Psychology: Social Area: Bocchiaro et al. (2012)

1. To understand who disobeys and who whisleblowers

2. To understand the personal and situational factors involved in disobedience.

3. To replicate Milgram (1963) method and findings, individuals predicted the outcome of the study

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

There was no IV so the study is a laboratory study or a ‘scenario study’.
The study took place in a lab at the VU university in Amsterdam.

Volunteer sample using flyers from the camplus cafeteria.
The first sample (predicted) - 133 undergraduate students.
Main sample - 149 undergraduate students (96 women, 53 men).
Paid 7 Euro or course credits.
11 participants were removed from original sample to 160.

8 pilot tests (92 participants)

Conducted to ensure the procedure was credible and morally acceptable.

Investigating sensory deprivation, recently conducted a study on 6 participants all participants panicked and their cognitive abilities were temporarily impaired.
A University Research Committee was evaluating, needed feedback from students.

Each participant met male Dutch experimenter, dressed formally and stern.
They were requested to provide the names of a few fellow students and presented cover story.
The experimenter left the room for 3 mins.
Participants moved into second room, there was a computer for them to write a statement. Participants were told to be enthusiastic and use the words great and exciting.
They were told not to mention negative side effects.
If the participant believed the research violated ethics they could anonymously challenge it by putting a form in a mailbox.
The experimenter left the room for 7 mins.

4% obey, 32% disobedient, 64% whisleblow

75% obeyed, 15% disobeyed, 10% whisleblow

60 item HEXACO-PI-R personality test, questioned about faith and a Social Value Orientation.

No significant differences were found in relation to gender, religion or personality. Only difference was observed regarding faith.

People obey authority figures even if the authority is unjust.
Individuals behave in a completely different way than expected them they find themselves in a circumstance which is unfamiliar.

The study had DVs and Controls but lacked an IV.
It can be argued it does not meet the criteria for a experiment but it has a standardised procedure which makes it replicable across 149 participants it established reliability.

Both quantitative and qualitative data was collected.
The quantitative data was comprised of the number and percentages of participants who were obedient, disobedient or whisleblew.

The data collected from the two parametric tests was also quantitative.

The qualitative data consisted of the comments made by participants during the debrief about why they behaved they did.

This study stayed within ethical guidelines.
Confidentiality of the participants was collected, consent was sought twice, they could of withdrawn from the study at anytime.

There was a high level of deception and consent given at the start was not fully informed.

It was possible that the participants genuinely supported the idea of sensory deprivation.

During the debrief they were asked to not discuss the research with friends and colleagues, some participants may have ignored this request then behaviour measured on subsequent participants may have not been genuine.

Low ecological validity as there was no emotional connection, did not risk their job and pay.

Highly reliable all participants received the same cover story, highly standardised and replicable procedure.
Fairly large sample used with a consistent trend shown.
A pattern shown across the responses of answers given by individual participants in the HEXICO and Social Value Orientation tests.

A large sample was used, 149 participants, enabling the researchers to establish a consistent effect.

Sample was all undergraduate students with a mean age of 20.8 years old were not representative of the wider population.

Self selected sampling technique. Benefit: a large range of students from different cources.

Replicated Milgrams findings from the USA.

Situational: 76.5% complied with the request of the letter supports the claim that the situation can affect [e[;es behaviour and lead them to be more obedient.

Individual: not everyone was affected by the situation in the same way, as demonstrated by the fact that 23.5% were disobedient or whisleblew. This behaviour suggests individual factors that enable some people to resist the power of the situation.

Bocchairo had a determining influence on the behaviour of their participants.

It can be said that 23.5% if participants were not obedient can be used as evidence for free will as they were capable of controlling their behaviour.

It can be suggested that it has more negative uses than positive ones.

However, one way in which in which it can be seen as useful is it can used used as a template to find factors which reduce obeying behaviour.

It confirms the influence that other people can have on our behaviour.

The key theme is responses to people in authority.
It shows that we are more obedient than we think we are and that this has not changed from the 1960s.
This research building on top of Milgrams shows that culture does not effect obedience, it also included females.

Where both recruited in the same self-selected way.
Received payment for their involvement in the study.
Took part individually.
Took part in a laboratory on a university campus.
Experienced high levels of deception.

The two studies were carried out in different countries.
Two different time periods.
Milgrams sample was all male while Bocchiaros had both genders.