BURGER Flashcards
Why is Burgers study significant?
- It shows how scientific research proceeds, because Burger is replicating parts of Milgram’s study to see if the conclusions still hold true today
- It illustrates features of the Social Approach, since it explores how situations dictate people’s behaviour but it also looks at individual differences, because it investigates personality too
- It illustrates the power of the experimental method, manipulating an IV and drawing conclusions about cause and effect from differences in the DV
- It shows the importance of experimental design, since it uses Independent Groups design
How does Burger observe obedience, compared to Milgram?
- In Milgrams study pps were considered obedient, only if they continued to 450v
- Burger argues there’s no need to continue the experiment all the way to 450V: if participants are prepared to go beyond 150V after learning about the heart condition, we can assume they would go all the way to 450V and spare them the distress. (more ethical approach)
What did Burger test before his experiment began? - What does this say about his scientific approach compared to Milgrams
The pps personalities and qualities
- Burger was also interested in individual differences that Milgram ignored. He conducted personality tests to measure pps levels of empathy and locus of control to see how that would effect their obedience.
= Burger’s scientific approach is different. He has identified variables that might have influenced Milgram’s original participants (empathy and locus of control).
Burgers study - aim
- To find out if the same results as Milgram’s 1963 study re-occur when the study is replicated with modern participants in 2009.
- To see if personality variables like empathy and locus of control influence obedience.
- To see if the presence of a disobedient “model” makes a difference to obedience levels.
Burgers study - IV
Base condition (same as Milgram) compared with the “model refusal” (rebellious partner) condition.
- This is an Independent Groups design
Burgers study - DV
The voltage the pps would go up to
Burgers study - Sample
- 70 volunteers (men and women)
- aged 20-81.
- paid $50 before the study started.
- 2-step screening (whether pps were familiar with milligram or if pps had any drug or emotional issues)
Burgers study - Method
- The experimenter is a white man in his 30s; the confederate (learner) is in his 50s.
- The script resembles Milgram’s but the test shock that the participant receives is only 15V rather than Milgram’s painful 45V.
- Learner answers multi choice questions, if they answer wrong, the teacher gives them an electric shock from 15v-150v
-The learner indicates he has a “slight heart condition” and at 75V the learner starts making sounds of pain. - At 150V the learner cries that he wants to stop and complains about chest pains. - If the teacher looks as though he will continue to a higher voltage afterwards the experimenter stops the experiment.
Burgers study - “model refusal” condition method
A 2nd confederate pretends to be a 2nd teacher. This teacher delivers the shocks, with the naïve participant watching. At 90V the confederate teacher turns to the naïve participant and says “I don’t know about this.” He refuses to go on and the experimenter tells the naïve participant to take over delivering the shocks.
Burgers study - Ethical controls
- 2-step screening process
- Pps warned 3 times in writing that they could withdraw at any point and still keep the $50
- Experimenter was actually a clinical psychologist, skilled in spotting and reacting appropriately to distress
- “test shock” was only 15V, not Milgram’s painful 45V
- Burger did not allow time to pass before he introduced the (healthy) learner and debriefed the participants
Burgers study - Results
- 70% of pps in the baseline condition were prepared to go past 150V, (compared to 82.5% in Milgram’s Variation #5) - not statistically significant
- compared men and women but didn’t find a difference in obedience.
- Empathy did not make a significant difference to obedience.
-In the base condition, those who stopped at 150V or sooner had a significantly higher locus of control (not the case in the “model refusal” condition).
Burgers study - Conclusion in baseline condition
- Milgram’s results still stand half a century later. People are still influenced by situational factors to obey an authority figure, even if it goes against their moral values.
Burgers study - Conclusion in model refusal condition
- The “model refusal” results weren’t very different from the base condition.
- This is odd because Social Impact Theory suggests the impact of the authority figure would be lessened if divided between two teachers rather than focused on one. Milgram found less obedience in this condition, but he used two rebellious models, not one.
Burgers study - Generalisability compared to Milgram
- Burger’s sample of 70 people is larger than Milgram’s sample of 40, however Burger has 2 groups and Milgram tested in many more pps over his variations
- Burger covers a wider age range
Burgers study - Validity compared to Milgram
- The lack of ecological validity Milgram was criticised for still applies in Burgers study
- Pps were paid fully in advance, ensures it was social pressure that made them continue shocking, not the money
- Burger stopping the study at 150V may be invalid. Pps who were prepared to go to 165V may have dropped out later. It is a huge assumption to say they would have continued to 450V. The “model refusal” group, in particular, might have had second thoughts as the shocks got stronger.
