Contemporary Burger 2009

Question 1

aim of burger 2009

Answer 1

to recreate Milgram’s obedience variation 5 experiment in a more ethical way
- also to determine if personality and gender influences obedient

Question 2

sample of burger 2009

Answer 2

70 volunteers who applied from advertisements
- 41 women, 29 men
- paid $50 for 2 45min sessions before study
- screened for mental health issues e.g. anxiety/depression and previous psychological knowledge

randomly assigned to base condition or model refusal condition

Question 3

procedure of burger 2009

Answer 3

base condition-
1. Experimenter is a white man in his late 30s, Confederate Learner is in his late 50s
2. a test shock of 15V rather than 45V is given to ppt Teacher
3. while the Learner is being strapped to the chair they give a pre-scripted warning that they have a heart condition, Experimenter says shocks aren’t harmful
4. Teacher reads out 25 multiple choice questions and Learner uses a buzzer to indicate their answer, if it’s incorrect a shock is given, increasing in 15V intervals
5. at 75V Learner makes sounds of pain, at 150V he cries, says he wants to stop, says he has chest pain
6. if Teacher moves to deliver 165V shock the experiment stops

model condition-
1. same procedure except 2 Confederates, one is the same Learner as the base condition, one poses as a participant Teacher of the same gender as the actual participant Teacher
2. Confederate ‘delivers’ shocks while ppt watches, at 90V they turn to the ppt and say “I don’t know about this”
3. Confederate refuses to go on and experimenter tells ppt to take over delivering shocks

Question 4

results of burger 2009

Answer 4

base condition-
70% prepared to go past 150V, compared to Milgram’s 82.5%
- no significant difference between men and women
- those who stopped at 150V had higher locus of control than those who continued

model refusal condition-
37% wanted to stop compared to Milgram’s 30%
more dissent was shown than base condition

Question 5

conclusions of burger 2009

Answer 5

• Milgram’s results still stand half a century later
• people still influenced by situational factors to obey an authority figure
• locus of control suggests some people resist agentic state but this disappeared in model refusal condition

Question 6

generalisability of burger 2009

Answer 6

High
- recruited a more diverse sample including 41 women as opposed to Milgram who only recruited men
- sample of 70 is higher than Milgram’s sample of 40
- his means his results about obedience are more representative of a wider population

Low
- Burger screened volunteers and excluded lots of people based on mental health and psych knowledge from the final sample which may make it less representative as there is less variety in personality

Question 7

reliability of burger 2009

Answer 7

High
- follows Milgram’s variation 5 experiment which has high reliability as it was successfully replicated and found consistent results
- both Burger and Milgram used a standardised procedure with standardised scripts, steps and confederates

• high inter-rater reliability as Burger filmed everything so other researchers can replicate or watch to judge ppt behaviour themselves

Question 8

validity of burger 2009

Answer 8

High
- controlled for confounding participant variables such as prior knowledge and mental health by screening every volunteer
- gathered objective quantitative data on who refused and who continued
- high population validity due to mix of male and female ppts

Low
- lacks ecological validity due to the artificial, controlled lab experiment
- volunteers are a biased sample as they may be particularly obedient
- these may have caused demand characteristics

Question 9

ethics of burger 2009

Answer 9

Higher
- lower tester shock of 15V compared to Milgrams 45V so less harm or distress caused
- shocks only increased by 15V and only went up to 150V rather than 450V so not as forceful
- screened all ppts for mental health to ensure they wouldn’t be overly distressed
- approved by University Ethics Panel
- ppts fully debriefed afterwards

Low
- deception as ppts still thought it was a memory test and unaware of being recorded/observed
- some ppts still distressed

Question 10

application of burger 2009

Answer 10

• can explain war crimes
• testing for locus of control can help identify who is more/less obedient to take measures to maintain order in society