Burger (2009)

• What was the aim of the study?

  -to see if obedience had changed 45 years after Milgram's study2 multiple choice options
• How many participants were used in Burger's study?

  70 participants - 29 males and 41 females, aged 20-81 years old
• what key alteration did burger make based on findings from variation 5 of Milgram's studies

  -only continued the experiment up to 150 volts rather than 450v as it was found that 79% of pts who would obey after 150v would continue until the end
• what measures did Burger take to make study more ethical

  -there was a two step screening process anyone vulnerable would be excluded

  -pts told at least three times they may withdraw at any time and receive the full £50 payment

  -pts given sample shock of 15volts (45v in Milgram's)

  -pts told learner had been given no real shocks immediately after finish

  -clinical psychologist was the experimenter and ended the study following excessive stress
• what 4 things did burger identify as features of the situation causing obedience


  -obedience to authority (experimenter was an official so knew what was right)

  -gradual increase in demands

  -limited sources of information in a novel situation

  -responsibility not assigned or diffused
• When was the recording of 'my hearts bothering me now' played in experiment 1?

  150 volts
• In experiment 2, when did the confederate teacher refuse to continue?

  75 volts
• What percentage of participants went to 150 volts in experiment 1?

  70%
• Did Burger find a difference between males and females?

  he found little difference
• What did Burger conclude from his study?


  that time and changes in society's culture doesn't have an effect on obedience levels
• What was the maximum voltage?

  150 volts
• What did Burger allow the participants to do that Milgram didn't?


  withdraw (told the participants beforehand at least 3 times, twice in writing)
• Did Burger use the same word pairs as Milgram?

  yes
• How were participants recruited for this study?

  through advertisements in the local paper and online with incentive of being paid $50 for two 45min screening procedures over the phone given even if excluded
• How many volunteers were excluded after the first screening process?

  30%
• What was the experimenter?


  a clinical psychologist
• examples of people turned away during the first screening process
• what did screening process at santa clara measure


  measured via semi structured interview

  -levels of empathy

  -desirability for control
• how many people were excluded at second stage of screening


  -excluded as it was thought they may react badly to the study 38.2%
• what was the final sample


  -29 men and 41 women ranging in age from 20-81 years old
• what was the base condition


  -near direct replication of milgram e.g same word pairs same rigged draw etc

  -Differences included: pts had to sign consent form prior stating they may withdraw at any time

  -study ended at 150v and pts immediately taken for debrief
• What percentage of participants went to 150 volts in the base condition


  70% lower than in Milgram's variation 5 (82.5%) not significant
• What was the modelled refusal condition?


  same procedure as base condition only there were two confederates additional confederate was the same gender as pts acting as an additional teacher sitting next to participant.

  -teacher confederate then hesitates at 75volts and asks to stop at 90 volts with pts watching real pts then asked to carry on the study
• what percentage of participants went up to 150 volts in the modelled refusal condition

  -63.3%
• conclusions


  -people still react the same in present day

  -empathy levels didn't make a difference
• why more ethical


  -Protection from harm: participants screened to see if they were likely to be extensively distressed by the investigation

  -Participants reminded of their right to withdraw via a consent form prior to the study beginning

  -Only 150v used and participants reminded the shocks would cause no permanent tissue damage
• Reliability


  -standardised procedure e.g in base conditions participants heard the same pre recorded grunts

  -high replicability

  supported by similar results to milgram
• internal validity


  -laboratory conditions

  -participants with knowledge of milgram's studies excluded: 5 people removed
• ecological validity + mundane realism


  -Santa Clara university is an unfamiliar artificial setting

  -task validity unfamiliar

  -both cause artificial behaviour
• Apllicability of milgram


  -Elms 2009 claims burgers research tells us very little about the real world obedience so therefore lacks applicability as participants stopped before they suffered any real tension means the situation lost its potency reducing meaningfulness