Bocchiaro et al

Question 1

Whistleblower

Answer 1

Repeating a concern to someone of a higher authority than you

Question 2

Context

Answer 2

. Inspired by Milgram but also wanted to understand nature of disobedience and whistleblowing

Question 3

Aim

Answer 3

. Investigate obedience, disobedience & whistleblowing in a more ethical way
. Investigate accuracy between people’s beliefs and actions
. Investgate role of dispositional factors

Question 4

Method used

Answer 4

Lab experiment with no IVs- called it ‘scenario study’

Question 5

Describe the procedure

Answer 5

. P’s arrived alone and met a formally dressed male experimenter
. Deceived about aim as they were told research is on sensory deprivation. Cover story: In their last experiment, some P’s panicked & had an effect on cognitive ability. 2/6 P’s asked to stop, but due to effect on data validity weren’t allowed to withdraw. Researchers want to replicate the study at VU uni but has to be approved by research committe through student feedback

Question 6

Procedure (continued)

Answer 6

P’s asked to write a statement persuading students to take part in study by using words like ‘exciting’, ‘superb’. Without mentioning negative effects. If P’s believed it was unethical they could submit a whistleblowing form in a mailbox
. Experimenter left and P’s left alone for 7mins in a diff. room with computer for statement, mailbox and feedback forms
. Once done, P’s completed 2 personality tests: HEXACO-PI-R test, decomposed games for social values and tested on religiosity
. Fully debriefed and signed 2nd consent form- lasted 40mins

Question 7

Sample

Answer 7

. 8 pilot studies with 92 participants
. 149 undergraduates self selected by flyers in cafeteria at VU uni- Amsterdam each were given €7 or course credit
. 11 P’s removed due to ‘suspicion’
. Comparison group of 138 students to test what they believe would do and what their peers might do

Question 8

Results

Answer 8

Comparison group’s own behaviour: 3.6% obey, 31.9% disobey, 64.5% whistleblow
Comparison group-others: 18.8% obey, 43.9% disobey, 7.3% wb.
Experiment: 76.5% obey, 14.1% disobey, 9.4% wb.

Question 9

Conclusions

Answer 9

. No difference in terms of gender, religion or personality traits
. People obey authorities & less wb.
. Behaving in a moral way is challenging
. People aren’t good at predicting actions + believe that they are morally better
. Religiosity- those with strong beliefs more likely to wb.

Question 10

Evaluation- Method

Answer 10

+ve: lab setting- standardised
-ve: . controlled environment so harder to replicate

Question 11

Sample- evaluation

Answer 11

+ve: .Large sample
. Included all backgrounds- representative
. Comparison groups- more data gathered
-ve: . not all age groups- unrepresentative
. Only used students = ethnocentric so lacks population validity

Question 12

Ethics

Answer 12

+ve: . Asked for 2 consent forms
. P’s debriefed + could withdraw at any time
-ve: . Use of deception for actual aim of study

Question 13

Validity

Answer 13

+ve: . High ecological validity
. Suspicious P’s removed- eliminates demand characteristics
-ve: . Self-selected sample, can’t generalise beyond sample
. Lacks predictive validity for other settings

Question 14

Reliability

Answer 14

+ve: . Standardised procedure- easily replicable with same cover study
. 8 pilot studies- actual study had no issues
-ve: . All students from same uni, in a diff. uni there may be diff. results