OCR · A-Level · Psychology
Bocchiaro et al. (2012) - Disobedience
Bocchiaro et al. (2012) reveals the surprising power of situational pressures in making ordinary people obey unjust authority. This study challenges our assumptions about our own moral courage and provides a crucial, modern counterpoint to Milgram's classic work, making it a favourite for examiners testing the Social Area.
- 4 min read
- 3 worked examples
- 3 practice questions
- 6 key terms
Check what you remember
Read the wording for your board, then hide it and explain Whistleblowing in your own words. Rough notes are fine. This is a self-check, with no mark or grade.
Reference: OCR
The act of reporting wrongdoing or unethical conduct within an organisation to internal or external authorities.
Study Notes
Overview
Bocchiaro et al. (2012) is a pivotal study in the Social Area of psychology, investigating why people obey unjust authority, and what distinguishes those who disobey or even become whistleblowers. Conducted at VU University in Amsterdam, it employed a controlled laboratory paradigm to create a moral dilemma, contrasting what people predict they would do with what they actually do. Examiners expect candidates to understand this 'obedience gap' and to use the study to argue for the strength of situational factors over dispositional (personality) traits. Credit is given for precise knowledge of the procedure, the quantitative results, and the key finding that personality, as measured by the HEXACO-PI-R, did not significantly predict who would obey, disobey, or whistleblow. This study is essential for evaluating the core assumptions of the Social Area and for application questions concerning workplace misconduct.
The Experimental Paradigm
The Cover Story
What happened: Participants were greeted by a stern, formally dressed experimenter who explained he was seeking help with a study on sensory deprivation. He claimed a previous study had gone wrong, causing severe psychological distress to participants, and that the University Research Committee had forbidden it from continuing. He then asked the participant to write a statement enthusiastically recommending this harmful study to other students, using words like 'exciting' and 'incredible'.
Why it matters: This elaborate deception created a situation with high experimental realism. The cover story was designed to be ethically questionable, forcing participants into a moral conflict between obeying the authority figure and protecting future participants. Marks are awarded for describing the specific details of this setup.
Specific Knowledge: VU University, Amsterdam; sensory deprivation; request to write a supportive statement.
The Three Choices
What happened: After delivering the instructions, the experimenter left the participant alone in a room for seven minutes to make their decision. They had three options:
- Obey: Write the supportive statement as requested.
- Disobey: Refuse to write the statement.
- Whistleblow: Report the unethical study to the University's Research Committee using a form left in the room.
Why it matters: This provided clear, quantifiable dependent variables. It allowed the researchers to move beyond a simple obey/disobey dichotomy and investigate the rarer behaviour of active whistleblowing. Candidates must distinguish clearly between these three behaviours.
Specific Knowledge: Obey, Disobey, Whistleblow; Research Committee form.
Key Findings
The Obedience Gap
What happened: Before the main study, a separate group of 138 students were asked to predict how they would behave. They overwhelmingly predicted they would disobey or whistleblow. In the actual experiment, the results were the complete opposite.
Why it matters: This is the central finding. The huge discrepancy between predicted and actual behaviour demonstrates that we are very poor judges of how we will act under situational pressure. This 'obedience gap' is a powerful piece of evidence for the power of the situation.
Specific Knowledge: Predicted obedience: 3.6%. Actual obedience: 76.5%. Predicted disobedience/whistleblowing: 96.4%. Actual disobedience: 14.1%. Actual whistleblowing: 9.4%.
Personality & Behaviour
What happened: All participants completed the HEXACO-PI-R personality test, which measures six major dimensions of personality (Honesty-Humility, Emotionality, eXtraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Openness to Experience). The researchers looked for correlations between personality traits and the participants' choices.
Why it matters: The results showed no significant correlation between any personality trait and the likelihood of obeying, disobeying, or whistleblowing. This is a crucial finding that candidates often get wrong. It provides strong evidence against a dispositional explanation for behaviour and supports the situational hypothesis.
Specific Knowledge: HEXACO-PI-R; no significant correlation found.
Worked Examples
3 worked examples — open one to explore the question and available guidance.
Practice Questions
Try the question, then reveal an answer plan or example response
Outline two findings from the study by Bocchiaro et al. on disobedience and whistleblowing. (4 marks)
Hint: Be specific and use the quantitative data from the study.
Explain why Bocchiaro et al.'s study can be considered to be in the Social Area. (4 marks)
Hint: Link the study's findings to the core assumptions of the Social Area.
Discuss the ethical considerations of the study by Bocchiaro et al. (10 marks)
Hint: Consider both ethical problems and how the researchers attempted to mitigate them. Use a cost-benefit approach.
Exam technique
How to turn what you know into marks
How to approach the question
1. **Identify the command word**: What does it want you to do (Outline, Evaluate, Explain)? 2. **Identify the topic**: What specific knowledge is required? 3. **Identify the marks**: How much detail is needed?
How to structure your answer
- Essay questions
- For 'To what extent' or 'Evaluate' questions, create a balanced argument. Two paragraphs for, one against, and a justified conclusion is a solid structure.
- Source questions
- Not applicable for this study.
- Explain questions
- Use a point-evidence-explain structure. Make a point, support it with specific evidence from the study (e.g., a statistic), and explain how it answers the question.
Timing
Approximately 1 minute per mark. For a 12-mark question, spend 2-3 minutes planning and 10-12 minutes writing.
Common pitfalls
- Confusing disobedience and whistleblowing.
- Incorrectly stating that personality predicted behaviour.
- Describing the sample as 'general population' instead of students.
- Not using the precise statistics in your answers.
What the command words want
- Evaluate
- Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the study, using methodological terms like validity, reliability, ethics, and generalisability.
- Explain why
- Give reasons for a particular finding. For example, explain *why* the situational factors were so powerful.
- Describe/Outline
- State the facts. Give a clear, step-by-step account of the procedure or findings. No evaluation needed.
- How far do you agree/To what extent
- Provide a balanced argument looking at evidence that supports the premise and evidence that challenges it, before reaching a final, justified conclusion.
Watch or listen (optional)
Test your understanding of Bocchiaro et al. (2012) - Disobedience
Active recall beats re-reading. Take an instant quiz now to test what you’ve learned and lock it into long-term memory.
A week of Premium from your first lesson · Then the free plan continues · No card, no charge