contemporary study: burger Flashcards
What year did the study take place?
2009
Background of study
Burger was interested in whether people would still obey an authoritative figure, especially as Psychologists believe that people are now more aware of the consequences when following orders
Burger believed that despite the time period between his and Milgram’s study, it would still show similar level of obedience
Aim of the study
To investigate obedience by partially replicating Milgram’s 1963 study. To examine whether situational factors affect obedience to an authoritative figure.
How were ppts found?
They responded to an advertisement (local paper) and flyers (in local establishments) as well as online, by telephone or email
What was the prize for participating?
Advert $50 for participating in 2 x 45 minute sessions
What were ppts called for?
Ppts were called by research assistants to begin the screening process. They were asked questions about if they had been to college, did they take any psychology classes, in order to screen out anybody who was familiar with Milgram’s research
The remaining ppts were asked about their physical and psychological health, especially if they had suffered any traumatic childhood experiences. 30% of ppts were excluded from further involvement in the study at this point
What happened after the screening process?
Ppts went through to the 2nd part of the screening process, which was conducted by 2 clinical psychologists at Santa Clara University. Ppts were asked to complete a number of scales/questionnaires about age, occupation, education and ethnicity.
What happened after the questionnaire?
Ppts were taken to a room where they were interviewed by a clinical psychologist to assess whether they might be negatively affected by the study, interviews were used to identify anybody with psychological disorders and indicate anybody who should not take part. The interviews lasted approximately 30 minutes.
How many ppts were interviewed and removed?
123 ppts were interviews and 47 removed due to unknown reasons (confidentiality)
How many ppts were invited back, dropped out and expressed awareness of Milgram’s research?
76 ppts were invited back a week later, 6 dropped out, 5 out of the 6 expressed their awareness of Milgram’s research
What was the total sample size?
70, 29 males and 41 females, ages 20-81, mean age = 42.9
Experiment 1 procedure
- baseline condition
- ppts split into 2 equal groups, equal ratio of male and female. Introduced to the experience term and confederate, with ppt and confederate given $50 and they were told to keep the money even if they want to withdraw. Script similar to Milgram was used, explaining procedure and use of shock generator. Role choice was rigged, confederate was always the learner and ppt was always the teacher. Both asked to sign consent forms
- learner was in the adjacent room, with teacher placed before the electric generator. Teacher was asked to join experimenter while he prepared learner, so ppt witnessed the experimenter place the electrode on the learners left wrist.
- Milgram’s procedure followed. Teacher was asked to read 25 word pairs, and told if learner did not remember a word pair after giving first word pair incorrectly, an electric shock should be administered. Each wrong answer would result in stronger shock being administered (learner disclosed they suffer from heart condition). Teacher shown how to use shock generator and was given 15 volt sample shock. Milgram’s 4 verbal prods were used, with pre-recorded grunts from learner played at 75 volts. At 150 volts the following recording was played:
“Urgh. That’s all. Get me out of here. I told you I had a heart trouble. My hearts starting to bother me now. Get me out of here, please. My hearts starting to bother me. I refuse to go on. Let me out.” - if teacher resisted then exp ended. Exp was forcibly stopped at 150 volts. When experiment finished experimenter immediately told teacher shocked were not real and introduced teacher to the learner, so teacher knew the learner was ok.
- also, they were told they could withdraw at 3 points during the experiment
Experiment 2 procedure
- modelled refusal condition
- same procedure as exp 1 followed, but with few changes. There were 2 confederates instead of 1. 2nd confederate posed as a ppt. Rolled were rigged; learner was confederate, teacher was confederate and teacher 2 was real ppt. Teacher 1 took lead and began asking questions and administering shocks, while teacher 2 sat with them. At 75 volts it was scripted for teacher 1 to hesitate after hearing learner grunt, and at 90 volts, teacher 1 state; “I don’t know about this.” Teacher 1 is prompted by experimenter, but refuses to continue. Experimenter then asked teacher 2 (real ppt) to continue.
Results of study
Exp 1: 70% of ppts had to be stopped before attempting to continue last 150 volts.
Exp 2: 63.3% went to continue after 150 volts, despite expectations that they wouldn’t once teacher 1 withdrew. Very similar to baseline condition.
There was little difference between genders. The point where ppts needed the first verbal product to continue was similar for males and females.
Conclusion of study
Time and changes in society’s culture did not have an effect on the level of obedience demonstrated by ppts, nor did the refusal of the confederate. Burger obtained very similar results to Milgram’s findings that were found in the 1960s
