contemporary study

Question 1

state the name of the contemporary study

Answer 1

Burger (2009)

Question 2

state the aim of Burger’s study

Answer 2

to develop a variation of Milgram’s procedures allowing comparison with the original investigation while protecting the well-being of pp’s and examine whether situational factors affect obedience to an authoritative figure

Question 3

state the procedures of burger’s study regarding the pp’s

Answer 3

• no one with knowledge of Milgram’s study was used
• 29 men and 41 women
• aged 20-81
• pp’s were paid $50
• two step screening process to exclude anyone who may react negatively to experiment so no one with history of mental problems accepted (this excluded 38% of pp’s who were paid in full) ->
  step1: pp’s asked if they had any medical conditions that might be affected by stress
  step2: interviewed by clinical psychologist

Question 4

state the procedures of burger’s study particular the the actual experiment

Answer 4

• the maximum shock was 150V, the level at which the learner first cries in pain in order to protect pp’s from intense distress
• pp’s told 3 times, once in writing, that they could withdraw from the experiment at any time and still keep the $50
  -pp’s only received a real 15V shock
• experimenter was clinical psychologist who could stop procedure at any point
• leaner entered the room to reassure the pp’s he was fine and shocks weren’t real

Question 5

results of burger’s study

Answer 5

• 70% of pp’s obeyed to 150V
• 65% men 73% women went to 150V so very little gender difference
• point at which both genders needed their first prod was similar
• the majority following orders refused to take responsibility for learner’s safety

Question 6

conclusion of burger’s study

Answer 6

it is possible to replicate Milgram’s study in a way that is non-harmful to pp’s. Obedience rates have not changed dramatically in the last 50 years - time and changes in society’s culture did not have an effect on obedience levels.

Question 7

strengths of burger’s study

Answer 7

• permits obedience research to be conducted, hadn’t been possible for decades, taking account ethical concerns of baseline study, and took measures to ensure pp safety eg. screening process + pp informed 3 times they could withdraw
• other ethical considerations e.g. pp were only given 15V shock rather than 45V + clinical psychologist as experimenter instructed to stop experiment if they detected excessive signs of stress
• population validity: included diverse sample of ages, ethnicities and women.

Question 8

weaknesses of burger’s study

Answer 8

• pp still deliberately put in situation that would cause anxiety and the verbal prods removed their right to withdraw
• change in procedure of 450 to 150V do not allow for clear comparison of results, only partial replication and can only be assumed pp would carry on after 150V
• may not generalise real world bc carried out in lab e.g. atrocities committed through history involve many more complex factors than blind obedience to authority
  -task validity: unlike real-life obedience to shock someone…