Social Area: Bocchiaro Outline

Question 1

Aim

Answer 1

To study those who disobey and whistleblow and understand the factors involved in the reasoning, going beyond Milgram’s original paradigm for studying obedience.

Question 2

Hypothesis

Answer 2

In the presence of an authority figure, most participants would be obedient, and very few would whistleblow.

Around 65% of students from a university in Amsterdam who were asked to imagine partaking in the research said that they would whistleblow.

Question 3

Sampling Method

Answer 3

Self-selected, recruited by flyers posted in the campus cafeteria at the VU University in Amsterdam. They received either €7 or course credit for taking part.

Question 4

Participants

Answer 4

149 undergraduate students from VU University in Amsterdam. 96 women, 53 men with a mean age of 20.8 years.

There were originally 160 participants, but 11 were removed because they were suspicious about the nature of the study.

Question 5

Personnel and Locale

Answer 5

The research was conducted at VU University, Amsterdam.
Participants were greeted with a Dutch male experimentor as they arrived at the laboratory, formally dressed with a stern demeanour.

Question 6

Procedure

Answer 6

• The participants were assured confidentiality and given a consent form to sign.
• They were then greeted by the ‘experimenter’, who explained that they were investigating the effects of sensory deprivation on brain function, and said that they had recently tried this with 6 p’s, with traumatic results, e.g. hallucinations and temporarily impaired cognitive abilities. They were not allowed to stop and post-experiment said it was a traumatic experience.
• They were told that they wanted to attempt a replication at that university, that the experimenter was concerned but wanted to see the different affect on young people.
• They were told that the University Research Committee wanted their opinion on whether to approve the study, and that giving approval and the email of an acquaintance to take part could mean they are contacted for future promotions and could mean money for them.
• The experimenter then left the room so the participants had 3 minutes to reflect and make decisions on the actions they would have to take next.
• Participants were told to write enthusiastic statements and were taken next door to computers to complete this, and had to tick a box agreeing that they found the research to be in violation of ethics. The experimenter left the room for 7 minutes, and then returned and took the participant back into the first room.
• The participant completed two personality inventories (the HEXACO-PI-R test, and a measure of Social Value Orientation (SVO)) were administered and the participant was probed for suspiciousness about the nature of the study before being fully debriefed.

Question 7

Results

Answer 7

Measures: 1. Obedient participants complied with the request.

2. Disobedient participants refused to comply.
3. Whistleblowers reported the questionable conduct to the Research Committee by ticking the box.
4. 76.5% were obedient
5. 14.1% were disobedient
6. 9.4% were whistleblowers and only 3.4% did this openly, the rest were anonymous.

No significant differences were found from the personality tests and the only significant difference between participant groups related to faith, suggesting a trend towards whistleblowers being more religious.

Question 8

Conclusions

Answer 8

The main conclusion that Bocchiaro et al. reach is that behaving in a moral manner is challenging for people, even when this reaction appears to observers (those in the comparison group) as the simplest path to follow.