Burger contemporary study

Question 1

What was the conclusion of Burgers contemporary study

Answer 1

1. Milgram’s findings are not era-bound nor are they androcentric (applied only to men as the sample was mostly men)
2. Lack of empathy doesn’t seem to be a valid explanation for the high obedience rates as both defiant and obedient participants had very similar scores for this trait
3. The desire for personal control does seem to determine the likelihood of defiance

Question 2

What were the 6 ethical safeguards in Burgers study

Answer 2

1. To avoid levels of high anxiety Burger stopped the shocks at 150V. He argued that 79% of those participants in Milgram’s study who gave 150 V shock continued to 450 V.
2. A two-step screening process excluded volunteers who might have a negative reaction to the experience
3. Participants were given 3 reminders of the right to withdraw
4. A real but mild 15 V shock was given to the participants at the start of the experiment compared to Milgrams 45 V shock
5. Participants were debriefed almost immediately after the study was ended
6. A clinical psychologist supervised all trials and was told to end the trial immediately if anyone appeared excessively distressed

Question 3

What was the aim of Burger’s contemporary study

Answer 3

To see whether Milgram’s findings were era-bound

Burger also wanted to see whether obedience is affected by personality variables like empathy and locus of control.

Question 4

What was the result of Burger’s contemporary study

Answer 4

• The obedience rate was only slightly lower than Milgram found, 70% pressed the 150 V button compared to 82.5% in Milgram experiment 5.
• There was no significant difference in empathic concern scores between the defiant and obedient participants
• The defiant participants did have a significantly higher desire for personal control than obedient participants

Question 5

What was the method of Burgers’ contemporary study?

Answer 5

1. Laboratory experiment using an independent groups design, the volunteer sample consisted of 70 adults aged 20 to 81, with a mix of ethnicities
2. The study replicated Milgram 5 variation but Burger employed 6 ethical safeguards to protect his participants
3. Self-report questionnaires were used to measure: empathetic concern and desire for personal control
4. The researcher recorded the final shock administered and terminated the trial either when participants refused to continue, after hearing all four prods, or when they had administered the 150 V shock

Question 6

What is the advantage of Burger’s contemporary study

Answer 6

• High internal validity because none of Burgers participants had knowledge of Milgram’s research
• All participants were asked whether they took any psychology classes
• Anyone who had taken 2 or more classes was excluded
• 5 people admitted their awareness of the Milgram study at this stage and also dropped out
• Therefore demand characteristics would not be a problem and would not affect the results collected in the study

Question 7

Describe generalisability as a disadvantage of Burger’s study

Answer 7

• 38% of the participants were deselected in order to exclude anyone who might have found the study to be distressing
• People in the final sample may have been more psychologically robust than many people in the general population
• This may have led to lower levels of obedience and reduces the generalisability of the findings

Question 8

Describe limited application as a disadvantage of Burgers study

Answer 8

• The fact that participants were stopped before they suffered any real tension or dissonance about what they were doing meant that the situation lost its potency
• The conversations in Milgram studies between participants and the experimenter post 150V perhaps provided some of the most illuminating findings, however, Burger was unable to explore this
• This seriously reduces the meaningfulness of the study in helping us to understand obedience in real-world situations today