Philip Allan Publishers © 2015

Productive disobedienceSummary of Bocchiaro and Zimbardo article

Matt Jarvis

Philip Allan Publishers © 2015

The rationale for Bocchiaro and Zimbardo’s work: disobedience can be a good thing

Obedience is often a good thing:

● Complex human society requires order and organisation to function.

● This would not be possible without obedience.

However, obedience is not always positive:

● Stanley Milgram’s research demonstrated destructive obedience — the tendency to obey orders to commit immoral actions.

● The alternative to destructive obedience is productive disobedience, defined as peaceful non-compliance with laws, norms or instructions that would lead to immoral actions.

Philip Allan Publishers © 2015

A reminder of the Milgram scenario

Bocchiaro and Zimbardo’s research was inspired by the classic

studies conducted by Stanley Milgram in the 1960s

Aim: To investigate people’s responses to orders to harm a stranger

Method: Male volunteers were told they were taking part in a memory experiment. They took the role of teacher and tested a ‘learner’ (in fact a stooge working for the researchers). When he got answers wrong the participants were ordered to give him electric shocks, increasing up to a maximum of 450V. The shocks were not real but the learner cried out in apparent pain and begged for the procedure to be stopped.

Findings: All participants gave the ‘learner’ at least 300V. 65% gave the maximum of 450V. Most displayed distress at the suffering they believed they were causing but did not feel able to disobey.

Philip Allan Publishers © 2015

Whistle-blowing as productive disobedience

There has been considerable interest in the phenomenon of whistle-blowing, in which people — often isolated individuals — inform the authorities or public of what they believe to be wrong-doing in organisations.

A famous case of whistle-blowing is that of Edward Snowden, a defence analyst who has released to the public many details of covert activity by US security agencies. Some of Snowden’s revelations have shocked the public. However, there have been allegations that people have been put at risk by Snowden’s actions

Philip Allan Publishers © 2015

A study of productive disobedience 1: aim and method

Bocchiaro, Zimbardo and Van Lange (2012)

Aim: to put participants in a situation where they could choose between destructive obedience and productive disobedience without being exposed to excessive stress.

MethodParticipants were asked to write a promotional message to encourage students to participate in a study that raised serious ethical issues. The task required that they should not reveal to possible participants that the study would cause unpleasant symptoms. Participants also had the opportunity to alert the university ethics committee.

Philip Allan Publishers © 2015

Results: the experiment

• 76.5% obeyed and produced the promotional material.

• 14.1% disobeyed; they did not produce the promotional material.

• 9.4% blew the whistle and informed the university ethics committee of the study.

• Personality, gender and religion made no difference.

Results: the survey

A separate group of participants had been asked how they and the average student would respond when put in this situation.

• 4% believed they would obey and 19% believed the average student would obey.

• 32% believed they would disobey and 44% believed the average student would disobey.

• 64% believed they would blow the whistle and 37% believed the average student would do so.

A study of productive disobedience 2: findings

Philip Allan Publishers © 2015

Bocchiaro and Zimbardo (under review)

Ran the same procedure under a range of conditions designed to establish what factors affect disobedience and whistle-blowing.

Follow-up research

Individual factorsDisobedient people typically had the following characteristics:

• Low levels of submissiveness to authority

• Low levels of aggression

• Low levels of acceptance of norms

Situational factors

Disobedience tended to take place in

the following circumstances:

• Presence of defiant peers

• Higher cost of obeying

• Prior experience of defying authority

This resource is part of PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW, a magazine written for A-level students by subject experts.To subscribe to the full magazine go to http://www.hoddereducation.co.uk/psychologyreview