comparing milgram and bocchario Flashcards
THE TOPIC
Obedience
The studies by Milgram and Bocchiaro et al. are both about
social psychology, specifically about obedience to orders or
instructions to commit acts that go against the moral codes
of the individuals receiving those orders or instructions.
However, Milgram’s study involved direct orders to commit an
act of physical violence – administering painful and possibly
dangerous electric shocks. This was based on an attempt
to understand the role of destructive obedience during the
Holocaust. On the other hand, Bocchiaro et al. were concerned
with more everyday situations in which people comply with
unethical instructions. Accordingly their study involved
a more typical workplace situation: giving instructions to
mislead people into taking part in a distressing procedure.
Another difference was that Bocchiaro et al. were interested in
whistle-blowing as a third option, in addition to the options of
obedience and disobedience.
THE RESEARCH METHOD AND DESIGN
Laboratory procedures with a
single condition
Both studies were described by the authors as experimental,
although they had only a single condition. Both studies were
carried out in a laboratory and both involved a situation where
participants were aware that they were taking part in research
but were not aware of the nature of the study. In both studies
the procedure involved the experimenter giving the participant
an instruction. However, a key difference was that Milgram’s
orders were to directly inflict pain on another person and
put them in danger. In contrast, in the Bocchiaro et al. study,
participants were ordered merely to write a message.
SAMPLE AND SAMPLING
Mixed-sex students vs male adults
Both of these studies employed a volunteer-sampling method
involving responses to an advert. However, Milgram’s advert
was placed in a newspaper, whereas that used by Bocchiaro
et al. was placed in a student cafeteria. Milgram used an
all-male sample, whereas Bocchiaro et al. used a mixed-sex
sample.. The target population was different, however. Milgram
used adults aged 20 to 50 and from a variety of occupations.
Bocchiaro et al. studied just undergraduate students with a
much younger mean age and a smaller age range.
EXPERIMENTAL MATERIAL AND
MEASUREMENT OF THE DEPENDENT
VARIABLE
Quantitative data on rates of obedience
The two studies used rates of obedience as the main
dependent variable. For Milgram this was the number of
people giving the full 450V shock. For Bocchiaro et al. it was
the number of people writing the message to persuade other
students to take part in sensory deprivation. Bocchiaro et al.
also measured the frequency of whistle-blowing.
Both studies involved collecting quantitative data in the
form of obedience rates. In addition to the headline obedience
rates, Milgram also collected qualitative data in the form
of transcripts of what participants said and observations of
their behaviour. Bocchiaro et al. also collected additional
information but this was quantitative, including personality
traits and values orientations. There was thus a much greater
emphasis on quantitative data in the Bocchiaro et al. study.
APPLICATIONS
Real-world atrocities vs whistle-blowing in
the workplace
Both these studies have applications in understanding,
predicting and tackling the tendency to obey orders that
directly or indirectly lead to harm and suffering in others.
Milgram’s study is directly applicable to predicting atrocities,
and is used for exactly this purpose by the International
Criminal Court. Bocchiaro et al.’s study is more relevant to
understanding more everyday injustice, such as that in the
workplace. In particular the low rates of whistle-blowing in
this study help us to understand why it often takes so long for
really bad practice at work to be identified and challenged.
KEY THEME: RESPONSES TO
PEOPLE IN AUTHORITY
Milgram used a laboratory procedure to test destructive
obedience, showing that people are surprisingly likely to
obey orders to carry out immoral acts. Bocchario et al. used
a similar laboratory procedure to show that people were also
surprisingly likely to obey instructions to encourage people
to take part in an unethical experiment. They also found that
people rarely took the opportunity to blow the whistle on the
experimenter..
