Bocchiaro (Everything)

Bocchiaro

 

Background

 

Whistleblowing;

·         Informing the appropriate authorities about unethical practice, in particular unethical professional practice.

·         It’s a really difficult choice to make as it involves taking on your immediate supervisors – those who have authority over you.

·         It’s a more positive word than snitch.

 

Whistle blowing is an alternative to direct disobedience.

Although Milgram explained obedience as a result of situational factors he didn’t explain anything about the 35% of participants who didn’t each 450v.

He gave no details indication of why they were disobedient. Milgram did not ask them or investigate what kind of people they were. Maybe those who disobeyed have psychological characteristics in common such as personality. This would be and individual or dispositional factor.

They couldn’t replicate Milgram’s study due to ethical reasons and the fame it received.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Aims

 

1.      To investigate rates of disobedience and whistleblowing in a situation where the instructions were 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 whistleblowing.

 

Pilot study

 

No chair carried out 8 pilot studies with 92 participants.

This was to ensure the procedure was credible and that the procedure was ethically acceptable (gaining p resumption consent). Participants didn’t realise they were being deceived to ensure mundane realism.

 

Research Method

 

·         Carried out in lab conditions.

·         Like Milgram’s – it has no independent variable so could be considered a experimental study (Milgram’s was a controlled observation)

·         Participants paid €7 or given course credits.

Scenario based research; (asking people what they would do in certain situations) this lacks validity because what you say you would do may be different to what you would actually do.

 

Sample

 

·         Self-selected

·         149 undergraduate students

·         96 men 53 women

·         All from Amsterdam university

·         Average age of 20.8 years

·         11 removed because they didn’t believe the scenario was real

 

Predictions

 

·         138 participants were surveyed about how they would react in the experimental situation.

·         They were provided with a detail description of the procedure and asked;

·         ‘What would you do?’

·         ‘What would the average student at your university do?’

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Procedure

 

1.      8 pilot tests were conducted to make the procedure credible, morally acceptable and gain presumptive consent.

2.      Each experimenter was greeted by a male Dutch experimenter who was formally dressed.

3.      The participants were asked for names of fellow students and then they were presented with the cover story

4.      Cover story;

·         An experimenter is investigating the effects…