Two Milgram follow ups Flashcards
What was the aim of Burger’s experiment?
Would people still obey today?
To develop a variation of Milgram’s procedure allowing comparison with the original investigation while protecting well being of the participants
What was the procedure of Burger’s experiment?
Most of Milgram’s procedure was followed including the words used in the memory test and the experimenter’s lab coat but changes were made:
- No one with knowledge of Milgram’s study was used and the highest apparent shock was 150v (where learner first cries) to prevent intense stress
- A two step process for participants was used to exclude anyone who might react negatively. No one with mental or stress problems were used (38% of potential participants excluded)
- Participants told 3 times they could withdraw at any point and only received 15v real shock
- Experimenter was a clinical psychologist who could stop procedure at signs of excessive stress
- 70 male and female participants were used
What were Burger’s findings?
He found an obedience rate of 70% with no difference between male and female obedience rates
Another condition where a second defiant confederate teacher was introduced failed to reduce obedience significantly unlike Milgram’s findings
What were Burger’s conclusions?
It is possible to replicate Milgram’s study in a fashion non-harmful to participants
Obedience rates have not changed dramatically in the 50 ish years since Milgram’s study
What research does Burger link with?
Milgram’s original experiment
Hofling et al
What is the evaluation of Burger’s experiment?
Burger’s technique permits obedience research to be conducted that hasn’t been possible for decades
Burger’s efforts to improve the ethics of the study are uncertain in their effectiveness and pose impractical demands
The different procedures used by Milgram and Burger do not allow for a clear comparison of results
The study highlights the difficulties of extending research on destructive research in the context of contemporary ethical guidlines
What was the aim of the Hofling study?
To see whether nurses would obey orders from an unknown doctor to such an extent that there would be a risk of harm
What was Hofling’s procedure?
A confederate ‘Dr Smith’ allegedly from the psychiatric department instructed 22 nurses individually by phone to give his patient ‘Mr Jones’ 20mg of an unfamiliar drug called Astrofen (was actually a sugar pill)
Mr Smith was in a hurry and would sign the authorisation form later on. The label on the box stated that the maximum daily dosage was 10mg so if a nurse obeyed she would be giving twice the maximum dose.
Hospital rules require doctors to sign authorisations before medication is given and another drug demands nurses should be certain that anyone giving medical instruction is a genuine doctor
What were Hofling’s findings?
Of the 22 nurses, 21 obeyed without hesitation
A control group of 22 nurses were asked what they would have done in that situation and 21 said they would not have obeyed without authorisation or exceeded the maximum dosage
What were Hofling’s conclusions ?
The power and authority of doctors was a greater influence on the nurses behaviour than basic hospital rules
What people say they would do and what they actually do can be very different
What research does Hofling link with?
Milgram and Burger’s lab experiments
What is the evaluation of Hofling’s research?
It suggests that nurses and institutional staff should have special training in following rules rather than authority figures (practical application )
Hofling’s study seems relevant to real life settings however Rank Jacobsen reported that the drug was unfamiliar to the nurses and that they had not been allowed to consult with eachother (as they normally would) and when there was a familiar drug (Valium) used and they were allowed to speak to eachother only 2/18 obeyed suggesting that Hofling’s study may not have external validity
What were the for and against ethics of Hoffling’s study?
No informed consent was given by the nurses. Some were left distressed by the study so lacked protection from harm. However nurses were given a full debrief, results are confidential, and the study would not have worked if nurses had been aware of the study and the drug being a placebo.
