Burger

• aim?

  partially replicate Milgrams study. allows:

  • comparisons with OG, obedience is diff from 45 years ago but predicted similar.
  • protection of Ps so they aren’t under high stress
• procedure? (screening 1)

  ad in local paper, $50 if took part. Ps who studied 2+ psyc lessons at Uni are excluded, remaining asked about physical and psychologyical health and if they suffered a traumatic childhood, 30% Ps excluded.
• procedure? (screening 2)

  2 clinical psyc. asked to complete number of scales/questionnaires (beck anxiety) demographic sheet asking ab age occupation education ethnicity. then interviewed by clinical psyc who used structures interview (MINI) to identify anyone negatively affected by study, 123 interviewed 47 excluded.
• sample?

  70 people, 29 males 41 females. age range 20-81
• baseline condition (1) explaining experiment to Ps

  split to 2g, same gender ratio. given money and told they could keep even if they withdrew, explained study same way milgram did, with deceiving (punishment on memory) and using shock gen. rigged lot and connected conf to electrode, using paste to “prevent blisters”. same procedure w milgram but conf revealed he had a heart problem.
• badeline condition (1) what occurred?

  15v sample shock given (not 45v) used same 4 prods, grunts at 75v, 150v “my hearts starting to bother me get me out i refuse to go on”. if Ps resistant experiment ended and also ended beyond 150v. immediately admitted that shocks arent real
• modelled refusal (2) 2 conf (second teacher)

  wanted to see if people were less obedient due to social support of exiting study sooner. procedure was identical to baseline but 2c posed as a participant and was same gender as real one. after rigged draw 2c took lead administering shocks. 75v hesitant, 90v “i dont know about this”“please continue”, but refused to carry on so exp asked real Ps to continue
• results?

  no statistical difference between 2 conditions.

  no statistical difference between burgers base condition and similar condition for milgram.
• conclusion?

  time and changes in societys culture didnt have an effect on obedience levels.

  refusal to obey didnt affect obedience.

  screening process mightve ruled out Ps in a way that affected results.

  no sig gender difference.

  lack of empathy doesnt explain obedience.
• evaluate?

  G- range of ethnicity gender age, higher than milgram. sample is all US :( people who were under high stress removed so not rep?

  R- follow stand prods Milgram used due to detail in study.

  A- society and people more aware of probability to obey orders even if wrong so more aware of ability to dissent.

  V- psyc students removed, accuracy. nobody will try to understand aim. standardised.

  E- protection of Ps via safeguards (screening process and procedure approved by Santa Clots Uni Review Board) right to withdraw and immediate debrief