Bocchiaro Et Al

Question 1

Theory of study:

Answer 1

Social power.
People have strong inclinations to obey legitimate authority, irrespective of their beliefs and feelings.
Independent behaviour/defiance.
Disobedience/defiance to unjust authority is a precondition of social power.
Whistleblower.
Expect obedient individuals to be different from defiants.
Expect personality variables to influence an individuals decision to obey, disobey and whistleblow.

Question 2

What is social power ??

Answer 2

Refers to the influence an individual has to change another’s thoughts, feelings or behaviours. Individuals in authority have social power to influence those with lower social status within their social hierarchy.

Question 3

What are whistleblowers??

Answer 3

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

Question 4

Background to study??

Answer 4

Milgrams findings.
Still little understanding of who are the people that disobey or whistleblow and why do they choose the challenging moral path. Do they have personal characteristics that differentiate from those who obey?
Understand individual and situational variations.

Question 5

How did the background of study differ from milgrams??

Answer 5

Aimed to go beyond milgram in providing Ps chance to obey, disobey or whistleblow against unjust authority.
Evaluate people’s predictions of how others would behave.

Question 6

Research method ??

Answer 6

Considered a ‘lab experiment’ but there is no IV, so best viewed as a laboratory study or ‘scenario study’.

Question 7

Where did the study take place ??

Answer 7

VU university in Amsterdam, controlled conditions e.g procedure was standardised so ‘experimenter’ and cover story were consistent throughout study.

Question 8

How was data gathered:

Ps who obeyed?

Answer 8

Writing a statement in support of the sensory deprivation study.

Question 9

How was data gathered:

Ps who disobeyed?

Answer 9

By refusing to write the requested statement.

Question 10

How was data gathered:

Whistleblowers?

Answer 10

By reporting the experimenters questionable conduct to the Research Committee.

Question 11

How was data gathered:

Personality?

Answer 11

Scores on the two personality inventories (measured six dimensions of personality and Social Value Orientation).

Question 12

How was data gathered:

Comparison group predictions?

Answer 12

138 comparison students from VU were provided a description of the experimental setting. Then asked “what would you do?” And “What would the average student at your university do?”

Question 13

Sample:

Answer 13

149 undergraduate students (96 women, 53 men, mean age =20.8) participated for €7 or course credit.
11 Ps were removed from initial sample of 160 because of their suspiciousness about the nature of study.

Question 14

Procedure (part 1):

Before cover Story

Answer 14

Eight pilot tests to ensure study was credible and morally acceptable.
Comparison group questions.
Ps were informed about the task, and about the potential benefits and risks, and confirming they had the right to withdraw and they had confidentiality.
Each P was greeted in the laboratory by the experimenter, formally dressed, stern expression.
Experimenter requested that participants provided a few names of fellow students then the cover story was told.

Question 15

Cover study:

Answer 15

Testing the effects of sensory Deprivation on brain function.
Recent experiment on six participants in Rome were isolated, unable to see or hear anything, had disastrous effects - cognitive abilities were temporarily impaired, some experienced visual and auditory hallucinations.
To participants asked to stop because of their strong symptoms but were not allowed to as data would be invalid.
The majority said it had been a frightening experience.

Question 16

Why did the experimenters what to replicate the ‘study’?? (Cover story)

Answer 16

The experimenters wanted to replicate study at VU university as scientists thought that younger brains may be more sensitive to the negative effects of isolation.

Question 17

Research Committee??

Answer 17

Participants were told that a university research committee was evaluating whether to approve the study and were collecting feedback from students who need the details about the experiment.
They were told but the research committee forms were in the second room.
If a participant believed the research violated ethical norms they could anonymously challenge it by putting a form in the mailbox.

Question 18

How were the participants told to convince the students they had indicated to participate in the experiment??

Answer 18

By writing a statement that would be sent to students by Mail.
Participants were told to be in enthusiastic when writing the statements and not to mention the negative effects of sensory deprivation.

Question 19

Procedure (part 2):

Answer 19

The experimenter left the room for three minutes so participants can make a decision.
They were moved to a second room where there was a computer to write this statement and a mailbox and the research committee forms.
The experimenter left the room for seven minutes.
After the seven minute interval the Ps were administered to personality inventories, probed for suspicion, fully debriefed and asked to sign a second consent form, this time fully informed.
Roughly 40 minutes.

Question 20

Key findings:

Comparison group?

Answer 20

3.6% indicated they would obey the experimenter.
31.9% disobedient.
64.5% whistle blow.
When asked to predict the behaviour of other students:
18.8% obey.
43.5% disobey.
37.3% whistle blow.

Question 21

Key findings:

149 Ps?

Answer 21

76.5% obeyed (114).
14.1% disobeyed (21).
9.4% whistle blow (14).
Among whistleblowers 6% (9) had written a message (anonymous whistleblowers) and 3.4% (5) had refused to do so (open whistleblowers).
No significant differences were found in any of the groups in relation to gender or religion. However a significant difference was observed with regard to faith.

Question 22

Key findings:

Personality inventories?

Answer 22

No statistically significant differences in any of the six personality factors among all three groups.

Question 23

Key findings:

What did the qualitative data show??

Answer 23

The participants who obeyed did so because of external forces - “it was expected of me”, “I cooperated because the experimenter asked me to”. Agentic state.
The disobedient participants felt responsible for their actions “I don’t want to do unethical things”, “I felt responsible towards my friends”.

Question 24

Conclusions??

Answer 24

People tend to obey authority figures even if the authority is unjust.
How people think others will do in a given situation differs from what actually happens. The internal cognitive processes of ordinary people wanting to appear ‘good’ often differ from the power of situational forces.
Individuals behave differently than expected when they find themselves in certain circumstances that are unfamiliar.
Behavioural acts of both disobedience and whistleblowing are psychologically, socially, and economically demanding for people.
Behaving in a moral manner is challenging for people, even when the reaction appears to observers as the simplest path to follow.
With regard to faith, there appears to be a trend suggesting that whistleblowers have more faith than either obedient or disobedient individuals.