Bocchiaro (2012)

• Theory on which the study is based - Social power is the influence individuals have to change others' thoughts, feelings or behaviours. Authority, legitimate or illegitimate, has social power to influence lower social status within their hierarchy. We strongly desire to obey legitimate authority, no matter our beliefs, feelings or intentions. Defiance involves rejecting social influence or power to follow our own internal attitudes, morals and beliefs. Defiance to unjust authority is needed for social progress.
• Theory on which the study is based (2) - Whistleblowers inform on a person or organisation seen as acting in unlawful or immoral activity. In defiant situations may expect a lower level of whistle-blowing than disobedience because it may involve direct confrontation between the defiant and the authority figure so be less likely to occur. We'd expect defiant people to be different from obedient but unusual situations may reduce the ability to predict people's behaviour. Personality variables are likely to influence decisions to obey, disobey or defy unethical authority.
• Background - Milgram found people strongly desire to obey legitimate authority, despite beliefs, feelings or intentions. Such research gives important knowledge about how mechanisms of obedience work.

  Not much is know about disobedience to unjust authority, who disobeys or whistle-blows, why this hard moral path is chosen, and if there are different personal characterestics to those who obey?
• Aims - Using Milgram's scenario as a starting point to provide an option to take action against the unjust system. They had the chance to obey, disobey or whistleblow.

  To replicate Milgram's findings of a wide gap between people's predictions of obedience when compared with actual behaviour seen in the study.

  To understand personal and social factors in disobedience by collecting personality and values information from participants.
• Research method - Although laboratory based there is no independent variable so like Milgram this study may be best viewed as laboratory study.

  Set in a lab at VU University, Amsterdam, under controlled conditions.

  Data gathered on:

  • Personality test scores
  • Number: 1. Obeying by writing statement supporting sensory deprivation study 2. Disobeying by refusing to write statement 3. Whistleblowing by reporting conduct to Research Committee.
  • 138 comparison students from VU University given detailed descriptions of scenario and asked "what would you do?" and "what would the average student do?"
• Sample - 149 undergraduate students (96f and 53m) in exchange for 7 euros or course credit. 11 removed from sample of 160 as suspcious (worked out the study was about obedience). Recruited by flyers in VU campus cafe. Therefore sampling method was self selction.
• Outline of the procedure/study - 8 pilot tests (92 students) to standardise authority figure behaviour, test procedure and ethics.

  Comparison group (given full description) asked "what would you do?" and "what would the average student at your university do?".

  Participants informed of task, potential benefits/risks, and about no penality right to withdraw at any time. Confidentiality of data assured. The entire session lasted about 40 minutes.
• Outline of procedure/study (2) - Greeted individually by male Dutch experimentor, formally dressed with stern appearance who asked for a few names of fellow students to take part then gave cover story:

  'Experimented in Rome on sensory deprivation effects on brain function. Disastrously, six totally isolated unable to see/hear. All panicked, temporary cognitive impairement, visual/auditory hallucinations, and high fear. Two asked to stop due to strong symptoms but not allowed to in case data lost validity. Wanted to replicate study using students as had no data on young people.
• Outline of procedure/study (3) - Said some scientists thought young brains may be more sensitive to negative effect of isolation and hard to predict outcomes. University Research Committee wanted feedback from aware students to help deicde if to allow it. Research Committee forms were in next toom and had to write statement to convince perviously named students to participate in study. Statements would be sent by mail'.

  Experimentor left room for 3 minutes allowing reflection on actions they had to make.

  Moved to 2nd room with computer, mailbox and Research Committee forms.
• Outline of procedure/study (4) - Told to be enthusiastic and include 2 adjectives from "exciting", "incredible", "great" and "superb". Not to mention negative effects of sensory deprivation. Experimentor then left room for 7 minutes.

  Could anonymously challenge ethics of the proposed research by putting a form in the mailbox.

  After 7 mins experimentor came back and invited them to return to 1st room and gave personality inventories, checked suspicion, fully debriefed and asked to sign 2nd fully-informed consent form.
• Key findings - Whisteblowers: 6% (9/149) wrote form (anonymous) and 3.4% (5/149) refused task.

  No significant differences in groups for gender, religious affiliation or church involvement. Faith (confident belief in life after death) was significant.

  No significant differences in any of the six personality factors measured by the HEXACO.

  Results of the Social Value Orientation showed "prosocial" and "individualistic" participants were equally distributed among obedience and whistle-blowers.
• Key findings (2) - Qualitative data showed people obeyed due to external forced: "it was expected of me, that's why i continued", "I cooperated becasue the experimentor asked me to", they had entered the agentic state and so did not see themselves as responsible for their behaviour.

  Opposite true for disobedience who felt responsibility: "I disobeyed because I felt responsible towards friends", "if the experiment would really hurt people, I wouldn't want to be responsible".
• Possible conclusions - People tend to obey authority figures, even if the auhtority is unjust.

  What we say often differs from what we do. Internal cognitive processes wanting to be "good" differ from situational forces which can cause 'bad' behaviour. Individuals can behave in very different ways in certain unfamiliar or extreme circumstances.

  Disobedience, especially whistleblowing are psychologically, socially and economically demanding.

  Behaving in a moral manner hard even when it appears to observers as the simplest path to follow.
• Possible conclusions (2) - Trend appears to suggest whistle-blowers have more faith than obedient or disobedient.