Contemporary study: Burger (2009)

Question 1

what was the aim of Burgers study?

Answer 1

to see whether Milgrams findings were era-bound and if obedience is affected by gender, empathic concern and desire for personal control

Question 2

what was the study and what did it consist of?

Answer 2

• Laboratory experiment using independent measures design
• Volunteer sample
• 70 adults (29 men and 41 women) aged 20-81
• 55% Caucasians, 4% Black Afro-Americans
• sample obtained by distributing flyers at libraries, coffee shops and newspapers

Question 3

what was the procedure of the study and how did it differ from Milgrams?

Answer 3

-Employed 6 ethical safeguards to protect ptcps
1. Stopped shocks at 150V to reduce anxiety
> argued he could predict how many would continue to higher shocks since 80% of Milgrams continued to 450V
2. 2 step screening process excluded those who may have negative reaction
3. Ptcps given 3 reminders (twice in writing) to right o withdrawal
4. Real but mild shock of 15V given to ptscps compared to Milgrams 45V
4. Debriefed immediately after study and met ‘learner; and told shocks weren’t rea;
5. Clinical psychologist present at all times and told to end trial if saw ant sign of distress
6. Stopped trial either when ptcp refused to continue after hearing all 4 prods, or after giving 150V

Question 4

how did he measure empathic concern and desire for personal control?

Answer 4

SELF REPORT QUESTIONNAIRES

Question 5

what were the findings of the study?

Answer 5

Obedience rate was only slightly lower 45 years later
-70% pressed 150V compared to 82% in Milgrams
-No significant difference between M and F BUT, women less likely to press 150V
> M= 66%
F= 72%
-No significant difference between empathic scores between defiant and obedient ptcps
BUT,
defiant had higher desire for control

Question 6

what were the conclusions of the study?

Answer 6

Milgrams study is not era bound or androcentric
Lack of empathy not valid expl for high obedience rates
BUT, desire for control does determine likelihood of defiance

Question 7

evaluate Milgrams study?

Answer 7

STRONG INTERNAL VALIDITY
-None of Burgers ptcps had knowledge of Milgrams reserach > internal validity
- excluded those who had taken 2 + psychology classes
-5 people aware of Milgrams study dropped out
SO,
demand characteristics weren’t problem

Question 8

weakness?

Answer 8

POOR GENERALISABILITY - not representative of target pop
Although pre screening helped ethically, almost 40% volunteers were deselected to exclude those who would have found it distressing
Might have left more psychologically robust ptcps compared to general pop
>might have led to lower levels of obedience

Question 9

competing argument?

Answer 9

Another replication (Jean-Leon) is arguably more representative of wider pop because they did not exclude ptcps
Conducted in France and found 80% gave full 460V > CONFIRMS BURGERS FINDINGS
SUGGESTSM
findings might be generalisable after all

Question 10

another weakness?

Answer 10

LIMITED APPLICATION
Tells us little about real world obedience
Ptcps stopped before suffering tension means situation lost potency
+ convos between ptcps and exp in Milgrams study post 150V provided some of most informative findings that Burger was unable to explore
SO THIS,
reduces meaningfulness in helping understand obedience in real world

Question 11

ISSUES AND DEBATES

Answer 11

ETHICS
Milgrams research caused uproar but Burger careful safeguards have prompted discussion
>ethical standards are so strict that only tame studies can be conducted > detrimental to progress in this field
SUGGESTS,
more priority given to ptcps and ethical decision making than wider benefit of research to society