Burger (2009) - Contemporary Study

Question 1

Background?

Answer 1

Concern for Milgram’s ethics - stress couldn’t be justified, identified 150V as point where decision to continue was made

Question 2

Hypothesis?

Answer 2

Little difference in obedience between Milgram’s and his own participants
> if they saw someone refuse they might be more likely to themselves
>thought personality had more of a role than gender

Question 3

How much were participants paid?

Answer 3

$50 whether they fully completed or not

Question 4

Differences between Milgram?

Answer 4

>screening prior to exp.
>$50 instead of $4.50
>signed consent 
>sample shock of 15V
>told shock generator was fake immediately after

Question 5

What was the model refusal condition?

Answer 5

Second confederate pretends to be a second teacher and administers an electric shock, at 90V refuses to give more

Question 6

How many went to continue after 150V in the base condition?

Answer 6

70%

Question 7

How many went to continue after 150V in the Modelled Refusal condition?

Answer 7

63.3%

Question 8

Was there difference between the men and women?

Answer 8

No

Question 9

How many went to continue after 150V in the 1963 study?

Answer 9

82.5%

Question 10

Conclusions?

Answer 10

There isn’t a difference between the reaction in a lab scenario today and the reaction 45 years ago.
Same situational factors operate today
No confirmation that ppts would have gone to 450V

Question 11

Did seeing another person refuse impact obedience levels?

Answer 11

No

Question 12

How many participants?

Answer 12

70 men and women from different backgrounds and ethnicities

Question 13

How was it kept similar to Milgram’s experiment?

Answer 13

Same verbal prods, same electric shock generator, script, lab coat, same words in memory task - enhances validity

Question 14

How does the diversity of Burger’s participants limit the direct comparisons that can be made?

Answer 14

Milgram only used men, had a narrower age range and had less diversity

Question 15

Generalisability?

Answer 15

70 men and women, different backgrounds and ethnicities, increases the chances of representing the target population but still Western - limits cross cultural conclusions

Question 16

Reliability?

Answer 16

Detailed, same experience for each ppt, same screening procedure - saw same confederate strapped and informed of heart condition, could be replicated

Question 17

Internal Validity?

Answer 17

Lab conditions so its high, standardised procedure and controls, can be more certain it was the situation that impacted their willingness to obey

Question 18

Ecological Validity and Mundane Realism?

Answer 18

Task of shocking another person makes it difficult to generalise to everyday obedience - artificial behaviour,
Artificial lab setting

Question 19

Ethics?

Answer 19

• Still deceived but outweighed by societal gains
• 150V minimises stress
• Consent
• Written right to withdraw 3 times before experiment
• Experimenter was a clinical psychologist
• Didn’t allow time to pass before saying it was fake

Question 20

What was involved in the procedure?

Answer 20

• Watches learner get strapped in a chair
• Learner indicates he has heart condition
• Experimenter says shocks aren’t harmful
• 75V learner makes sounds of pain
• 150V learner cries that he wants it to stop

Question 21

What else did Burger measure?

Answer 21

Empathy and Locus of Control

Question 22

How did Burger measure empathy?

Answer 22

Interpersonal Reactivity Index

Question 23

How did Burger measure Locus of Control?

Answer 23

Desirability Control Scale

Question 24

What did Burger find about empathy and LOC?

Answer 24

• empathy did not have an influence on obedience

- LOC was higher in those who stopped at 150V or sooner

Question 25

What were the findings for the modelled refusal condition?

Answer 25

63.3%