Bocchiaro Et Al Study Flashcards
What was the background on Bocchiaro et al’s (2012) study into disobedience and whistleblowing?
In Milgram study, participants were required to obey an unjust authority. What happens when people are offered the option to take personal action against unjust, authority (I.e disobey)?
What was the design method used in Bocchiaro et al’s study into disobedience and whistleblowing?
Controlled observation in a laboratory. Experimental paradigm was a hypothetical unethical study on sensory deprivation , to see whether the participants would obey a request to write a statement to a fellow student and/or blow the whistle by filling in a form about the ethics of the proposed study..
Aims of Bocchiaro et al’s study into disobedience and whistleblowing?
To investigate, –
How people deal with unethical/unjust requests.
Differences between how people think they will behave, and how they actually behave.
Personality characteristics of people who obey/disobey/whistleblow.
Sample used in Bocchiaro et al’s study into disobedience and whistleblowing?
Self-selected sample of 149 Dutch university students (96 women and 52 men )paid $7 or given course credit.
Two. Further groups of participants used to predict obedience behaviour. 92 students in pilot tests and 138 comparison students.
Materials/apparatus used in Bocchiaro et al’s study into disobedience and whistleblowing?
A research committee ethics form for participants to complete and post anonymously – this would constitute whistle – blowing.
Personality tests, HEXACO – PI – R, decomposed games measure.
Procedure used in Bocchiaro et al’s study into disobedience and whistleblowing?
Eight. Pilot test were conducted to check how believable the study was, and to gain ethical approval.
The comparison group of participants was asked to predict how they would behave if they were a participant in the study, and how other participants would behave.
The experimenter discussed a future research project with each participant, in a laboratory at the university of Amsterdam.
The experimenter asked each participant
– To give names of other students to take part in an unethical study.
– To write an enthusiastic statement, encouraging fellow students to take part and not mention the negative effects of sensory deprivation.
– to fill in the university research committee, ethical approval form.
Participants wrote statements in the second room and were given an opportunity to fill in a form to express concern about the ethics of the proposed study.
Participants completed the two psychological tests. Entire session lasted about 40 minutes.
All participants were debriefed.
Results found in Bocchiaro et al’s study into disobedience and whistleblowing?
Comparison group thought they would be unlikely to obey 3.6% said they would obey, but no others would be more likely to obey 18.8%.
76.5% of the real participants obeyed.
64.5% of the comparison group thought that they were most likely to blow the whistle compared to 31.9%. He thought they were disobey.
The opposite was true for real participants, 9.4% of the real participants blew the whistle and 14.1% disobeyed.
- Participants were whistleblowers 9.4%. Of these, five blue, the whistle, and also disobeyed, and blew the whistle but obeyed.
There was no significant differences between those who obeyed or disobeyed and blew the whistle. In terms of gender, religious affiliation, the six key personality traits or social orientation. Whistleblowers tended to have more faith than other participants.
Conclusions found in Bocchiaro et al’s study into disobedience and whistleblowing?
What people believe they will do is quite different from what they actually do.
This belief they are better than the average’ may make them blind to social pressures and thus more vulnerable to them.
Situational, rather than disposal factors may offer a better explanation for disobedience.
Research, methods and techniques
The procedure was standardised e.g. the paradigm used on the timings and locations were the same for all participants. Therefore, uncontrolled factors were the minimised
Participants may have been alert to the contrive situation and guessed the aims of the study, creating demand characteristics. However, the researchers reported that the participants did appear to believe the cover story.
Validity and reliability
The personality tests used have good validity and reliability
– HEXACO-PI-R. test.: high levels of self observer agreement, validity and internal consistency, reliability.
-Decompose gains measure, criterion, validity of behaviour and social situation and good test, retest reliability.
Sampling bias
The sample included both men and women. Therefore, the final analysis could consider whether gender differences might explain the observed behaviour.
-however, the sample where all university students with fewer responsibilities, then older adults. Students might be more proactive in protesting about unfair practices. Such participants maybe more likely to be a disobedient and blow the whistle than the general population.
Types of data
-quantitative data provided assessments of levels of obedience and personality traits E.G – knowing each participants score on the personality test. This makes it easy to analyse results.
– However, quantitative measures might over simplify complex behaviours and personality traits.
– Qualitative data was provided in the comments made by participants during the study, and during debriefing.
Ethical considerations
Participants gave informed consent as they knew what was involved. Even though they did not know the true aims, participants had the right to withdraw and were debriefed.
-Participants were deceived about the premise for the unethical study and the requirements for recruiting.
Ethnocentrism
The experimental belonged to the same ethnic group as the participants. They were all Dutch, and all members of the university so participants may have responded in a more positive way towards him. There may have been less obedience if the experimental was felt to be an outsider.
