TOWARDS UNJUST AUTHORITY
Background:
A whistle blower is a person who exposes/informs on a person or organisation regarded as engaging in unlawful or immoral activity.In most situations, when some disobeys, it is assumed that there would be a lower level of whistle-blowing than disobedience because it involves a potential direct confrontation of the person and the authorityMilgram found that people have strong inclinations to obey legitimate authority, irrespective of their beliefs, feelings or intentions.
Aim:
(a) Who are the people that disobey or blow the whistle?(b) Why do they choose the challenging moral path?(c) Do they have personal characteristics that differentiate them from those who obey?
Research method:
Like Milgram, there was in fact no independent variable (IV) so the study may be best viewed as a laboratory study, or as Bocchiaro et al say a ‘scenario study’.The study took place in a laboratory at the VU University in Amsterdam.
Sample:
149 undergraduate students took part in the research in exchange for either €7 or course credit. NB. A total of 11 participants were removed from the initial sample of 160 because of their suspiciousness about the nature of the study.A comparison group of 138 students were used who predicted obedience, disobedience and whistle blowing, but did not participate in the actual study.
Procedure:
8 pilot tests, involving 92 undergraduates from the VU University in Amsterdam, were conducted to ensure the procedure was credible and morally acceptable. These tests also served to standardise the experimenter-authority behaviour throughout the experimental periodThe comparison group was 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?”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.Each participant was greeted in the laboratory by a male, Dutch experimenter who was formally dressed and stern.The experimenter proceeded with a (seemingly unjustified) request for each participant to provide a few names of fellow students and then presented the cover story.The gist of the cover story:The experimenter and an Italian colleague were investigating the effects of sensory deprivation on brain function. A recently conducted experiment on 6 participants in Rome who spent some time completely isolated, unable to see or hear anything, had disastrous effects – all panicked, their cognitive abilities were temporarily impaired, some experienced visual and auditory hallucinations. 2 participants asked to stop because of their strong symptoms but were not allowed to do so because invalid data may then have been collected. The majority said it had been a frightening experience. 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 sensory deprivation. A University Research Committee was evaluating whether to approve the study and were collecting feedback from students to help them make their decision.The experimenter left the room for 3 minutes for thinking time.Participants were then moved to a second room where there was a computer for them to use to write their statement. Participants were told to be enthusiastic when writing their statements and had to use two adjectives among “exciting”, “incredible”, “great” and “superb”. 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.The experimenter told participants to begin and left the room for 7 minutes.After the 7-minute interval the experimenter returned and invited the participant to follow him back to the first room where he/she was administered two personality tests, fully debriefed and asked to sign a second consent form, this time fully informed.The entire session lasted approximately 40 minutes.
