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
More ethical if participants volunteered themselves
Weakness of self selected sample
Ps feel more obliged to obey because they volunteered so behaviour not naturalistic
Sample is biases: selected in favour of thrill seeking/ needing money and excluded shy people
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 about sensory deprivation study he wants to complete but ehics committe unsure
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
