Contemporary Study Flashcards
Contemporary Study=
Burger (2009)
Aims
Aims-
To replicate Milgram’s experiment in an ethical way (Experiment 5)
To test Milgram’s finding and make comparisons
Contemporary Study=
Burger (2009)
Hypotheses
Hypotheses directional-
- Thought there would little difference in in 1961/2 experiment and 2009, as situational features likely to remain the same
- Less obedience would occur if refusal was modelled overtime by someone else before the participant engaged in behaviour. Modelling norms though to make a difference in obedience to authority
- No gender difference in obedience (same as Milgram)
- Personality may make a difference to obedience: Participants with as strong tendency to empathise with the suffering of others, less likely to obey experimenter than these ‘low’ on this trait. Those motivated to exercise more control, more likely to obey experimenter than those with participants ‘low’ in this.
Contemporary Study=
Burger (2009)
Sample
Sample-
VOLUNTEER sampling (like Milgram)- participants responded to advertisement
29 MEN, 41 WOMEN- aged 20-81years(after screening)
Promised $50 for 2 SESSIONS, 45mins each
After screening remaining participants attended campus, 1 week later to continue study- 6 more dropped out= 5 knew of Milgram’s study, 1 didn’t turn up. Left 70 PARTICIPANTS
Contemporary Study=
Burger (2009)
Procedure 1
Procedure- Base condition
- Participants randomly assigned to 1/2 conditions, gender roughly EQUAL, given $50 TO KEEP
- Experimenter= WHITE MAN, mid 30s had a script (like M’s) Confederate= WHITE MAN, 50s (chosen to reflect same roles as M’s)
- Participants told study was to look at EFFECT OF PUNISHMENT ON LEARNING.
- Drew LOTS with confederate to determine TEACHER + LEARNER (was rigged)- participants didn’t know they would ALWAYS BE TEACHER
- Completed a consent form- informed them they might be videotaped, reiterated RIGHT TO WITHDRAW, and could still KEEP MONEY
- Confederate told to remember 25WORD PAIRS and explained to participant they would read 1 PAIR and 4 OTHER WORDS.
- Confederate gave answer by pressing switch- WRONG answer= ELECTRIC SHOCK told shocks PAINFUL NOT DANGEROUS
- Confederate mentions at this point that they have a SLIGHT HEART CONDITION
Contemporary Study=
Burger (2009)
Procedure 2
Procedure- Base condition
- Participants offered a SAMPLE SHOCK- 2 declined, given word pairs and response options, instructions given by EXPERIMENTER
- If the answer is wrong, ‘wrong and x volts’ said ALOUD by teacher, voltage increased by 15 VOLTS after each WRONG answer
- Learner could hear through INTERCOM but couldn’t SPEAK
- Teacher reads out 1st word and the 4 options
- At 75VOLTS= learner gave SMALL GRUNT and after grunt INCREASED after EACH SHOCK
- At 150VOLTS= Got LOUDER, yell about HEART CONDITION, wanted to GET OUT
Contemporary Study=
Burger (2009)
Materials and environment
Environment
- Similar as possible to Milgrams
- Room was ADJACENT to the learner, experimenter was a LITTLE DISTANCE from teacher; experimenter PRIMED in responses, PRE RECORDED sound from the confederate .
- Generator built to MATCH Milgram’s= 30 switches, volt range from 15-450VOLTS
- Door was SHUT
Contemporary Study=
Burger (2009)
Screening
Screening-
Initial
-Those who responded to advert,phoned and if FAMILIAR with Milgram’s study or had taken more than 2 PSYCHOLOGY LESSONS= screened out
-The asked about MENTAL HEALTH and DRUG DEPENDENCY- 30% screened out at this point
Second screening
-age, occupation, education and ethnicity RECORDED
-Scales administered eg BECKS ANXIETY INVENTORY- to check state of mind
-Self motivation check and ‘empathetic concerns’- INTERPERSONAL REACTIVITY INDEX
Final Screening
- Clinical psychologist used STRUCTURED INTERVIEW- screened out anyone who might react NEGATIVELY to study
-Those screened out PAID FULLY and CONFIDENTIALITY MAINTAINED
-38.2% screened out front this
Contemporary Study=
Burger (2009)
Procedure- Modal refusal condition
Procedure- Modal refusal condition
- Similar to base condition with a few differences
- ANOTHER CONFEDERATE as well as learner who MATCHED participant’s gender
- New confederate= always TEACHER 1, participant= always TEACHER 2
- Teacher 1 started experiment and didn’t hesitate until 75VOLTS- first grunt, they paused. At 90VOLTS turn to experimenter and said “I DON’T KNOW ABOUT THIS”, didn’t carry on after FIRST verbal prod
- Experimenter asks TEACHER 2 to take over, confederate sat SILENTLY
Contemporary Study=
Burger(2009)
Procedure 3
Procedure 3-
-Study ended if 150VOLTS had been reach + ppt still wanted to continue or
-Do all VERBAL PRODS had been given + ppt REFUSED to carry on
4 prods= to ENCOURAGE the ppt to continue + predetermine answers Eg “THERE WILL BE NO PERMANENT TISSUE DAMAGE”
If they asked who was RESPONSIBLE for any harm caused= experimenter took RESPONSIBILITY
-Immediately explained to ppts that the generator was NOT REAL- no shocks. At the same time the CONFEDERATE entered the room- to show he was FINE. When it was clear the ppt UNDERSTOOD, thorough DEBRIEFING in other room
Contemporary Study=
Burger(2009)
Quantitative results 1
Quantitative results 1-
Behaviour: B condition: MR condition: M experiment:
Stopped. 12(30%). 11(36.7%). 7(17.5%)
At 150v
Or sooner
Continued/. 28(70%). 19(63.3%). 33(82.5%)
Went to
Continue
After 150V
Contemporary Study=
Burger(2009)
Quantitative results 2
Quantitative results 2-
Condition: Behaviour: Men: Women:
B. Stopped at 150V/before: 6(33.3%) 6(27.3%)
Continued: 12(66.7%) 16(72.7%)
MR. Stopped at 150V/before: 5(45.5%) 6(31.6%)
Continued: 6(54.5%) 13(68.4%)
