| 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 participants | 1. The HEXACO-PR-R personality test
2. Social Value Orientation (SVO)/decomposed games
3. Religiosity was assessed |
| The HEXACO-PR-R personality test | Measures 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 |
