Bocchiaro

Question 1

What was he looking at that contrasted Milgram

Answer 1

disobedience to unjust authority

Question 2

aims?

Answer 2

to put participants in a scenario where they had the choice to obey/disobey/whistleblow rather than just ask what they’d do

Question 3

sample

Answer 3

-recruited by flyers in the campus cafeteria of VU University in Amsterdam
-offered €7/course credit
-149 took part (96 females and 53 males)
-mean age 20.8

Question 4

procedure (pt 1)

Answer 4

-participants were met by a male Dutch researcher who was formally dressed with a stern demeanor
-were told a fake cover story about what the study was actually about & asked to give names of other students who could take part

Question 5

fake cover story

Answer 5

-Investigating effects of sensory deprivation on brain function
-Recently conducted an experiment on 6 participants who spent time completely isolated, in Rome, unable to hear anything
-Was traumatic: all people panicked, their cognitive abilities were impaired temporarily, some experienced visual and auditory hallucinations.
-2 participants asked them to stop but they didn’t because it would have implied collecting invalid data
-In interviews majority said it was a frightening experience.
-Aim to replicate this study
-There are currently no data on young people, but some scientists think their brain is more sensitive to negative effects

Question 6

procedure (pt2)

Answer 6

• told to write statement to convince students they named to take part in the sensory deprivation study (could include extra work/money if they do so)
  -also mentions the study is under review by an Ethics committee

Question 7

procedure (pt3)

Answer 7

-P then taken to a room with a computer to write their statement
-the room also included forms for the ethics committee which participants could use to report the study for ethical breaches by completing and placing in a mailbox
-were left alone in room for 7 minutes

Question 8

what were the three possible responses?

Answer 8

obedient (write statement)
disobedient (refuse to write statement)
whistle-blower (report the study to ethics committee)

Question 9

what’s an open whistleblower

Answer 9

Participants refuse to write a statement and report the study (they are OPEN about their disapproval)

Question 10

what’s a closed whistleblower?

Answer 10

Participants write a statement but also report the study for ethical breaches (they are being secretive about their disapproval)

Question 11

obedient results (main)

Answer 11

76.5% of participants went through and wrote a statement

Question 12

disobedient results (main)

Answer 12

14.1% of participants refused to write a statement

Question 13

whistleblower results (main)

Answer 13

9.4% of participants reported the study to the ethics committee
3.4% open
6% closed

Question 14

what was the comparison group

Answer 14

138 participants asked to imagine they were in the scenario and report what they think they would do so could compare the results.

Question 15

results for comparison group

Answer 15

Obedient - 3.6%
Disobedient - 31.9%
Whistleblower - 64.5%

Question 16

what were the 2 personality inventories

Answer 16

HEXACO & SVO

Question 17

What’s the HEXACO test

Answer 17

measures 6 major dimensions of personality:
● Honesty-Humility
● Emotionality
● Extraversion
● Agreeableness
● Conscientiousness
● Openness to Experience

Question 18

what’s the SVO test

Answer 18

The Social Value Orientation (SVO) measures preferences of outcomes for oneself and others:
● Prosocial Orientation
● Individualistic Orientation
● Competitive Orientation

Question 19

personality test results

Answer 19

no new information about the personality of obedient people, but did reveal that whistleblowers tended to have more faith.

Question 20

how was the sample biased?

Answer 20

Only students
Most likely young (mean
age 20.8yrs)
From Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Question 21

how wasn’t the sample biased?

Answer 21

Both male and female participants
Not all participants would have been from The Netherlands

Question 22

how was the study ethica

Answer 22

Students volunteered to take part (gave consent) as well as after the real study was revealed
Participants were given a full debrief about the sensory deprivation study not being real

Question 23

how wasn’t the study ethical

Answer 23

Students were deceived about a fake study
Students may have felt stressed by putting their peers in a harmful scenario OR felt guilty if they were obedient

Question 24

construct validity

Answer 24

• may not have actually opposed the sensory deprivation study
• they may have wanted it to be conducted
• they may have suggested names of people they didn’t like to take part

Question 25

ecological validity

Answer 25

Bocchiaro said the situation students were put in was realistic (suggesting other pupils for another study).

Question 26

population validity

Answer 26

Both male and female participants were used but they were on average quite young.

Question 27

internal reliability

Answer 27

The procedure was standardised (time given to write the statement, fake cover story given etc) so could be easily replicated again

Question 28

external reliability

Answer 28

There was 149 students so this should be enough to establish a consistent effect

Question 29

situational

Answer 29

-presence of a perceived legitimate authority figure (the experimenter in a lab coat) made them obey -was suggested if they comply they may get more money in the future

Question 30

individual

Answer 30

Faith was found as a characteristic that was found more in whistleblowers

Question 31

similarities to milgrams study

Answer 31

Participants were paid to take part Both studies took place within university settings

Question 32

differences to milgrams study

Answer 32

Studies were conducted in different countries The gender mix of participants

Question 33

how has it changed our understanding of the key theme of “responses to people in authority”

Answer 33

Tells us that people are just as obedient in The Netherlands as they are in USA.

Question 34

how has it NOT changed our understanding of the key theme of “responses to people in authority”

Answer 34

As the results were very similar (most people are obedient) it hasn’t really told us anything new.

Question 35

how has it changed our understanding of individual diversity

Answer 35

Investigated the role of personality characteristics (e.g faith) on obedience and whistleblowing BUT there weren’t any significant findings apart from faith

Question 36

how has it changed our understanding of social diversity

Answer 36

It investigated males and females BUT found very similar results

Question 37

how has it changed our understanding of cultural diversity

Answer 37

was carried out in the Netherlands not the US but found very similar results