Burger (2009) (Contemporary Study) (1)

Question 1

What was the Aim of Burger’s 2009 study?

Answer 1

To investigate obedience

• …by partially replicating Milgram’s experiment to see if situation of factors affect obedience to an authoritative figure

Question 2

What was the Sampling Process of Burger’s Study?

Answer 2

• Individuals responded to an advert in a newspaper
• They were asked about physical + psychological health, and if they’ve attended a psychology class.
• They then answered multiple questionnaires regarding their age, ethnicity, education, occupation, anxiety levels, depression levels and personality (e.g. Beck Anxiety Inventory, Beck’s Depression Inventory)
• Participants were then interviewed by a clinical psychologist to identify anyone who may be negatively affected by the study.
• Final Sample: 70 participants- 29 males, 41 females.
  Age Range: 20-81 years old

Question 3

What was the Procedure of ‘Experiment 1- Baseline Condition’ in Burger’s (2009) study?

Answer 3

Same procedure as Milgram, however:

During the brief, ppts were reminded 3 times that they could withdraw at any time. The learner also mentioned having a heart problem.

The experimenter was a clinical psychologist, instructed to stop the experiment if the ppt showed excessive distress

At 150 volts the pre-recorded response of “Ugh. That’s all. Get me out of here. I told you I had a heart trouble. My heart’s starting to bother me now. Get me out of here please. My heart’s starting to bother me. I refuse to go on. Let me out”

The experiment ended at 150V. The DV was operationalised by if they wanted to proceed or not.

Question 4

What was the Procedure of ‘Experiment 2- Modelled Refusal Condition’ in Burger’s 2009) study?

Answer 4

Same procedure as the baseline condition, but:

There were 2 confederates involved; the ‘learner’, and ‘Teacher 1’. The ppt was always Teacher 2.

Teacher 1 and 2 matched in gender.
Teacher 1 took the lead and asked the questions/gave the shocks.. Teacher 2 sat with them.

At 75v, Teacher 1 hesitated after the learner grunted. At 90v, teacher 1 stated ‘I don’t know if I can do this’.

Teacher 1 was prompted by the experimenter, but refused to carry on. The experimenter then asked Teacher 2 to continue.

Question 5

What were the Results of Burger’s (2009) Study?

Answer 5

Experiment 1: 68.35% continued after 150 volts.
Experiment 2: 58.9% continued after 150 volts.

There is no significant difference in obedience levels between:
Burger’s results and Milgram’s Variation Results
Baseline + Modelled Refusal Condition
Males and Females

Question 6

What was the Conclusion for Burger’s (2009) study?

Answer 6

People are as obedient today as they were in Milgram’s day: Situational factors influence obedience to an authority figure

Burger stated that, although 150v was seen as the ‘point of no return’, he didn’t know whether they would still go to the full 450v

There may be personality factors inked to obedience, but it is unclear what they are.

Question 7

What were the Strengths of Burger’s (2009) study?

Answer 7

Generalisability: The sample size were 29 females, 41 females, with an age range of 20-81 years.

Reliability: The procedure involved someone mentioning they had a heart condition and they wanted to stop at 150v, which is standardised.

The researcher measured the results using quantitative data, which is an accurate + objective strategy

Internal Validity:The researcher controlled extraneous variables, like ensuring they didn’t have anxiety or depression which would affect obedience.

Question 8

What were the Weaknesses of Burger’s (2009) study?

Answer 8

Ecological Validity: The study took place in a lab; and involved a task of answering word pairs, with wrong answers leading to electric shocks increasing in size.

Validity: We can only assume the participants would continue to obey after 150v

Practical Application: Its difficult to assume that ppts in Burger’s study would have equally obeyed Hitler, as war is so much more complex

Question 9

What are the Ethical Issues surrounding Burger’s (2009) study?

Answer 9

Psychological Harm: Ppts were still put in an anxiety provoking situation, where they thought the shocks were harming someone

Withdrawal: The verbal prompts used by the experimenter effectively removed any previously established right to withdraw.