Context/Background -
Whistleblowing = when someone exposes an illegal or unethical activity in an organisation
Whistleblowing goes against the socialised idea of authority obedience
1 way to investigate whistle blowing is through interviews, but this idea was rejected because p's may have too much time to draw conclusions rather than just make a decision
Personality variables influence their decisions to obey, disobey or whistle blow
Method -
Design- lab experiment, no iv because it was a controlled lab study. 2 rooms used and timings for the researcher leaving were kept the same for all p's = standardised settings
Sample- 149 undergraduate students, 96 F and 53 M, on average 20.8 years old, given €7 or course credit for participating, collected through volunteers of flyers in the cafeteria
Gathering data-
- the data was the no. of p's who obeyed and wrote a statement supporting the deprivation practice compared to those who disobeyed and either didn't write a statement or whistle blew.
-138 comparison p's from a different university were given a description of the setting and asked what they would do, and what they thought the average student would do
Aim -
To investigate the accuracy of estimates of disobedience and whistle blowing, and investigates the role of dispositional factors in disobedience, obedience and whistle blowing
Procedure -
8 pilot tests were carried out to ensure standardisation, credibility and ethics
p's were informed of their task, the benefits/risks of participating and their rights to withdraw. They also completed a consent form
The researcher dressed formally and asked them to provide names of their friends at the uni, then gave them a description of the study that had apparently already been done to do with sensory deprivation, that had frightened and bothered the participants included because they had experienced hallucinations
The p's then moved to a 2nd room with a computer to write a statement encouraging future students to participate in the study, and they had to describe it using 2 words from superb, great, exciting and incredible. they were not allowed to mention anything negative
If they found it too unethical, they could complete a form for the ethics committee and put it into the provided mailbox
After 7 minutes, the researcher returned and did personality tests on the p's, then debriefed them and signed a consent form again
Results -
Comparison group- 3.6% said they'd obey, 31.9% said they'd disobey, 64.5% said they'd whistle blow. 18% said an average student would obey, 43.9% would disobey and 37% would whistle blow
Participants- 76% obeyed, 14% disobeyed and 9.4 whistle blew. Open whistle blowers refused to write the statement but anonymous whistle blowers wrote a letter to the ethics committee. No significant differences in results between religions or genders
Conclusions -
People are more disobedient than whistle blowing
People overestimate how common whistle blowing is and underestimate disobedience
Little evidence for dispositional effects
We see ourselves as less likely to be destructive
Inaccuracy of behaviour estimations = scenario based research = lacks validity
Evaluation -
Research method- lab observation, independent design, no artificiality
Data type- qual data nominalised in % of obedience, disobedience and whistle blowing because quant is easier to compare
Ethics- low in stress and they weren't verbally prodded like in the Milgram study. They had consent and the opportunity to withdraw. Involved deceit but they were debriefed
Validity- ecologically valid
Reliability- High internal validity and well standardised
Sample- 149 students so a large sample size but unrepresentative and un-generalisable