Contemporary study: Burger (2009)

Question 1

What were the aims of Burger’s study?

Answer 1

• To find out if the same results as Milgram’s 1963 study re-occur with modern ppts in 2009
• To see if personality variables like empathy and LOC affect obedience
• To see if the presence of a disobedient “model” affects obedience

Question 2

What type of experiment was Burger’s study?

Answer 2

Lab experiment

Question 3

Who were used in the sample of Burger’s study?

Answer 3

• 70 ppts
• Mix of men and women
• Aged 20-81
• Recruited by volunteer sample (paid $50 before study)

Question 4

What were the two conditions in Burger’s study?

Answer 4

• Baseline condition
• Model refusal condition

Question 5

Describe the procedure of the baseline condition

Answer 5

• Replication of Milgram’s variation #5
• Script resembled Milgram’s but test shock on ppts was only 15V
• The teacher read out 25 multiple choice questions and the learner used a buzzer to indicate the answer
• If answer was wrong, a shock was given starting at 15V and went up in 15V increments
• At 75V the learner starts making sounds of pain and at 150V the learner cries that he wants to stop and complains about chest pains
• If the teacher went to deliver the 165V shock, the experiment was stopped

Question 6

Describe the procedure of the modal refusal condition

Answer 6

• Same procedure as the baseline condition, however a second confederate pretends to be a second learner
• At 90V the confederate teacher turns to ppt and says “I don’t know about this” and refuses to further continue giving shocks
• Experimenter tells ppt to take over delivering shocks

Question 7

How did Burger collect data on individual differences?

Answer 7

He used questionnaires to measure individual differences
- Interpersonal reactivity index measuring empathy
- Desirability of control measuring LOC

Question 8

What were the results of Burger’s study?

Answer 8

• 70% of ppts in the baseline condition were prepared to go past 150V compared to 82.5% in Milgram’s variation #5
• Women and men were compared but no difference in obedience, however women were less likely to obey in the modal refusal condition
• Empathy did not make a significant difference to obedience
• People who had a higher LOC stopped at 150V or sooner in the baseline condition

Question 9

What were the conclusions of Burger’s study?

Answer 9

• Milgram’s findings were not era-bound nor androcentric
• Empathy did not make a difference to obedience levels
• LOC did make a difference, suggesting that some people resist the agentic state

Question 10

How did Burger ensure that ethical guidelines were met when replicating Milgram?

Answer 10

• Ppts were warned 3 times that they could withdraw at any point and still keep the $50
• Experimenter was a clinical psychologist who was skilled in spotting and reacting appropriately to distress
• The test shock was only 15V, rather then 45V in Milgram’s experiment
• Burger immediately debriefed the ppt and introduced the healthy learner to the ppt
• Two step screening process to avoid people taking part who has drug or emotional issues

Question 11

What is a strength of Burger’s study?

Generalisability - PEECA

Answer 11

P - High generalisability
E - For example, the sample consisted of 70 people, ages 20 - 81 and was a mixture of women and men whereas Milgram’s were all male, ages 20 - 50 and was a smaller sample of 40 people
E - Therefore, the findings of Burger’s study can be generalised to a wider population and can be seen as more generalisable than Milgram’s
CA - However, one might argue that the findings aren’t generalisable as Burger used volunteer sample gained from adverts and flyers. Ppts may have been more motivated and willing and therefore may have been more obedient because of this