Floella Freeman
Bocchiaro
2012
Notes:
Aims:
- Do the Milgram style research in an ethical way
1. He checked with the ethics committee at the university to get their approval
2. He did eight pilot studies with 92 participants (for ethical reasons- wanted to
see if people were going to be overly upset or deceived and if the experiment
worked)
- Use a more diverse sample than the Milgram study
1. He went to the VU University in Amsterdam so he collected his participants
from there (includes men, women, minorities, Europeans, and
non-Europeans- this means the study is more generalisable)
2. 149 undergraduate students (96 women, 53 men, mean age = 20.8, SD =
2.65) took part in the research in exchange for either €7 or course credit.
3. (11 participants were removed from the initial sample of 160 because of their
suspiciousness about the nature of the study)
- Compare predictions of disobedience with the real findings.
1. Wanted to interview two groups of people on if they would whistle blow or
obey if they were told to do something unethical (They said disobey or whistle
blow)
2. Asked what other people would do
- Introduce whistle blowing (informing the authorities that somebody is doing
something wrong- e.g. snitching on the experimenter to the authorities that what is
occurring in the experiment is wrong)
- Give people personality tests (wanted to see if there was a relationship between
people’s personality and their level of obedience or whistle blowing)
1. HEXACO P-IR personality inventory revised
Traits: (canoe)
- Conscientiousness
- Agreeableness
- Neuroticism (emotional)
- Openness
- Extroversion
- (humility- honest)
High score: open to new ideas
Low score: not open to new ideas
2. Decomposed games
3. How spiritual or religious are you
He didn’t find any relationship between personality and obedience levels
apart from if they were religious or spiritual (they were more likely to refuse
and whistle blow).
, Methods and procedure:
- The study took place in a laboratory at the VU University in Amsterdam, so
conditions could be controlled.
- Data was gathered on the number of participants who obeyed by writing a statement
in support of the sensory deprivation study and through the scores on the two
personality inventories.
- 138 comparison students from The VU University were provided with a detailed
description of the experimental setting. They were then asked “What would you do?”
and “What would the average student at your university do?”
- Eight pilot tests, involving 92 undergraduates from the VU University in Amsterdam,
were conducted to ensure the study was ethical
Procedure
1. A cover story was given:
- The experimenter and an Italian colleague were investigating the
effects of sensory deprivation on brain function.
- They said that they had recently conducted an experiment on six
participants in Rome who spent some time completely isolated, unable
to see or hear anything, having disastrous effects.
- The experimenters wanted to replicate this study at the VU University
using a sample of college students as there was currently no data on
young people but some scientists thought that their brains may be
more sensitive to the negative effects of isolation.
- Participants were to write a statement to convince the students they
had previously indicated to participate in the experiment. Statements
would be sent to the identified students by mail.
2. Participants were informed about what their task was, about the potential
benefits/risks of participation, and about their right to withdraw at any time
with no penalty. They were also assured of the confidentiality of the
information collected.
3. Each participant was greeted in the laboratory by a male, Dutch experimenter
who was formally dressed and had a stern demeanour.
4. Participants were told to be enthusiastic when writing their statements and
had to use two adjectives among “exciting”, “incredible”, “great” and “superb”.
5. The experimenter told participants to begin and left the room for 7 minutes.
6. If a participant believed the proposed research on sensory deprivation
violated ethical norms he/she could anonymously challenge it by putting a
form in the mailbox.
7. After the seven-minute interval the experimenter returned and invited the
participant to follow him back to the first room where they were asked to do
two personality tests, this time they were fully debriefed and asked to sign a
second consent form. (overall this took 40 minutes)
Predicted and actual results:
Predicted Actual
- Obey: 18.8% - Obey: 76.5%
- Disobey: 43.9% - Disobey: 14.1%
- Whistleblow: 37.3% - Whistleblow: 9.4%
Bocchiaro
2012
Notes:
Aims:
- Do the Milgram style research in an ethical way
1. He checked with the ethics committee at the university to get their approval
2. He did eight pilot studies with 92 participants (for ethical reasons- wanted to
see if people were going to be overly upset or deceived and if the experiment
worked)
- Use a more diverse sample than the Milgram study
1. He went to the VU University in Amsterdam so he collected his participants
from there (includes men, women, minorities, Europeans, and
non-Europeans- this means the study is more generalisable)
2. 149 undergraduate students (96 women, 53 men, mean age = 20.8, SD =
2.65) took part in the research in exchange for either €7 or course credit.
3. (11 participants were removed from the initial sample of 160 because of their
suspiciousness about the nature of the study)
- Compare predictions of disobedience with the real findings.
1. Wanted to interview two groups of people on if they would whistle blow or
obey if they were told to do something unethical (They said disobey or whistle
blow)
2. Asked what other people would do
- Introduce whistle blowing (informing the authorities that somebody is doing
something wrong- e.g. snitching on the experimenter to the authorities that what is
occurring in the experiment is wrong)
- Give people personality tests (wanted to see if there was a relationship between
people’s personality and their level of obedience or whistle blowing)
1. HEXACO P-IR personality inventory revised
Traits: (canoe)
- Conscientiousness
- Agreeableness
- Neuroticism (emotional)
- Openness
- Extroversion
- (humility- honest)
High score: open to new ideas
Low score: not open to new ideas
2. Decomposed games
3. How spiritual or religious are you
He didn’t find any relationship between personality and obedience levels
apart from if they were religious or spiritual (they were more likely to refuse
and whistle blow).
, Methods and procedure:
- The study took place in a laboratory at the VU University in Amsterdam, so
conditions could be controlled.
- Data was gathered on the number of participants who obeyed by writing a statement
in support of the sensory deprivation study and through the scores on the two
personality inventories.
- 138 comparison students from The VU University were provided with a detailed
description of the experimental setting. They were then asked “What would you do?”
and “What would the average student at your university do?”
- Eight pilot tests, involving 92 undergraduates from the VU University in Amsterdam,
were conducted to ensure the study was ethical
Procedure
1. A cover story was given:
- The experimenter and an Italian colleague were investigating the
effects of sensory deprivation on brain function.
- They said that they had recently conducted an experiment on six
participants in Rome who spent some time completely isolated, unable
to see or hear anything, having disastrous effects.
- The experimenters wanted to replicate this study at the VU University
using a sample of college students as there was currently no data on
young people but some scientists thought that their brains may be
more sensitive to the negative effects of isolation.
- Participants were to write a statement to convince the students they
had previously indicated to participate in the experiment. Statements
would be sent to the identified students by mail.
2. Participants were informed about what their task was, about the potential
benefits/risks of participation, and about their right to withdraw at any time
with no penalty. They were also assured of the confidentiality of the
information collected.
3. Each participant was greeted in the laboratory by a male, Dutch experimenter
who was formally dressed and had a stern demeanour.
4. Participants were told to be enthusiastic when writing their statements and
had to use two adjectives among “exciting”, “incredible”, “great” and “superb”.
5. The experimenter told participants to begin and left the room for 7 minutes.
6. If a participant believed the proposed research on sensory deprivation
violated ethical norms he/she could anonymously challenge it by putting a
form in the mailbox.
7. After the seven-minute interval the experimenter returned and invited the
participant to follow him back to the first room where they were asked to do
two personality tests, this time they were fully debriefed and asked to sign a
second consent form. (overall this took 40 minutes)
Predicted and actual results:
Predicted Actual
- Obey: 18.8% - Obey: 76.5%
- Disobey: 43.9% - Disobey: 14.1%
- Whistleblow: 37.3% - Whistleblow: 9.4%
