Summary
Summary Psychology OCR A-level notes Bocchiaro
- Course
- Institution
Psychology OCR A-level notes Bocchiaro
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
meenaaravinthan
Content preview
Bocchiaro et al (2012): To defy or not to defy: An experimental study of thedynamics of disobedience and whistleblowing
Key Words
Obedience
Disobedience
Whistle-blowing
Cover Story on Sensory Deprivation
Comparison Group
Background Social power refers to the influence an individual has to change another’s thoughts, feelings or behaviour. Individuals in authority have social power to influence
those with lesser power or status. Research has shown that it is difficult to defy an authority figure, suggesting that there are more than situational explanations
responsible. Whistle-blowers report or expose unjust behaviour in organisations or institutions after observing the behaviour take place. Previous research by
Milgram found that a high proportion of people will obey an authority figure when asked to harm another person. However, little is known about the nature of
disobedience or defiance to someone in authority and the dispositional factors which may cause someone to defy social power. Bocchiaro therefore wanted to
expand on Milgram’s research by giving participants the option to obey, disobey or whistle-blow in relation to an unjust request.
Aim To investigate rates of obedience, disobedience and whistleblowing in response to highly unethical instructions
+ To investigate the accuracy of people’s estimates of obedience, disobedience and whistleblowing
+ To investigate the role of dispositional factors in obedience, disobedience and whistleblowing
Sample 149 undergraduate students, from VU University, 96 women, 53 men, average age 20.8, paid €7 or course credit (11 removed as they were suspicious)
Research Method Scenario study in a lab at VU University, Amsterdam
8 Pilot tests: used to ensure cover story on sensory deprivation was believable, to standardised experimenter-authority behaviour
Comparison group: Read the cover story on sensory deprivation study in Rome, asked what they would do (3.6% would obey) and what they thought other people
would do (18.8% would obey)
Procedure ROOM 1 = Main participants informed of task, given R2W and assured of confidentiality. Greeted in lab by male, Dutch authority figure formally dressed, with a stern
demeanour. Asked to provide names of 3 friends for study on sensory deprivation. Read the fake cover story about Rome study, that VU wanted to replicate but
Research Committee was evaluating whether it should be passed. Participants asked to write a statement to convince 3 friends to take part (Obedience). Option was
also made clear that Research Committee forms were in next room (Whistle-blowing). Experimenter left room for 3 minutes where participants made their decision.
ROOM 2= Participants told to be enthusiastic in letter and not mention negative effects of sensory deprivation. Experimenter then left the room for 7 minutes.
Participants then carried out their decision (obey and write the letter, disobey and do nothing, whistle-blow and complete Research Committee form). Experimenter
returned and taken back to Room 1.
ROOM 1= HEXACO and SVO personality inventories given, fully debriefed and asked to sign a second consent form.
Results Comparison group- 3.6% said they would obey
Main participants- 76.5% obeyed (14% disobeyed, 9% blew the whistle)
HEXACO and SVO- no significant difference, however, trend with those who whistle-blew having a faith.
Conclusion People tend to obey authority figures even when the authority is unjust.
What people say they and others will do in response to an unethical request differs from what actually happens.
Evaluation Research Method:
+ Highly standardised, increasing internal reliability
+ Ethical- allowed researchers to test obedience in an ethical way
+ High levels of control, increasing internal validity
-Low ecological validity as not a natural setting
-Risk of demand characteristics as they know they’re part of a study
Sample:
+ Quite large so can establish a consistent effect (increasing reliability)
-All undergraduate students (20.8) so can’t be generalised to adults
Snapshot:
+ Allowed researchers to compare levels of obedience between individuals
-Unable to track development of obedient behaviour over time
Sampling Bias:
+ Reached a wide range of people (different courses), not just one type of student
-Volunteer sampling used- risk of demand characteristics as being paid
Ecological Validity:
+ Cover story is believable (piloted) so scenario seemed plausible
-Not as realistic as real life (e.g. at work) due to use of a scenario study, participants not actually experiencing it so not able to generalise
Data:
+ Comparisons can be made with quantitative data between those who obeyed, whistle-blew etc.
+ External reliability increased as can be replicated to check for consistency
-Reduced insight as oversimplified explanation of complex behaviour
+ Qualitative data (comments made in debrief) useful to help assess how they really felt “it was expected of me, that’s why I continued”
Ethics:
+ Confidentiality, R2W, Consent gained twice, fully debriefed
-Deception- fake cover story
Ethnocentrism:
-Dutch participants (individualistic) so limited in drawing conclusions about collectivist cultures
+ However, similar findings to Milgram (USA) so not only true of Americans
Debates:
Individual/Situational
Reductionism/Holism
Freewill/Determinism
Socially Sensitive
Ethics
Usefulness
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller meenaaravinthan. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $9.77. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
64438 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now