Burger 2009

Question 1

Burger 2009 aim

Answer 1

to investigate obedience by replicating milgrams 1963 study to see examine whether situational factors affect obedience to an authoritative figure

Question 2

Burger 2009 : background info

Answer 2

burger wanted to prove the idea that people are more aware of blind obedience wrong
150v - point of no return (to be more ethical )

Question 3

burger 2009 : sampling process

Answer 3

• local newspapers .businesses . online
• screening process : asked about physical and psychological health + questionnaire revealing age ethnicity occupations + personality type
• interviewed w/ clinical psychologist
  FINAL SAMPLE : 39 M 41F (20-81yrs)

Question 4

Burgers 2009 Baseline Conditions : EXPERIMENT 1

Answer 4

• reminded right to withdraw 3 times
• learner mentioned heat issues
• recorded responses: “get me out of here , i refuse to go on”
• experiment ended at 150v
• stopped of excessive stress was seen

Question 5

Burger 2009 : EXPERIMENT 2

Answer 5

• same as 1 but involved an extra teacher
• teacher 2 was rigged to be ppts
• teacher 1/2 - matched gender
• teacher 1 takes lead
• at 75v T1 hesitates at learners grunt
  -at 90v T1 “idk about this” then prompted by experimenter / still refused
• experimenter asks T2 to carry on

Question 6

Burger 2009 Results

Answer 6

similar results to milgram
lol it’s long

Question 7

Burgers 2009 Conclusions

Answer 7

• ppl are stil as obedient as milgrams
• ## situational factors do influence

Question 8

POSITIVES for Burgers 8 marker

Answer 8

P1) more ethical , better protected participants , point of no return + psych background
p2) generalisability - very applicable

Question 9

NEGATIVES for burgers 8 marker

Answer 9

• lacks mundane realism (taken place in a lab )
• point of no return undermines burgers validity

Question 10

Burger 2009 8 mark conclusion

Answer 10

• unnecessary ?
• application : led to changes and law to society - whistle blowers are protected by the law