Social Psych: Bocchiaro

Question 1

What is the influence of individuals in authority?

Answer 1

Individuals in authority have the social power to change the thoughts, feelings, or behaviours of those of lower status in the hierarchy.

Question 2

What is independent behaviour/defiance?

Answer 2

Independent behaviour/defiance involves the rejection of social influence to behave in accordance with one’s own internal attitudes, morals, and beliefs.

Question 3

What is a whistleblower?

Answer 3

A whistleblower is a person who exposes/informs on a person or organisation regarded as engaging in unlawful or immoral activity.

Question 4

What might influence an individual’s decision to obey or disobey authority?

Answer 4

Personality variables may influence an individual’s decision to obey, disobey, and openly defy an authority demanding them to act in unethical ways.

Question 5

What was Milgram’s study focused on?

Answer 5

Milgram’s study focused on obedience, whereas Bocchiaro et al wanted to find out more about disobedience.

Question 6

Why couldn’t Milgram’s study be replicated?

Answer 6

Milgram’s study is discouraged due to ethical guidelines.

Question 7

What is whistle-blowing?

Answer 7

Whistle-blowing involves reporting unethical incidents to higher authorities.

Question 8

Why is it hard to be a whistle-blower?

Answer 8

It involves confronting your superiors who have authority over you.

Question 9

What two investigative options were rejected by the authors of the study?

Answer 9

1. Interviewing after the act - time between the original decision and the scenario could affect validity. 2. Scenario-based method - poor validity unless the situation is familiar.

Question 10

What did Milgram find that Bocchiaro wished to further investigate?

Answer 10

Milgram found how obedient people thought they would be when given destructive orders.

Question 11

What two factors were the researchers interested in assessing?

Answer 11

The researchers were interested in assessing dispositional and social factors.

Question 12

What did the conclusion of the study suggest about people?

Answer 12

The conclusion suggested that people may behave differently under demand and that disobedience appears to be more common than expected.

Question 13

What was the aim of the study?

Answer 13

To investigate why individuals disobey and/or blow the whistle, and to explore their personality characteristics that differentiate them from those who obey.

Question 14

Why is this study described as a ‘laboratory study’?

Answer 14

There was no independent variable manipulated.

Question 15

What are three controlled aspects of the study?

Answer 15

1. The time the experimenter left the room was always the same.
2. The cover story was consistent.
3. Two specially prepared rooms were used.

Question 16

What behavior signals obedience in this study?

Answer 16

Writing a statement supporting the sensory deprivation study.

Question 17

What behavior signals disobedience?

Answer 17

Refusing to write a statement.

Question 18

What behavior signals whistle-blowing?

Answer 18

Reporting the experimenter to the research committee.

Question 19

What were the names of the personality inventories used?

Answer 19

HEXACO-P.I-R and Decomposed game measure.

Question 20

What was the purpose of the pilot studies?

Answer 20

To ensure the procedure was credible and ethically acceptable.

Question 21

Describe the sample used in the study.

Answer 21

Undergraduates from VU University of Amsterdam, consisting of 93 participants (53 men) with a mean age of 20, recruited through flyers in the university cafeteria.

Question 22

What did the qualitative data show?

Answer 22

Participants obeyed due to various factors, indicating that people tend to obey authority figures.

Question 23

How were results similar to Milgram’s in terms of predicted and actual behaviour?

Answer 23

People predicted more of them would obey, whereas many actually disobeyed.

Question 24

What percentage of the comparison group (self) believed they would obey?

Answer 24

33.6% of participants believed they would obey.

Question 25

What percentage of the comparison group (self) believed they would blow the whistle?

Answer 25

9.9% believed they would blow the whistle.

Question 26

What percentage of the experimental group actually obeyed?

Answer 26

76.5% obeyed.

Question 27

What was found about the influence of dispositional factors on obedience and whistleblowing?

Answer 27

There is little to no evidence that dispositional factors affect the likelihood of obedience or whistleblowing.

Question 28

What did the qualitative data show about those who were obedient?

Answer 28

No individual differences in personality had a significant difference.

Question 29

What did the qualitative data show about those who were disobedient?

Answer 29

Participants disobeyed due to internal morals and responsibility, influenced by friends.

Question 30

What is a conclusion about obedience to authority figures?

