Bocchiaro et al. (2012)

• BACKGROUND

  -> social power refers to the influence an individual has to change another's thoughts ,, feelings / behaviours

  -> people in authority have social power over those they think are lower than them in social hierarchy

  -> people have strong inclinations to obey legitimate authority ,, irrespective of their beliefs ,, feelings / intentions
• WHISTEBLOWER -> person who exposes / informs on a person / organisation regarded as engaging in unlawful / immoral activity

  DISOBEDIENT -> refusing to obey rules / someone in authority

  OBEDIENT -> willing to obey rules / someone in authority
• AIMS

  -> to investigate the rates of obedience ,, disobedience & whistle-blowing in a situation where no physical violence was involved but where it was quite clear that the instructions were ethically wrong

  -> to investigate the accuracy of people's estimates of obedience ,, disobedience & whistle-blowing

  -> to investigate dispositional factors in obedience ,, disobedience & whistle-blowing
• METHOD

  -> the study took place in a lab at the VU university in amsterdam

  -> like milgram ,, there was in fact no independent so the study may be best viewed as a controlled observation conducted in a lab setting
• PILOT STUDY

  -> bocchiaro completed 8 pilot studies prior to the final studies ,, with 92 students. this helped ensure the procedure was credible & standardised the experimenter-authority behaviour

  -> in the final study ,, bocchiaro had an experimental group (who took part in the study) & a comparison group (who were asked about the study)
• SAMPLE - EXPERIMENTAL GROUP

  -> 149 undergraduate students * 96 FEMALES ,, 53 MEN W/ MEAN AGE OF 20.8)

  -> he gained his participants through a flyer that was placed in the cafeteria campus * OPPORTUNITY SAMPLING *

  -> all collected from the VU university in amsterdam

  -> paid 7 euros for their participation // given course credit
• COMPARISON GROUP

  -> 138 undergraduate students

  -> they were told a detailed description of the study & asked '' What would you do? '' & '' What would the average student at your university do? ''

  -> all collected from the VU university in amsterdam
• PROCEDURE

  -> on arrival to study ,, they were informed about the benefits / risks of participation & their right to withdraw at any time. they were also reassured of their confidentiality

  -> participants were told that they taking part in a study on effects of sensory deprivation

  -> they were met with a Dutch experimenter (formally dressed) who had a stern demeanour. he asked for a few names of fellow students & then presented the participants with a cover story
• PROCEDURE - ROOM 1

  -> the participants were asked to write a statement to convince the students they had just mentioned to take part in an experiment on sensory deprivation. the cover story they were given clearly showed it was an unethical experiment

  -> participants were told that the University Research Committee was evaluating whether to approve the study & wanted feedback from students who knew about the experiment to help make their decision

  -> the participants were left alone for 3 minutes to allow them to reflect on their decision
• PROCEDURE - ROOM 2

  -> in room 2 ,, there was a computer for participants to write their statement. participants were encouraged to be enthusiastic and use 2 adjectives from the following : '' exciting '' ,, '' incredible '' ,, '' great '' & '' superb ''

  -> the experimenter left the room for 7 mins

  -> OBEDIENT - people who wrote a statement

  -> DISOBEDIENT - people who didn't write a statement
• PROCEDURE - ROOM 2

  -> in room 2 ,, there was also a mailbox from the research committee saying : '' The Free University aims to promote excellent & ethical research. All research should strive to minimise the risk to participants ,, so they will not be exposed to any more risk than they would encouter in their usual lifestyle.''

  -> '' if you think that the research on sensory deprivation violates the above mentioned basic ethical norms ,, please report this to the Human Ethics Committee by checking the box below & putting the document in the mailbox.''
• PROCEDURE

  -> after 7 mins ,, participants were then taken back to room 1 and completed 2 personality tests

  -> they were fully debriefed ; told the aims of the study ,, the use of deception & reassured of their actions. this was both verbal & written ; they were given the researchers details if they wanted future contact with them

  -> participants were asked not to discuss the study with family / friends & were asked to sign a furthur informed consent sheet
• PROCEDURE

  • Participants were split into the following:
  • OBEDIENT - completed the letter without whistleblowing
  • DISOBEDIENT - refused to complete the letter without whistleblowing
  • OPEN WHISTLEBLOWER - refused to complete the letter & whistle-blew
  • ANON WHISTLEBLOWER - completed the letter & anonymously whistle-blew
• HEXACO PI-R

  -> this test scores you from 10-50 on each personality trait. there a 6 personality traits:

  • honesty-humility
  • emotionality
  • extraversion
  • agreeableness
  • conscientiousness
  • opennness to experience
• DECOMPOSED GAMES MEASURE - SVO

  -> the Social Value Orientation ( SVO ) asks you to decide who to give points to based on you and '' the other ''. your personality is then decided at the end to be either:

