Gender split in sample
96 female
53 male
Participants discounted from original sample of 160
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
Sample method
Self selected sample in cafeteria of university offering 7 euros/course credit to take part in study
Strength of self selected sample method
Obtained a large range of students from different courses
Weakness of self selected sample
Ps feel more obliged to obey because they volunteered so behaviour not naturalistic
Was the sample reliable?
Yes, 149 is enough to measure consistent effect as well as having large number of men/women to measure consistent effect within genders
Problem with using student samples
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
Pilot study
Small study beforehand to ensure the paradigm (fake story) designed would work before completing the main study
What did the designed paradigm have to be? (When testing it for the pilot study)
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
How did we know the paradigm was affective based on pilot study responses?
‘Cool and interesting research’
‘I thought it was altogether real’
What was good about completing a pilot study?
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
All 4 stages of the procedure
Preliminary stage
The task
Personality test
Debrief
Preliminary stage
Individually testing Ps by meeting a male experimenter who asks them to write names of 5 students and tells cover story
What was the BACKSTORY to the paradigm given to participants by the experimenter?
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
Options for students presented by the experimenter after telling them the backstory
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
What did the experimenter do after telling the participants the cover story and instructions?
Left the room for 3 mins so they could decide what to do
Why did the experimenter leave the room for 3 mins?
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
The main task room after backstory was told
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
How is whistleblowing measured in this study?
If participant checks a box on the ethics committee form and posts it
How does this study measure obedience
Participant wrote the letter to the 5 named students to take part in traumatic sensory deprivation study
How does this study measure complete disobedience?
Participant did not write the letter to 5 students to take part in the sensory deprivation study
Types of whistleblowing
If someone obeyed but whistleblew
Or disobeyed but whistleblew
Personality tests completed by participants after
HEXACO = characteristics
Social value orientation = individualist, pro social, competitive?
Debrief
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?
Strengths of debrief
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
How many participants wrote the statement(obedient)?
76.5%
How many oarticipants whistle blew (signed the box to the ethics committee)
9.4%
Comparison group
Asking participants what they would do in the situation
What they think others would do
Results of the comparison group
A very low number of participants predicted they themselves would obey, more assumed would do the more moral thing
And assumed others would be more likely to obey
Results of personality testing
No significant difference in personality traits in those who obeyed vs whistleblowed
But slight tendency for whistleblowers to have more faith
