Burger 2009

• which study did burger replicate?

  Milgram's obedience study
• why did Burger choose to do max 150 volts?

  saw it as point of no return (79%) went 150 to then 450 (M), less distressing to the participants
• what was the participant sample?

  volunteer sample
• what did Burger do with the participants that Milgram did not?

  two rounds of screening
• what did the 1st round of screening entail?

  1. making sure if they knew of Milgram's study they couldn't continue
  2. anyone who had suffered childhood traumatic event couldn't participate
• what percentage of volunteers were excluded after screening round 1?

  30%
• what did participants do as part of screening round 2?

  filled out a questionnaire and sat in an assessment interview
• what was the aim of the questionnaire in screening 2?

  to identify if the participants had signs of anxiety or depression
• what percentage were excluded after screening round 2?

  40% of volunteers left from screening 1
• who made up the final sample?

  1. total 70 participants
  2. 29 male
  3. 41 female
• what was the age range for the final sample?

  20 to 81 years old
• what were the results of Burger's replication?

  there was a 63% obedience rate, only 7% decrease from Milgram's results
• what were some differences between Burger and Milgram's study that could have effected the results

  1. setting (Milgram did his at Yale, Burger did it at a not top university)
  2. they were told more that they could withdraw at any time
  3. participants were screened in Burger's replication
• what was positive about the generalisability

  1. female and male participants so no gender bias
  2. more culturally diverse sample
  3. wider age range in sample
• what were the negatives about the generalisability

  1. volunteer sample so more likely to have underlying motive
  2. screening procedure eliminating emotionally unstable individuals
  3. it was an American sample so could be affected by cultural norms
• what effect did the screening and sample type have on the generalisability of the experiment?

  it lowered the representativeness of study and sample
• why was the reliability better for Burgers study?

  more standardised procedure
• how similar were the findings of Milgram's and Burger's study (reliability)

  less than a 10% difference to obedience rate
• what variables were controlled in the validity of study

  setting, feedback from learner, participants having no prior knowledge of Milgram, the participant always being the teacher
• what did all the control variables make?

  good internal validity
• what did the replication lack and why?

  ecological validity as delivering electric shocks to strangers not an everyday task
• where can the replications findings be applied to?


  military, police, education, health settings
• what did Burger do within the application of findings

  educated people on the dangers of blind obedience to malevolent authority and how to reduce it
• what is dangerous about the application if the findings to the study?

  the can be used to manipulate obedience and increase the rate
• how did Burger reduce the ethical concerns with his replication?

  made sure that every process was for the participant benefit and ensured their well-being
• which parts of the replication lowered the ethical concerns?

  1. screening process - eliminated emotional unstable people
  2. right to withdraw - repeatedly told
  3. sample shock - only 15 volts not 45
  4. experimenter - sat in the room was a clinical psychologist and could stop the experiment if he thought excessive stress signs were shown
  5. debrief - immediately after experiment ended to reinforce that learner wasn't harmed
• what parts of replication still raised ethical concerns?

  the verbal prods the experimenter gave participant, fact that participants still put in stress inducing situation