Contemporary study: Burger (2009)

Question 1

Evaluate Burger

3

Answer 1

> Representative. 38% (volunteers) deselected to exclude anyone who could find study distressing. Final sample = ^psychologically robust than general pop

^Int reliability, no ppt knew Milgram’s research. Asked if they’d taken any psychology classes, anyone who had taken 2+ excluded. 5 more admitted their awareness of Milgram study/dropped out. >Demand characteristics

Elms claims as ppt stopped before suffering any real dissonance of what they were doing, situation lost potency. Conversations in Mil’s studies between ppt and exprmt post 150v = ^illuminating findings

Question 2

What was Burger’s aim?

1

Answer 2

• If obedience is affected by gender as well as personality traits e.g. empathic concern and desire for personal control

Question 3

What was Burger’s procedure?

6

Answer 3

• 29 men, 41 women, Caucasian, black Afro-American
• Distributed flyers at libraries, coffee shops
• Burger stopped shocks at 150v, avoid ^anxiety
• Ppt given 3 reminders of right to withdraw
• Self report questionnaire (measure personality traits)
• Recorded final shock, stop trial when ppt refused to continue (all 4 prods/after 150v shock)

Question 4

What did Burger find?

2

Answer 4

• Men = 66.7%, Women = 72.7% (press 150v button)

- Defiant ppt = ^desire for personal control

Question 5

What did Burger conclude?

1

Answer 5

• Milgram’s findings not androcentric/era bound