1.3.2 - Burger (2009) Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today?

Question 1

why did Burger want to carry out the study?

Answer 1

while some psychologists now argue that people are more aware of the consequences of blindly following orders from authoritative figures and would reconsider their actions if asked to hurt others, Burger thought that the changes in society’s culture and values wouldn’t have a significant effect on obedience

Question 2

where was the study carried out?

Answer 2

Santa Clara University

Question 3

what was the aim of the study?

Answer 3

to investigate obedience by partially replicating Milgram’s (1963) study to examine whether situational factors affect obedience to an authoritative figure

Question 4

which specifically of Milgram’s studies was Burger replicating with his baseline experiment?

Answer 4

variation 5 where the learner informed the teacher at the start that he had a heart condition and complained that his heart was bothering him

Question 5

why did Burger need to adapt his research slightly?

Answer 5

Milgram’s study was subject to ethical criticism, so he had to adapt it to adhere to current ethical guidelines and minimise the distress caused to participants

Question 6

how did Burger adapt his research to be more ethical?

Answer 6

by carrying out thorough screening procedures on participants to ensure the study wouldn’t cause significant harm to them

Question 7

how did Burger advertise his study?

Answer 7

adverts were put in local newspapers and establishments (libraries/businesses) and also online
they promised $50 for taking part in two 45 minute sessions, and participants expressed interest by phone or email

Question 8

what was the first stage of the screening procedure?

Answer 8

participants were asked if they had been to college and taken psychology lessons - this removed people who had taken two or more psychology lessons or may have been familiar with Milgram’s study
remaining participants were asked about their physical and psychological health and if they had experienced childhood trauma (further 30% removed)

Question 9

what was the second stage of the screening procedure?

Answer 9

it was led by two clinical psychologists and participants completed various scales/questionnaires eg. a demographic sheet asking about age, occupation, education and ethnicity, the Desirability of Control index and the Interpersonal Reactivity index

Question 10

what was the third stage of the screening procedure?

Answer 10

a clinical psychologist interviewed participants with interviews based on the MINI procedure
interviews lasted around 30 minutes and 123 individuals took part, but 47 (38.2%) were removed as a result
76 were invited back a week later but 6 then dropped out

Question 11

what is the MINI procedure?

Answer 11

Mini International Psychiatric Interview - touches on psychological disorders so psychologist can identify those who shouldn’t be in study

Question 12

what were the features of the final sample of participants?

Answer 12

70 in total, 29 males ad 41 females, age range 20-81, mean age of 42.9

Question 13

how were the participants divided up in the study?

Answer 13

split into two groups to try and maintain equal ratios of gender in each group

Question 14

what were the two experiments that Burger carried out in his study?

Answer 14

experiment 1 - baseline condition
experiment 2 - modelled refusal condition

Question 15

experiment 1 baseline condition - method?

Answer 15

participants were introduced to the experimenter and confederate before starting (who were chosen due to their resemblance to the ones used in Milgram’s study)
Burger used a similar script to Milgram and explained the procedure and use of the electric generator
role choice was still rigged (confederate=learner, participant=teacher)
teacher and learner were placed in adjoining rooms and the teacher witnessed the experimenter place an electrode on the learner’s left wrist
teacher was asked to read out list of 25 word pairs, and if the learner failed to remember the correct pair, a shock would be given, with each wrong answer leading to a stronger shock
at this point the learner mentioned that they had a heart condition
the teacher was shown how to use the shock generator and given a 15V sample shock
Burger used the same four verbal prods as Milgram

Question 16

experiment 1 baseline condition - 75V onwards?

Answer 16

pre-recorded voice grunts from the learner were audible

Question 17

experiment 1 baseline condition - 150V?

Answer 17

recording stated an exclamation from the confederate saying ‘My heart’s starting to bother me now. Get me out of here please’

Question 18

experiment 1 baseline condition - how did the experiment end?

Answer 18

if the teacher was resistant to continuing after the 150V point even with the prods, the experiment ended
if the teacher read out the next experiment after 150V, the experiment was forcibly ended

Question 19

experiment 1 baseline condition - what happened immediately after?

