Bocchiaro et al

Question 1

What was the background

Answer 1

Bocchiaro looked at Milgram’s study of responses to people in authority and he wanted to see how far people would disobey as well as to see if people would whistle-blow and if they would openly disobey, disobey in secret, obey and whistle-blow or just fully obey

Question 2

Aim

Answer 2

The aim was to investigate the rates of obedience, disobedience and whistle-blowing in a situation where no physical violence was involved but where it was quite clear that the instructions were ethically wrong.

There were two additional aims:

to investigate the accuracy of people’s estimates of obedience, disobedience and whistle-blowing in this situation

to investigate the role of dispositional factors in obedience, disobedience and whistle-blowing.

Question 3

Theories behind the study

Answer 3

• Social power refers to the influence an individual has to change another’s thoughts, feelings or behaviours. Individuals in authority, be it legitimate or illegitimate, have social power to influence those with lower social status with their social hierarchy
• People have strong inclinations to obey legitimate authority, irrespective of their beliefs, feelings or intentions.
• Independent behaviour/defiance involves the rejection of social influence/power to behave in accordance with one’s own intern attitudes, morals and beliefs.

Question 4

What is a whistleblower?

Answer 4

A whistleblower is a person who exposes/informs on a person or organisation regarded as engaging in unlawful or immoral activity

Question 5

What was the experimental deisgn?

Answer 5

Bocchiaro et al consider this study as a laboratory experiment. NO IV though so it can be viewed as a lab study or:

Scenario study

Question 6

What were the two personality inventories?

Answer 6

60 item HEXACO-PI-R

• this measured the 6 major dimensions of personality

SVO

9 item decomposed games measure - measured Social value Orientation

Question 7

How were the conditions controlled in this study?

Answer 7

• The study took place in a laboratory so conditions could be controlled

eg. the procedure was standardised so the experimenter-authority behaviour and cover story were consistent throughout the experimental period

Two specially prepared rooms were used.

Timing for when the experimenter left the room were kept the same for all.

Question 8

Describe the sample

Answer 8

• 149 undergraduate students - main experiment (96 f, 53 m)
• VU University, Amsterdam
• took part in the research in exchange for either 7 euros or course credit
• total of 11 participants were removed because they were suspicious about the nature of the study.

Question 9

Why were pilot studies carried out?

Answer 9

The pilot studies were conducted to ensure the procedure was credible and morally/ethically acceptable.

The tests also served to standardise the experimenter-authority behaviour throughout the experimental period.

Question 10

How many pilot studied were there and how many undergraduates were involved?

Answer 10

• 8 pilot studies involving 92 undergraduates

Question 11

How were participants recruited?

Answer 11

Through flyers posted in the uni cafe

volunteer/self-select

Question 12

What was the comparison group for?

Answer 12

The comparison group, 138 students, was provided with a detailed description of the experimental setting. they were then asked ‘What would you do? and what would they average student at your university do?’

Question 13

Were participants told about the risks and did they have confidentiality?

Answer 13

Participants were informed about what their task was, about the potential benefits/risks of participation, and about their right to withdraw at any time with no penalty. they were assured of the confidentiality of the information collected.

Question 14

How was each participant greeted?

Answer 14

Each participant was greeted in the laboratory by a male, Dutch experimenter who was formally dressed and had a stern demeanour.

Question 15

What did the experimenter request?

Answer 15

He seemingly unjustified, requested for each participant to provide a few names of fellow students and then presented the cover story.

Question 16

What was the cover story?

Answer 16

• the experimenter and an Italian colleague were investigating the effects of sensory deprivation on brain function.
• A recently conducted experiment on 6 participants in Rome who spent some time completely isolated, unable to see or hear anything, all panicked and their cognitive abilities were impaired temporarily. two participants rated to stop because of their strong symptoms but were not allowed to do so because of invalid data may then have been collected. P’s said it was a frightening experience.
• The experimenter wanted to replicate this study at VU university using a sample of college students as there was no current data on young people but some scientists thought that their brains may be more sensitive to negative effects of isolation.

Question 17

What is the purpose of the University Research committee in this study>

Answer 17

• A University Research Committee was evaluating whether to approve of the study and they were collecting feedback from students who knew details about the experiment to help them decide.
• Participants were told that Research Committee forms were in the next room
• Participants were told to write a statement to convince the students they had previously indicated to participate in the experiment and the statements would be sent to the identified students by mail.

Question 18

What happened after the Researcher told the P about the cover story and the University Research Committee?

Answer 18

• the experimenter left the room for 3 minutes to allow participants to think about the action based decisions they were about to make.
• Participants were moved to a second room where there was a computer for them to us to write their statement, a mailbox and the Research Committee forms
• Participants were told to be enthusiastic - had to use two adjectives from the list:
• incredible
• exciting
• great
• superb

Negative effects of sensory deprivation were not to be mentioned

• the experimenter told the P’s to begin and left the room for 7 mins
• If a P believed the proposed research on sensory deprivation violated ethical norms, he/she could anon challenge it by putting a form in the mailbox
• After the 7 min interval the exp returned and invited the P to follow him back to room one where he/she was given two personality tests, probed for suspicion, fully debriefed and asked to sign a second consent form, this time informed.

Question 19

How long did the study last?

Answer 19

Approximately 40 minutes.

Question 20

Key findings from the comparison group

Answer 20

• Only 3.6% indicated they would obey the experimenter.
• Most believed they would be either disobedient (31.9%) or whistleblowers (64.5%)
• When asked to predict the behaviour of other typical students at their uni, only 18.8% thought an average student at VU Uni would obey, while they believed most other students would either disobey (43.9%) or whistleblow (37.3%)

Question 21

Key findings from the experimental situation

Answer 21

76. 5% obeyed = 114
77. 1% disobeyed = 21
78. 4% whistle blew = 14

Whistleblowers:

6% had written a message (anon) and 3.4% had refused to do so (open)

• No significant differences were found in any of the groups in relation to gender, religious affiliation, or religion
• Sig difference was observed with regard to faith (defined as a confident belief in a transcendent reality)
• Results for ID in personality showed no statistically sig differences in any of the 6 personality factors HEXACO-PI-R

Question 22

QUAL data from the study

Answer 22

• participants obeyed because of external forces

‘It was expected of me, that’s why I continued’

‘I cooperated because the experimenter asked me to’

They had entered an agent state and were not responsible for their behaviour.

• Disobedient participants felt responsible for their actions

” I don’t want to do unethical things”
“I would be very disappointed in myself”

Question 23

Possible conclusions

Answer 23

• People tend to obey authority figures, even if the authority is unjust
• How people think/what people say they and others will do in a given situations often differs from what actually happens. The internal cognitive processes of ordinary people wanting to appear ‘good’ often differ from the outward pervasive power of situational forces that bind behaviour to a range of seemingly innocuous features in any given behavioural context.
• Individuals behave in different ways than expected when they find themselves in unexpected situations