Burger (2009) contemporary study Flashcards
Define demand characteristics
cues in a study that can lead to participants to change their natural behaviour to match with their interpretation of the aims of a study
what was the aim of the study?
- To investigate whether obedience found by Milgram was era-bound by partially replicating Milgram’s (1963), but in a more ethical way.
- To investigate whether personality factors affect obedience to an authority figure, such as empathetic concern and desire for personal control.
What was the procedure?
- the participants were 29 men and 41 women (Age 20-81). The participants were asked if they had been to college and whether they had taken any psychology courses. They completed a self-report questionnaire on empathetic concern and desire for personal control.
- Participants were introduced to the confederate and researchers, who were white Caucasian men like those in Milgram’s experiment.
- Participants were told multiple times verbally by researchers and in writing that they could leave at any point of the experiment, (reminding them of their right to withdraw)
- The participant always had the role of the teacher, the confederate was told to learn from word pairs as a learner, the participant was told to deliver shocks when the confederate gave wrong answers.
- The researchers would inform the participant that they must move up one switch every time the confederate gave the wrong answer.
- There will be pre-recorded sounds played after a 75V shock and 150V shock was delivered. These were the same as the ones used in Milgram, learner yelling.
- The researchers were instructed to prod the participant if they hesitate to continue, using a set of scripted instructions, e.g. “please continue”
- The experiment would stop once the participants reached 150V or the researcher ran out of prods to give.
- As soon as the experiment was over, the participant was told that the shocks were fake and debriefed on the experiment.
What were the findings?
- 70% of participants pressed to 150V button
- No significant difference between men and women’s obedience scores, but women’s were slightly higher
- No significant difference in empathetic concern scores between obedient and disobedient participants.
- Defiant participants did have slightly higher desire for personal control scores.
What was the conclusion?
- Milgram’s findings are not era-bound nor male-bound and the experiment is therefore reliable. Lack of empathy is not the reason people followed orders to harm others.
Evaluate a strength of the study (generalisability), (this has a counter argument)
Generalisability
I - A strength of Burger’s research is that it can be generalised to a wider population as it had a high population validity
J - The sample included 29 men and 41 women (aged 20-81)
E - Therefore, the findings on obedience can be applied to both males and females of varying ages
counter argument However, participants who may have found the study distressing (38%) were also excluded via pre-screening questionnaires, protecting participants from harm but also meaning that the participants might be more psychologically robust, reducing generalisability as the sample no longer represents the wider population. The findings therefore cannot explain obedience in the wider population as this sample might be less obedient.
Evaluate a strength of the study (reliability)
Reliability
I - A strength of Burger’s research is that it has a controlled procedure, making the research more reliable
J - The lots were rigged nf the participants always has the role of teacher who was asked to deliver shocks when the confederate gives the wrong answers
E - This means results could be legitimately compared to Milgram’s and come to the conclusion that obedience is not era bound nor affected by gender and the reason the participants obeyed was because of the authority and not other variables. Moreover, this means it can be replicated to test for reliability of obedience rates of 70%.
Evaluate a weakness of the study (validity)
Validity
I - A limitation of Burger’s study is that the task is still unrealistic and unrepresentative of everyday examples of obedience, meaning the study lacks mundane realism
J - The participants has to administer electric shocks, which is not a normal task like following a diversion route or completing your homework
E - This means we cannot apply the findings to understand how obedience works in real life such as children obeying parents request to take the bins out, obedience rates might be higher or lower than 70%
Evaluate a weakness of the study (application0
Application
I - An issue is that the findings they not be applicable to real world application
J - Elms (2009) claims that Burger’s experiment ended at the 150V mark, which is before the participants felt intense internal conflict/cognitive dissonance about what they were doing.
E - Therefore, the study doesn’t adequately show whether a person would continue to demonstrate obedience even if they cause serious harm and can’t be used to understand obedience in those real life situations
Evaluate a strength of the study (ethics)
Ethics
I - A strength of the study was that it adhered to the BPS Code of Conduct, researching obedience without violating ethical guidelines.
J - The experimenter was a clinical psychologist with instructions to end the study if any ‘excessive stress’ was seen. He changed the procedure because he told participants at least three times that they could withdraw and still get payment. He used a 15V sample shock instead of 45V.
E - Therefore, the study explored obedience whilst protecting all participants.
However, as ethical standards for research are so stringent, only tame studies are allowed to be conducted, and this is detrimental to the progress in this field. It can be argued this means Burger was unable to explore some of the interesting aspects of Milgram’s study.
