8418359
Beschreibung
Karteikarten von Dhara Bechra, aktualisiert more than 1 year ago
|
Erstellt von Dhara Bechra
vor mehr als 7 Jahre
|
|
| Frage | Antworten |
| Bocchiaro et al. (2012) - Whistleblowing and Disobedience | A whistleblower is a person who informs on someone who is involved in immoral or illegal behaviour. |
| Aims & Research Questions | Why do they choose to reject social influence and follow a challenging moral path? To investigate the rates of obedience, disobedience and whistleblowing is where no violence was involved but instructions were ethically wrong. |
| Research Method | Lab experiment |
| Sample | Pilot Studies: 8 - 92 participants involved. VU Uni of Amsterdam. 149 undergraduate students (96 women, 53 men) average age - 20.8 years. Were given 7 euros or course credit. 11 Pp's removed as they were suspicious of study. Comparison group of 138 similar students also used. |
| Procedure | VU Uni of Amsterdam. Pp's greeted by 'stern', formally dressed male researcher and asked to suggest names of fellow students. |
| Procedure (2) | Participants told a cover story. They were asked to write a statement using words 'exciting, incredible, great and superb' but not mentioning negative effects of sensory deprivation, to convince students whose names had been given to participate in the experiment. |
| Procedure (3) | They were told that statements would be sent to students by mail. Each PP told that if he/she believed that proposed research on sensory deprivation violated ethical rules he/she could challenge it by putting form in mailbox. |
| Procedure (4) | Experimenter left room and pp was taken into next room where there was a computer on which to write a statement, a mailbox and research committee feedback forms. After 7 mins, taken back to original room to complete 2 personality tests and questioned about any suspicions. |
| Procedure (5) | Participants then debriefed and asked to sign second consent form. Procedure lasted 40 mins. |
| Procedure (6) | Group of 138 comparison students were provided with detailed description of experimental setting. They were asked 'What would you do?' and 'What would the average student at your university do?' |
| Results | COMPARISON GROUP-MYSELF: 3.60% would obey, 31.90% would disobey, 64.50% would whistleblow. COMPARISON GROUP-OTHERS: 18.80% would obey, 43.90% would disobey, 37.30% would whistleblow. EXPERIMENTAL GROUP: 76.50% would obey, 14.10 would disobey, 9.40% would whistleblow. |
| Conclusion | People are very obedient and whistle-blowing is uncommon. People overestimate whistleblowing and underestimate obedience. No evidence that dispositional factors affect obedience or whistleblowing. |
| Evaluation | Lab Experiment- highly controlled, reduces extraneous variables. Lacks ecological validity due to unrealistic settings. Replicable as it was done in a lab and controlled. Also all conditions were standardised. |
| Evaluation (2) | Large sample so good for experiment Unrepresentative as all pp's were from same place and has similar characteristics. Ungeneralisable to other ages and cultural groups. |
Möchten Sie mit GoConqr kostenlos Ihre eigenen Karteikarten erstellen? Mehr erfahren.