Bocchiaro- Disobedience + whistleblowing

• social power- influence individual has to change thoughts, feelings or behaviours due to being higher in social hierarchy
• People have strong tendencies to obey people in authority
• independent behaviour + disobedience is rejecting social influence
• disobedience + defiance to unjust authority is a precondition for social progress
• whistle-blowers are seen as unlawful or immoral
• situations with disobedient behaviour have low whistle blowing due to confrontation with authourity
• obedient individuals behave differently to disobedient- nature makes it difficult to predict + personality variable may influence decision to obey or disobey
• previous research on obedience not disobedience
• who are disobeyers or whistle-blowers and why do they take challenging path - different characteristics than those who obey
• Milgram's study as base- authority requests immoral actions- but allowed for ppts to act on it
• aim- show wide gap between predictions and results + understand individual and situational variations in disobedience allowed them to collect vast info on ppts
• called experiment- lab study as there was no IV
• took place in lab in Amsterdam so conditions could be controlled- experimenter behaviour + cover story, timings for experimenter leaving
• Data gathered by looking at statements of support of study = via personality tests
• three outcomes- obedient/ disobedient/ whistleblower
• 138 students comparison- asked what would you do
• sample- 149 undergraduate students- 96 female, 53 male
• 7 euros or course credit given for taking part in study
• 11 ppts removed from original 160 due to suspicions of study
• 8 pilot tests to ensure study was credible and morally acceptable + look for behaviours to look out for
• ppts greeted by a stern male in formal dress and given cover story, briefed and given right to withdraw and anonymity
• cover story: effect of sensory deprivation on brain function- said to make people have hallucinations, cognitive abilities were temporarily impaired 2 ppts asked to stop but were told they could not. an experimenter wanted to replicate the study in Amsterdam+ use college students due to no data collected on them previously. ppts were tasked with writing a letter in support of this study to students who had previously been mentioned. The research committee would look at the responses then give a decision.
• Experimenter left room for 3 minutes to allow ppt refection then ppt moved to another room
• ppts told to be enthusiastic and use two adjectives 'exciting' 'incredible' 'great' 'superb'- negative effects not to be mentioned
• Experimenter then left for 7 minutes
• Ppt told they could anonymously challenge study by checking a box
• Experimenter returned for a final time and ran 2 personality tests on ppts and probes for suspicions, ppt fully debriefed and signed a second consent form
• procedure lasted 40 mins
• Comparison group- 3.6% obey experimenter, 31.9% disobedient, 64.5% whistle-blowers.

  18.8% thought average student would obey

  43.9% thought average student would disobey

  37.3% thought average student would whistle-blow
• experimental group (149)- 76.5% obeyed (114)

  14.1% disobeyed (21)

  9.4% whistle blew (14) - 9 wrote a message (anonymous whistle-blowers)- 5 did not (open whistle-blowers)
• no link between gender or religious involvement
• No differences in 6 personality factors measured by HEXACO- prosocial and individualistic ppts not evenly distributed
• concluded: people obey authority even if unjust - individuals behave differently than expected when circumstances
• concluded: internal processes to appear 'good' differ from outward persuasive power of situational forces that can impact behaviour
• Concluded: disobedience and whistleblowing are psychologically demanding
• concluded: behaving in a normal manner is difficult- even if seen as easy path to observers