Social Psychology- Milgrim and Bocchiaro Flashcards
1
Q
What is the principle of the social approach
A
All humans behavior occurs in a social context influenced by the social environment we are in
The presence of others also impacts our behavior and our behavior is influenced by the actual imagined or implied presence of others
2
Q
What is a legitimate authority figure
A
Someone whom we obey because we have been socialised to and we know that there will be a consequence if we dont obey them which makes them a legitimate authority figure
3
Q
What is the agency theory
A
This suggests that we shift between 2 different states and behave differently in different social contexts
4
Q
What is the autonomous state
A
Most of the time we live in a state of autonomy where we act independantly as our own person with our own free will
5
Q
What is the agentic state
A
We recognise the need to obey through the situation and automatically enter a state of obediance where we believe the authority figure in the situation will take responsibility for hat we do
6
Q
What is the “Germans are different” theory
A
People believed that the inhumane obedience of Nazi Germans could be explained by the fact that Germans are much more obedient by disposition than people from other countries or cultures
7
Q
Outline the background of Milgrims study on obedience (4)
A
1) Milgrim aimed to study obedience towards authority figures inspired by atrocities such as The Holocaust in World War 2 where soldiers blindly obeyed authority and millions of people were killed
2) People are socialized to obey those seen as a legitimate authority figure to avoid consequences
3) This example of obedience highlights the ability of moving into an agentic state whereby we give up free will and obey believing the authority figure will take responsibility for our behaviour.
4) Events like World War 2 prompted the “Germans are different” theory stating they have a disposition to make them more likely to obey which inspired Milgrim to research obedience amongst American men
8
Q
What was the aim of Milgrims study
A
To investigate what level of obedience would be shown when participants were told by an authority figure to administer electric shocks to another person
9
Q
What was the sample used for Milgrims study
A
40 males aged between 20 and 50 years of age from New Haven area in the USA
10
Q
What is the sampling method used
A
A volunteer sample. People were asked to participate in a study of memory and learning at Yale University. They were paid $4.50. This was all advertised at a local newspaper
11
Q
Who were the confederates in Milgrims study
A
An “experimenter”- Jack Williams who wore a white lab coat and appeared to be stern and emotionless
A “victim”- Mr Wallace who was going to be shocked. He was mild-mannered and likeable
12
Q
What were the materials used in Milgrims study
A
Milgrim created a fake “shock generator” which had 30 switches marked clearly in 15 volt increments from 15 to 450 volts
13
Q
What was the research method used for Milgrims study
A
A controlled observation- Milgram used a controlled observation as he set up a controlled environment to observe the men’s obedience to Jack Williams, this was done in a lab in Yale University where the men were observed alone with only the authority figure present. Also, Milgram observed the men’s obedience by shocking Mr Wallace through a one-way mirror so he could observe their obedience and their signs of tension, as such no manipulation was involved
14
Q
How was data collected during Milgrims study
A
Participants were observed by both the experimenter and by additional observers from behind a one way mirror who made notes
The sessions were also filmed and occasional photographs were taken from behind a one way mirror
15
Q
What were the quantitative findings during Milgrims study
A
100% of participants shocked up to 300 volts
65% (26) of the participants obeyed and gave shocks up to 450 volts
16
Q
What were the qualitative findings of Milgrims study
A
Many participants showed signs of nervousness and tension
Ps sweated trembled stuttered bit their lip and groaned- typical responses
Nervous laughing fits (14/40)
Comments made such as “Oh I cant go on with this ; no this isnt right”
“This is a hell of an experiment”
Uncontrollable seizures were experienced by 3 participants
17
Q
What did Milgrim conclude about his study into obedience
A
There is no such thing as an obedient type of person that in the right or wrong situation we will all enter an agentic state and obey orders. Therefore the Germans are not different
18
Q
What were Milgrims explanations for the high levels of obedience (1)
A
1) The fact that the experiment took place at the prestigious Yale University made the participants feel they had to obey in such an important place and lent the study credibility and respect
2) Participants assumed the experimenter knew what he was doing as he was dressed in a white lab coat and appeared stern and authoritative making him seem like a legitimate authority figure so his instructions should be followed
19
Q
What were Milgrims explanations for high levels of obedience (2)
A
3) The participants believed the victim had also volunteered to be in the study and therefore had an obligation to take part in the procedures even if they had become unpleasant
4) The participant felt himself to be similarly obligated to take part in the procedures as planned and being paid increased that sense of obligation
20
Q
How do you outline how the social area/ approach can be said to be reductionist/ any debate (3)
A
1) Define the debate
