Summary
Bocchiaro, et al. (2012): Disobedience and Whistleblowing
Context
The authors of ‘Disobedience and Whistleblowing’ were inspired by Milgram’s
research into Destructive Obedience; however they noted that Milgram’s
research focused on Obedience and did not tell us much at all about
Disobedience (The authors wanted to know how about Disobedience to unjust
authority). However, due to Ethical reasons they could not build upon
Milgram’s research which led them to Whistle-blowing (reporting an Unethical
incident to higher authorities). The authors note that there is a lack of research
into this option and point out the very little is known about what Whistle-
blowers think or feel when they make the decision to blow the whistle (these
people are choosing to take on their immediate superiors – an act that could
lose them their job, their life).
Bocchiaro et al, then decided to put this to light, to
assess Dispositional and Situational Factors regarding
Obedience. Bocchiaro et al, surveyed people to
gather information about estimated responses
(predicted that participants would underestimate the
tendency for compliance with Unethical instructions).
Bocchiaro et al, also assessed all participants for
Dispositional characteristics (social values and
personality).
Aim
To investigate the rates of Obedience, Disobedience, and Whistleblowing in a
situation where no physical violence was involved by where it was quite clear
that the instructions were Ethically wrong.
Two Additional Aims:
1. To investigate the accuracy of peoples estimates of Obedience,
Disobedience, and Whistleblowing in this situation.
, 2. To investigate the role of Dispositional Factors (different to Milgram –
Situational Factors) in Obedience, Disobedience and Whistleblowing.
Participants
149 undergraduate students (96 females and 53 males) took part in the main
study, 11 removed from the initial Sample of 160 because of their
suspiciousness about the nature of the study. A further 92 participants took part
in the pilot studies. All participants were either paid 7 euros or given course
credit for taking part.
Participants recruited via flyers (Self-selected
Sampling) placed around the cafeteria of the
VU University of Amsterdam (prestigious
academy – similar to Milgram).
Pilot studies
8 pilot tests conducted before the main
experiment. These tests were small scale preliminary tests which determined
the suitability and any problems that might need to be resolved (for example, to
find if the experiment would be morally acceptable and credible to
participants).
Post-pilot interviews revealed that the participants found the cover story to be
real “I thought it was altogether real… it was a big surprise that it was not true”.
The participants also felt it was ethical, “cool and interesting research, good for
science”. 92 students participated in the pilot studies; these were NOT the same
participants used in the main study.
Ethics
Participants were told what the task was and were informed of the
potential benefits/risks. The participants were asked to sign a consent
form for Informed Consent at the start and after the study.
They could withdraw at any time without penalty (Right to Withdraw).
All information was confidential (Confidentiality).
Participants were also Debriefed at the end of the study.
Participants gave written consent for data to be used.
Bocchiaro, et al. (2012): Disobedience and Whistleblowing
Context
The authors of ‘Disobedience and Whistleblowing’ were inspired by Milgram’s
research into Destructive Obedience; however they noted that Milgram’s
research focused on Obedience and did not tell us much at all about
Disobedience (The authors wanted to know how about Disobedience to unjust
authority). However, due to Ethical reasons they could not build upon
Milgram’s research which led them to Whistle-blowing (reporting an Unethical
incident to higher authorities). The authors note that there is a lack of research
into this option and point out the very little is known about what Whistle-
blowers think or feel when they make the decision to blow the whistle (these
people are choosing to take on their immediate superiors – an act that could
lose them their job, their life).
Bocchiaro et al, then decided to put this to light, to
assess Dispositional and Situational Factors regarding
Obedience. Bocchiaro et al, surveyed people to
gather information about estimated responses
(predicted that participants would underestimate the
tendency for compliance with Unethical instructions).
Bocchiaro et al, also assessed all participants for
Dispositional characteristics (social values and
personality).
Aim
To investigate the rates of Obedience, Disobedience, and Whistleblowing in a
situation where no physical violence was involved by where it was quite clear
that the instructions were Ethically wrong.
Two Additional Aims:
1. To investigate the accuracy of peoples estimates of Obedience,
Disobedience, and Whistleblowing in this situation.
, 2. To investigate the role of Dispositional Factors (different to Milgram –
Situational Factors) in Obedience, Disobedience and Whistleblowing.
Participants
149 undergraduate students (96 females and 53 males) took part in the main
study, 11 removed from the initial Sample of 160 because of their
suspiciousness about the nature of the study. A further 92 participants took part
in the pilot studies. All participants were either paid 7 euros or given course
credit for taking part.
Participants recruited via flyers (Self-selected
Sampling) placed around the cafeteria of the
VU University of Amsterdam (prestigious
academy – similar to Milgram).
Pilot studies
8 pilot tests conducted before the main
experiment. These tests were small scale preliminary tests which determined
the suitability and any problems that might need to be resolved (for example, to
find if the experiment would be morally acceptable and credible to
participants).
Post-pilot interviews revealed that the participants found the cover story to be
real “I thought it was altogether real… it was a big surprise that it was not true”.
The participants also felt it was ethical, “cool and interesting research, good for
science”. 92 students participated in the pilot studies; these were NOT the same
participants used in the main study.
Ethics
Participants were told what the task was and were informed of the
potential benefits/risks. The participants were asked to sign a consent
form for Informed Consent at the start and after the study.
They could withdraw at any time without penalty (Right to Withdraw).
All information was confidential (Confidentiality).
Participants were also Debriefed at the end of the study.
Participants gave written consent for data to be used.
