Burger contemporary study - social

• what was Burgers experiment based on

  Milgrams study
• aims

  • to see if Milgrams findings were era bound
  • to see whether obedience is affected by gender as well as personality traits 'empathetic concern' and 'desire for personal control
• what type of experiment was it

  lab
• what type of sample was used, how were they gathered

  volunteer, through distributing leaflets in public spaces and adverts in newspapers and online
• how many people were in the final sample

  70
• how many of each gender was there

  29 men, 41 women
• what was the age range of the sample

  20 -81
• what percentage had uni degrees

  60%
• what ethnicities were there, percentages

  55% white, 4% black African American
• what procedure was used

  same as milgrams
• how did the procedure vary from milgrams

  6 ethical safeguards were put in place to protect the ppts and make it more ethical
• what voltage was the maximum in Burgers study

  150V
• why was the maximum voltage reduced

  to avoid high levels of anxiety
• what was Burgers argument to then know how many people would have gone further under anxiety and stress

  79% of ppts in Milgrams study who went to 150V also went to 450V so he could use this to predict how many would have gone further
• what was the second ethical safeguard

  a two step screening process
• what was the screening process for

  to exclude ppts who may have had a negative reaction to the experiment
• how was the first screening process done


  over the phone
• what were ppts asked in first screening

  whether they had taken any psychology classes before and asked six questions created by clinical psychologists
• what happened to those who had taken psychology classes, why

  those who had taken 2+ were excluded as they may have knowledge on milgrams original experiment so they may have acted differently with that knowledge
• why were the six questions asked


  to exclude anyone they thought was not mentally fit enough to take part
• what happened at the second screening

  ppts given scales to complete about demographic info as well as self report questionnaires which measured the two personality traits, then were interviewed by a licensed clinician
• how many times were ppts reminded of their right to withdraw, how

  3, twice in writing
• what voltage was the shock given to the teachers so they could see it was working

  15 V
• when were ppts debriefed

  almost immediately after the study ended
• what happened in the debriefs

  ppts met the confederates and were told the shocks weren't real
• who supervised the trials, why

  a clinical psychologist, to observe if there was any excessive distress and to end the trial immediately if there was
• when and how did the study end for each ppt

  experiment ended when the ppt refused to continue after being given all 4 prods, or when they got to 150V
• results - what percentage of ppts went to 150V

  70%
• was there a significant difference between women and men


  not a significant one
• was there a significant difference in the empathetic scores between the defiant and obedient


  no significant difference
• conclusion - era bound?, different for women?

  showed milgrams results weren't era bound or androcentric
• conclusion - lack of empathy effect

  lack of empathy was not a valid explanation for high obedience rates as ppts had very similar scores
• conclusion - desire for personal control


  desire for personal control did seem to determine the likelihood of defiance
• what happened in Burgers model refusal condition experiment

  . another confederate was used and given role of another teacher alongside the ppt

  . both sat together

  . confederate went first, showed no hesitation to shock until 75V

  . them after first prompt refused to continue and asked real ppt to carry on for him
• result of this experiment

  63% went to 150V
• generalisability strength


  . diverse sample: different ages, ethnicities = higher generalisability = destructive obedience in a range of individuals can be measured
• counter argument


  sample was volunteer = bad generalisability as all may have some similar personality types and also be more willing to obey
• generalisability weakness


  may not be representative of target population - many screenings were done to eliminate 38% of ppts who may have found the study distressing = people in final study could be more psychologically robust which doesn't reflect everyone in general population + people may have been less obedient
• reliability strength


  highly standardised eg same 3 reminders about right to withdraw = study has high internal reliability as was controlled, same method could be used by other psychologists to repeat experiment
• application


  Elms (2009) said Burgers research tells us little about the real world obedience so it lacks application to anything