Contemporary study - Burger (2009) Flashcards
What was the aim of Burger’s replication study?
To investigate obedience by partial replication of Milgram’s study almost 50 years later to examine whether situational factors affect obedience to an authoritative figure
Who were the participants of Burger’s replication study? (3 points)
29 men and 41 women - paid $50
Aged 20-81 years old from a range of backgrounds with differing levels of education - high school to Master’s degree
Random sampling with equal ratios of male and female participants to reduce sampling bias
What was the methodology of Burger’s replication study? (2 points)
Independent groups design
Location: Santa Clara University
Describe the screening of participants in Burger’s replication study. (3 points)
Volunteers familiar with Milgram’s work were excluded
Remaining participants were screened based on mental health and drug dependency
Clinical psychologist carried out interviews and ranked them using The Interpersonal Reactivity Index (empathetic concern scale)
What were the ethics of Burger’s replication study? (4 points)
Participants completed a consent form to say they will be videotaped - told it was a study about the effect of punishment on learning
Right to withdraw given once verbally at the beginning of the experiment and twice written on paper
Verbal prods (‘You must continue’) still used
Immediately after the experiment, participants were shown the electric shocks weren’t real and the learner was not harmed
What was the procedure in Burger’s replication study? (4 points)
Same as Milgram but:
Participants randomly assigned to 2 groups - baseline condition and modelled refusal
Experiment only went up to 150 V
15 V real shock used
Pre-recorded voice feedback grunts after 75 V for standardisation
Describe the baseline condition of Burger’s replication study. (2 points)
Learner reveals ‘heart condition’ at beginning of experiment
At 150 V, learner shouts ‘Get me out of here, my heart is starting to bother me now’.
Describe the modelled refusal condition of Burger’s replication study. (4 points)
2 confederates used
Confederate 1: ‘learner’ pretending to receive the electric shocks
Confederate 2: first teacher who states ‘I don’t know about this’ at 90 V and then stops the experiment
The real participant is then asked to continue the experiment
What were the results of Burger’s replication study?
Base condition - 70% continued to 150 V
Model refusal condition - 63.3% continued to 150 V
What was the conclusion of Burger’s replication study? (2 points)
Obedience rates are still similar - no statistical difference concluded
No difference in obedience with gender, age, race, education or personality
How generalisable is Burger’s replication study?
Larger sample than Milgram’s original study with a wider age range
How reliable is Burger’s replication study? (3 points)
Apart from change of voltage and inclusion of conditions, Burger used the same replicable procedure as Milgram’s original study
Same controls used e.g. pre-determined schedule of correct/incorrect answers from confederate
Replicable procedure used - increased reliability
How internally valid is Burger’s replication study? (2 points)
Assumption that those who stopped at 150 V would have gone to 450 V - can’t be certain of it
Reduced internal validity - cause and effect can’t be established
How ecologically valid is Burger’s replication study?
Lab experiment at a university - low mundane realism
How ethical is Burger’s replication study? (2 points)
More ethical than Milgram’s study - pps given right to withdraw, max voltage reduced
BPS guidelines still violated - shocking another individual may have caused partcipants distress
