SOCIAL Burger's study

Question 1

what was the aim of the study

Answer 1

• to replicate Milgram’s experiment 5 in an ethical way
• to make comparisons to Milgram’s and to see if it is era-bound

Question 2

what was the hypothesis

Answer 2

• very little difference between 1960s and his study 2009
• less obedient if refusal was modelled by someone else
• no gender differences in obedience levels

Question 3

what was the sample

Answer 3

• volunteer sample of 29 men and 41 women
• between 20-81 years old
• screened for characteristics (not familiar with Milgram’s study, has not had more than two psychology classes, tested anxiety levels

Question 4

describe Burger’s condition 1 procedure

Answer 4

• procedure same as Milgram’s
• at 150 volts, learner starts to yell that they have a heart condition/ wanted to leave
• experiment ended after 150 volts
• immediately explained that the shocks weren’t real

Question 5

describe Burger’s condition 2

Answer 5

• two confederates used (learner and another teacher)
• confederate teacher refused to continue after 90 volts
• participants asked to take over

Question 6

what was the conclusion

Answer 6

• no significant difference between men and women
• women were more reluctant to continue

Question 7

what were the ethical differences between Milgram’s and Burger’s

Answer 7

• stopped at 150v with all participants - ‘the point of no return’
• told them three times they could withdraw
• told immediately after the shocks aren’t real
• experimenter was a clinical psychologist
• procedure approved by the Santa Clara University review board

Question 8

positives of the study

Answer 8

• reduced demand characteristics - none knew of Milgram’s research and had no more than 2 psychology classes - internal validity
• screened for high levels of anxiety - protected from unnecessary stress - ethical principle of responsibility
• able to demonstrate levels of obedience remain high - shows situation is still a high factor

Question 9

negatives of the study

Answer 9

• 38% participants were discarded - removed high levels of anxiety - people in study may be more psychologically robust - unrepresentative
• Burger stopped at 150 volts - unlike a real life situation - orders must be obeyed under high stress - lowers ecological validity
• other variables (individual differences) may impact the responses - reduces the internal validity