1.3.2 Contemp- Burger (2009) Replicating Milgram Flashcards
Aims?
- Replicate Milgram’s ethically and investigate if there’s a difference in the lvls of obedience between Milgram’s Baseline 5 study (1963) and this study (2009)
- Investigate if personality influences obedience or if it’s purely influenced by situational factors
- To investigate if observing someone refuse to obey, influences obedience
Sample?
70; 29 men 41 women
Aged 20-81 (mean age 42.9)
55% White 4% Black Afro-American
Method/sample?
Volunteer sampling
> Flyers in libraries, markets
> Adverts in newspapers + online
2 step screening?
2 step screening
1. Deselected 38%> of ppts to exclude anyone who would’ve found study distressing
2. Clinical psychologist interviewed ppts to see who could be negatively affected by study
Who was screened?
a) Those w psychological knowledge> screened anyone who attended 2 + lessons, as mayve learnt about Milgram’s prev
b)Ppts completed questionnaire abt age, education, ethnicity, anxiety/ depression
70 pps left
IV + DV?
IV= Base condition (same as Milgram’s)
DV=No. of volts administered
PP design?
Independent groups design
> compares 2009 and 1960s ppts
Procedure? Base condition
Base condition: PPpts randomly put into 2 groups to ensure gender split equally
- Pre exp: teacher/learner roles, 2 rooms (basc same as Milgram’s) and ppts signed consent forms
Same word pairs, wrong answer = shock
- At 75V, pre-recorded voices played
150V- recording shows learner expressing wanting to leave
- If experimneter cont, exp stopped + told shocks werent real
Procedure? Modelled refusal condition
- 2 confederates used; 1 posed as ppt (same gender as real ppt)
- Drawing roles was rigged; resulted in learner 9confederate), Teacher 1/T1(confederate, Teacher 2/T2 (real ppt)
- T1 took lead, began proced + administered shocks whilst T2 sat w T1.
- @75V, T1 hesitated after hearing L grunt, then 90V T1 said ‘I dont know abt this’ which led to T1 refusing to continue
- The experimenter would ask real ppt/ T2 to continue
How was Burger’s more ethical procedure than Milgram’s?
- Screening process- 2/3 parts; rigorous to ensure ppts wouldnt be involved if study deemed to be fatally stressful for ppts w MH issues etc. Protection from harm
> Also clinical psychologist carried out interview n was experimenter so could identify dterimental distress + stop experiment at any time - Burger stopped exp @150V, argued that 79% of og Milgram’s ppts who did 150V administered full 450V. So bc of the co siderable link, Burger stopped n caused less distress for ppts
- Ppts informed 3 times that they have right to withdraw
Results?
- Little gender diffs found for obedience lvls. Also little diff btwn those who stopped/ continued and their corresponding empathy + control scores from screening
- Found exp 1, ppts w dissent had higher scores on the desirability of control test
Conclusion?
Results from both exp are similar to Milgram’s from 45 years previous, time and change in society’s culture had no effect on obedience level nor did the refusal of Confederate. Also Burger suggests same situational factors exist today, emphasises that even after he changed some aspects of procedure eg 1 rebellious confederate in model refusal, he still found high lvls of obedience.
GRAVE-Generalisability?
1.P- Burger’s study had larger sample than Milgram’s
E-70 ppts compared to og 40 w wider age range 20-81 years whereas Milgram’s tested 20-50 yr old. 2/3 of Burger’s sample= fem, but Milgram’s= all male.
E-S, increased generalisability as original study was androcentric and not suitable for a wider age range, but Burger’s can be applied to both genders and a wider age bracket to a larger population when studying obedience.
2.P-Low
E-Burgerexcluded many ppts from final sample; following a 2 part screening and a clinical psychologist interview to decide whether study would cause deterimental distress to ppts w MH issues etc
E-W, final sample may’ve consisted of more psychologically robust individuals who mayve been less likely to obey commands of administering shocks so study less G to represent a population that isn’t all psychologically robust when testing for obedience
GRAVE-Reliability?
P-High
E-Burger followed Milgram’s variations standardised proceds- pre- recorded voices, scripted confederate conversation, followed M’s script, used same confederate each time etc. Burger replicated variations 5,8,17; being a heart condition, model refusal, and testing women.
E-S, standardised procedures mean high test-retest R to test for obedience & control of EVs so can aim to determine which situational factors/ factors from proced could affect obedience lvls.
GRAVE- Application?
P-Yes
E-Applicable for obedience in professional setting; eg in schools, work places, prisons. Auth figs shoudl wear symbols of auth eg uniforms and justify their auth under the ‘greater good’, similar to Burger placed uniformed exps in room giving verbal prods; following Milgram’s proced.
E-S, study can be applied to real-life situations involving obedience eg soliders’ behavs in WW2. Plus could prevent harmful obedience & exploitation of legitimate auth figs to their workers in institutions.
GRAVE-Validity?
P-Low ext V- mundane realism
E-Burger’s task= artificial- teachers don’t administer electric shocks to students
E-W, decr V due to demand characteristics as ppts were aware of experimenter and may’ve remained obedie nt for longer to impress him ina professional, potentially intimindating setting.
