Contemporary Study: Burger (2009) Flashcards
Which of Milgram’s studies did Burger replicate?
Replicated experiment 5 the ‘new baseline condition’
What happened in Milgram’s experiment 5?
Milgram introduced the idea that the ‘victim’ had a heart condition and this was mentioned when the victim was strapped into the chair
There was a strict schedule for the victim to cry out which was important in Burger’s study
What did Burger call ‘the point of no return’?
150v
This is where the victim calls out and demands to be released from the study
How did Burger make his study more ethical than Milgram?
Burger stopped the study at 150v for all participants
The participants were told at least three times that they could withdraw and still keep their payment
Participants were told immediately that the shocks hadn’t been real
What did Burger hypothesise?
That there would be very little difference in obedience between the 1960s and his own study in 2009
That there would be less obedience if refusal was modelled by someone else
There would be no gender differences in the obedience levels of the participants
How were participants recruited for the study?
Participants responded to an advert
What were participants screened for?
Screened to check they weren’t familiar with Milgram’s research
Hadn’t taken more than two psychology classes and their mental health was sound
Around 30% of volunteers were discarded based on these grounds
What did the remaining sample of participants consist of?
Consisted of 29 men and 41 women aged between 20 and 81
Participants were promised $50
How were participants allocated to conditions?
Randomly allocated to two conditions whilst ensuring that the gender balance was roughly equal
Who was the experimenter and confederate?
Experimenter was a white man in his mid 30s
The confederate was a white male in his 50s
How were the roles of the participants and confederate determined?
Participants drew lots to see who would be the teacher and who would be the learner
The lots were rigged so that the participant was always the teacher
How did the procedure start in Burger’s study?
The apparatus was introduced which was the same as Milgram’s word pair task
The confederate indicated they had a slight heart condition and the experimenter explained that although the shocks might be painful they were not dangerous
What happened at 150v in Burger’s study?
The learner started to yell that they wanted to get out and about their heart condition
The experimenter would end the study if the participant pressed the 150v switch and was willing to continue
What happened in the ‘modelled refusal’ condition?
There was another teacher who was in fact a confederate
This teacher refused to continue after the first verbal prod at 90v, the other teacher (participant) was then asked to take over
What were the results of the base condition of Burger’s study?
Stopped at 150v or sooner - 12 (30%)
Continued after 150v (went to continue but were prevented) - 28 (70%)
What were the results of the modelled refusal condition of Burger’s study?
Stopped at 150v or sooner - 11 (36.7%)
Continued after 150v (went to continue but were prevented) - 19 (63.3%)
What did Burger find between his study and Milgram’s?
Difference between Burger’s findings and Milgram’s weren’t statistically significant
What did Burger find in terms of gender differences?
Although women were more reluctant to continue than men in the modelled refusal condition
When Burger used a chi-squared statistical test to analyse data there was no significant difference between male and female obedience
What did Burger conclude?
Concluded that judging by his partial replication of Milgram’s study; he would expect to see the same level of obedience in his participants if they had been allowed to continue beyond 150v
He found the same high levels of obedience as were seen 45 years earlier showing that the situation is still a powerful factor
What are the strengths of Burger’s study?
Reliable
Ethical
Quantitative data
What are the weaknesses of Burger’s study?
Ecological validity
Internal validity
Generalisability
Why is reliability a strength of Burger’s study?
Burger used almost exactly the same procedure as Milgram in terms of the standardised procedure
The replication allowed Burger to compare his own findings with Milgram to check whether they were consistent therefore increasing the reliability of his findings
Why is ethical a strength of Burger’s study?
Through careful screening Burger was able to ensure that participants were suitable to take part in the procedure
In addition, participants were told they could withdraw at least 3 times and by stopping the procedure at 150v, Burger avoided unnecessary distress to participants
Why is quantitative data a strength of Burger’s study?
Quantitative data was collected relating to the percentage of participants who would continue shocking up to 150v
Such quantitative data is considered to be objective and Burger was able to analyse this data using a chi-squared statistical test to analyse differences between his and Milgram’s findings
Such comparisons allowed conclusions to be made about levels of obedience 45 years later
Why is ecological validity a weakness of Burger’s study?
Burger used a lab experiment which allowed him to control the procedure but also meant that the task of administering shocks in a word pair task is unlike a real life situation where orders must be obeyed therefore lowering ecological validity
Why is internal validity a weakness of Burger’s study?
Whilst trying to establish that it was the situation causing high levels of obedience, other variables such as the experimenter taking responsibility or the ‘victim’ being in another room may have had an effect upon the responses therefore making it difficult to check internal validity
Why is generalisability a weakness of Burger’s study?
The participants may not be representative of a wider population
Participants were not randomly selected but instead were self-selected and then discarded according to several criteria, including their knowledge of psychology and their levels of anxiety
This would leave an unrepresentative sample of participants and the findings would not be generalisable to the wider population
