Bocchiaro
- Created by: Laurenmurphy2901
- Created on: 31-03-17 09:26
View mindmap
- Bocchiaro
- Aim
- to investigate the rates of obedience, disobedience and whistle-blowing in a situation where no physical violence was involved, but where it was quite clear that the instructions were ethically wrong: 1.To investigate the accuracy of people’s estimates of obedience, disobedience and whistle-blowing in this situation. 2.To investigate the role of dispositional factors in obedience, disobedience and whistle-blowing.
- Procedure
- 8 pilot tests, involving 92 undergraduates from the VU University in Amsterdam, were conducted to ensure the procedure was credible and morally acceptable. These tests were also served to standardize the experimenter - authority behavior throughout the experimental period.
- The comparison group was provided with a detailed description of the experimental setting. They were then asked 'what would you do?' and 'what would the average student at your university do?'
- Ps were informed about what their task was, about the potential benefits/risks of participation, and about their right to withdraw any time with no penalty. They were also assured of the confidentiality of the information collected.
- Each participant was greeted in the laboratory by a male, dutch experimenter who was formally dressed and had a stern demeanor. The experimenter proceeded with a seemingly justified request for each P to provide a few names of fellow students and then presented the cover story.
- The experimenters were investigating the effects of sensory deprivation on brain function. A recently conducted experiment on six participants who spent some time completely isolated, unable to see or hear anything, had disastrous effects - all panicked, their cognitive abilities were temporarily impaired, some experienced visual and auditory hallucinations. 2 participants asked to stop bc of their strong symptoms but were not allowed to do so because invalid data may then have been collected. The majority said it had been a frightening experience.
- The experimenters wanted to replicate this study at the UV University using a sample of college students as there was currently no data on young people but some scientists thought that their brains may be more sensitive to the negative effects of isolation.
- A University Research Committee was evaluating whether to approve the study and were collecting feedback from students who knew details about the experiment to help them make their decision. Participants were told the Research Committee forms were in the next room. Ps were told to write a statement to convince students they had previously indicated to participate in the experiment. Statements would be sent to the identified students by mail. Ps were then moved to a second room where they was a computer for them to use to write their statement, a mailbox and the Research Committee forms.
- Ps were told to be enthusiastic when writing their statements and had to use two adjectives: 'exciting', 'incredible', 'great' and 'superb'. Negative effects of sensory deprivation were not to be mentioned. The experimenter told Ps to begin and left the room for 7 minutes. If a P believed the proposed research on sensory deprivation violated ethical norms he/she could anonymously challenge it by putting a form in the mailbox
- After the 7 minute interval the experimenter returned and invited the P to follow him back to the first room where they were given a set of dispositional measures.2 personality inventories: HEXACO-PI-R personality test (measured honesty-humility, emotionalism, extroversion agreeableness, conscientiousness and openness to experience) and the The Decomposed Games measure of social values. Religiosity was assessed by asking participants about religious affiliation frequency of worship and extent of faith.
- After personality tests, participants were fully debriefed and asked to sign a second consent form, this time fully informed. They were also probed for suspicion (11 Ps were removed due to suspicion). The entire session lasted approx 40 minutes.
- 138 comparison Ps were asked to estimate likely obedience levels in this situation. They were provided with a detailed description of the procedure and asked 'what would you do' and 'what would the average student at your university do?'
- After personality tests, participants were fully debriefed and asked to sign a second consent form, this time fully informed. They were also probed for suspicion (11 Ps were removed due to suspicion). The entire session lasted approx 40 minutes.
- After the 7 minute interval the experimenter returned and invited the P to follow him back to the first room where they were given a set of dispositional measures.2 personality inventories: HEXACO-PI-R personality test (measured honesty-humility, emotionalism, extroversion agreeableness, conscientiousness and openness to experience) and the The Decomposed Games measure of social values. Religiosity was assessed by asking participants about religious affiliation frequency of worship and extent of faith.