Answer 30

People tend to obey authority figures, even if the authority is unjust.

Question 31

What is often different from what people predict will happen in a situation?

Answer 31

How people think/what people say they and others will do is often different from what actually happens.

Question 32

What can lead people to behave in completely different ways than expected?

Answer 32

Certain circumstances can lead to unexpected behaviors.

Question 33

What is said about the demands of disobeying and whistleblowing?

Answer 33

Disobeying and whistleblowing are psychologically, socially, and economically demanding.

Question 34

What is challenging for people, even when it seems simple?

Answer 34

Behaving in a moral manner is challenging for people.

Question 35

What trend appears to exist regarding whistleblowers?

Answer 35

There appears to be a trend suggesting that whistleblowers have more faith than either obedient or disobedient individuals.

Question 36

How does this study link to the social area?

Answer 36

All human behavior occurs in a social context, even when no one is watching.

Question 37

How does this study link to the theme of responses to people in authority?

Answer 37

It explores how individuals can influence our behavior and how obedience to authority affects social interactions.

Question 38

What should be avoided when comparing classic and contemporary studies?

Answer 38

Avoid obvious comparisons such as sharing the same theme or having different samples.

Question 39

What acronym can be used for evaluating studies?

Answer 39

The acronym GRAVED stands for Generalisability, Reliability, Applications, Validity, Ethics, and Debates.

Question 40

What is a similarity between the studies?

Answer 40

Both studies are not very generalisable as their samples were from similar backgrounds.

Question 41

What is a difference between Bocchiaro's and Milgram's studies?

Answer 41

Bocchiaro's study was ethnically sound, while Milgram's was controversial.

Question 42

What type of sample did Milgram use?

Answer 42

Milgram used an all-male sample.

Question 43

What type of sample did Bocchiaro use?

Answer 43

Bocchiaro used a mixed-sex sample.

Question 44

What type of data did Milgram collect?

Answer 44

Milgram gathered both quantitative and qualitative data.

Question 45

What was a key finding of Bocchiaro's study?

Answer 45

Bocchiaro's findings were useful to apply to whistle-blowing in the workplace.

Question 46

What was a notable aspect of Bocchiaro's study design?

Answer 46

Bocchiaro had more mundane reality in his experimental design.

Question 47

To what extent has Bocchiaro changed our understanding of responses to authority?

Answer 47

Bocchiaro investigated individual factors, showing little difference other than religious faith.

Question 48

To what extent has Bocchiaro changed our understanding of individual, social, and cultural diversity?

Answer 48

Individuals with faith in a transcendent reality are more likely to respond differently; social groups show similar reactions to authority; cultural differences exist between Dutch and American responses.

Question 49

Who changed our understanding of responses to people in authority?

Answer 49

Bocchiaro changed our understanding of responses to people in authority.

Question 50

What difficulties were faced in creating the study?

Answer 50

Participants were eliminated from the study as they were suspicious.

Question 51

What was the ecological validity of the study?

Answer 51

The study reflected how this behavior happens in real life, set in a laboratory setting.

Question 52

How reliable was the study?

Answer 52

The study consistently measured the behavior with well-standardized conditions.

Question 53

Is this study ethnocentric?

Answer 53

The sample was from a Dutch university with no religious differences between participants.

Question 54

What methodology was used in the study?

Answer 54

The study used a non-experimental method with observational study design.

Question 55

What ethical considerations were taken into account?

Answer 55

The situation was relatively low stress, participants were not prodded, and had the choice to remove their data.

Question 56

How was the sample selected?

Answer 56

The sample consisted of undergraduates from a university, with 98 women and 53 men, mean age of 20.8.

Question 57

What type of data was collected?

Answer 57

The study collected quantitative data, comparing percentages between those who obeyed, disobeyed, and whistle blew.

Question 58

How could this study be useful?

Answer 58

The study helps understand problems in healthcare regarding whistleblowing.

Question 59

What philosophical concepts are discussed in relation to the study?

Answer 59

The study touches on Free Will vs. Determinism, Reductionism vs. Holism, and Nature vs. Nurture.

Question 60

What does the study focus on regarding individual vs. situational factors?

Answer 60

The study focused on the individual's decision and tested their personalities.

Question 61

How does the study relate to psychology as a science?

Answer 61

The study is highly standardized.