contemporary study: burger Flashcards
1
Q
what year did the study take place?
A
2009
2
Q
background of study
A
- 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
3
Q
aim of the study
A
- to investigate obedience by partially replicating Milgram’s 1963 study
- to examine whether situational factors affect obedience to an authoritative figure
4
Q
how were ppts found?
A
- they responded to an advertisement (local paper) and flyers (in local establishments) as well as online, by telephone or email
5
Q
what was the prize for participating?
A
- advert $50 for participating in 2 x 45 minute sessions
6
Q
what were ppts called for?
A
- 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
7
Q
what happened after the screening process?
A
- 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
8
Q
what happened after the questionnaire?
A
- 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
9
Q
how many ppts were interviewed and removed?
A
- 123 ppts were interviewed and 47 removed due to unknown reasons (confidentiality)
10
Q
how many ppts were invited back, dropped out and expressed awareness of Milgram’s research?
A
- 76 ppts were invited back a week later, 6 dropped out, 5 out of the 6 expressed their awareness of Milgram’s research
11
Q
what was the total sample size?
A
- 70
- 29 males and 41 females
- ages 20-81
- mean age = 42.9
12
Q
experiment 1 procedure
A
- 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
13
Q
experiment 2 procedure
A
- 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. roles 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.
14
Q
results of study
A
- 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
15
Q
conclusion of study
A
- 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
16
Q
strengths: generalisability (CA)
A
- Burger’s sample of 70 people is larger than Milgram’s sample of 40. it covers a wider age range (Milgram recruited 20-50 year olds, Burger 20-81 year olds) and two thirds of Burger’s sample were women, whereas Milgram’s were all male.
- however, when you add up all Milgram’s samples across all his variations, there are much more than 70 and Milgram did test women in variation #8
17
Q
weakness: generalisability
A
- Burger also excluded a lot of people from his final sample; for example people with emotional issues or some education in Psychology. screening process may have affected the results and Milgram used a wider range of types of people
18
Q
strengths: reliability
A
- Milgram’s original procedure is very reliable because it can be replicated. in 1974, Milgram published the results of his 19 Variations, which all replicated his baseline 1963 study. Burger is replicating aspects of Variation #5 (heart condition to test for empathy) and Variation #17 (model refusal) as well as Variation #8 (testing women). Burger followed Milgram’s script wherever possible and used the same confederates every time
- by filming the whole thing, Burger adds to the inter-rater reliability because other people can view his participants’ behaviour and judge obedience for themselves
19
Q
weakness: reliability (CA)
A
- rigging of shocks - we’re not real
- however, it can be argued that the rigging was necessary in order for the study to be successful
20
Q
strengths: application to real life
A
- the study demonstrates how obedience to authority works and this can be used to increase obedience in settings like schools, workplaces and prisons. authority figures should wear symbols of authority (uniforms) and justify their authority with reference to a “greater good”
- testing people for locus of control might identify those most likely to be disobedient – people with a strong need to be in control are less likely to take orders. social impact theory suggests strategies for increasing the pressure on these people to be obedient
- obedience of WW2 - explaining historical events
21
Q
strengths: validity
A
- Milgram’s study was in 1963, Burger’s study was in 2009 - showing historical validity
- screening process removed people that have psychological knowledge
- still got paid even if withdrew
- in other ways the study is valid. because the participants were paid fully in advance, we can be fairly sure it was social pressure that made them continue shocking, not a cost/benefit calculation about whether they personally would gain or lose money
22
Q
weaknesses: validity
A
- Milgram’s study was criticised for lacking ecological validity because the task is artificial – in real life, teachers are not asked to deliver electric shocks to learners. this criticism still applies to Burger’s study - lacking mundane realism
- stopping the study at 150V may be invalid. perhaps participants who were prepared to go to 165V would still have dropped out later. it is a huge assumption to say they would have continued to 450V. the “model refusal” group, in particular, might have had second thoughts as the shocks got stronger
23
Q
strengths: ethics
A
- Burger believes his study avoids the ethical problems of Milgram’s original. Burger screened out participants who were likely to be distressed by the study. the experimenter was a trained clinical psychologist who could identify signs of distress and would stop the experiment if anyone seemed to be disturbed by what was happening
- study was approved by the university Ethics Panel, who had the power to shut it down if it looked like anyone was being harmed
- Burger reduced the test shock from a painful 45V to a mild 15V. he also stopped the study at 150V so he didn’t force anyone to “go the distance” to 450V, which reduced many of Milgram’s participants to tears (and three of them fainted)
24
Q
weakness: ethics
A
- Burger deceived his participants just as Milgram had done – the shocks weren’t real, the learner’s cries were a tape recording, the learner and second teacher were confederates. he did not get informed consent (as with Milgram, this was advertised as a memory study), although he did debrief participants afterwards. the BPS ethical guidelines say participants must not be distressed; even though no one was reduced to tears, the procedure was surely distressing for at least some participants
25
Q
what was the IV?
A
base condition compared with model refusal - independent measures design
26
Q
what was the DV?
A
obedience measure by shock intensity