2) Link the approach to the debate by using key assumptions (buzz phrases from the debate) (2)
eg The reductionist debate suggest that behavior can be broken down into its constituent parts using single factors to account for a given behavior like the environment. The social approach is reductionist as it assumes that behavior is only caused by a social context the person is in, other people and the environment. The environment suggest that only situational factors are the sole cause of human behavior largely ignoring individual differences
21
Q
What is being measured in Milgrims study (WWHF)
A
Obedience in response to an unethical request from an authority figure
22
Q
Who is being studied in Milgrims study (WWHF)
A
40 males from 20-50 years from New Haven area in the US
23
Q
How is this being measures in Milgrims study (WWHF)
A
Participants are given the role of teacher and asked to shock Mr Wallace the learner every time a question was answered wrong
Mr Wallace and the experimenter acted the same for each participant and the participants level of obedience was observed through a one way mirror
24
Q
What were the findings of Milgrims study (WWHF)
A
65% of participants obeyed and went up to 450 volts.
100% of participants went up to 300 volts
Link to S.A- Presence of others (authority figure JW) whose prods and stern and emotionless behavior led to high levels of obedience and the prestigious environment of Yale University felt like a scientific place to obey
Link to key theme- Tells us people will respond with obedience as they feel the authority figure would take responsibility and enter an agentic state
25
How does Milgrims study display high levels of internal reliability
It is a highly standardised procedure like the same number of prods, the confederates acting the same to every participant (Jack williams always acting stern and emotionless) and the participant always being the teacher and Mr Wallace always being the learner
Internal reliability increased so allows for replication to occur to check for consistency
26
How does Milgrims study display high levels of external reliability
It generates quantitative data which is collected (% of obedience)
So we can compare to draw conclusions and establish trends and patterns
27
How is Milgrims study a snapshot study
It only collects one set of data
Doesnt track the development of obedience over time
Study is only conducted at one point in time at Yale
28
How is the internal validity of Milgrims study high
High control over extraneous variables due to the smart psychology lab like how people are alone with Mr Wallace - (SDB) and told a false aim that the study was on memory (DC)
29
How is the internal validity of Milgrims study low
Risk of demand charecteristics- A volunteer sample used
Financial incentive
Controlled setting
30
How is the population validity high/low in Milgrims study
The test is administering electrical shocks which is a realistic task for the target population of soldiers- high population validity
31
How is the ecological validity low in Milgrims study
Conducted in an artificial setting- a smart psychology lab in Yale Uni- may show more obedience in an unnatural setting- Low ecological validity
32
How would you evaluate the sample in Milgrims study
Gender bias- Androcentric so not considering the obedience of women
Cultural bias- ethnocentric as all participants are from new Haven area in US as soldiers would be from different areas
Bias in motive- Volunteer sample so participants are more likely to participate with similar motives like money (4.50 paid) or a genuine interest in obedience -
However
Range of ages 20-50 years old fits the target population for soldiers
Range of occupations- no socioeconomic bias
33
What were the ethical issues broken in Milgrims study
Protection of participants- Participants may psychologically be affected by harming someone- deters future participants from going into research for obedience and destroys reputation of Psychology
Right to withdraw- Jack Williams told participants to continue or to go on and were not given a say in leaving until the 4th prod
Deception- Participants deceived and not told the true aim and instead told the study would be involving memory instead of obedience
34
What was the benefit of breaking these ethical issues in Milgrims study
Protection of participants- We can see their full natural reaction so more insight into behavior
Deception- Demand charecteristics lowered as we can see natural behavior into obedience
Right to withdraw- Pushed to continue with the study so insight into levels of obedience
35
How does the data in Milgrims study increase internal validity and external reliability
Quantitative- Increases external reliability as we are generating quantitative data as we can draw conclusions about obedience to check for consistency and establish trends and patterns as well as it being scientific and objective
Qualitative data- Increases internal validity due to more insight into participants behavior and thoughts and feelings of obedience such as biting nails stuttering and groaning so this increases internal validity
36
Explain how the research method was used in Milgrims study
Milgrim used a controlled observation as he set up a controlled environment to observe the men’s obedience to Jack Williams, this was done in a lab in Yale University where the men were observed alone with only the authority figure present. Also, Milgram observed the men’s obedience by shocking Mr Wallace through a one-way mirror so he could observe their obedience and their signs of tension, as such no manipulation was involved.
