1.3.2 burger Flashcards
what is the aim of Burger’s study?
- to see if milgram’s findings were era-bound
- and if obedience is affected by gender
- and personality traits (empathic concern and desire for personal control)
what type of experiment did Burger use?
laboratory experiment with independent groups design
which of milgram’s variations did burger replicate?
5 and 17 but with 6 ethical guidelines to protect participants
describe the sample used in Burger’s study
- 70 adult volunteers aged 20-81
- 29 men and 41 women
- 60% had uni degrees, 55% caucasian, 4% afro-american
- Recruitment through flyers at libraries, ads in newspapers, etc. - volunteer
What ethical safeguards did Burger use to protect participants?
- Shocks stopped at 150V to avoid high levels of anxiety. There was no need to go higher as 79% of Milgram’s participants who gave 150V shock continued to 450V
- Careful screening to exclude anxious volunteers
- Participants were given three reminders of the right to withdraw
- A real but only mild (15V) shock was given to participants at the start
- Participants were debriefed immediately after the study ended, told shocks were not real and met the ‘learner’
- A clinical psychologist supervised all trials
describe procedure in burger’s study
variation 5
Pp asked to read out a list of 25 word pairs and if the learner failed to remember them an electric shock was administered, increasing in 15 vlts each time.
The learner had previously stated that they had a problem with their heart and at 75 vlts started making sounds of pain. At 150 volts the recording stated ‘Get me out of here…my heart is starting to bother me now’.
The experimenter used the four verbal prods. If the pp was resistant to continuing, the experiment was ended. It was also forcibly ended at the point where the teacher went to continue after administering the 150 volt shock.
On finishing, the experimenter immediately told pp that the shocks were not real and was introduced to the learner to show he was fine
describe the findings of burger’s study
- obedience rate was 70%, only slightly lower than what milgram found in experiment 5 (82.5%)
- no significant difference in obedience rates of men and women, but women were slightly more likely to press the 150V switch (women 72.7%, men 66.7%)
- no significant difference in empathic concern scores between defiant (19.25) and obedient participants (19.20%)
- but defiant participants had significantly higher desire for personal control scores (106.92) than obedient participants (98.24)
describe the conclusions of burger’s study
- milgram’s findings are not era bound (baseline)
- gender does not significantly affect obedience
- lack of empathy does not appear to be a valid explanation for the high obedience rates (both defiant + obedient pps had similar scores)
- desire for personal control does seem to determine the likelihood of defiance
burger - generalisability
P - Poor generalisability as sample isn’t representative of the target population
E - 38% of volunteers were deselected in order to exclude anyone who might have found the study particularly distressing. This could mean people in the final sample may have been more psychologically robust than many people in the general population.
T - This may have led to lower levels of obedience and reduces generalisability of the findings.
burger - reliability
P - A strength of Burger’s study into obedience is that it has high reliability as it was highly standardised
E - All ppts were given a 15v sample shock. At 75 vlts the learner also started making sounds of pain. At 150 volts the recording stated ‘Get me out of here…my heart is starting to bother me now’
T - This is a strength as the procedure could be repeated to check for consistent results on obedience
burger - application
P- Real world application
E - Findings of the study show that after 150V, 70% of the pps (baseline condition) were ready to continue the experiment but were stopped. This helps us to understand destructive obedience in events like the holocaust, where nazi soldiers obeyed Hitler who they saw as the authority figure with power and killed innocent people
T - useful
burger - internal validity
P - High internal validity
E - All participants were asked whether they took any psychology classes. Anyone who had taken two or more was excluded. Five people admitted their awareness of the Milgram study and also dropped out.
T - This suggests there wouldn’t be any demand characteristics as none of Burger’s participants knew of Milgram’s research, enhancing the study’s internal validity
burger - ecological validity
P - lacks ecological validity
E - The task is artificial, in real life, teachers are not asked to deliver electric shocks to learners.
T - therefore the results may not reflect how we obey in real life situations
burger - ethics
strength
P - ethical
E - Screened participants that could be distressed, approved by the university Ethics Panel and the experimenter was a trainer clinical psychologists.
T - This is an ethical strength as the clinical psychologist could have spotted any ppts showing signs of distress and pull them from the experiment, preventing psychological harm
burger - ethics
weakness
P - Unethical as ppts were deceived of the true aim of the study (obedience)
E - Ppts were told the experiment was on human learning rather than obedience.
T - Therefore this broke the ethical guideline of informed consent
