Burger (2009) - Contemporary Study Flashcards
Background?
Concern for Milgram’s ethics - stress couldn’t be justified, identified 150V as point where decision to continue was made
Hypothesis?
Little difference in obedience between Milgram’s and his own participants
> if they saw someone refuse they might be more likely to themselves
>thought personality had more of a role than gender
How much were participants paid?
$50 whether they fully completed or not
Differences between Milgram?
>screening prior to exp. >$50 instead of $4.50 >signed consent >sample shock of 15V >told shock generator was fake immediately after
What was the model refusal condition?
Second confederate pretends to be a second teacher and administers an electric shock, at 90V refuses to give more
How many went to continue after 150V in the base condition?
70%
How many went to continue after 150V in the Modelled Refusal condition?
63.3%
Was there difference between the men and women?
No
How many went to continue after 150V in the 1963 study?
82.5%
Conclusions?
There isn’t a difference between the reaction in a lab scenario today and the reaction 45 years ago.
Same situational factors operate today
No confirmation that ppts would have gone to 450V
Did seeing another person refuse impact obedience levels?
No
How many participants?
70 men and women from different backgrounds and ethnicities
How was it kept similar to Milgram’s experiment?
Same verbal prods, same electric shock generator, script, lab coat, same words in memory task - enhances validity
How does the diversity of Burger’s participants limit the direct comparisons that can be made?
Milgram only used men, had a narrower age range and had less diversity
Generalisability?
70 men and women, different backgrounds and ethnicities, increases the chances of representing the target population but still Western - limits cross cultural conclusions
Reliability?
Detailed, same experience for each ppt, same screening procedure - saw same confederate strapped and informed of heart condition, could be replicated
Internal Validity?
Lab conditions so its high, standardised procedure and controls, can be more certain it was the situation that impacted their willingness to obey
Ecological Validity and Mundane Realism?
Task of shocking another person makes it difficult to generalise to everyday obedience - artificial behaviour,
Artificial lab setting
Ethics?
- Still deceived but outweighed by societal gains
- 150V minimises stress
- Consent
- Written right to withdraw 3 times before experiment
- Experimenter was a clinical psychologist
- Didn’t allow time to pass before saying it was fake
What was involved in the procedure?
- Watches learner get strapped in a chair
- Learner indicates he has heart condition
- Experimenter says shocks aren’t harmful
- 75V learner makes sounds of pain
- 150V learner cries that he wants it to stop
What else did Burger measure?
Empathy and Locus of Control
How did Burger measure empathy?
Interpersonal Reactivity Index
How did Burger measure Locus of Control?
Desirability Control Scale
What did Burger find about empathy and LOC?
- empathy did not have an influence on obedience
- LOC was higher in those who stopped at 150V or sooner
What were the findings for the modelled refusal condition?
63.3%
