SEARCH
You are in browse mode. You must login to use MEMORY

   Log in to start

level: Bocchiaro study (S)

Questions and Answers List

level questions: Bocchiaro study (S)

QuestionAnswer
Aim of the study- Investigating the rates of obedience, disobedience and whistle blowing - Situation where clear instructions were ethically wrong
Research method- Simliar to Milgram’s study - Lacked an independent variable
Pilot study- 8 pilot studies were carried out - Involving 92 participants - Participants said procedure was both believable + ethical
Why were pilot studies carried out- To see if the procedure was believable and ethical
How sample was taken- Flyers in the university cafeteria - Recruitment sampling
Sample- Undergraduate students - From the VU university of Amsterdam -149 participants - 96 women and 53 men
Experimental design- Lab study, controlled observation
The dependent variables- Whether the participants were obedient, disobedient or whistle blowers
Data- Qualitative + quantative data
Quantative data- The numbers and percentages of participants who were obedient, disobedient or a whistle-blower - Two psychometric tests in quantitative form
Usefulness of the quantative data used- For comparison - For replications of study
Qualitative data- The comments made by participants during the debrief about why they behaved the way that they did
Usefulness of the qualitative data used- Gives reasons to why the participants behaved the way they did
Cover story- A recent experiment in Rome on six participants - Completely isolated - sensory deprivation - Had disastrous effects – all panicked, experienced hallucinations
Procedure- Participants arrived alone - Told cover story - Aim to carry out similar study but were waiting for ethical approval from the university - PP's instructed to write statement to convince other students to take part in the procedure - Had to use positive words 'exciting', 'incredible' - No to mention the negative effects - PPs left alone in room with computer, to write statement, a mailbox and some ethics committee forms - After 7 minutes the experimenter returned
How was obedience/disobedience assessed- Whether or not the participant wrote the letter
How was whistle blowing assessed- Whether or not they completed + mailed an ethics form
What were the dispositional measures given to the participants1. The HEXACO-PR-R personality test 2. Social Value Orientation (SVO)/decomposed games 3. Religiosity was assessed
The HEXACO-PR-R personality testMeasures personality trait: - Conscientiousness - Agreeableness (niceness) - Neuroticism - Openness to experience - Extraversion - Honesty-humility
Social Value Orientation (SVO)/decomposed games- Measure of social values - Prosocial, individualistic and competitive personalities
Religiosity- Asked participants what their religion was, frequency of worship and extent of faith
What happened after the procedure- Participants debriefed - Emphasis on why they had been deceived - Gave written consent for their data to be used
How many people were surveyed about how they believed they would respond in the situation? - comparison group- 138 different participants told about procedure - Asked 'what would you do?' and 'what would the average uni student do?'
Predicted results- Obey = 3.6% - Disobey = 31.9% - Whistle blow = 64.5%
Actual results- Obey = 76.5% - Disobey = 14.1% - Whistle blow = 9.4%
Did dispositional factors associate with levels of obedience- None of the personality tests were associated with levels of obedience, disobedience or whistle blowing - Those expressing strong religious faith were slightly more likely to whistle blow
Validity- High ecological validity despite the artificial and unusual task
Reliability- Standardised: reliable/replicable
Realism of the study- High realism as a psychologist was actually carrying out a study so it's not artificial
Conclusions- People are very obedient - Whistle blowing is uncommon - Dispositional factors don't affect obedience or whistle blowing - We see ourselves as special and rate ourselves as less likely to follow destructive orders, overestimate
Ethical issues- Relatively low in stress, PPs not ordered to inflict direct harm - Pilot studies were carried out - Right to withdraw their data - Involved deceit but they were debriefed after
Sampling bias- Very large sample, results not due to chance - Volunteer sampling, unrepresentative, most people don't volunteer - All undergraduates at a Dutch university
Ethnocentrism- Sample only from Dutch university - However they found that religion is strongly associated with culture
Individual vs situational debate (INDIVIDUAL)- 23.5% were disobedient or whisleblew - Suggests individual factors can help some people to resist the power of the situation
Individual vs situational debate (SITUATIONAL)- 76.5% were obedient - Situation can affect behaviour and lead them to be more obedient
Freewill vs determinism (DETERMINISM)- 76.5% were obedient - Situation can affect behaviour and lead them to be more obedient
Freewill vs determinism (FREEWILL)- 23.5% were disobedient or whisleblew - Some free will as they were capable of controlling their behaviour
Usefulness- More negative uses than positive ones - Can be used is by other researchers it is replicable
Links to areas/perspectives- Links to social area - Reveals the extent to which behaviour can be influenced by other people
Link to key theme- Responses to people in authority - It shows that we are more obedient than we think we are, not changed from the 1960s
Milgram vs Bocchiaro (Similarities)- Participants self-selected - Payed - Took part individually - Lab study at university - Deception
Milgram vs Bocchiaro (Differences)- Carried out in different countries - Different time periods - Milgrams sample was all male while Bocchiaros had both genders
How does the contemporary study of improve our understanding of the key theme?- M showed people obey auth figs even if it means harming others - B shows similar results as high levels of obedience were found - B also looked at personality + influences obedience, disobedience and whistle-blowing - People think they are more obedient than they think they are - B Netherlands, it allows cultural comparison
How does the contemporary study improve our understanding of individual, social and cultural diversity? INDIVIDUAL DIVERSITY- Greater understanding of terrible historical events (holocaust) - Wanted to know why seemingly ordinary people could carry out atrocities - Shows individuals are susceptible; if they are given order by af - B extended evidence, female + male behaviour
How does the contemporary study improve our understanding of individual, social and cultural diversity? SOCIAL DIVERSITY- Both highlight need for society to question authority as obedience in both studies were high - B looks at different part of society to M who studied volunteers with a range of occupations
How does the contemporary study improve our understanding of individual, social and cultural diversity? CULTURAL DIVERSITY- B furthered Ms ethnocentric research - Showed obedience is high cross-culturally as well as the importance of considering individual explanations - B showed obedience was similar over time, people inherently obedient