Bocchiaro et al. (2012) Disobedience and whistle-blowing — contemporary

Introduction: Why Do We Obey Bad Orders?

Imagine your boss or a university professor asks you to do something you know is morally wrong, like tricking fellow students into taking part in a psychologically damaging experiment. What would you do? Most of us would proudly say: "I would refuse!" or "I would report them immediately!"

In 2012, Dutch psychologist Bocchiaro and his colleagues decided to put this moral courage to the test. This study is the contemporary core study for the Social Area under the key theme Responses to people in authority. It investigates whether everyday people actually obey, disobey, or blow the whistle when given an unjust request, and whether our personality determines how we behave.

Context and Background

Back in 1963, Stanley Milgram conducted his famous electric-shock obedience study (our classic study in this pair). Milgram showed that ordinary people readily obey destructive commands from an authority figure. However, psychologists still had unanswered questions decades later:

• Whistle-blowing remained unexplored: Milgram only looked at direct obedience (carrying on) versus direct disobedience (refusing to carry on). He did not explore whistle-blowing—the act of reporting unethical wrongdoing to an outside or higher governing body.

• Personality vs Situation: Was obedience purely caused by the powerful social situation, or do specific personality traits (such as honesty or empathy) make someone more likely to resist?

• Contemporary relevance: Would modern people in the 21st century still obey an authority figure when physical harm is replaced by psychological deception and academic manipulation?

Key Concepts to Know

Obedience: Following a direct command from a perceived legitimate authority figure.

Disobedience: Actively refusing to follow a direct command from an authority figure.

Whistle-blowing: Reporting an unethical, illegal, or unfair practice to a higher authority, regulatory committee, or oversight body.

• Open whistle-blower: Someone who refuses the unethical task and blows the whistle by filing a report.

• Closed (or anonymous) whistle-blower: Someone who complies with the unethical request (e.g., writes the message) and also submits the report.

Aim of the Study

Bocchiaro et al. (2012) aimed to:

1. Investigate the rates of obedience, disobedience, and whistle-blowing in a scenario where the request was clearly ethically wrong.

2. Compare people's predicted behaviour (what they think they and others would do) with their actual behaviour.

3. Investigate whether individual differences (personality dimensions, religious faith, or social values) could predict who obeys, disobeys, or blows the whistle.

Method and Design

Research Method: Controlled laboratory scenario (laboratory observation). There was no independent variable, so it is often described as a laboratory study or scenario study rather than a true experiment.

Setting: A laboratory at the VU University in Amsterdam, Netherlands.

The Samples

1. Pilot Studies: Eight pilot tests involving \(92\) undergraduate students were carried out beforehand to ensure the cover story was believable, the procedure was standardised, and the ethical burden was acceptable to participants.

2. Comparison Group: A separate group of \(138\) undergraduate students from the same university were given a detailed description of the scenario and asked to predict: "What would you do?" and "What would the average student at your university do?"

3. Main Experimental Sample: \(149\) undergraduate students (\(96\) females and \(53\) males; mean age = \(20.8\) years). They were recruited via a self-selected (volunteer) sampling method using flyers placed in the campus cafeteria. They received either \(€7\) cash or course credit for their time.

Step-by-Step Procedure

Step 1: The Formal Welcome
Each participant was greeted in a laboratory by a male experimenter dressed in formal clothing who acted in an authoritative, stern manner. The experimenter gave a deceptive cover story: he and an Italian colleague were researching the effects of sensory deprivation on brain function.

Step 2: The Unethical Cover Story
The experimenter explained that in a previous trial in Rome, participants were isolated in a room with complete sensory deprivation. He explicitly noted that the results were alarming: participants suffered cognitive impairment, some hallucinated, and two people panicked and begged for the trial to stop, but were not allowed to leave. Despite these dangerous effects, the experimenter claimed they wanted to replicate this study at the VU University on young adults.

Step 3: The Unjust Request
Because university ethical guidelines require research committee approval, the experimenter asked the participant to write an enthusiastic statement to convince a panel of fellow students to take part. The participant was given strict instructions:

• They had to use at least two positive words from a set list, such as "exciting", "incredible", "great", or "superb".

• They were strictly forbidden from mentioning the negative effects of sensory deprivation.

Step 4: The Decision Period
The experimenter left the participant alone in the room for \(3\) minutes to think about the request. He then moved them to an adjoining room containing:

• A computer to type the enthusiastic testimonial.

• A mailbox and official Research Committee forms with an envelope. The form gave participants the chance to secretly or openly tick a box reporting that the research violated ethical standards.

The participant was left completely alone in this room for \(7\) minutes to act.

Step 5: Defining the Three Responses
During these \(7\) minutes, participants could choose one of three paths:

• Obey: Type the enthusiastic recommendation on the computer and not report the study.

• Disobey: Refuse to write the recommendation (leaving the computer blank) without reporting the study.

