Bocchiaro (2011)

Question 1

(Bocchairo) What is the aim of this study?

Answer 1

This study aimed to see what people would do if they were confronted with the choice of obeying, disobeying or whistleblowing in a situation when faced with an unjust authority figure who was engaging in unethical behaviour.

Question 2

(Bocchairo) Define the term ‘whistleblowing’.

Answer 2

A whistle-blower is a person, often an employee, who reveals information about activity within a private or public organization that is deemed illegal, immoral, illicit, unsafe or fraudulent.

Question 3

(Bocchairo) Describe the sample of this study?

Answer 3

The sample were recruited via self selecting. Flyers were circulated in the cafeteria of the VU University in Amsterdam offering course credit or 7 euros for participation. This collected 149 students (96f and 53m with a mean age of 20.8yrs).

Question 4

(Bocchairo) Describe part 1 of the procedure.

Answer 4

The participants were met by a male Dutch researcher who was formally dressed with
a stern demeanor. They were told a fake cover story about
what the study was actually about and asked to give the names of a few other students who could take part in the study.

Question 5

(Bocchairo) Describe part 2 of the procedure.

Answer 5

The participants were then told they need to write a statement to convince the students they named earlier to take part in
the sensory deprivation study. This could include extra work and money for them if they do so. The experimenter also mentions the study is under review by an Ethics committee.

Question 6

(Bocchairo) Describe part 3 of the procedure.

Answer 6

The participants were then taken to a room with a computer to write their statement. The room also included forms for the ethics committee which participants could use to report the study for ethical breaches by completing and placing in a mailbox. They were left alone in this room for 7 minutes.

Question 7

(Boacchiaro) State and explain the 3 possible responses.

Answer 7

1. Obedient - Participants could write a statement
2. Disobedient - Participants could refuse to write a statement
3. Whistleblower - Participants could report the study by posting an ethics form in the mailbox.

Question 8

(Bocchairo) Explain what is meant by an ‘open’ whistle-blower.

Answer 8

Participants refuse to write a statement and report the study (they are OPEN about their disapproval).

Question 9

(Bocchairo) Explain what is meant by an ‘closed’ whistle-blower.

Answer 9

Participants write a statement but also report the study for ethical breaches (they are being secretive about their disapproval).

Question 10

(Bocchairo) State the ‘obedient’ results for the main group.

Answer 10

76.5% of participants went through and wrote a statement.

Question 11

(Bocchairo) State the ‘disobedient’ results for the main group.

Answer 11

14.1% of participants refused to write a statement.

Question 12

(Bocchairo) State the ‘whistle-blower’ results for the main group.

Answer 12

9.4% of participants reported the study to the ethics committee.

Question 13

(Bocchairo) State the ‘open whistle-blower’ results for the main group.

Answer 13

3.4% of participants refused to write a statement and reported the study to the ethics committee.

Question 14

(Bocchairo) State the ‘closed whistle-blower’ results for the main group.

Answer 14

6% of participants wrote a statement and reported the study to the ethics committee

Question 15

(Bocchiaro) What was the purpose of the comparison group?

Answer 15

Bocchiaro also asked 138 participants to imagine they were in the scenario and report what they think they would do so her could compare the results.

Question 16

(Bocchairo) State the ‘obedient’ results for the comparison group.

Answer 16

3.6% of participants thought they would write a statement.

Question 17

(Bocchairo) State the ‘disobedient’ results for the comparison group.

Answer 17

31.9% of participants thought they would refuse to write a statement.

Question 18

(Bocchairo) State the ‘whistle-blower’ results for the comparison group.

Answer 18

64.5% of participants thought they would report the study to the ethics committee.

Question 19

(Bocchairo) What 2 ways did Bocchairo measure personality?

Answer 19

HEXACO & SVO

Question 20

(Bocchairo) Describe and explain HEXACO.

Answer 20

The HEXACO test measures 6 major dimensions of personality:
● Honesty-Humility
● Emotionality
● Extraversion
● Agreeableness
● Conscientiousness
● Openness to Experience

Question 21

(Bocchairo) Describe and explain SVO.

Answer 21

The Social Value Orientation
(SVO) measures preferences of outcomes for oneself and
others:
● Prosocial Orientation
● Individualistic Orientation
● Competitive Orientation

Question 22

(Bocchiaro) Explain the personality results.

Answer 22

The personality inventories revealed no new information about the personality of obedient people, but did reveal that whistleblowers tended to have more faith.

Question 23

(Bocchiaro) How can the sample be seen as biased?

Answer 23

● Only students
● Most likely young (mean
age 20.8yrs)
● From Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Question 24

(Bocchiaro) How can’t the sample be seen as biased?

Answer 24

● Both male and female
participants
● Not all participants would
have been from The
Netherlands

Question 25

(Bocchiaro) How is this study seen as ethical? (2)

Answer 25

● Students volunteered to take part (gave consent) as well as after the real study was revealed.
● Participants were given a
full debrief about the sensory deprivation study not being real.

Question 26

(Bocchiaro) How is this study seen as unethical? (2)

Answer 26

● Students were deceived about a fake study.
● Students may have felt stressed by putting their peers in a harmful scenario OR felt guilty if they were obedient.

Question 27

(Bocchiaro) Explain construct validity, regarding this study.

Answer 27

People may not have actually opposed the sensory deprivation study:
- they may have wanted it to be conducted.
- they may have suggested names of people they didn’t like to take part.

Question 28

(Bocchiaro) Explain ecological validity, regarding this study.

Answer 28

Bocchiaro said the situation students were put in was realistic (suggesting other pupils for another study).

Question 29

(Bocchiaro) Explain population validity, regarding this study.

Answer 29

Both male and female participants were used but they were on average quite young.

Question 30

(Bocchiaro) Describe the internal reliability, regarding this study.

Answer 30

The procedure was standardised (time given to write the statement, fake cover story given etc) so could be easily replicated again.

Question 31

(Bocchiaro) Describe the external reliability, regarding this study.

Answer 31

There was 149 students so this should be enough to establish a consistent effect.

Question 32

(Bocchiaro) How is this study situational? (2)

Answer 32

● The presence of a perceived legitimate authority figure (the experimenter in a lab coat) made them obey.
● It was suggested if they comply they may get.

Question 33

(Bocchiaro) How is this study individual?

Answer 33

Faith was found as a characteristic that was found more in whistleblowers.