Social Area- Bocchiaro

Question 1

Background

Answer 1

Nature of disobedience authority
Preconditioned for social progress
Little research into psychological dynamics
Whistleblowing

Question 2

Whistleblowing

Answer 2

someone reports wrongdoings, like illegal or unethical actions, within an organisation.

Question 3

Aim

Answer 3

-Plug these gaps in research, asked participants what they would do in a hypothetical scenario
- Wanted to create a situation that confronted participants with the choice of obeying, disobeying whistle against an authority
-Done within ecologically valid

Question 4

Sample

Answer 4

149 undergraduate students
96 females
53 males
mean age=20.8years

Question 5

Sampling method

Answer 5

Recruited by flyers posters in campus cafeterias Amsterdam uni
Offered 7 euros

Question 6

Procedure

Answer 6

Participants arrived alone and met a stern experimenter.
Told to write a supportive email for an unethical study on sensory deprivation.
Given the option to:
Obey (write the email).
Disobey (refuse to write it).
Whistleblow (report the study to an ethics committee).
Left alone for 7 minutes to decide.
Afterward, completed personality tests.

Question 7

Findings

Answer 7

76.5% obeyed (wrote the email).
14.1% disobeyed (refused to write it).
9.4% whistleblew (reported it to the ethics committee).
Most people thought they would disobey, but actually, the majority obeyed.

Question 8

Conclusions

Answer 8

People obey authority even when asked to do something unethical.
Few whistleblow, even when they know something is wrong.
Personality traits don’t strongly predict obedience—situational factors matter more.