  • prosocial
  • individualistic
  • competitive
• RESULTS - COMPARISON GROUP

  -> these results show that when asked about this scenario hypothetically ,, most respondents believed that they would be either disobedient or whistle-blowers. when asked to predict the behaviour of other typical students at their university ,, they did think that a higher proportion of students would obey in comparison to themselves ,, but still believed that most other students would either disobey / whistle blow

  
• RESULTS - EXPERIMENTAL GROUP

  -> in the real study ,, the majority of participants obeyed. out of the 14 whislte-blowers 9 had written a statement ( anonymous whistle-blowers ) & 5 had refused to do so ( open whistle-blowers )

  
• QUALITATIVE RESULTS

  -> after the study had finished participants explained why they obeyed / disobeyed / blew the whistle

  -> obedient participants said that they did it because ,, '' it was expected of me that's why i did it '' ,, '' i cooperated because the experimenter asked me to ''

  -> disobedient participants / whistleblowers remained fully responsible for their actions which was the reasons for why they didn't fully obey ,, '' i don't want to do unethical things ,, i would be very disappointed in myself '' ,, '' i disobeyed because i felt responsible to my friends ''.
• CONCLUSIONS

  -> people tend to obey authority figures ,, even if the authority is unjust

  -> how people thing / what people say they & others will do in a given situation often differs from what actually happens

  -> individuals behave in completely different ways than expected when they find themselves in certain circumstances that are unfamiliar & somewhat extreme. participants often find themselves experiencing an '' agentic shift '' * CHANGING FROM BEING AN INDIVIDUAL TO CARRYING OUT THE ORDERS OF AN AUTHORITY FIGURE *
• CONCLUSIONS

  -> behaving in a moral manner is challenging for people ,, even when the reaction appears to observers as the simplest path to follow

  -> with regard to faith ,, there appears to be a trend suggesting that whistleblowers have more faith than either obedient / disobedient individuals
• PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS - 1

  -> among the 3 groups ,, there were no sig diff in any of the 6 personality factors measured by the HEXACO-PI-R. similarly ,, no sig diffs were found between groups in terms of SVO. therefore ,, this means there were no specific personality characteristics that were linked to being obedient // whistle-blower ,, ETC
• PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS - 2

  -> there were also no sig diffs found in any of groups ( obedient ,, disobedient // whistle-blowers ) in relation to gender ,, religious affiliation ( christian // Islamic ) ,, or religious involvement ( defined in terms of church attendance ). however ,, a sig diffs was observed was regard to faith ,, with results suggesting a trend towards whistle-blowers having more faith ( defined as a '' confident belief in a trascendent reality '' )
• METHOD

  STRENGTHS :

  -> as it was a lab study with high lvls of control a cause & effect relationship could be established

  -> due to standardised procedures the study could be replicated if it was to be conducted again

  -> by keeping everything standardised & consistent for each participant the reliability of study increased

  WEAKNESSES:

  -> as there was no specific IV it was diff to fully establish cause & effect

  -> although p's were told not to tell others ab study ,, if they told they may have displayed demand characteristics due to knowing aim of study ,, reducing validity of study
• SAMPLE

  STRENGTHS :

  -> as sample was fairly large ( 149 ) participants ,, sample was more generalize to the population

  -> findings were generalisable & representative to students as a large no of them were recruited & were from a range of courses

  WEAKNESSES :

  -> however all of the participants used were students ,, findings were only representative of students & not other people

  -> the sample could be considered ethnocentric as participants all come from Netherlands & therefore findings cannot be generalised to those from other countries / places
• SAMPLE METHOD - OPPORTUNITY SAMPLING

  STRENGTH -> using a self selected sample means that participants would be less likely to drop out ( attrition )

  WEAKNESSES -> all participants may have similar characteristics as they all volunteered themselves forward
• ETHICS

  STRENGTHS :

  -> all participants were given the right to withdraw experiment

  -> they were fully debriefed after experiment

  -> their infos kept confidential & anonymous

  -> p's that were whistle-blowers may have left the study with self worth

  WEAKNESSES :

  -> p's may have felt mentally // emotionally harmed if they obeyed requests of authority

  -> p's were fully deceived during study

  -> researcher although getting consent didnt get informed consent from p's until after study had finished
• MISCELLANEOUS

  STRENGTHS :

  -> study was considered ecologically valid as bocchiaro tried to create a study that was v/ similar to a real life situation

  WEAKNESSES :

  -> study could have lacked validity if p's found out ab aim of study

  -> although sample could have been considered ethnocentric ,, if researcher take into consideration that Milgram was set in the USA & this in Europe the findings could be considered less ethnocentric as Bocchiaro was supporting Milgrams findings on obedienc