bocchiaro - 2012

Question 1

What is whistleblowing?

Answer 1

involved reporting an unethical incident to higher authorities - taking on immediate superiors who have authority over you

Question 2

What are they key elements of whistleblowing in the real world?

Answer 2

• unethical issues
• criminal acts (money laundering)
• safety of the general public

Question 3

How can whistleblowing be described?

Answer 3

The challenging moral path

Question 4

What is the personal characteristic which affects the likelihood of whistleblowing?

Answer 4

faith - more faith = more likely to whistle blow

Question 5

What was Bocchiaro’s false aim?

Answer 5

to investigate the effects of sensory deprivation on brain function

Question 6

What is Bocchiaro’s aim?

Answer 6

to find out what types of people disobey, or blow the whistle and if there are personal characteristics that differentiate them from those who obey

Question 7

What is Bocchiaro’s ethical aim?

Answer 7

to have mundane realism and be ethically sound so no psychological harm occurred

Question 8

What is the DV?

Answer 8

obeying, disobeying, or blowing the whistle

Question 9

What are the 4 hypotheses?

Answer 9

1- Participants will be more obedient than those
in Milgram’s study
2- Participants will be less likely to whistle-blow than obey because whistleblowing will involve direct contact with an unjust authority figure
3- Participants will overestimate the tendency to disobey or blow the whistle when asked to predict others’ behaviour
4- Personality will not have much effect

Question 10

What are the pilot study details?

Answer 10

• 8 total
• 92 participants
• checks for credibility and ethically acceptable

Question 11

What was the sample?

Answer 11

• 149 undergraduate VU University of Amsterdam students
• 96 women and 53 men
• volunteers
• further 138 surveyed

Question 12

What are the strengths of the sample?

Answer 12

• large = representative = generalisable

Question 13

What are the weaknesses of the sample?

Answer 13

• lacks population validity
• culture bias (Amsterdam)
• age bias (all uni students)

Question 14

What was the sampling technique?

Answer 14

Self-selected (volunteer)

Question 15

How was the sample recruited?

Answer 15

flyers in the university cafeteria

Question 16

What are strengths of this sampling technique?

Answer 16

• less chance of attrition

Question 17

What are the weaknesses of this sampling technique?

Answer 17

• only a certain type of person volunteers - not representative of everyone therefore not generalisable

Question 18

What was the method?

Answer 18

laboratory study

Question 19

What are the weaknesses of this method?

Answer 19

• lacks mundane realism
• not ecologically valid

Question 20

What are the strengths of this method?

Answer 20

• high control over EVs

Question 21

What was the setting for this study?

Answer 21

two rooms specifically prepared in a VU uni lab

Question 22

What was the role of the 138 undergraduates?

Answer 22

• given a detailed description of the study
• asked two questions:
  1- What would you do?
  2- What would an average student at your university do?

Question 23

How long does the main experiment last?

Answer 23

40 minutes

Question 24

What did the participants get told at the start of the study?

Answer 24

• given the right to withdraw
• signed consent forms which guaranteed confidentiality in results

Question 25

Who was the experimenter?

Answer 25

- Dutch male - formally dressed - possessed a stern demeanour

Question 26

What was the first thing the experimenter asked the participants do?

Answer 26

provide a few names of fellow students and then presented the cover story

Question 27

What is the gist of the cover study?

Answer 27

- investigating the effects of sensory deprivation - previous research in Rome had disastrous effects - majority said it was a frightening experience

Question 28

What did the cover story require the participants to do?

Answer 28

- write a statement to convince students to participate in the experiment - using words like 'superb' and 'exciting'

Question 29

What happened after the experimenter told the participant about what they want them to do?

Answer 29

He left the room for 3 minutes in order to let them to reflect on whatever decision they want to make

Question 30

What were participants instructed not to do in these statements?

Answer 30

not to mention the negative effects of the sensory deprivation

Question 31

What conditions did participants write their statement in?

Answer 31

- 7 minutes - no experimenter in the room

Question 32

What could participants do if they did not want to write the statement?

Answer 32

anonymously challenge it by putting a form in the mailbox

Question 33

What happened after the statement?

Answer 33

- experimenter comes back and invites the participant into the first room where they take 2 personality inventories - they are fully debriefed and asked to sign a second consent form

Question 34

What are the two personality inventories?

Answer 34

1- HEXACO-PI-R 2) Decomposed Games Measure

Question 35

What does the HEXACO-PI-R measure?

Answer 35

6 basic personality traits by rating agreement on 60 statements using a Likert Scale 1= strongly disagree 5 = strongly agree

Question 36

What are the 6 traits measured?

Answer 36

- humility/honesty - openness to experiences - emotionality - extraversion - agreeableness - conscientiousness

Question 37

What does the Decomposed Games Measure assess?

Answer 37

how much importance a person places on the welfare of another person in relation to their own welfare

Question 38

How many items is the DGM?

Answer 38

9

Question 39

What is the DGM?

Answer 39

- point system - asked to imagine that they had been randomly paired with another person who is not someone they will ever know or meet

Question 40

What are the 3 options of the DGM?

Answer 40

A= 'you' - 500 'other' - 100 B= 'you' - 500 'other' - 500 C = 'you' - 550 'other' - 300

Question 41

What are the different classifications of the DGM?

Answer 41

prosocial, individualistic, competitive - if score 6/9 in any of the categories

Question 42

How was religiosity measured?

Answer 42

asking participants about their religious affiliation (what their religion was) - frequency of worship and extent of faith

Question 43

What are key results of the comparison students?

Answer 43

'What would you do?' - 3.6% = obey - 64.5% = whistle-blow - 31.9% = disobey 'Average student' - 18.8% = obey - 43.9% = disobey - 37.3% = whistle-blow

Question 44

What were the results of the study?

Answer 44

- 76.5% obeyed - 14.1% disobeyed - 9.4% whistle-blew

Question 45

What are the factors which did not affect whether participants obeyed, disobeyed, or whistle-blew?

Answer 45

- personality does not explain obedience (HEXACO-PI-R) - no sig. gender or religious differences

Question 46

What are the conclusions of the study?

Answer 46

- estimates of ones own behaviours and the behaviours of others are wildly inaccurate - no personality differences distinguished between those who obey, disobey, or whistle-blow - the belief that people think they are better than others makes them blind to social pressures

Question 47

Is this study reductionism or holism?

Answer 47

reductionism

Question 48

What is a strength of reductionism?

Answer 48

scientific - contributes to the understanding of behaviour as key variables are studied in a controlled way - more valid

Question 49

What is a weakness of reductionism?

Answer 49

reductionist - only suggests a situational explanation - oversimplifies why people obey, disobey, or whistle-blow - decreases validity

Question 50

What are the ethical issues in the study?

Answer 50

- deception