• Whistle-blow: Fill out the Research Committee form and drop it in the mailbox (they could do this while either refusing to write the statement or while writing it).

Step 6: Psychological Testing and Debriefing
After the \(7\) minutes, the experimenter returned. Participants completed two validated psychometric tests:

• HEXACO-PI-R: A personality inventory measuring six major dimensions: Honesty-Humility, Emotionality, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience.

• Decomposed Prisoner's Dilemma (Social Value Orientation - SVO): Categorised participants into prosocial, individualistic, or competitive social values.

They were also asked about their religious faith and involvement. Finally, participants were thoroughly debriefed about the deception, probed for suspicion, and asked to sign a second consent form allowing their data to be used.

Key Findings and Results

1. Predicted Behaviour vs. Actual Behaviour

The most striking result of Bocchiaro et al. is the massive gap between what people think they will do and what they actually do when faced with authority.

Comparison Group Predictions (What would YOU do?):
• Obey: \(3.6\%\)
• Disobey: \(31.9\%\)
• Whistle-blow: \(64.5\%\)

Comparison Group Predictions (What would the AVERAGE STUDENT do?):
• Obey: \(18.8\%\)
• Disobey: \(43.9\%\)
• Whistle-blow: \(37.3\%\)

Actual Behaviour of Participants (\(N = 149\)):
• Obeyed: \(76.5\%\) (\(114\) participants)
• Disobeyed: \(14.1\%\) (\(21\) participants)
• Whistle-blew: \(9.4\%\) (\(14\) participants)

Among the \(14\) whistle-blowers, \(9\) were closed whistle-blowers (they wrote the false positive statement AND reported the study) and only \(5\) were open whistle-blowers (refused to write the statement AND reported the study).

2. Personality and Dispositional Results

• None of the six personality traits on the HEXACO-PI-R showed any statistically significant relationship with whether a person obeyed, disobeyed, or blew the whistle.

• Social Value Orientation (SVO) did not significantly predict behaviour.

• Gender had no significant effect: males and females showed similarly high levels of obedience.

• Religion: The only variable that showed a statistically significant difference was depth of religious faith. Participants who expressed strong religious faith were moderately more likely to blow the whistle than those who did not.

Key Takeaway: We are terrible at predicting our own moral courage. We believe we will whistle-blow (\(64.5\%\)), but in reality, over three-quarters of us (\(76.5\%\)) obey the authority figure.

Conclusions

1. Obedience is the default response: Even when a command is unjust and violates basic ethical norms, the vast majority of people comply.

2. People overestimate their moral strength: There is a severe discrepancy between imagined moral behaviour and real-life behaviour. People believe they are autonomous and courageous, but situational forces rapidly overpower moral intentions.

3. Whistle-blowing is psychologically demanding: Despite being provided with an easy, anonymous mailbox mechanism right in the room, fewer than \(1\) in \(10\) participants chose to blow the whistle.

4. Situational explanations outweigh individual ones: Standard personality traits do not reliably predict who will resist authority. The power of the social setting is the primary driver of obedience.

Methodological Evaluation (AO3)

Strengths

• Standardised and Highly Controlled (Reliability): The experimenter followed a scripted procedure, timed the intervals precisely (\(3\) minutes reflection, \(7\) minutes decision), and used identical rooms, forms, and instructions. This high level of internal reliability allows straightforward replication.

• Use of Pilot Studies: Running \(8\) pilot tests with \(92\) students ensured the cover story was convincing, standardised the procedure, and confirmed that participants did not suffer lasting trauma.

• Quantitative Data: The collection of objective numerical data (percentages of obedient, disobedient, and whistle-blowing participants; psychometric scores) eliminated subjective interpretation and allowed direct statistical comparisons between predicted and actual behaviour.

• High Internal Validity: Because participants were left alone in the room, they genuinely believed they had free choice to write, walk out, or post the form. Post-experimental probing revealed very low suspicion regarding the true purpose.

Weaknesses

• Ecological Validity: While participants believed the scenario was real, typing an email endorsement in an artificial laboratory environment does not completely match real workplace whistle-blowing (such as reporting financial fraud or safety cover-ups in a hospital), where real jobs, livelihoods, and legal consequences are at stake.

• Sampling Bias: The sample consisted entirely of undergraduate university students from one institution in Amsterdam (mean age \(20.8\) years). Students are accustomed to obeying university staff and researchers, potentially inflating obedience rates compared to older, more experienced working adults.

• Ethnocentrism: The study was conducted in a single Western, individualistic nation (the Netherlands). While it proves obedience exists outside the USA, it cannot automatically be generalised to collectivist cultures.

Ethical Considerations (BPS Code of Ethics)

Evaluating Bocchiaro et al. through the British Psychological Society (BPS) core principles:

1. Respect: Participants gave initial consent, but it was not fully informed because they were deceived about the true aim of the sensory deprivation study. However, full informed consent was obtained retroactively at debriefing, and participants were assured of their right to withdraw their data.

