Social: Burger (2009) Flashcards
What was the aim of Burger’s study?
- To find out if Milgram’s results in 1963 would re-occur in 2009 with modern P’s.
- To see if personality variables, e.g. locus of control and emathy influence obedience.
- To see if the presence of a disobedient “model” makes a difference to obedience levels.
What was the sample of Burger’s study?
- 70 P’s (M and F) between 20-81.
- Randomly put into 2 conditions.
- Volunteer sample.
- Recruted through the newspaper and online ads and fliers left in libraries.
- Paid $50 before study.
- Intense two-stage screening process.
What happened during the two-stage screening process?
- Dropped if they had heard of M’s experiment, attended 2 or mmore psychology classes.
- Dropped if they had anxiety issues or drug dependency (screened through a questionnaire, Beck’s Anxiety Inventory)
All paid despite not doing the study.
What was the procedure?
- Same procedure as variation 5 on baseline study: experimenter white man in 30s, confederate (learner) in his 50s.
- Test shock 15v rather than Ms harsh 45v.
- Teacher watched learner get strapped into electric chair and then sits at shock gen.
- Teacher reads out 25 multiple choice questions and the learner uses a buzzer to indicate the answer.
- If the learner gets an answer wrong they get a shock, starting at 15 going up in 15v increments.
- Learner indicates he has a “slight heart condition” but the experimenter replies that the shocks are not harmful.
- 75v learner starts making sounds of pain.
- 150v learner cries that he wants to stop and complains abut his chest pains.
- Teacher moves to deliver bigger shock but experimenter stops them.
Model refusal condition:
- Second confederate is a teacher.
- Delivers shocks until 90v where they refuse to go one (“I don’t know about this”) so naive teacher is asked to deliver the rest of the shocks.
Burger used questionnaires to measure individual differences that might be factors in obedience:
- Interpersonal reactivity index: 28-question test that measures empathy, how sensitive you are to other people’s feelings.
- Desirability of control scale: 20-question test that measures locus of control (how important is it to be in control of your life).
Ethical controls:
- Two-stage screening process to filter out those who might be negatively affected by the study.
- P’s were warned 3 times in writing they can withdraw at any point and still keep $50.
- Experimenter was a clinical psychologist, skilled in spotting distress.
- Burger did not let time pass before re-introducing the healthy learner and debreifed the P’s.
What were the results of Burger’s study?
-
70% of P’s in the baseline condition were prepared to go past 150v. Compared to 82.5% in M’s variation 5.
- Not sig difference given the number of people involved.
- No difference between M and F obedience.
- F slightly less likely to obey in the “model refusal” condition but this was not statistically sig.
- Empathy didn’t make a sig difference to obedience. BUT, in the base condition, those who stopped sooner than 150v did have a significantly higher locus of control (not the “model refusal”).
What are the conclusions from Burger’s study?
- Milgram’s results stand half a century later (people are still influenced by situational factors to obey an authority figure, even if it goes against their moral values).
- Burger assumes any P’s who went to 150v would’ve gone to 450v (their self-perception would’ve made them do this - people like to see themselves consistent so once they ignored the heart conditin they would’ve carried on).
- “Model refusal” results were not very different from the base condition (SIT suggests impact of authority figure would be lessened with more targets rather than one. Less obedience but not much, unlike M who had less obedience than this).
- Empathy didn’t make a difference (goes against what M and B predicted).
- Locus of control made a difference, suggesting people resist the agentic state. (BUT, this disappeared in the “model refusal” condition and B doesn’t know why).
How generalisable was Burger’s study?
+ Sample of 70 which is larger than M’s (40). It contained a greater age range (20-81) than M’s (20-50), and 2 thirds of the sample were women whereas M’s were all men = greater gen to the popn. BUT - when you add up the sample of all of M’s variations the sample was 700+, and he did test women in variation 8.
- Burger excluded lots from his sample with the screening process (e.g. emotional issues and drug dependency, or some with knowledge of psych). This may affect whether the results are representative of the gen popn (unlike M).
How reliable was Burger’s study?
+ M’s study was highly reliable as it can be replicated. Burger replicating aspects of variation 5, 8 and 17 means his will be reliable (especially as he followed M’s script wherever possible and used the same confederates every time).
+ Increased inter-rater by filming his whole experiment. This means others are able to watch and review his P’s behaviour and judge obedience for themselves.
How applicable was Burger’s study?
+ Demonstrates how obedience to authority works which can be used to increase obedience in settings like schools, workplaces and prisons (e.g. wear symbols of authority) and justify their actions with reference to the “greater good.”
+ Identifying those with an internal locus of control may indicate those who are likely to be disobedient (SIT suggests strategies for increasing pressure on these people to be obedient).
How valid was Burger’s study?
- Lacks ecological validity due to artificial task.
+ As P’s were paid before hand, we can be sure that it was social pressure making them continue shocking, not a cost/benefit calculation about whether they would gain or lose money if they didn’t shock.
- Stopped at 150v. Assumption that those who were prepared to go to 165v wouldv’e gone to 450v is huge (especially in “model refusal” were P’s may have had 2nd thoughts as shocks got stronger).
How ethical was Burger’s study?
+ Screened out P’s who were likely to be negatively affected by the study.
+ Experimenter was a trained clinical psychologist who could identify signs of distress and would stop the experiment seemed too disturbed to continue.
+ Study was approved by the University Ethics Panel, who had the power to shut it down if it looked like anyone was being harmed.
+ Reduced test shock from 45v to 15v.
+ Stopped the study at 150v, so did not force anyone to go the distance to 450v (which caused many of M’s Ps to cry (3 fainted)).
- B deceived his Ps as M did.
- Shocks weren’t real.
- Learner’s cries were a tape recording.
- Learner and the second teacher were confederates.
- Did not gain informed consent. BUT + debriefed Ps as soon as the study ended.
- BPS Ethical Guidelines say P’s must not be distressed. Although no one cried, Ps were definitely distressed.
