Burger 2009 - contemporary Flashcards
Aims
- To investigate whether obedience levels have changed since Milgram’s (1963) original study.
- To examine whether personality factors (e.g., empathy and locus of control) influence obedience.
- To make the study more ethical while maintaining a similar procedure.
Procedure
- Sample: 70 participants (29 men, 41 women), aged 20-81, recruited through advertisements.
- Participants were paid $50 for taking part.
- Similar procedure to Milgram’s study, but with ethical modifications:
Shock level was stopped at 150V (unlike Milgram’s 450V).
A real electric shock (15V) was given to the participant (instead of 45V in Milgram’s study).
Participants were told three times that they could withdraw at any time.
A clinical psychologist was present to monitor stress levels.
- The learner (a confederate) protested at 150V, saying they had a heart condition, but no shocks were actually given.
- If a participant wanted to continue after 150V, the experiment was stopped (unlike Milgram’s original study).
Results
- 70% of participants obeyed and were willing to continue past 150V, compared to 82.5% in Milgram’s original study.
- No significant gender differences in obedience levels.
- No significant effect of personality factors (empathy and locus of control) on obedience.
Conclusions
- Obedience levels in 2009 were still high, showing that people are still likely to follow authority figures.
- Even with ethical changes and time differences, people’s behaviour remained similar to Milgram’s findings.
- Personality traits like empathy and locus of control did not significantly affect obedience.
- Authority and situational factors remain strong influences on obedience.
Generalisability
P - Burger’s study has better generalisability than Milgram’s because included more diverse sample in terms of age and gender.
E - Unlike Milgram’s study, which only had male participants aged 20-50, Burger included both men and women (41 females, 29 males) and had a wider age range (20-81 years old). This makes the findings more representative of the general population.
E - Suggests that the findings on obedience can be applied to a broader range of people, increasing the study’s population validity.
Reliability
P - A strength of Burger’s study is that it used a highly controlled and standardised procedure, making it reliable.
E - The study followed a scripted procedure, ensuring all participants had the same experience. The use of a real 15V shock, the same verbal prods, and stopping at 150V made the study easily replicable.
E- This means the study can be repeated in different settings, and if similar results are found, it strengthens the consistency of the findings on obedience.
CP - However, the artificial lab setting may make participants behave differently than they would in real-life obedience scenarios, reducing external reliability.
Applications
P - Burger’s findings are useful in real-world applications, especially in understanding obedience in workplaces, military settings, and healthcare.
E - The study shows that situational factors play a bigger role than personality in obedience, meaning that authority figures (e.g., managers, police officers, or doctors) need to be aware of how their presence and commands influence people’s behaviour.
E - This can be used to prevent blind obedience in harmful situations, such as military conflicts or unethical workplace environments.
CP - However, since the study stopped at 150V, it does not tell us whether participants would have continued to the full 450V like in Milgram’s study. This limits how much we can apply the findings to real-world extreme obedience.
Validity
P - A limitation of Burger’s study is that procedural changes made it less valid as a true replication of Milgram’s original study.
E - Unlike Milgram’s experiment, Burger screened participants before the study, meaning those who were more likely to disobey may have been removed. Additionally, participants were repeatedly reminded that they could withdraw and still keep the money, which may have reduced the pressure to obey. Furthermore, participants knew that the confederate (learner) had also been assured they could stop at any time, which may have influenced their decision to disobey. Some who refused to continue even pointed this out as their reason for stopping.
E - These procedural changes weaken the internal validity because they may have reduced the level of obedience pressure, making the findings less comparable to Milgram’s original results. If participants felt less obligated to continue, the study may not fully reflect real-world obedience under high-pressure conditions.
Ethics
P - Burger’s study was more ethical than Milgram’s because it had safeguards to protect participants.
E - Participants were told three times that they could withdraw at any time, a clinical psychologist was present to monitor stress, and the study stopped at 150V to prevent excessive distress.
E - This means the study adhered to modern ethical guidelines, making it more acceptable for research while still investigating obedience.
CP - However, participants were still deceived, as they were led to believe they were harming another person, which could cause psychological discomfort. Even though a psychologist was present, some stress was still experienced by participants.
