Bocchiaro - Social - Responses to people in authority

Created by

Olivia Wainwright

Cards (19)

Independent behaviours - behave and act how we want
Defiance - to go against authority and is pre condition for social progress
Unjust authority - gives instructions which require a person to act in an anti-social way towards others
Whistle-blowing - person who exposes / informs a person or organisation regarded as engaging in unlawful activity
Bocchiaro was interested in understanding dispositional factors as well as situational in disobedience and obedience
What is the aim?
To investigate how people deal with an unethical and unjust request. Participants have the option of obeying, disobeying and blowing the whistle
To investigate the difference between how people think they will behave and how they actually behave
To see if people who disobey / blow the whistle show different personality characteristics than those who dont
METHOD: Pre experimental prep
8 Pilot tests were carried out before the main study to check on 92 undergrad students
The procedure was believable
The procedure was morally acceptable
The behaviour of the experimenter (authority figure) was standardised
They were a necessary part of the ethical approval process
METHOD: Pre experimental measures
A ‘Comparison group’ of 138 participants were asked to
predict how they would behave if they were a
participant in the study and how the actual participants
would behave.
This comparison group was made up of 138 students at VU University
They were given a description of the study then asked:
“What would you do?” and “What would the average student at
your university do?”
METHOD: Participants
Sample of 149 undergraduate students (96 women and 53 men)
Mean age of 20.8 (SD=2.65)
Paid either €7 or course credit

Sample method: Recruited by flyers posted in the campus cafeteria of the VU University at Amsterdam
11 were removed from original sample of 160 due to their suspicions about the nature of the experiment
METHOD: Procedure
Design: A controlled observation (in a laboratory*)
Location: The study took place in 2 specially prepared rooms at the University of VU in Amsterdam
A Dutch experimenter greeted each participant. He was formally dressed and stern.
The experimenter requested the participants provide names of a few fellow students (unjust)
The experimenter then presents his cover story on sensory deprivation about an experiment that had been done in Italy before that had disastrous consequences causing auditory hallucinations and distress etc and they wanted to carry it out again.
METHOD: Procedure - first room
Participants were told that research committee forms were in the next room. Participants were to write a statement to convince the students that they have previously named to participate in the experiment on sensory deprivation.

The experimenter left the room for 3 minutes to allow participants to reflect on the action based decisions they were about to make.
METHOD: Procedure - second room
Participants found a computer to write their statements, a mailbox and a research committee form
Participants were told to be enthusiastic when writing the cover letter and had to use two adjectives of “incredible” or “great” and no negative effects of sensory deprivation were to be mentioned.
The experimenter left them for 7 minutes.
What happened in the second room after the experimenter returned after the 7 minute interval?
After the 7 minute interval the experimenter returned and invited the participant to follow him back into the first room and given two personality tests to complete.
The experimenter asked a few questions to help him decide if the participant was suspicious. Following that, all participants were
debriefed fully.
METHOD: Personality tests
HEXACO measures
Honesty
Emotionality
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Openness to experiences
2. Social Value Orientation measures how much importance a person places on the welfare of another in relation to their own. It allows a person to be categorised as prosocial, individualistic or competitive.
METHOD: Measures?
Participant reactions to the experimenters request to write the supporting statement.
Those who complied: obedient
Those who refused: disobedient
2. The whistle blowers. Participants who reported the experimenter’s questionable conduct to the research committee (via the mailbox)
There were two types of whistle blowers:
Open whistle blowers – They refused to comply with the supporting statement request
Anonymous whistle blowers – Had completed the supporting
statement
RESULTS: Actual experiment?
149 particpants:
76.5% obeyed the experimenter (n= 114), 14.1% disobeyed the experimenter (n = 21) and 9.4% (n = 14) whistleblew
Of the whistleblowers:
6% had written a statement (anonymous whistleblower) and 3.4% had refused to write a statement (open whistleblowers)
There were no significant differences found in any groups in relation to ethnicity, gender, religious affilition
However a significant difference was found with regard to faith
RESULTS: Individual Differences
Whistleblowers have more faith
No signifcant difference in terms of personality characteristics measured by HEXACO
No particular pattern of social orientation
Conclusions:
People obey authority figures, even unjust authority figures
Individuals behave in different ways than expected when in unfamiliar and extreme circumstances factors may offer a better explanation for disobedience.
Acts of disobedience and whistle blowing are psychologically demanding for people.
Whistle blowers have more faith than either obedient or disobedient individuals
Situational rather than dispositional may offer a better explanation for disobedience
What was the background?
Bocchiaro looked at Milgram’s study of responses to people in authority and he wanted to see how far people would disobey as well as to see if people would whistle-blow and if they would openly disobey, disobey in secret, obey and whistle-blow or just fully obey