Contemporary Study: Burger (2009) - SOCIAL Flashcards
What was the aim of Burger (2009) study?
To test and make comparisons with Milgram’s findings in an ethical manner
What was Burger (2009)’s hypothesis?
There should be little difference between levels of obedience despite the years difference between Milgram and Burger’s experiments.
If refusal was considered to be the norm, similarly, will not be affected by gender but may be affected by empathy and strength of motivation, which may mean that an individual would be more likely to be obedient.
What was Burger’s (2009) sample like?
They were a volunteer sample, as they responded to an ad. There were 29 males and 41 females who were promised $50 for 2 x 45 minute sessions.
How was Burger’s (2009) sample more ethical than Milgram’s original 1963 experiment?
They filtered any familiarity with Milgram’s work, drug dependance or mental health problems. The appointed psychologist filtered out anyone who may have an negative reaction to the study, and checked their ‘self motivation’/ ‘ empathetic concern’
What was Burger’s (2009) procedure like?
Participants were in two conditions (paying attention to gender) and given $50 to keep. This was done through random sampling. The procedure was similar to Milgram (1963).
Burger also looked for other features within situations that may encourage obedience i.e. perceived legitimate authority figures, gradual increases in voltages which leads to the participant to believing that they wish to remain consistent, unfamiliar situation leading the participant to look at the experimenter for an idea of the ‘normal’ social responses or the fact that the experimenter takes on full responsibility for the participants actions.
What was the base condition in Burger (2009)’s study like?
The experimenter was a white man in his 30s and the confederate was a white man in his 50s. The participant was introduced to both and told the experiment was about the ‘effect of punishment on learning’ . They drew rigged lots, before the participant consented to the video , being filmed for validity purposes. The learner was strapped, and the participant was told that they have a light heart condition, and that the shocks were not dangerous. There was a grunt at 75V, followed by a louder grunt and a demand to be let out at 150V.
What was the modelled refusal condition in Burger’s (2009) study like?
This was the same as the base condition but with another confederate (who was the same gender as the participant) with the participant as Teacher 2 and the confederate as Teacher 1. At 75V, when they heard the grunt, and at 90V, the Teacher 1 (confederate) said ‘I don’t know about this’ and stopped. Teacher 2 also stops.
What did Burger (2009) find as a result of his replicating Milgram study?
70% in the base condition wanted to carry on, compared to 82.5% in Milgram (1963)
There was no noticeable difference between the genders but it is noted that women were more reluctant in the model refusal condition.
There was also no significant difference between the measures of personality, but in the base condition, those that stopped at or before 150V were said to have had a stronger desire for control.
Why was there not a significant differences in levels of obedience in Burger’s (2009) study?
→ this is not considered to be a significant difference but 63% in the modelled refusal condition received the first verbal prompt quicker but had no chance at hesitation before Teacher 1 pressed the shock button for 90V.
What did Burger (2009) conclude as a result of his Replicating Milgram study?
The same results were found as in Milgram (1963) showing that situational factors are still around today, as 45 years earlier.
Similarities are important as some of the results changed but are still in high levels but we are unsure, due to the fact that we do not know if they would continue until 450V which was only Burger’s guess.
It was a surprise that the participants did not take their cue from the other teacher; however one confederate may not have been enough.
They may have screed participants who could have changed the results as they used all ages, but Milgram only used under 50s.
Give the strengths and weaknesses of Burger’s (2009) study in terms of generalisability
Used both male and female participants, whereas Milgram simply used male participants
Give the strengths and weaknesses of Burger’s (2009) study in terms of objectivity
Issues that could lead to obedience other than situational factors (including experimenter taking responsibility or lack of knowledge about the situation) which may have been applied
Give the strengths and weaknesses of Burger’s (2009) study in terms of reliability and replicability
Used Milgram’s procedure, except for ethics
Give the strengths and weaknesses of Burger’s (2009) study in terms of validity
Obtained information about age, gender, education and ethnicity: having so many variables to test for obedience → affected obedience rather than situational factors and so has data to rule out other variables
Lab experiment so lacks ecological validity (artificial)
Give the strengths and weaknesses of Burger’s (2009) study in terms of ethics
Strong ethics in regards to screening:
Up to 150V → didn’t challenge ethical principles and considered to be the point of ‘no return’ where participants were reminded of their right to withdraw
15V sample shock
Told immediately that no harm was done to the ‘learner’
Experimenter was a clinical psychologist who would stop if they saw the participant experiencing extreme distress
Approved by the Santa Clara University Board
Still could be better ethical considerations (e.g. giving someone a shock may still be considered to be distressing and continuance despite this)