Answer 19

the teacher was told that the shocks weren’t real and shown that the learner was fine

Question 20

experiment 2 modelled refusal condition - method?

Answer 20

mostly same procedure as baseline study but with a few exceptions
two confederates were used (the extra one acted as an additional participant and was the same gender as the real participant)
teacher 1 (confederate) took the lead with asking the questions while teacher 2 (participant) sat with them
75V - teacher 1 hesitated after hearing grunt
90V - teacher 1 stated ‘I don’t know about this’ and despite being prompted by the experimenter they refused to continue
the participant was asked to continue the procedure

Question 21

experiment 1 baseline condition - results?

Answer 21

stopped at 150V or earlier - 33.3% of males and 27.3% of females
went to continue past 150V - 66.7% of males and 72.7% of females
70% of total participants went to continue past 150V (just lower than Milgram’s 82.5%)

Question 22

experiment 2 modelled refusal condition - results?

Answer 22

stopped at 150V or earlier - 45.5% of males and 31.6% of females
went to continue past 150V - 54.5% of males and 68.4% of females
63.3% of total participants went to continue past 150V

Question 23

results - gender differences?

Answer 23

little difference in obedience levels between genders
males and females needed first prods at similar points

Question 24

results - compared to initial questionnaires that were completed?

Answer 24

little difference between empathy and control scores of those who stopped and continued
in baseline condition, those who were reluctant to give shocks early on scored higher on desirability for control
no difference when comparing either condition to personality score

Question 25

what were the conclusions of the study?

Answer 25

the results found in both experiments are similar to Milgram’s research over 45 years ago
time and changes in societal culture didn’t affect obedience levels, and neither did the confederate’s refusal

Question 26

what are key similarities between Milgram’s and Burger’s studies?

Answer 26

both investigated destructive obedience
both used a laboratory experiment
both used a volunteer sample
participants were given a practice shock
both concluded that people will obey orders of destructive obedience

Question 27

what are key differences between Milgram’s and Burger’s study?

Answer 27

Burger looked at destructive obedience specifically in contemporary society
Burger’s study was more ethical - he screened participants beforehand and gave them the option to withdraw three times
Burger’s sample had a wider age range (20-81) compared to Milgram (20-50)
Burger also measured personality traits and desire for control
Milgram gave a practice shock of 45V but Burger used 15V

Question 28

evaluation - generalisability of sample?

Answer 28

strengths:
wide age range (20-81)
mix of genders (41 females, 29 males)

weaknesses:
removed people with mental health problems however there are many people in society who struggle with them so it is less applicable to target population
counter argument - removing them protected them from harm so study is more ethical

Question 29

evaluation - generalisability of task/setting?

Answer 29

weaknesses:
task has low mundane realism because people wouldn’t normally carry it out
low ecological validity because setting was lab so difficult to apply to real world

Question 30

evaluation - reliability?

Answer 30

strengths:
Burger and Milgram got very similar results showing the consistency
Burger used a standardised procedure so other people could follow it
participants were recorded so other researchers could observe and interpret the behaviour

Question 31

evaluation - validity?

Answer 31

strengths:
demand characteristics were reduced through the screening procedures which removed those who could already know about Milgram’s study
carried out in a controlled lab environment which reduced extraneous variables
standardised procedure and quantitative data reduced researcher bias

weaknesses:
less extreme than Milgram because didn’t go up to 450V - less internal validity because not measuring extreme destructive obedience

Question 32

evaluation - ethics?

Answer 32

strengths:
participants clearly told three times that they could withdraw - right to withdraw/responsibility
screening removed those with mental health problems and didn’t go up to 450V so reduced harm cause to participants - protection from harm/responsibility

weaknesses:
consent wasn’t fully informed because they didn’t know intentions of study - informed consent/integrity
counter argument - if they’d known full aims it would have led to demand characteristics
participants were deceived - deception/ integrity
counter argument - necessary to deceive participants for study to work