Burger 2009: Contemporary Study Flashcards
Define Internalising
Obeying with agreement
Who was Burger?
A man who tried to replicate Experiment 5 (Milgram tried to find other situational factors affecting obedience ie. learner with a heart condition and verbal protests)
What is the point of no return?
At 150V as Burger decided if they continued up until this point, they would’ve continued until 450V - More ethical.
What were Burger’s aims?
Ethical Replication: thought 150V didn’t challenge ethics, and could be reminded of their right to withdraw at this point.
What did Burger change (7)?
Stopped at 150V
Told Participants they could withdraw thrice with payment
15V sample shock
Told immediately there was no harm done to learner
No real Shocks
Experimenter was a clinical psychologist - knew limits
Approved by Santa Clara Uni Ethics Board
How did Burger make sure his experiment was free from other factors that could influence obedience?
He examined features that could influence obedience in order to rule them out.
What were these features of Obedience considered by Burger? (4)
Being ordered by legitimate authority figures (Socialised to obey)
Gradual Increase of Voltage (Slippery Slope, makes ppts want to continue til end for consistency)
Unfamiliar Situation (Looks to experimenter for ideas of how to behave)
Experimenter takes responsibility
What was the aim of Burger’s Experiment?
Test and make comparisons with Milgram’s findings in an ethical manner
What was Burger’s hypothesis?
Should be little difference between levels of obedience despite the years of difference
Less obedience if refusal is considered the norm
Obedience not changed by gender but can be with empathy
Strength of motivation meant people were more likely to obey
What was Burger’s procedure like?
Similar to Milgrams
What was Burger’s participants like?
61 (20 males and 41 females) - in response to a newspaper ad. They were promised $50 for 45 mins sessions. They filtered out anyone familiar with Milgram’s work, any who may have a negative response due to their participation and checked their “self-motivation/self-esteem” conditions
What was the base condition for Burger?
Participants were in two conditions via random sampling and given $50 to keep.
Participant introduced to both and told the aim was to find the effect of punishment on learning. They drew rigged lots before ppt consented to video. The learner was strapped in (told to have slight heart condition) and told shocks to not be dangerous. There was a grunt at 75V, followed by louder grunt and demand to be let out at 150V.
What was the modelled refusal condition like?
Same as base condition but with another confederate (same gender as ppt) as Teacher 1 and ppt as Teacher 2.
At 75V, heard grunt and at 90V Teacher 1 (confederate” says “I don’t know about this” and stopped - Teacher 2 (ppt) also stopped.
