Introduction: Standing Up to Authority

Have you ever seen someone do something wrong and thought, "I should tell someone"? In Psychology, we call this whistle-blowing. It sounds easy in theory, but in practice, it is incredibly difficult. This study by Bocchiaro et al. (2012) explores why people find it so hard to defy authority, even when they know what they are being asked to do is wrong. It is the contemporary study for the Social Area, following on from the classic work of Milgram (1963).

Quick Note: While Milgram looked at obedience (doing what you are told), Bocchiaro wanted to look at disobedience (saying no) and whistle-blowing (reporting the authority to a higher power).

The Research Aim

Bocchiaro and his team wanted to investigate several things:

  • How many people would obey, disobey, or whistle-blow when asked to do something unethical?
  • How much do people's predictions of their own behavior differ from their actual behavior?
  • Do personality traits (like honesty or religious faith) make someone more likely to defy authority?

Method: How the Study Was Done

The Participants (The Sample)

The main study used 149 undergraduate students from the VU University in Amsterdam. They were a self-selected sample, recruited through flyers in the university cafeteria. They were paid \(€7\) or given course credits for taking part.

Did you know? Bocchiaro also used a separate comparison group of 92 students. These students didn't actually do the task; they were just told the story and asked, "What would you do?" and "What would the average student do?"

The Procedure: The "Unethical" Request

The study took place in a laboratory setting. Here is the step-by-step process:

  1. The Cover Story: A formal, stern researcher met each participant. He told them he was investigating sensory deprivation. He claimed that in a previous study, participants panicked and it was a "horrible experience," but he wanted to repeat it.
  2. The Task: The researcher asked the participant to write a statement to convince other students to take part. He insisted they use at least two "enthusiastic" words like "exciting," "incredible," or "superb." They were told not to mention the negative effects of the study.
  3. The Choice: The participant was left alone in a room with a computer to write the statement. However, there was also a "Research Committee" mailbox. They were told that if they thought the study was unethical, they could fill out a form and drop it in the mailbox.
  4. The Measurement:
    • If they wrote the statement, they were Obedient.
    • If they refused to write it, they were Disobedient.
    • If they filled out the form for the committee, they were a Whistle-blower.
  5. Personality Tests: After the task, participants completed two personality inventories: the HEXACO-PI-R (which measures traits like Honesty-Humility and Emotionality) and a measure of Social Value Orientation (SVO).

The Results: Expectations vs. Reality

This is where things get interesting! There was a massive gap between what people thought they would do and what they actually did.

1. What the Comparison Group predicted:

  • Only \(3.6\%\) thought they would personally obey.
  • \(64.5\%\) thought they would whistle-blow.

2. What actually happened (The 149 participants):

  • Obedient: \(76.5\%\) (The vast majority obeyed the "unethical" request!).
  • Disobedient: \(14.1\%\).
  • Whistle-blowers: \(9.4\%\).

3. Personality Results:

Surprisingly, the personality tests showed no significant difference in traits between those who obeyed and those who defied authority. The only slight difference was that people with deeper religious faith were a bit more likely to whistle-blow.

Key Takeaway: We are very bad at predicting how we will behave in social situations. The "power of the situation" often overrides our personal morals.

Conclusions

  • People are consistently obedient to authority, even when the authority is asking for something unethical.
  • Whistle-blowing is extremely rare.
  • Situational factors (the environment and the authority figure) are more influential than dispositional factors (personality traits).
  • There is a "dramatic disconnect" between how we think we will behave and how we actually behave.

Evaluating the Study

Strengths

  • Standardised Procedure: The researcher gave the same cover story and used the same timing for every participant, making the study highly reliable.
  • Laboratory Setting: This allowed for high control over extraneous variables.
  • Quantitative Data: The use of percentages and personality scores makes it easy to compare results and see the gap between prediction and reality.

Weaknesses

  • Ethics: Participants were deceived (the sensory deprivation study wasn't real) and could have felt distressed or embarrassed by their own obedience. However, they were fully debriefed.
  • Ecological Validity: Writing a letter in a lab is quite an artificial task. It might not reflect how people act in a real-world job where whistle-blowing could mean losing your career.
  • Sampling Bias: All participants were university students. This might make the results hard to generalise to the wider population or different age groups.

Quick Review: Key Terms to Remember

Whistle-blowing: Reporting an authority's wrongdoing to a higher body.

Dispositional Factors: Internal characteristics, like personality or beliefs.

Situational Factors: External influences, like the setting or the presence of an authority figure.

HEXACO-PI-R: The personality test used to measure traits like Honesty-Humility.

Common Mistake to Avoid: Don't confuse "Disobedient" with "Whistle-blowing." A disobedient person simply says "No, I won't do it." A whistle-blower goes a step further and reports the behavior to someone else.

Connection to the Key Theme

This study relates to the theme of Responses to people in authority because it demonstrates that even in modern times (2012), and even when the request is clearly unethical, most people will still follow the lead of an authority figure rather than challenging them or reporting them.

If you want to compare this to the classic study, remember that Milgram (1963) found similar high levels of obedience when participants were asked to deliver electric shocks.