37
Suggest two issues of validity in Milgrims study (4)
Milgram’s study was low in ecological validity as the setting was unrealistic to an environment in which obedience would naturally occur. For example, the study took place in the prestigious Yale University in a controlled lab, an environment which does not represent where real obedience would occur such as in a war, therefore, the behaviour is not true to real life.
Also, another issue of validity is that the study lacks population validity, as the sample consists only of 40 men from America. For example, all of the 40 participants were men from New Haven in America where they may be more obedient and as such their high levels of obedience towards the authority figure Jack Williams were not generalisable to a wider target population where different levels of obedience might be shown.
38
Outline the situational debate and how Milgrims study relates to this
The situational debate assumes that behaviour is a result of the situation around an individual such as the influence of other group members or the environmental context. Milgram’s study of obedience relates to the situational debate, as it demonstrates that situational factors such as the presence of an authority figure and the environmental context of a prestigious lab setting can influence levels of obedience. For example, the presence of Jack Williams, who appeared stern and emotionless and used standardised prods like “please continue teacher” to command the participants, meant they felt more obliged to shock as there may be consequences for not doing so, explaining why all 40 men obeyed and shocked Mr Wallace to 300v. The prestigious setting of the lab at Yale University also influenced the men as the environmental context lends itself to prestige and professionalism and so the men have been socialised to obey in these contexts as well.
39
What is one strength of the validity in Milgrims study
One strength of Milgram’s study is that it is high in internal validity, due to the fact that there are many controls in place which allow Milgram to effectively measure obedience. For example, Milgram ensured that he controlled situational variables such as the learner Mr Wallace always being played by the same man. This controlled for disposition of the victim not influencing the obedience and level of shock given by the participant. This is a strength as it allows Milgram to actually measure the level of obedience without external influences impacting on the behaviour of the participants, increasing the scientific and controlled nature of the study.
40
Outline one way that Milgrims study was unethical
One way in which the study was unethical is due to the fact that the participants were exposed to a great deal of psychological harm, so Milgram did not protect his participants. (1) For example, the participants showed signs of emotional distress by sweating, biting their nails and sighing throughout the study, illustrating that they actually believed they were causing harm to another person. (1) Therefore, this is a weakness as exposing the participants to harm means Milgram is not upholding his responsibility to keep participants safe. This can damage the reputation of Milgram’s research into obedience and discourages participants from social psychological research in future. (1)
41
How is Milgrim fit the individual debate
35% of soldiers stopped before 450 volts which demonstrates that they resisted the pressure of the situation providing an individual explanation as their personalities may have influenced whether they would obey or disobey
42
How does Milgrim fit the Free will debate
We bear responsibility for our actions and the soldiers were free to act as they chose. For example 35% of them disobeyed Jack williams which suggests that they chose not to be influenced by an authority figure. This means they did not fall into an agentic state and rather an autonomous state supported by the fact that these participants did not actively obey the experimenter and stopped giving electric shocks suggesting their conscience drove their behavior
43
How does Milgrim fit the Determinism debate
We lack control of our behavior as the soldiers behavior of blindly entering an agentic state of obedience was predetermined by factors like the legitamate authority figure present and the environment Milgrim situated the observation in. As well as this 65% of people obeyed and shocked to 450 volts and 100% shocked to 300 volts showing that we give up our own free will and conscience
44
How is Milgrims study useful
- Enhances our knowledge on obedience that Germans are not different and that situation drives behavior
The sample represents soldiers to an extent for example all of them being men with a very diverse age range
Highly controlled in a lab so natural behavior is being observed
Unethical- reactions were genuine so it showed real life behavior
Can make practical applications towards real life
45
How is Milgrims study limited in usefulness
