social psychology - authority - Bocchiaro Flashcards
what was the context of the study?
He wanted to collect information on who was more likely to whistle blow.
They wanted a more ethical version of a study into authority to prevent Milgram’s study being used as it isn’t ethical.
what was the method used and the techniques used in this study?
method used:
- lab study
techniques used:
- notes taken
who was the sample and how were they obtained?
- university students from Amsterdam
- 96 female and 53 male
- mean age 20.8
- volunteers, leaflets sent
through students
letterboxes
what apparatus was needed?
- room
- pen
- paper
- seat
- leaflet with information on
ethics letterbox - door
what was the procedure of this study?
1) participant is greeted by
the experimenter
2) presented with the cover
story (the scenario you
read through)
3) participant is asked to
write a supportive
statement for the
research
4) is left for 7 minutes to do
so. they had to include
enthusiastic words like
‘amazing’ and ‘brilliant’
in the room there is a
mailbox and research
committee forms
5) After 7 minutes the
experimenter returns.
6) The participant is given
two personality
inventories, probed for
suspicion and debriefed. 7) overall the procedure
takes 40 minutes.
what were the results?
- the most common result
was obeying even though
most people believed that
they would whistle blow or
disobey. - the second most likely
characteristic was that
people would disobey and
then the least likely was
whistle blowing even
though most people
thought it would be the
complete opposite way
round
what were the conclusions of the study?
- people are obedient and
will obey a figure of
authority - the act of whistle blowing
is difficult - people of faith were more
likely to whistle blow - personality had nothing to
do with whether the
person would whistle blow
what were the strengths and weaknesses of the method and technique used in this study?
method:
pros:
- lab study so coltroll over
participant variables
- move internally valid as
controlled
cons:
- no IV meaning can’t
identify cause and effect
technique
pros:
- good to look back at the
data obtained and link it
with other studies
cons:
quantitative as statistics so has no context
what were the strengths and weaknesses of using quantitative data in this study?
pros:
- easy to put into statistics
cons:
- no context
what are the ethical considerations?
ethics:
- debrief was given
- they had the right to
whistle blow
- right to withdraw
- consent was given
unethical:
- deceived and told one
thing but another
happened
- could have gone through
mental trauma
- sensory deprivation is
unethical
- informed consent not
given
is the study valid?
valid:
- internal validity
- a bit of ecologic validity
because tried to make as
realistic as possible
invalid:
- demand characteristics
- people could lie on the
questionnaire
- only women used so lacks
the ability to be
generalised
- participant variables e.g
whether person is faithful
to a religion more likely to
whistle blow
is the study reliable?
reliable:
- standardised as same m
letter, same questionnaire -
prosocial, personality,
religion, all had the same
amount of time to write
letters and all given the
same amount of time to
think 3 minutes and 7
minutes.
- lab study, easy to replicate
- had to write on computer
meaning no
misunderstanding due to
spelling errors
- the students wrote alone
and not in groups, removes
element of conforming to
group. no social
desirability.
unreliable:
- sampling bias
- more women than men
- ethnocentric cannot be
generalised
what was the sample bias?
- more women than men -
geocentric - students mean age 20.3
not all ages tested on - ethnocentric all from same
area - volunteers - only certain
type of people volunteer - all post grads
is it ethnocentric?
yes because all Amsterdam uni students
no because people come to unis from all over world so many different people used and also done on humans and all humans act similarly.
