X Social (contemporary) - Bocchiaro X

Question 1

background

Answer 1

wanted to understand “the nature of disobedience toward authority”

Question 2

type of experiment

Answer 2

lab experiment

Question 3

Pilot study info

Answer 3

carried out 8 pilot studies before

interviews revealed p’s believed cover story and felt study was ethical

Question 4

pilot study strengths

Answer 4

check study is understandable
iron out problems before actual study starts
check replicability

Question 5

pilot study weaknesses

Answer 5

effort
time consuming
expensive
doesnt identify all issues
need lots of participants

Question 6

sample

Answer 6

149 undergraduates from VU uni (Amsterdamn)
11 ha dropped out due to suspiciousness of study
96w vs 43m
mean age: 20.8
paid 7 euros

Question 7

how sample was obtained

Answer 7

self selecting

flyers in cafeteria at the uni

Question 8

procedure room 1

Answer 8

.researcher meets p’s and presents them with the cover story
.they are then asked to write a recruitment letter for 5 friends
.researcher leaves room for 3 mins to allow p’s to think

Question 9

procedure room 2

Answer 9

.p’s taken to computer room
.asked to write the letter
.asked to include adjectives such as “incredible” and “great” and to not mention negative effects of sensory deprivation
.also a mailbox in the room if the p’s wanted to anonymously challenge the ethics of the study
.researcher left for 7 mins

Question 10

procedure back to room 1

Answer 10

given 2 personality tests to see if whistle blowers had similar personalities

Question 11

2 personality tests

Answer 11

Hexaco PI-R - measures personality on 6 factors

SVO

Question 12

cover letter

Answer 12

We recently conducted an experiment looking at effects of sensory deprivation on brain function. We put each participant on their own in a room unable to see or hear. Results were that all panicked, cognitive abilities were impaired temporarily, some had hallucinations. 2 p’s asked us to stop but we didn’t as it would have made the study invalid.
We would like to recreate this at the VU uni. There’s no data on young people, but doctors say they will have a more sensitive brain. I am worried and cant predict what will happen, but id like to carry on anyway.

Question 13

dependent variables

Answer 13

disobedient: refused to write to friends
anonymous whistleblower: wrote letter to friends, but also reported study
open whistleblower: refused to write and reported study
obedient: wrote letter to friends

Question 14

results

Answer 14

obedient: 77%
disobedient: 14%
whistleblower: 9% (6% open)

Question 15

conclusions

Answer 15

.behaving morally is hard for some, even when the most simple option
.people likely to obey, even if immoral
.no personality difference between obey/disobey/whilsteblower

Question 16

ethics kept

Answer 16

confidentiality
withdrawal
debrief
protection from harm

Question 17

ethics broken

Answer 17

deception

informed consent

Question 18

internal reliability

Answer 18

yes - replicable, standardised procedure, pilot studies show this

Question 19

external reliability

Answer 19

yes - large sample - 149 undergraduates

yes - 8 pilot studies (92 students)

Question 20

internal validity

Answer 20

no - may have measured levels of support
no - p’s may have written fake names or names of enemies
no - may have recruited same p’s twice

Question 21

population validity

Answer 21

no - ethnocentric - needs to be tested in other cultures e.g Africa/Asia

Question 22

ecological validity

Answer 22

no - not true to life environment