Component 2: Bocchiaro et al (Social) Flashcards
What is the background to Bocchiaro et al.s study into (dis)obedience and whistleblowing?
A whistleblower is a person who reports an immoral/illegal act of an authority figure and it allows for social progress.
We would expect someone with prosocial personalities to disobey and whistleblow illegitimate authority figures.
Milgram only focused on obedience, but little is know about disobedience. The experiment looks at both situational and individual explainations.
What are the aims of Bocchiaro et al.s study?
- To investigate whether individual (personality) variable and situational factors will influence (dis)obedience or whistleblowing.
- To show difference in people’s (and others) prediction of what they say they would do to what they actually do.
What was the research method of Bocchiaro et al.s study?
It is classed as a lab study as there is no IV.
Where did Bocchiaro et al.s study take place?
In VU University Amsterdam
What were the DVs in Bocchiaro et al.s study?
DV 1 - number of participants who obeyed (operationalised via written statement in support for sensory deprivation study- an unethical request) If they disobeyed, they refused to write the statement. If they whistleblew, then they reported the experiment to the ethics commitee.
DV 2 - Scores from 2 personality inventories (tests), 60 item HEXACO (Dutch version, 6 personality dimensions measured) and the 9 item SVO (Social Value Orientation) which assesses the importance a person places on their own wellfare. It enables participants to be categorized as prosocial, idividualistic or competitive.
What was the sampling method in Bocchiaro et al.s study?
Self select sampling - recruited via flyers distributed in the campus cafeteria at VU University.
Describe the sample in Bocchiaro et al.s study.
There were 149 undergraduate students (both males and females) with a mean age of 20.8
11 participants were removed from the original 160 due to their suspicious nature.
They received either 7 euros or credit towards their course.
Describe the procedure of Bocchiaro et al.s study.
- 8 pilot tests were carried out using 92 undergraduate students. This was to ensure the procedure was credible and morally acceptable. This ensures the study was standardised.
- The comparison group were given a detailed description of the experimental setting. They were informed of what the task was and the potential risks.
- Each participant was greeted in the lab by a stern male. The experimenter asked the participants to give 5 names and then told them a cover story.
- The cover story was that there was an experiment in Rome with 6 participants who were isolated, unable to see to see or hear and had disastrous effects - all panicked, some experienced auditory/visual hallucinations majority said it was frightening experience.
- The experimenters wanted to replicate this study as there was no data on young people - scientists thought they would be more sensitive to isolation, although it was difficult to predict what would happen, the experimenter still wanted to proceed.
- The university research committee was evaluating whether to approve the study and were collecting feedback.
- Participants were told that there were research committee forms in the next room. They were told to write a statement to convince 5 students to take part in the experiment.
- The experimenter left the room for 3 minutes and then the participants were moved to the next room where there were computers for them to write the statements and there was a mailbox where they could put concerns for the committee. The statements had to be enthusiastic and not mention the negative effects.
- The experimenter left the room for 7 minutes. If the participant believed the study was unethical they could anonymously report it.
- After the 7 minutes the experimenter would return and took participants back to the first room where they were given 2 personality inventories. They were then probed for suspicion, fully debriefed and signed consent forms. The entire session lasted approximately 40 minutes.
What were the findings of Bocchiaro et al.s study?
- 3.6% participants in the comparison group said they would obey compared to 76.5% (114/149) in the experimental group who actually obeyed
- 64.5% of participants in the comparison group said they would whistle blow compared to 9.4% in the experimental group who actually whostleblew.
- The comparison group estimated that 18.8% of people would obey and 37.3% would whistle blow.
What were the conclusions of Bocchiaro et al.s study?
- People obey even if authority figures are unjust
- What people say they and others would do in a given situation and what they would actually do are very different.
How does Bocchiaro et al.s study relate to the social area?
A study which sought to develop a new way to investigate obedience experimentally like Milgram in revealing elevated levels of obedience, but a good contrast in that this study was conducted in the Netherlands as it also sought to investigate if there were any personality differences distinguishing those who were obedient, disobedient or prepared to whistle-blow. It challenged a purely social approach to explaining behaviour and does consider individual explanations.
How does Bocchiaro et al.s study relate to the key theme responses to authority?
Much like Milgram’s study on obedience, Bocchiaro seeks to find out what key features are important to explain our behaviour towards those in authority. The influence of the environment and the presence of unjust authority figures are central in the investigation. This links directly to the assumptions of the social areas i.e. behaviour is caused by factors present in the environment. Bocchiaro seeks to expand the discussion from purely the social area by looking at whether individual differences might explain levels of obedience and disobedience. This means that the study crosses over into the individual differences area.
How does the contemporary study change our understanding of the key theme?
Bocchiaro’s study starts to unpick the reasons for people being disobedient. There is a distinction between people who file a complaint and refuse to do what they are told and those who file a complaint but still obey orders. Further work on whistle-blowers will be very helpful in a society like ours where governments a big corporations systematically cover up bad behaviour.