-Soldiers are only from one area- soldiers can be from more than one country so it doesnt enhance our knowledge of obedience around other countries
The task was not realistic- administering electric shocks is not a natural task when obeying so doesnt enhance knowledge
46
How is Milgrims study socially sensitive
It will cause stigma to those in authority like those in the army and men
Political consequences in the army knowing that people enter an agentic blind state of obedience police may abuse their position in authority
47
What is one strength of the validity of Milgrims study
One strength is that it is high in internal validity due to the fact that there are many controls in place which allow Milgrim to effectively measure obedience. For example Milgrim ensured that he controlled situational variables such as the learner Mr Wallace always being played by the same man. This controlled for disposition of the victim not influencing the obedience and level of shock given by the participant. This is a strength as it allows Milgrim to actually measure the level of obedience without external influences impacting the behavior of the participants increasing the scientific controlled nature of the study
48
How was Bocchiaro influenced by social power
Social power refers to the influence and individual has to change anothers thoughts, feelings and behavior so individuals in authority have social power to influence those with lesser power or status
49
What is a whistle blower?
Someone who reports unethical or immoral behavior to a higher authority when they have observed that behavior taking place.
50
How was Bocchiaro inspired by Milgrim
He was inspired by Milgrims findings of obedience and the shocking findings that despite the unethical request the power of the situation meant that any individual would obey. This highlighted the influence of authority figures in prestigious environments
51
How did Bocchairo feel that Milgrims study was lacking
1) the nature of disobedience and whistle blowing to unjust authority
2) The individual charecteristics of those who disobey and also what leads people to whistle blow against a legitimate authority figure
3) The responses to authority figures in both men and women
52
Outline the background of the study by Bocchiaro (4)
Milgrim illustrated to us the main response to those in authority is obedience however he doesn't enhance our understanding of other responses such as disobedience and whistleblowing. Research has shown that it is difficult to defy an authority figure suggesting that there are more than situational explanations responsible. Whistleblowers report or expose unjust behavior in organisations or institutions after observing the behavior take place. Previous research by Milgrim found that a high proportion of people will obey an authority figure when asked to harm another person. However, little is known about the nature of disobedience or defiance to someone in authority and the dispositional factors which may cause someone to defy social power. Bocchiaro therefore wanted to expand on Milgrims research by giving Ps the option to obey disobey or whistleblow in relation to an unjust requiest
53
What are the 3 main aims of the study of Bocchario
1) To investigate the rates of obedience disobedience and whistleblowing in a situation where a request was ethically wrong
2)To investigate the accuracy of peoples estimations of other peoples responses to authority obedience disobedience and whistleblowing
3)To investigate the role of dispositional factors in obedience disobedience and whistle blowing
54
What was the research method of Bocchiaros study
He conducted a "scenario study"
It took place in a laboratory at the VU University in Amsterdam so conditions could be controlled
55
Why were 8 pilot tests conducted in Bocchairos study
The 8 pilot studies were conducted to ensure that the fake cover story regarding the unethical sensory deprivation study was believable and credible.
56
Who was the sample in Bocchiaros study
149 undergraduate students (53 were men and 96 were women) with a mean age of 20.8 from VU University in Amsterdam for wither 7 euros or course credit
57
Who was the comparison group in Bocchiaros study
Before the study started Bocchario provided a compairson group with a cover study- the unethical sensory deprivation study
They were asked whether they would obey disobey or blow the whistle and also to predict what other students at their Uni would do . This was so he would compare the results to the actual partcicipants responses
58
What were the 2 personality tests people were asked to take in Bocchiaros study
HEXACO and Social Value orientation
59
Who was the authority figure in Bocchiaros study
A Dutch experimenter who had a stern demeanour and was formally dressed
60
What 2 questions were the comparison group in Bocchiaros study asked
What would you do in this situation?
What do you think other people your age would do in this situation?
