Bocchiaro evaluation

• Research Method

  The study was a laboratory study (not an experiment). It took place in a laboratory at the VU university Amsterdam, allowing for controlled conditions.
• Research Method

  The procedure was standardised to ensure consistent experimenter-authority behaviour and cover story throughout the experimental period. Two specially prepared rooms and specific timings for the procedure were used in the study.
• Research Method

  The measure of obedience, whistleblowing and disobedience was controlled in the study (writing a statement in favor of the sensory deprivation study, reporting the experimenter's questionable conduct to the Research committee, and refusing to write the statement). Two personality inventories were also used to gather data.
• Data collection

  Most of the data gathered was quantitative, for example the obedience/defiance rates and the scores on the two self-report measures (Hexaco personality inventory and the SVO measure).

  A strength of this is it enables comparisons to be made between groups. For example 64.5% of the comparison group said they would blow the whistle, when only 9.3% of participants actually did- there is a difference between what people say they would do and what they would actually do in a whistleblowing situation.
• Data collection

  A weakness of quantitative data is that it cannot provide insight into the reasons why behaviour actually occurs. For example, the data gives us no information about why 9.3% of participants felt compelled to blow the whistle. This limits the usefulness of the results- we do not know why some people choose to obey/disobey/blow the whistle.
• Ethics

  Lack of informed consent- Participants did not know the nature of the research so could not necessarily give informed consent.

  Deception- Participants were told a fictitious cover story about the sensory deprivation study which involved harming participants. They were also told that their positive statements would be sent to other students, which was a lie.
• Ethics

  Protection from harm- The potential for distress was minimised- unlike in Milgram's study. Participants could blow the whistle whilst remaining anonymous by still writing the positive statement. There was also no need for any direct confrontation as the researcher left the room for 7 minutes. Pilot studies were also carried out to ensure participants considered the procedure to be acceptable.

  Participants also had the right to withdraw at the debrief stage, where they were also told the nature of the study.
• Validity

  The lab study may have a reduced likelihood of natural whistleblowing behaviour as participants knew they were taking part in the study.
• Validity

  There is a potential for low validity in the self reports (personality inventories). Social desirability bias could have caused participants to answer the questions in a way that makes them look more pro-social and moral when completing the Hexaco personality inventory. Therefore, we don't get a valid picture of the type of person who obeys or blows the whistle.
• Reliability

  The study is easy to replicate as it has a highly standardised procedure. The specific details of the cover story and the timings of the tasks are clearly documented. For example, the entire procedure took 40 minutes. This makes it easier for other psychologists to test for the reliability of the findings and see if they also observe low levels of whistleblowing.
• Sampling Method

  Volunteer sampling was used as the study was advertised via a poster in the school cafeteria.

  A strength of volunteer sampling is it allows for a wide range of generally committed participants to be gathered. For example, every student who used the cafeteria would see the poster and have opportunity to take part in the obedience study. This would produce a sample of students from different year groups, studying different courses.
• Sampling Method

  A weakness of volunteer sampling is that it may produce a biased sample. For example, students with an interest in psychology may be more inclined to take part and may make up the majority of the sample. This interest could set them apart from other students in a way which could influence the results, for example if they were more pro-social than the average student. This could make them more likely to disobey potential harmful instructions than other students.
• Sample

  The sample is limited to only students. The mean age in the study was 20.8. Older people may have learned to be less trusting of authority figures and so may have responded differently. For example an older person might be more likely to blow the whistle if they were more confident in their internal belief system and morals. This confidence could be something that develops with age and experience so might not be seen in students. Therefore, this makes it hard to generalise Bocchiaro's findings on whistle blowing beyond the sample of students.
• Ethnocentrism

  The study can be considered to be ethnocentric to some extent. It only looked at a sample from a single population (Dutch), but did assess religious beliefs in the personality inventories. Religion is strongly associated with different cultures and in this study no religious differences were found between participants who blew the whistle and obeyed. Therefore, some account of culture was taken, though this was limited.