Bocchiaro's Study
- Created by: Former Member
- Created on: 20-01-18 20:31
Background
It was building onto Milgrams research to find out more about obedience. They wanted to find out things like who was more likely to obey , in terms of religion and personality, and why they obeyed and also to find out about whistle-blowing, who is more likely to do it.
Area
Social
Aim
1. To investigate rates of disobedience and whistle-blowing in a situation where the instructions are ethically wrong.
2. To investigate the accuracy of people's estimates of whistleblowing in this situation.
3. To investigate the role of dispositional factors in disobedience and whistle-blowing.
Sample
- 149 undergraduate students
- 96 women
- 53 men
- All from Amsterdam University
- Mean age 20.8
Self-selected sample
Research Method
- Structured observation
Procedure
1. 8 pilot tests were conducted to make sure the procedure was credible and morally acceptable (Mundane realism and presumptive consent)
2. Each participant was greeted by a male, Dutch experimenter who was formally dressed.
3. Asked them to provide names of fellow students then presented the cover story.
4. Experimenter left the room for 3 minutes to allow participants to reflect on the action-based decisions they were about to make.
5. Participants moved to a 2nd room so they could write their statement, to their friends, that had to include words like 'exciting, incredible, great and superb'
6. They could challenge the experiment about ethical issues by putting a letter into a mailbox.
7. They were probed for suspicion afterwards
Pilot Study
Bocchiaro did 8 pilot studies with 92 participants to trail run the procedure. He wanted to make sure it had mundane realism and credibility. He also wanted to make sure the procedure was ethically sound so gained presumptive consent that this was an ok study to do on others.
Cover Story
1. An experimenter is investigating the effects of sensory deprivation on the brain functions.
2. 6 participants in Rome spent some time completely isolated, unable to see or hear anything which had disastrous effects some even experienced visual and auditory hallucinations.
3. 2 participants asked to stop but were not allowed to because invalid data may have been collected.
4. Experimenters wanted to replicate the study with college students because of there being no data for younger people.
5. University research committee are evaluating the study and were collecting feedback from young people
Data
Quantitative
Percentage of people that obey/disobeyed/blew the whistle
Percentage of anoymous and open whistle-blowers
Qualitative
What participants said about why they obeyed
Predicted Results
What you would do;
- Obey - 3.6%
- Disobey - 31.9%
- Blow the whistle - 64.5%
What others would do;
- Obey - 18.8%
- Disobey - 43.9%
- Blow the whistle - 37.3%
Actual Results
Obey - 76.5%
Disobey - 14.1%
Blew the whistle openly - 3.4%
Blew the whistle anonymously - 6.0%
- No difference in gender, personality or type of religion
- People with more faith are more likely to blow the whistle
- Obedient people blamed someone else
- Disobedient people felt responisble
Conclusions
- It suggested that whistle-blowers have more faith
- People obey authority even when its unjust
- What you think you/others would do is usually different to how they'll actually behave
- Disobedience and whistleblowing are psychologically, socially and economically demanding for people
- Behaving in a moral manner is challenging even when it seems simple
Related discussions on The Student Room
- OCR A Level Psychology - Paper 1,2 and 3 (H567) - [Exam Chat] »
- For those of you who self studied GCSE's by yourself, how? »
- Should I take core maths? »
- Required practicals chemistry A level »
- Study an MBA at Bradford | Thread »
- Core/Recommended Reading »
- Self-teaching A-Level Further Mathematics in One Month Blog »
- Self studying A levels help »
- Sixth form subject »
- What happens if...? »
Comments
No comments have yet been made