61
What were the quantitative findings of Bocchiaros study of actual participants
76.5 % obeyed
14.1% disobeyed
9.4% blew the whistle
62
What were the quantitative findings of Bocchiaros study of comparitive participants of themselves
3.6% obeyed
31.9% disobeyed
64.5% blew the whistle
63
What were the quantiative findings of Bocchiaros study of comparitive participants for other students
18.8% obeyed
43.9% disobeyed
37.3% blew the whistle
64
What were the qualitative findings for Bocchiaros study
No significant differences were found in any of the particiapants responses to authority in terms of their gender their background etc
However there was a trend that those who whistleblew tended to have a faith
65
What are the conclusions found in Bocchiaros study
1) People tend to obey authority figures even if the authority is unjust
2) What people say they and others do in a given situation often differs from what they actually do like how people often tend to think they would blow the whistle but in reality they do not
66
How is Bocchiaros study useful?
Enhances our knowledge on dispositional factors leading people to whistleblow like the trend with faith
Tells us about female behavior as well
Enhances our knowledge on what people think they will do and what they actually do is very different like with the comparison group so we can encourage people to whistleblow and raise awareness of these benefits
Can make practical applications to real world hospitals or in the army like engaging people who have a faith in potential unethical decsions in workplaces
67
How is Bocchiaros study limited in usefulness
Sample was limited as it only focused on students and who lived in Amsterdam and a limited mean age so limits our understanding of how people outside these groups would act
Ethnocentric- assumes those from collectivist cultures would behave similarly
Holistic-too many factors to consider to try and imporve behavior
68
How is Bocchiaro fit the individual debate
Bocchiaro supports the individual debate as he investigated dispositional factors in his participants through the HEXACO and SVO finding that those who whistleblew tended to have a faith
Some people disobeyed and whistleblew opposing the authority figure
69
How does Bocchiaro fit the situational debate
Bocchiaro further supports the situational debate as he found due to the presence of the Dutch authority figure and the prestigious setting of the VU University in Amsterdam participants behavior was affected
which caused 75.6% of people to obey
Financial incentive and course credit also caused people to obey
70
How is Bocchiaros debate reductionist
Only looks as single factors to explain obedience disobedience and whistleblowing as they only look at personality traits in terms of individual differences and doesnt explore other individual factors like upbringing and genetics
71
How is Bocchiaros study said to be holistic
Bocchiaro supports a holistic view as he inestigated both situational and individual explanations of behavior in paticuler whistleblowing
72
To what extend is Bocchiaros study ethnocentric? (3)
To a large extent, the study by Bocchiaro is ethnocentric as all members of the sample were from one Western culture. For example, all 149 students were from VU University in Amsterdam, meaning that their responses to the unethical request of recommending three friends to a study on sensory deprivation can only be applied to western cultures and not others e.g. the fact that 76% of them obeyed the request. This is a weakness for the study as it limits the ability to generalise the findings on obedience, disobedience and whistleblowing to a wider population of different cultures, reducing the usefulness of the findings.
73
Discuss the usefulness of Bocchiaros research (6)
One way in which Bocchiaro’s study is useful is that it enhances our knowledge of the extent to which people will obey an unethical request by an authority figure. For example, only 3.6% of participants thought they would obey an unjust order whereas in reality 76.5% of participants obeyed and recommended three friends to take part in the unethical study on sensory deprivation. This is useful because we can develop practical applications in order to train authority figures of the power that their authority has and that they should use it wisely to help people and not abuse their power.
However, the study may be seen to lack usefulness due to the low ecological validity of the task, as it was not true to real life obedience. For example, the 149 students from VU University were asked to recommend three friends to take part in a study on sensory deprivation. This is a very unrealistic representation of unethical requests in the real world e.g. within the NHS or in the army. This limits our understanding of how obedience to authority may be demonstrated in the real world and also limits our knowledge of more realistic situations in which people may whistle blow against an authority figure.
74
Evaluate the data collected in Bocchiaros study (6)
One strength of using quantitative data is that it increases the external reliability of Bocchiaro’s research as the results can be checked for consistency. For example, quantitative data is easy to compare; if the study was replicated again comparisons could be made between the number of participants who obeyed (76%), disobeyed (14%) and blew the whistle (9%). This increases the extent to which the data could be replicated again in future, improving the scientific nature of Bocchiaro’s research.
