Burger 2009- Obedience

Aim: To find if there are any differences in obedience levels from 1961 to 2006. To see if there is a gender difference in obedience levels. To see people's reactions to modelled refusal and to test what effect this may have on their own

Sample: 29 men and 49 womenwho had gone through two screening test to eliminate candidates psychologically vunerable (like having depression or anxiety) + had  done psychology before

Base condition: (only experimenter and confederate) confederate strapped in and tells the experimenter that they have a slight heart condition. 15v shock increments. the experimenter gives verbal prods. The study only ends when the participant refuses to go on or they reach 150v.

Model refusal: Another confederate teacher who refuses to carry on, the participant is then told to take over from them when the confederate is unable to continue.

RESULTS:

• Baseline 70% got to 150v (were prepared to carry on) compared to 82.5% in Milgram's.]
• Model refusal 63.3% got to 150v.
• Participants began to express concern after they received the first verbal prod from the experimenter.
• There was little gender difference in obedience; males 66.7% got to 150v females 72.7% got to 150v.
• Model refusal condition: males 54.5% get to 150v and females 68.4%.

CONCLUSION:

• Same high levels of obedience as in 1961 in Milgram's study even through aspects of the procedure had changed. There was little gender difference (women are more obedient than men) in both of the conditions. People disobeyed more easily after seeing someone else do so in the model refusal condition.

GENERALISABLITY:

•  there was a lot more diversity (mix of genders and ethnicities) in this experiment than in Milgrams making the results generalisable
•  However, the results are only generalisable to the adult population as no young people participated
• Also, the participants are all American citizens from a particular state so these results cant be generalised to other countries with different ways of life

RELIABILITY; 

• the results are similar to Milgrams results meaning that they are reliable 
• standardised procedures were used (scripted prompts) so every participant was treated equally

APPLICATION:

• shows how people are still easily influenced by authority figures despite the 45 year difference
• explains how some people can be easily manipulated to do wrong

VALIDITY:

• low mundane realism/ ecological validity as it is a labatory experiment
• experiment stopped at 150v and it can only be assumed that the ppts would go all the way- this makes the conclusion less accurate as there's no proof all ppts would go all the way

ETHICS:

• double screening processed eliminated vunerable ppts so the emotional impact isn't as drastic
• stopped at 150v so ppts didn't think that they did detrememental harm to the learner
• were debriefed immediately after