Burger (social contemporary study)

?

Aim

Aim
To find out if the same results as Milgram’s 1963 study re-occur when the study is replicated with modern participants in 2009. Also, to see if personality variables like empathy and locus of control influence obedience. Finally, to see if the presence of a disobedient “model” makes a difference to obedience levels.
IV
The main IV is the base condition (same as Milgram, 1963) compared with the “model refusal” (rebellious partner) condition.
This is an Independent Groups design. It compares the 2009 participants with the 1960s participants and it also compares the control group with the disobedient model group.
DV
Obedience is measured by how many volts the last shock to be delivered was - before the participant refused to go on, exhausted all the “prods” or reached 150V (whichever happened first)

1 of 6

sample

Sample

70 participants (a mixture of men and women) did the experiment, being randomly put into the two conditions. They were a volunteer sample, recruited through newspaper and online ads and fliers left in libraries. They were paid $50 before the study started. They were aged 20-81.

Burger actually recruited a lot more participants but screened many of them out. He dropped volunteers who had heard of Milgram’s original experiment, who had attended more than 2 Psychology classes, who had anxiety issues or drug dependency. It was a two-step screening process: those with psychological knowledge were screened at the start before even attending; those with drug or emotional issues were screened through a questionnaire when they arrived (but they still got paid, even though they didn't do the study!).

2 of 6

Procedure

Procedure
The procedure replicates Milgram’s variation #5 on his baseline study. The experimenter is a white man in his 30s; the confederate (learner) is in his 50s.
The script resembles Milgram’s but the test shock that the participant receives is only 15V rather than Milgram’s painful 45V. The participant/teacher watches the learner being strapped into the electric chair and then sits at the shock generator in an adjacent room.
The teacher reads out 25 multiple choice questions and the learner uses a buzzer to indicate the answer. If the answer is wrong, the experimenter directs the teacher to deliver a shock, starting at 15V and going up in 15V intervals.
The learner indicates he has a “slight heart condition” but the experimenter replies that the shocks are not harmful. At 75V the learner starts making sounds of pain. At 150V the learner cries that he wants to stop and complains about chest pains.

If the teacher moves to deliver the 165V shock, the experimenter stops the experiment.

3 of 6

Results

Picture (http://www.psychologywizard.net/uploads/2/6/6/4/26640833/7884192_orig.jpg)

4 of 6

Conclusion

Burger concludes that Milgram’s results still stand half a century later. People are still influenced by situational factors to obey an authority figure, even if it goes against their moral values.

5 of 6

Evaluation

Generalisability
Burger’s sample of 70 people is larger than Milgram’s sample of 40. It covers a wider age range (Milgram recruited 20-50 year olds, Burger 20-81 year olds) and two thirds of Burger’s sample were women, whereas Milgram’s were all male.
Reliability
Burger followed Milgram’s script wherever possible and used the same confederates every time.
By filming the whole thing, Burger adds to the inter-rater reliability because other people can view his participants’ behaviour and judge obedience for themselves.
Application
The study demonstrates how obedience to authority works and this can be used to increase obedience in settings like schools, workplaces and prisons. Authority figures should wear symbols of authority (uniforms) and justify their authority with reference to a “greater good”
Validity
Burgers lacks ecological validity due to the artificial setting
In other ways the study is valid. 
stopping the study at 150V may be invalid. Perhaps participants who were prepared to go to 165V would still have dropped out later. It is a huge assumption to say they would have continued to 450V. 
Ethics
Burger believes his study avoids the ethical problems of Milgram’s original. Burger screened out participants who were likely to be distressed by the study. The Experimenter was a trained clinical psychologist who could identify signs of distress and would stop the experiment if anyone seemed to be disturbed by what was happening..

6 of 6

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all Social psychology resources »