Burger Flashcards
what was the aim of burgers study
replicate milgram’s findings in more ethical manner and investigate additional factors influencing obedience. Investigated impact of modelled refusal, gender, personality traits
what ethical adjustments did Burger make
- No ppts went over 150 (prevent excessive distress)
- Ppts were given real 15v shock to improve realism without harm
-clinical psychologist present to moniter distress and could stop experiment
-full debriefing immediately to reveal no harm done
what was the sample of burger like
-70 adult ppts
-29M 41F
-age 20-81
-screened for psychiatric disorder history or past trauma
-recruited through newspaper ad and flyer ads
-ppts assigned to base condition or modelled refusal condition
what was the base condition of burger
-Procedure similar to milgram
-if the ppts tried to stop before 150 encouraged to continue
Model Refusal Condition
second confederate was introduced as a second “Teacher”.
Teacher 1 (confederate) began administering shocks but hesitated at 75V and refused to continue after 90V.
The experimenter then asked Teacher 2 (real participant) to take over.
Percentage Who Continued Beyond 150V
Base Condition:70%
Model Refusal Condition: 63.3%
coclusions of burger
Obedience Levels Remained High
Burger found that modern Americans are just as obedient as Milgram’s participants in the 1960s.
Situational factors influencing obedience have not changed over time.
Social Influence Had Minimal Effect
Seeing another person refuse did not significantly decrease obedience.
This suggests that situational forces (authority pressure) are stronger than peer influence in an obedience setting.
Situational factors likely overpowered individual differences in concern for the learner.
Personality Factors May Play a Role
Further analysis showed that participants with higher empathy scores were slightly less obedient.
Those with a higher need for control were less likely to continue beyond 150V.
