Core Study 2- Bocchiaro (S)

Question 1

What did Bocchiario focus solely on, which Milgram didn’t?

Answer 1

Whistle- blowing and disobedience

Question 2

Aim

What was the aim of Bocchiaro?

Answer 2

*To investigate how many people will comply with an unethical request and how many respond by ‘whistle- blowing’ to a higher authority
*To investigate the accuracy of people’s estimates
*To investigate the role of dispositional factors

Question 3

Sample

What did Bocchiaro’s sample consist of?

Who, gender, sampling technqiue

Answer 3

*undergraduate students from the VU uni of Amsterdam
*149 men and women took part in main experiment
*volunteers (self-selected sampling)
*138 different participants- surveyed about how they’d respond

Question 4

Method

What was the experimental design of Bocchiaro’s study?

Answer 4

Lab study- no IV= not an experiment

Question 5

Procedure

How much was each participant paid?

Answer 5

€7 (euros) or given course credits

Question 6

Procedure

How did deception occur in this study?

Answer 6

They were told they’d be taking part in research into sensory deprivation

Question 7

Procedure

How was obedience/ disobedience measured in Bocchiaro’s study?

Answer 7

*Each participant was told to write a statement to convince other uni students to take part in the sensory deprivation research
*they were told they had to use at least 2 words from a choice of 4 positive words, and not to mention the negative effects

Question 8

Procedure

How was whistle-blowing measured in the study?

Answer 8

Whether the particpant completed an ethics form and mailed it in the mailbox

Question 9

Procedure

What dispositional measure was the participant given when they were led back to the first room?

Answer 9

The HEXACO-PI-R personality test

Question 10

Procedure

How did the study adhere to informed consent?

Answer 10

The participants gave written consent for data to be used.

Question 11

Procedure

How were estimated likely obedience levels attained?

Answer 11

138 different participants asked- “what would you do?”, “what would the average uni student do?”

Question 12

Results

What was the outcome of the “what would you do?” estimations?

Answer 12

obey: 3.6%
disobey: 31.9%
whistle-blow: 64.5%

These were personal estimations of particpants

Shows that we often overestimate ourselves and think we are morally superior to others

Question 13

Results

What was the outcome of the “what would the average uni student do?” estimations?

Answer 13

obey: 18.8%
disobey: 43.9%
whistle-blow: 37.3%

What students think their friends/ avg student would do

Shows how we often overestimate ourselves, and think we are superior to others morally

Question 14

Results

What were the actual outcomes of the study percentage wise?

Answer 14

obey: 76.5%- 114 participants
disobey: 14.1%- 21 participants
whistle-blow: 9.4%- 14 particpants
(149 in total)

Question 15

Results

How would the outcomes and estimations be presented in the form of a graph?

Answer 15

Use a bar chart- 3 subsections (obey, disobey, whistle-blow) showed within a histogram

3 histograms within 1 bar chart

Question 16

Conclusions

Give at least 2 of the 5 conclusions.

Answer 16

-Little to no evidence to suggest dispositional factors affect WB or disobedience.
-People= obedient, WB is uncommon
-Tendancy to WB= overestimated, likelihood of obedinece= underestimated
-We see ourselves as special and likely to follow destructive orders
-Scenario based research lacks validity