Contemporary study - Burger Flashcards
What is the background of this study?
Carried out by Jerry Burger.
Ethical replication of Milgram’s study.
Migram’s variation #5 included the learner having a “heart condition”.
In Variation #17, there is a second teacher who encourages the main participant to stop.
Burger incorporates both ideas into his study.
He also focused on two individual differences traits: empathy and locus of control.
What is are the locus of controls?
Locus of control - the importance that autonomy and independence has for you.
Internal locus of control - believes that he or she can influence events and their outcomes.
External locus of control - blames outside forces for everything.
What was Burger’s scientific approach?
Identified variables that might have influenced Milgram’s original participants.
Measured these two traits using questionnaires.
What was the aim?
To find out if the same results as Milgram’s study re-occur with modern participants in 2009.
See if personality variables like empathy ad locus of control influence obedience.
See if the disobedient model makes a difference to obedience levels.
What was the IV?
The base condition compared with the model refusal condition.
Independent Groups design.
What was the DV?
Obedience is measured by how many volts the last shock to be delivered was - before the participant refused to go on, exhausted all the “prods” or reached 150V.
What was the sample?
70 participants aged 20-81. Randomly put into two conditions. Volunteer sample, through newspaper ads. Paid $50 before the study started. Burger dropped volunteers who had: heard of Milgram's study, studied psychology for 2+ years, anxiety or drug issues.
What was the procedure?
Same as Milgram’s except the confederate was in his 50s , and the test shock was 15v not 45v.
1) Teacher reads out 25 multiple choice questions and the learner uses a buzzer to indicate the answer.
2) Wrong answer = experimenter directs teacher to shock the learner starting at 15v. Learner indicates he has a slight heart condition. Experimenter replies that the shocks are not harmful.
3) 75v - learner starts making sounds of pain.
150v - learner cries that he wants to stop and complains about chest pains.
4) If the teacher moves to deliver the 165v shock, the experimenter stops the experiment.
What was the model refusal condition?
1) A second confederate pretends to be a second teacher.
2) They deliver the shocks, with the naive participant watching.
3) At 90v the confederate turns to the participant and says “I don’t know about this.”
4) He refuses to go on and the experimenter tells the participant to take over delivering the shocks.
What were the results?
Stopped at 150v or sooner: Base condition - 12, Model refusal - 11, Milgram’s variation #5 - 7.
Continued past 150v: Base condition - 28, Model refusal - 19, Milgram’s variation #5 - 33.
There was no difference in obedience between men and women.
Women slightly less likely to obey in the model refusal condition.
Empathy played no difference in obedience.
Those who stopped at 150v or sooner had a higher locus of control.
What were the conclusions?
Burger concludes that Milgram’s results still stand half a century later.
People are still influenced by situational factors to obey an authority figure, even if it goes against their moral values.
Burger makes the assumption that any participant who was willing to go beyond 150V would have been willing to go all the way to 450V the way Milgram’s participants did. He argues that their “self perception” would have made them do this.
The “model refusal” results were not very different from the base condition. This is odd because Social Impact Theory suggests the impact of the authority figure would be lessened if divided between two teachers rather than focused on one.
Empathy didn’t make a difference to obedience, which goes against what Milgram thought and what Burger expected.
How was the study generalised?
Burger’s 2009 study is more generalisable than Milgram’s study. Burger included a larger sample of 70 people than Milgram’s sample of 40 people. It also covered a wide age range of 20-81 year olds, and two thirds of Burger’s participants were females, whereas all of Milgram’s participants were males. But Burger failed to find gender differences. This shows that maybe the situational differences overpower the individual differences, the women’s concern for the learner could be weaker than their ability to stand up to the experimenter, compared to men.
How was the study reliable?
Burger’s study is reliable. Burger replicated aspects of Milgram’s variation #5 (heart condition), variation #17 (modal refusal), and variation #8 (testing women). Burger followed Milgram’s script wherever possible and used the same confederates every time. This shows that Burger’s study was reliable because it easily replicated Milgram’s study and was also controllable.
How was the study applicable?
Burger’s study has some applications. The study can be used in schools, workplaces and prisons. Authority figures should wear a uniform to show their status. This shows that the study demonstrates how obedience works and can be used to increase the levels of obedience in places that have rules. The Social Impact Theory also suggests strategies for increasing the pressure on these people to be obedient.
How was the study valid?
Burger’s study lacks ecological validity. The tasks in the study are artificial, as in a school, for example, teachers wouldn’t be asked to give electric shocks to their students if they get a question wrong. This shows that Burger’s study lacks mundane realism as these events aren’t realistic.
