Burger (2009) contemporary study

• Burger (2009)


  A partial replication of the famous Milgram study, with alterations to make it more ethical and an IV to test the hypotheses in more detail
• Burger (2009) study


  • It shows how scientific research proceeds, because Burger is replicating parts of Milgram's study to see if the conclusions still hold true today
  • It illustrates features of the Social Approach, since it explores how situations dictate people's behaviour – but it also looks at individual differences, because it investigates personality too
  • It illustrates the power of the experimental method, manipulating an IV and drawing conclusions about cause and effect from differences in the DV
  • It shows the importance of experimental design, since it uses Independent Groups design
• How to observe obedience

  1. Milgram's study had shocks up to 450V and many participants became distressed

  2. In Variation #5, all the participants who did rebel against authority dropped out by 150V

  3. Burger argues there's no need to continue the experiment all the way to 450V: if participants are prepared to go beyond 150V after learning about the heart condition, we can assume they would go all the way to 450V and spare them the distress
• Empathy

  The ability to put yourself in someone else's position
• Locus of control


  The importance that autonomy and independence has for you
• Independent Groups design


  Compares the 2009 participants with the 1960s participants and also compares the control group with the disobedient model group
• Burger used questionnaires to measure individual differences that might be factors in obedience:
• Burger also used ethical controls that improved on Milgram's original:
• Ethical controls


  • Two-step screening process to filter out anyone who might be unduly stressed
  • Participants warned 3 times in writing that they could withdraw at any point and still keep the $50
  • Experimenter was a clinical psychologist, skilled in spotting and reacting appropriately to distress
  • The "test shock" experienced by the participants was only a mild 15V, not Milgram's painful 45V
  • Burger did not allow time to pass before he introduced the (healthy) learner and debriefed the participants
• Social Impact Theory


  The impact of the authority figure would be lessened if divided between two teachers rather than focused on one
• Milgram found less obedience when the authority was divided between two teachers rather than focused on one, but he used two rebellious models, not one
• Empathy didn't make a difference to obedience, which goes against what Milgram thought and what Burger expected
• Participants who were high in empathic concern expressed a reluctance to continue the procedure earlier than did those who were low on this trait, but this early reluctance did not translate into a greater likelihood of refusing to continue
• Locus of control did make a bit of a difference, suggesting some people resist the agentic state, but this disappeared in the "model refusal" condition and Burger doesn't have a definite explanation for that
• It is not clear why the presence of the refusing model would undermine the tendency for people with an internal locus of control to resist the agentic state
• One possibility is that the base condition may have represented more of a me-versus-him situation that consequently triggered a desire to assert personal control
• Miller (2009) evaluated Burger's study in the same year it came out
• Burger's sample


  • Larger than Milgram's (70 vs 40 people)
  • Wider age range (20-81 vs 20-50 year olds)
  • Two thirds were women, whereas Milgram's were all male
• Burger excluded a lot of people from his final sample, such as those with emotional issues or some education in Psychology, which may have affected the results
• Milgram used a wider range of types of people in his samples
• Burger's study


  • Replicates aspects of Milgram's Variation #5 (heart condition to test for empathy), Variation #17 (model refusal), and Variation #8 (testing women)
  • Follows Milgram's script wherever possible and uses the same confederates every time
  • Filming the whole thing adds to the inter-rater reliability
• Ecological validity


  The extent to which a study reflects real-life situations
• Burger's study, like Milgram's, lacks ecological validity because the task of delivering electric shocks to a learner is artificial and doesn't happen in real life
• Stopping the study at 150V may be invalid, as perhaps participants who were prepared to go to 165V would still have dropped out later, especially in the "model refusal" condition
• Informed consent


  Participants are fully aware of what the study involves and give their consent to participate
• Burger, like Milgram, did not get informed consent from participants as the study was advertised as a memory study
• Burger reduced the test shock from a painful 45V to a mild 15V, and stopped the study at 150V to avoid forcing participants to "go the distance" to 450V
• Even though no one was reduced to tears, the procedure was surely distressing for at least some participants, going against BPS Ethical Guidelines
• Burger's study demonstrates how obedience to authority works, which can be used to increase obedience in settings like schools, workplaces and prisons
• Testing people for locus of control might identify those most likely to be disobedient, and Social Impact Theory suggests strategies for increasing the pressure on these people to be obedient