One weakness of quantitative data however, is that it represents an oversimplified explanation of a complex behaviour lacking insight, reducing internal validity. For example, Bocchiaro recorded the number of people who either obeyed the authority figure, disobeyed or blew the whistle out of the sample of 149 participants but did not ask them why they made their decision in order to gain more detail about his findings. Using quantitative data reduces the complex behaviour of obedience to a number and so lacks the insight and reasons for such behaviour. This therefore reduces the usefulness of Bocchiaro’s study as it does not further our understanding into the reasons why people obey or blow the whistle.
75
Outline how the procedure of the Bocchiaro study increases the reliability (3)
The internal reliability of Bocchiaro’s study is high as it uses a standardised procedure, where elements of the study are kept the same for each participant. For example, Bocchiaro used the same cover story, timings in each room, personality inventories and experimenter-authority behaviour for all participants. Using a standardised procedure means that the study can be easily replicated again in future research to see if the same levels of obedient behaviour are found again, therefore increasing the replicability of the research and scientific nature
76
Explain how Bocchiaro links to the key theme responses to people in authority (4)
Bocchairo aimed to investigate the rates of obedience, disobedience and whistleblowing to an unethical request given by authority. He examined 149 male and female undergraduate students from the VU University, Amsterdam. Participants were given a fake cover story about a study investigating the effects of sensory deprivation and were asked by a Dutch experimenter (authority figure) to recommend three of their friends to take part. Participants were given the option to obey (write the letter to recommend their friends), disobey (do nothing) or whistleblow (report the study to the ethics committee for its violations). 76% of participants were found to obey the unethical request, whilst only 9% blew the whistle (however, these individuals tended to have a faith). Bocchairo’s findings link to the key theme ‘Responses to People in Authority’ as despite the unjust request given by the Dutch experimenter, the main response to authority was obedience. Still, Bocchairo also examined the nature of alternative responses to authority e.g. whistleblowing and found that dispositional factors drive the ability to expose social power e.g. those who had a faith were inclined to blow the whistle and report the ethical violations of the sensory deprivation study.
77
Explain how Bocchiaro links to the social approach (4)
The social approach suggests all human behaviour occurs in a social context, influenced by the actual, imagined and implied presence of others and the environment. Bocchairo’s study links to the social approach as the rates of obedience, disobedience and whistleblowing to unjust authority were influenced by the power of the social context. For example, the implied presence of a Dutch experimenter in the next room, drove the majority of participants (76%) to obey and recommend three of their friends to take part in a sensory deprivation study; as with his stern demeanour and firm instructions, participants viewed him as a legitimate member of authority who must be obeyed. Furthermore, the environment of a lab in VU University was a usual context for the participants to obey authority, as the participants were undergraduate students there, where they usually obey their own lecturers/professors.