2. Integrity: The researchers used significant deception regarding the fictitious sensory deprivation research and the non-existent Italian researcher. However, this deception was essential; revealing the true aim would have triggered massive demand characteristics.

3. Responsibility: To protect participants from distress and embarrassment, researchers carried out extensive pilot testing. A sensitive, supportive debrief was given immediately after the \(7\) minutes, explaining the true aims and why high obedience is a common human response, reducing potential feelings of shame.

4. Competence: The researchers demonstrated professional competence by consulting review committees and using established, validated psychometric tools (HEXACO and SVO).

Areas and Debates

Link to the Social Area

Bocchiaro et al. belongs firmly to the Social Area because it demonstrates how an individual's behaviour is heavily shaped by their social context and the presence of an authority figure. Even though participants had strong moral reservations, the social pressure created by the researcher's presence and university setting drove \(76.5\%\) of them to comply.

Link to the Key Theme: Responses to People in Authority

The study directly addresses the key theme by showing that obedience to authority remains remarkably high in modern societies, even when the authority figure asks for an unethical favour rather than ordering physical harm. Furthermore, it expands the theme beyond simple compliance by identifying and measuring whistle-blowing as an alternative, albeit rare, response to authority.

Individual vs. Situational Explanations

Situational: Supported strongly. The social setting (university laboratory, formal authority figure, institutional prestige) compelled most participants to obey, overriding their personal moral values.

Individual: Weakly supported. Personality inventories (HEXACO) and social value orientations showed no significant relationship with obedience or whistle-blowing. The only individual variable showing an effect was religious faith, where participants with stronger faith were slightly more likely to whistle-blow.

Freewill vs. Determinism

The findings support a situational determinist view: participants felt determined by the situation to obey, even when they knew it was wrong. However, the fact that \(14.1\%\) disobeyed and \(9.4\%\) blew the whistle shows that complete determinism is inaccurate; human beings still retain some capacity for freewill and moral resistance.

Comparing the Classic and Contemporary Studies

In Component 02 Section A, you must compare Milgram (1963) (classic) and Bocchiaro et al. (2012) (contemporary).

Similarities Between Milgram and Bocchiaro

• High Obedience: Both studies demonstrated that people are far more obedient to destructive or unethical authority than anyone expects.

• Controlled Laboratory Setting: Both used highly standardised laboratory environments at prestigious universities (Yale in the USA; VU University in the Netherlands).

• Deceptive Cover Stories: Both deceived participants about the true aim to preserve ecological validity and reduce demand characteristics (Milgram: learning and memory; Bocchiaro: sensory deprivation).

• Prior Predictions Disproved: In both studies, observers or comparison groups predicted that very few people would obey, yet the vast majority complied.

Differences Between Milgram and Bocchiaro

• Nature of the Harm: Milgram investigated direct physical violence (inflicting painful electric shocks on a victim), whereas Bocchiaro investigated administrative, institutional harm (writing a deceptive promotional statement).

• Response Options Measured: Milgram measured only obedience vs. disobedience. Bocchiaro introduced a third distinct response: whistle-blowing.

• Sample Demographics: Milgram tested \(40\) adult males from varied occupational backgrounds. Bocchiaro tested \(149\) male and female university students.

• Personality Assessment: Milgram did not administer formal psychometric personality tests to his participants, whereas Bocchiaro systematically tested personality traits (HEXACO) and social values (SVO).

How Bocchiaro Changes or Confirms Our Understanding

1. Understanding of the Key Theme (Responses to Authority): Bocchiaro confirms Milgram's classic finding that obedience is the dominant human reaction to authority, showing this finding remains true in the 21st century. However, Bocchiaro changes our understanding by demonstrating that people can also respond by blowing the whistle, though this path is chosen far less often than people imagine.

2. Understanding of Diversity:

• Gender Diversity: While Milgram originally used an all-male sample, Bocchiaro tested both men and women, revealing that women obey at rates just as high as men.

• Cultural Diversity: Bocchiaro demonstrated that high obedience is not restricted to mid-20th-century Americans; modern European (Dutch) young adults show equally strong tendencies to comply with authority.

Quick Memory Tricks and Exam Tips

• Remember the \(3\) Percentages: Think of the actual results as the "75 - 15 - 10 Rule" (close enough to remember: \(76.5\%\) Obeyed, \(14.1\%\) Disobeyed, \(9.4\%\) Whistle-blew).

• Open vs. Closed Whistle-blowing: Don't forget that most whistle-blowers were "closed" (\(9\) out of \(14\))! They wrote the unethical letter and posted the complaint. Only \(5\) were brave enough to openly refuse and report.

• Common Exam Mistake: Students often state that personality predicted who disobeyed. It did not! HEXACO personality scores showed no significant correlation. Only religious faith showed a minor correlation.

• Time Limits: Remember the two time intervals: \(3\) minutes to think, \(7\) minutes to act in the second room.