Contemporary Study- Burger 2009 Flashcards
What was Burgers motive for his study?
He wanted to test this notion; he believed that although society’s cultured & values changed, this would not have a significant effect on obedience.
He wanted to recreate Milgrams study in a way that adhered more closely to current ethical guidelines and caused minimal distress to PPS.
What was the aim of Burgers study?
To partially replicate Milgrams (1963) study into obedience to explore whether people would still obey authority in a contemporary society in 2006.
What was the procedure/ method of Burgers study?
-Volunteer sample responding to adverts, PPS paid $50 for taking part.
-Initial screening procedure involving excluding PPS with some knowledge of Milgram’s research & who had suffered trauma.
-PPS also asked about their physical & psychological health 30% excluded.
-2nd phase of screening involved PPS completing a variety of clinical questionnaires.
-PPS also gave info about their age, occupation, educational attainment & ethnicity.
-70 PPS remained: 29 males, 41 females aged 20-81
Describe the experiment 1 baseline condition.
-Very similar to Milgram’s.
-PPS told they could keep the $50 even if they withdrew.
-Experimenter (clinical psychologist) & learner were similar to the confederates in the original study.
-Script similar and confederate had a minor heart problem.
-Sample shock was 15V not 45V.
-Sounds of distress began at 75V.
-At the 150V point the experiment was stopped but researched noted whether the teacher was prepared to continue.
-The experimenter immediately revealed it was fake and both teacher and learner were introduced.
What is the background of Burgers study?
Burger wanted to test whether people are now more aware of the consequence of blind obedience and unthinking acceptance of orders from an authority figure; so as a result they would be less likely to carry out acts of destructive obedience. He believed that although society’s cultures & valued had changed, thus would not have a significant affect on obedience.
He wanted to replicate milgrams research in a way that adhered more closely to current ethical guidelines & causes minimal distress to PPS.
Describe the experiment 2: Modelled Refusal Condition.
The same as before except there were 2 confederate, the learner and another teacher who was the same gender as the naive PPS.
The teachers drew lots (rigged) and the naive PPS was teacher 2. Teacher 1 took the lead and began the procedure, asking questions and administering the shocks while teacher 2 sat with him/her. At 75V, teacher 1 hesitated after hearing the learner groan and at 90C stated I don’t know about this. Teacher 1 is prompted by the experimenter to continue but refuses, the experimenter asks teacher 2 to continue.
What were the results?
In experiment 1- 70% of PPS had to be stopped from continuing past 150V: in Milgrams this was 82.5%.
In experiment 2- 63.3% went to continue the shocks after 150V.
Little difference in obedience between male and females and the point at which PPS needed their first experimenter prompt to continue did not vary between genders.
Butger rounf little different between those who were prepared to continue as those who stopped in terms of empathy scores Desirability of Control scores. Ie these personality traits had little affect on actual behaviour, there was no correlation.
In baseline 1, burger found those who had a reluctance to give shocks early on had a higher desire for control.
What are the number results from experiment 1?
Stopped at 150V or earlier:
Male- 6- 33.3%. Female- 6- 27.3%
Went to continue after 150V:
Male- 12- 66.4%. Female- 16- 27.3%
What are the number results from experiment 2?
Stopped at 150V or earlier:
Male- 5- 45.5%. Female- 6- 31.6%
Went to continue after 150V:
Male- 6- 54.5%. Female- 13- 68.4%
What is the conclusion of burgers study?
Results found in both experiments are similar to Milgram research over 45 years ago. Time and changed in society’s culture did not have an affect on obedience levels nor did the refusal of the confederate to continue: situational factors are still very important in influencing obedient behaviour.
What are the strengths of Burgers study?
- he addressed the ethical concerns in Milgrams research- screening was rigorous and ensured unsuitable PPS were not used in the study. PPS we’re informed 3 times before the experiment they had the right to withdraw. PPS we’re only given a 15V sample shock and the experimenter was a clinical psychologist (instructed to stop the experiment it PPS had signs of stress).
- Burger had a diverse sample of ages and ethnicities- population validity and generalisability.
What are the weaknesses of Burgers study?
- Despite increased ethically, distress was still a factor as PPS were deceived and deliberately placed in a situation that could induce anxiety and verbal prods could be argued to undermine the PPS perception that they could leave at any time.
- Burger didn’t allow PPS to go behind 150V, this means we can only infer the PPS we’re willing to obey up to 150V. This marks as the point of no return for Milgram (momentum of compliance) but we cannot be sure in Burgers study if the PPS would have continued to obey.
- Laboratory experiment and contrived procedure- shocking people who get word-pair associations wrong. The research lacks mundane realism and ecological validity.