78
Evaluate the sample of Bocchiaros study (3)
A weakness of Bocchiaros sample is that it is low in population validity as the age limit of the sample is quite restricted. For example the mean age of the participants who were all students of VU Univerisity in Amsterdam was 20.8 and so doesnt represent the obedience, disobedience and whistleblowing of other ages and the wider population as a whole. This means we cannot generalise obedience disobedience and whistleblowing behavior of these students to that of older people and so the sample lacks usefulness
79
Assess the internal validity of Bocchiaros study (3)
The internal validity of Bocchiaros study is high as there is high control over extraneous variables such as situational variables. For example all participants were left alone in a room for 3 minutes and then 7 minutes to think about and carry out their decision to write the letter or not . This means that distractions and the presence of other people did not influence their decision to obey, disobey and whistleblew. This is a strength as it meant Bocchiaro could truly measure responses to an unethical request by an authority figure increasing the controlled and scientific nature of this study into obedience disobedience and whistleblowing
80
Assess the external reliability of Bocchiaros study (3)
The external reliability of Bocchiaros study is high as Bocchiaro collects quantitative data which allows for comparison for obedience, disobedience and whistleblowing. For example 76.5% of people obeyed, 14.1% of people disobeyed and 9.4% of people whistleblew. This means we can draw conclusions to establish trends and patterns to check for consistenc as well as comapring between the comparison group
81
What are the strengths and weaknesses used for the sample in Bocchiaros study
+- Men and women were used
Fairly large sample used
Mix of cultures- due to university students theres more likely to be international students
- - Same age range of 20.8
Same location in Amsterdam
82
What ethical issues were followed in Bocchiaros study
Fully debriefed at the end so it upholds responsibility
Informed consent gained at the end- upholds respect
Privacy and confidentiality- no names or personal information disclosed- upholds respect
83
What ethical issues have been broken in Bocciaros study
Deception- fake cover story thought friends would take part in the study and also deceived into thinking the study was on sensory deprivation so breaks integrity
Protection of participants- Distressing to feel as though friend may be harmed in the study so breaks responsibility
84
What are the weaknesses of validity in Bocchiaros study (3)
Unfamiliar lab setting leads to a high risk of demand characteristics especially as students who may reveal the study
Highly artificial lab setting also leads to DC so low ecological validity
85
To what extend does the study by Bocchiaro enhance our understanding of responses to people in authority (5) INDIVIDUAL DIVERSITY
To a large extent Bocchiaro enhances our understanding of individual diversity. This is because he researches into individual differences between participant’s responses to people in authority. For example, Milgram measured the levels of obedience to an authority figure, and concluded that the high levels of obedience shown (65% obeyed 450 volts) demonstrated the power of the social context, failing to investigate any individual factors that could have contributed to the behaviour shown by participants. In comparison, Bocchiaro enhances our understanding of individual diversity when researching into obedience, disobedience and whistleblowing. He asked 149 university students if they would recommend 3 friends to participate in an unethical piece of research into sensory deprivation. He was interested in finding who would obey and recommend their friends. He conducted two personality inventories and found that there was trend with those who did whistleblow having a faith. This enhanced our understanding of Individual diversity as the research highlighted the dispositional differences when responding to an authority figure. This is highly useful as we can develop practical applications such as appointing those with a high faith in authoritative positions to reduce the risk of future atrocities.
86
To what extend does the study by Bocchiaro enhance our understanding of responses of people in authority (5) SOCIAL DIVERSITY
To some extent Bocchiaro enhances our understanding of social diversity. This is because he examines a different social group to Milgram (both men and women), whereas Milgram only assesses men. For example, Milgram assessed obedience to unethical authority, whereby 100% of participants delivered up to 300 volts to another person when asked to by Jack Williams. However, Milgram only assessed 40 males from New Haven, and so limiting our understanding of whether women would be just as likely to enter into agency, giving up their own freewill and obeying legitimate authority. However, Bocchairo enhances our understanding of social diversity by assessing both men and women. 149 undergraduate students (96 women and 53 men) were asked to recommend three friends for an unethical sensory deprivation study and were given the option to obey, disobey or blow the whistle. He found that 76% of participants obeyed despite given the options to defy the authority figure; suggesting that women are just as likely as men to blindly obey unjust authority. Thus, Bocchairo enhances our understanding of how all genders respond to authority, which is highly useful as workplaces can introduce new policies which allow for anonymous whistleblowing which both men and women have access to report unethical leaders.
87
Outline one similarity between Milgrim and Bocchiaro (4)
One similarity between Milgram and Bocchiaro is that they are both deterministic, as they demonstrate how behaviour is determined by factors outside of our control. For example, Milgram measured levels of obedience of 40 American men when asked by an authority figure to administer an electric shock to another person and found that 100% of participants shocked up to at least 300 volts. This is deterministic as it demonstrates how the actual presence of an authority figure, Jack Williams, and the prestigious university setting determined their high levels of obedience. Similarly, to Bocchiaro, who measured rates of obedience, disobedience and whistleblowing of 149 students at VU university in Amsterdam, finding that the majority of people obeyed the unethical request by the stern authority figure. This demonstrate how the student’s obedient behaviour was also determined by the controlled setting at the university and the implied presence of the stern Dutch authority figure. Factors outside of the control of participants.
