Bocchiaro

• Background

  Social power refers to the influence an individual has to change another person's thoughts, feelings or behaviours. Individuals in authority have social power to influence those with a lower social status within their social hierarchy.

  People have strong inclinations to obey legitimate authority irrespective of their beliefs, feelings or intentions.

  Independent behaviour/ defiance involves the rejection of social influence/ power to behave in accordance with one's own internal attitudes, morals and beliefs.
• Background

  A whistle-blower is a person who reports wrongdoing to higher authority.

  In most situations, one would expect a lower level of whistle-blowing than obedience because it involves a potential direct confrontation between the defiant person and the authority.
• Bocchiaro's study used the generic Milgram paradigm as a starting point (authority requesting immoral actions of participants) but aimed to go well beyond it in providing participants an option to take personal action against an injustice by giving them the chance to obey, disobey or blow the whistle.
• Aims

  1. Would people, if given the opportunity, blow the whistle against authorities being immoral?
• Aims

  2. Would people's predictions of their behaviour be the same as their actual behaviour?
• Aims

  3. Would there be any individual differences between those who whistle blow and obey?
• Sample

  The research group:

  • 149 undergraduate students from VU university, Amsterdam (96 women, 53 men)
  • mean age= 20.8
  • Taking part in the research meant 7 euros or course credit
• Sample

  The comparison group:

  • 138 undergraduate students from VU university, Amsterdam
• Sampling Method- Volunteer

  • Participants were recruited via an advert/ flyers placed in the student cafeteria.
• Pilot Study

  Before conducting the study, 8 pilot tests were conducted involving 92 undergraduates.

  These ensured the procedure was credible and morally acceptable.

  These tests also served to standardise the experimenter-authority behaviour throughout the experimental period.
• Research Method

  It is a laboratory study as there is no independent variable. Bocchiaro often refers to it as a scenario study.
• Procedure

  1. Each participant was greeted in the laboratory by a male, Dutch experimenter who was formally dressed with a stern demeanour.
  2. Participants were informed what their task was, the potential benefits/ risks of participation, and about their right to withdraw at any time with no penalty. They were also assured of the confidentiality of the information collected.
  3. The experimenter proceeded with a (seemingly unjustified) request for each participant to provide a few names of fellow students.
  4. Participants were then given the Rome cover story.
• Cover story- the effects of sensory deprivation on brain function

  • 6 participants in Rome completely isolated, unable to see or hear
  • Disastrous effects- all panicked, cognitive abilities temporarily impaired, visual and auditory hallucinations.
  • 2 participants asked to stop because of strong symptoms but were not allowed in case of invalid data- "frightening experience"
  • Experimenters want to replicate the study at VU university on young people- brains potentially more sensitive
  • A University Research Committee was evaluating whether to approve the study and were collecting feedback from students
• The Task

  1. Participants were asked to write a positive statement to convince the students they had previously indicated to participate in the experiment. These would be sent by mail.
  2. The experimenter left the room for 3 minutes to allow participants to reflect on their decisions.
  3. Participants were then moved to a second room containing a computer, a mailbox and the Research Committee forms.
  4. Participants were told to be enthusiastic when writing the statements- use two adjectives among "exciting", "incredible", "great", superb".
  5. The experimenter left the room for 7 minutes.
• The Task

  • Obey- write the statement
  • Disobey- don't write the statement
  • Blow the whistle- report the study to the research committee by putting a form in the mailbox. This could be done anonymously by also writing a positive statement (they can defy safely)
• After The Task

  6. After the 7 minutes, the experimenter returned and invited the participant to follow him back to the first room.

  7. Here, 2 personality inventories were administered, participants were probed for suspicion, fully debriefed and asked to sign a second consent form. This time they were fully informed.

  The entire session lasted approximately 40 minutes.
• The Personality Inventories

  • Dutch version of the 60-item HEXACO Personality Inventory. This measures the six major dimensions of personality: 1. Honesty/ Humility, 2. Emotionality, 3. Extraversion, 4.Agreeableness, 5. Conscientiousness and 6. Openness to experience
  • A 9-item Decomposed Games Measure- this measured Social Value Orientation (SVO). This means how much weight a person attaches to the welfare of others in relation to their own.
  • Participants were also asked to state the strength and nature of their religious beliefs.
• Results

  A) 3.6%

  B) 76.5% (114)

  C) 64.5%

  D) 9.3% (14)

  
• Results

  • Among whistle-blowers 6% had written a message (anonymous whistle blowers) and 3.4% had refused to do so (open whistle-blowers).
• Results

  • No significant differences were found in any of the groups in relation to gender, religious affiliation, or religious involvement (defined in terms of church attendance).
  • However, a significant difference was observed with regard to faith. This suggests that whistle-blowers tend to be people of strong faith, regardless of what that faith is.
• Results

  • Results for individual differences in personality among the three groups showed no statistically significant differences in any of the 6 personality factors measured by the HEXACO- PI-R.
  • Results in terms of the SVO showed that " prosocial " and " individualistic " participants were equally distributed among the three groups. The study did not identify a specific personality type that is more likely to defy authority and/or blow the whistle.
• Results- Qualitative Data from participant debriefings (obeyed)

  • "It was expected of me, that's why I continued"
  • "I cooperated because the experimenter asked me to"
• Results- Qualitative Data from participant debriefings (Defied)

  • "I thought it was unfair and mean against the people who would receive the message"
  • "I don't want to do unethical things, I would be very disappointed in myself"
• Result- 76.5% of the research group obeyed by writing the positive statement about the unethical experiment.


  Conclusion- People tend to obey authority, even if the authority is unjust
• Result- In the comparison group, 64.5% believed they would blow the whistle; in the research group this fell to 9.3%


  Conclusion- How people think/ what people say they and others will do in a given situation often differs from what actually happens. The desire to feel like a 'good' person is overridden by the power of the situation.
• The key theme is responses to people in authority.