- Ps were told to be enthusiastic when writing their statements and had to use two adjectives: 'exciting', 'incredible', 'great' and 'superb'. Negative effects of sensory deprivation were not to be mentioned. The experimenter told Ps to begin and left the room for 7 minutes. If a P believed the proposed research on sensory deprivation violated ethical norms he/she could anonymously challenge it by putting a form in the mailbox
- A University Research Committee was evaluating whether to approve the study and were collecting feedback from students who knew details about the experiment to help them make their decision. Participants were told the Research Committee forms were in the next room. Ps were told to write a statement to convince students they had previously indicated to participate in the experiment. Statements would be sent to the identified students by mail. Ps were then moved to a second room where they was a computer for them to use to write their statement, a mailbox and the Research Committee forms.
- The experimenters wanted to replicate this study at the UV University using a sample of college students as there was currently no data on young people but some scientists thought that their brains may be more sensitive to the negative effects of isolation.
- The experimenters were investigating the effects of sensory deprivation on brain function. A recently conducted experiment on six participants who spent some time completely isolated, unable to see or hear anything, had disastrous effects - all panicked, their cognitive abilities were temporarily impaired, some experienced visual and auditory hallucinations. 2 participants asked to stop bc of their strong symptoms but were not allowed to do so because invalid data may then have been collected. The majority said it had been a frightening experience.
- Each participant was greeted in the laboratory by a male, dutch experimenter who was formally dressed and had a stern demeanor. The experimenter proceeded with a seemingly justified request for each P to provide a few names of fellow students and then presented the cover story.
- Ps were informed about what their task was, about the potential benefits/risks of participation, and about their right to withdraw any time with no penalty. They were also assured of the confidentiality of the information collected.
- The comparison group was provided with a detailed description of the experimental setting. They were then asked 'what would you do?' and 'what would the average student at your university do?'
- 8 pilot tests, involving 92 undergraduates from the VU University in Amsterdam, were conducted to ensure the procedure was credible and morally acceptable. These tests were also served to standardize the experimenter - authority behavior throughout the experimental period.
- Research method
- Laboratory or scenario study because no IV
- The study took place in a laboratory at the VU University in Amsterdam, so conditions could be controlled eg the procedure was standardised so the experimenter-authority behaviour and cover story were consistent throughout the experimental period. Two specially prepared rooms were used. Timings for when the experimenter left the room were kept the same for all participants.
- Laboratory or scenario study because no IV
- Sample
- ?149 undergraduate students from the VU university of Amsterdam ?96 women ?53 men ?Mean age = 20.8 ?Took part in the research in exchange for either €7 or course credit. ?NB: A total of 11 participants were removed from the initial sample of 160 because of their suspiciousness about the nature of the study. ?138 different participants were surveyed about how they believed they would respond in the experimental situation.
- Sampling method
- Self-selected Sample: Volunteers recruited by flyers posted in the university cafeteria.
- Results
- Only 3.6% indicated they would obey the experimenter. Most believed they would be either disobedient (31.9%) or whistle-blowers (64.5%). When asked to predict the behaviour of other typical studenrts at their university, only 18.8% thought an average student at VU University would obey, while they believed most other students would either disobey (43.9%) or whistle-blowers (37.3%)
- Qualitative data
- Untitled
- Qualitative data
- Only 3.6% indicated they would obey the experimenter. Most believed they would be either disobedient (31.9%) or whistle-blowers (64.5%). When asked to predict the behaviour of other typical studenrts at their university, only 18.8% thought an average student at VU University would obey, while they believed most other students would either disobey (43.9%) or whistle-blowers (37.3%)
- Conclusions
- People behaving in a moral manner is challenging for people, even when this reaction appears to observers as the simplest path to follow.
- Aim
Similar Psychology resources:
Teacher recommended
Comments
No comments have yet been made