Comparison of Studies Milgram & Bocchiaro et al.
Key Theme:
Responses to People in Authority – Both studies found that
participants were willing to act Unethically when ordered to by
people in authority.
Milgram used a Laboratory procedure to test Destructive
Obedience, showing that people are surprisingly likely to obey orders
to carry out immoral acts. Bocchiaro et al., used a similar Laboratory
procedure to show that people were also surprisingly likely to obey
instructions to encourage people to take part in an Unethical
experiment. They also found that people rarely took the opportunity
to blow the whistle on the experimenter.
Similarities:
- Investigated Obedience to direct orders to harm others
- Laboratory procedures with a single condition (Independent
Measures).
- Samples recruited using an advert (Self-selected Sampling).
- Collected Quantitative Data un the form of Obedience rates.
Differences:
- Milgram’s study was Ethically controversial study (Deception
to the true aim of the study). Whereas Bocchiaro et al.’s was
Ethically sound (Consent Form used).
- Milgram used an all-male Sample (as he wanted to test why
WW2 soldiers were so obedient). Whereas Bocchiaro et al.
used males and females (Yet, Bocchiaro et al. has a clear
Gender Ratio to females).
- Milgram’s research is applicable to real-world atrocities like the
Holocaust and can explain why it possibly happened with the
compliance of Nazis. Whereas Bocchiaro et al.’s research is
applicable to Whistleblowing in the workplace.
, - Milgram uses both Quantitative and Qualitative Data. Whereas
Bocchiaro et al. only uses Quantitative Data.
Individual Diversity:
This area of research led to an understanding of terrible historical
events such as the holocaust and how individuals may be led to
behave in ways, they would never predict they would. This has led to
the idea that all individuals are susceptible; if they are asked by a
figure in authority, to gradually carry out terrible acts they would
previously have said were inconceivable. Bocchiaro et al found
similar results and extended the evidence to include female
behaviour along with male behaviour.
Social Diversity:
Both pieces of research highlight the need for society to question
authority further as obedience levels in both studies were seen to be
high. The contemporary study, Bocchiaro et al, uses students so may
be limited in its ability to explain how different groups in society may
behave but does look at a different part of society to Milgram who
studied volunteers with a range of occupations.
Cultural Diversity:
Bocchiaro furthered Milgram’s Ethnocentric research and showed
that obedience is high cross-culturally as well as the importance of
considering individual explanations alongside situational ones. The
contemporary study also showed that obedience was similar over
time and research in this area suggests that people are inherently
obedient.
Comparison of Studies Piliavin et al & Levine et al
Key Theme:
Responses to People in Need – Both studies looked at Variables
affecting helping behaviour towards strangers. Piliavin et al. looked
Key Theme:
Responses to People in Authority – Both studies found that
participants were willing to act Unethically when ordered to by
people in authority.
Milgram used a Laboratory procedure to test Destructive
Obedience, showing that people are surprisingly likely to obey orders
to carry out immoral acts. Bocchiaro et al., used a similar Laboratory
procedure to show that people were also surprisingly likely to obey
instructions to encourage people to take part in an Unethical
experiment. They also found that people rarely took the opportunity
to blow the whistle on the experimenter.
Similarities:
- Investigated Obedience to direct orders to harm others
- Laboratory procedures with a single condition (Independent
Measures).
- Samples recruited using an advert (Self-selected Sampling).
- Collected Quantitative Data un the form of Obedience rates.
Differences:
- Milgram’s study was Ethically controversial study (Deception
to the true aim of the study). Whereas Bocchiaro et al.’s was
Ethically sound (Consent Form used).
- Milgram used an all-male Sample (as he wanted to test why
WW2 soldiers were so obedient). Whereas Bocchiaro et al.
used males and females (Yet, Bocchiaro et al. has a clear
Gender Ratio to females).
- Milgram’s research is applicable to real-world atrocities like the
Holocaust and can explain why it possibly happened with the
compliance of Nazis. Whereas Bocchiaro et al.’s research is
applicable to Whistleblowing in the workplace.
, - Milgram uses both Quantitative and Qualitative Data. Whereas
Bocchiaro et al. only uses Quantitative Data.
Individual Diversity:
This area of research led to an understanding of terrible historical
events such as the holocaust and how individuals may be led to
behave in ways, they would never predict they would. This has led to
the idea that all individuals are susceptible; if they are asked by a
figure in authority, to gradually carry out terrible acts they would
previously have said were inconceivable. Bocchiaro et al found
similar results and extended the evidence to include female
behaviour along with male behaviour.
Social Diversity:
Both pieces of research highlight the need for society to question
authority further as obedience levels in both studies were seen to be
high. The contemporary study, Bocchiaro et al, uses students so may
be limited in its ability to explain how different groups in society may
behave but does look at a different part of society to Milgram who
studied volunteers with a range of occupations.
Cultural Diversity:
Bocchiaro furthered Milgram’s Ethnocentric research and showed
that obedience is high cross-culturally as well as the importance of
considering individual explanations alongside situational ones. The
contemporary study also showed that obedience was similar over
time and research in this area suggests that people are inherently
obedient.
Comparison of Studies Piliavin et al & Levine et al
Key Theme:
Responses to People in Need – Both studies looked at Variables
affecting helping behaviour towards strangers. Piliavin et al. looked
