Burger

Question 1

Aim

Answer 1

To investigate obedience and to examine whether situational factors affect obedience

Question 2

How was the welfare of ppts ensured?

Answer 2

1. 2 step screening process
2. told at least 3 times their right to withdraw
3. 15v shock volt test instead of 45v
4. only went to 150v
5. ppts informed immediately after that the shocks were not real
6. experimenter was clinical psychologist who was told to end the study immediately if there were signs of severe stress

Question 3

1st stage in screening process for sample

Answer 3

• asked about college education - excluded if taken more than 2 psych lessons
• asked about psychiatric history - excluded if answered yes to any of the 6 questions including “have you been diagnosed with a psychiatric illness”

Question 4

How may ppts were removed after 1st screening?

Answer 4

30%

Question 5

2nd stage screening process for sample

Answer 5

• questionnaires given: included Beck Anxiety Inventory and Beck Depression Inventory
• interviewed by psychiatrist for 30 mins using MINI procedure (Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview)

Question 6

How many ppts were removed after 2nd screening?

Answer 6

38.2%

Question 7

How was the sample collected?

Answer 7

Volunteered via advert in local newspaper

Question 8

What was the final sample?

Answer 8

• 29 male and 41 female
• aged 20-81

Question 9

Procedure - baseline

Answer 9

• ppts given $50 and told right to withdraw at any time
• confederate strapped into chair and electrode and told ppt of his heart problem
• ppt given 15v shock and same procedure as Milgram took place
• debrief given immediately after

Question 10

Procedure - modelled refusal

Answer 10

• same procedure as baseline but 2 confederates were used - 2nd confederate was another teacher with the real ppt and was same gender
• T1 administered shocks first and refused to continue at 90v - T2 asked to continue

Question 11

Results

Answer 11

Baseline - 30% stopped at 150v or earlier
Modelled refusal - 36% stopped at 150v or earlier

Question 12

Conclusion

Answer 12

• Obedience has not changed - similar to Milgram’s results
• Situation is more of an impact than personality as the modelled refusal results were similar to baseline procedure

Question 13

Strengths

Answer 13

• Ethics - screening processes, right to withdraw, lower volt test shock - can be repeated to check for results in the future - useful
• Generalisability - diverse sample - ethnic mix and age range was 20-81 - more applicable to general population

Question 14

Weaknesses

Answer 14

• Validity - B made assumptions that those who went to 150v would have gone up to 450v which may not have been true - were his conclusions valid?
• Eco val - lab experiment - not normally giving electric shocks - reduces usefulness