Bocchiaro et al. (2012) Flashcards
What was the aim of Bocchiaro’s study?
To investigate disobedience and whistle blowing an unethical study.
How were the participants recruited and what did they receive for taking part?
The participants were recruited by flyers in the campus cafeteria of VU University in Amsterdam. They received either 7 euros or course credit for taking part.
What happened in the first room of the experiment?
- Participants were greeted by a male Dutch experimenter, formally dressed with a stern demeanour.
- Experimenter then gave cover story about an unethical study and asked participants to write a statement to convince fellow students to take part in unethical study
- Experimenter then left the room for 3 minutes
What happened in the second room of the experiment?
- Participants assigned to computers to write the statement - told to be enthusiastic and to not mention sensory deprivation
- Experimenter left room for 7 minutes
What could be found in the second room of the experiment?
A mailbox and a Research Committee form which participants could use to ‘whistle-blow’ the study. Told to report to Human Ethics Committee.
What happened when the participants returned to the first room?
Two personality inventories (the HEXACO-PI-R test, and a measure of Social Value Orientation (SVO)) were administered. After this, participants then debriefed.
Outline the participants of Bocchiaro’s study.
- 149 undergraduate student
- From VU University in Amsterdam
- 96 women and 53 men
- Originally 160 participants but 11 removed because of suspiciousness about nature of study
What were the two types of whistle-blowers?
Open whistle blowers - reported the study and left their name.
Anonymous whistle blowers - reported the study anonymously.
How many participants were asked to predict the results?
A separate 138 students from VU University in Amsterdam.
What did the participants predict they would do in the situation of the study?
3.6% predicted they would obey ,31.9% predicted they would disobey and 64.5% predicted they would whistle-blow.
What did the participants predict the average student at their university would do?
They predicted that 18.8% would obey, 43.9% would disobey and 37.3% would whistle-blow.
What were the actual results of the study?
76.5% obeyed, 14.1% disobeyed and 9.4% whistle-blew (6% were anonymous whistle-blowers and 3.4% were open whistle-blowers).
What did Bocchiaro find about the personality tests?
No statistically significant differences were found in any of the six personality factors.
What are the main conclusions of the results?
The main conclusion is that behaving in a moral manner is challenging for people, even when this reaction appears to the observers as the simplest path to follow - it is hard to whistle-blow.
