|
This study is one of 3 Contemporary Studies. The Examiner won't know which Contemporary Study to have learned so the Exam won't ask a SPECIFIC question about Burger (2009). Instead, you could be asked to DESCRIBE it in general or EVALUATE it overall (APRC and GRAVE). You might be asked more specifically about methods (aims/procedure), findings (results/conclusion), about reliability/validity or about generalisability/application. You could be asked about ethics. Make sure you have points for each of these.
|
|
BURGER (2009)
|
|
BURGER'S STUDY
| ||||||
|
| ||||
Burger also used ethical controls that improved on Milgram's original:
- There was a two-step screening process to filter out anyone who might be unduly stressed by the experience
- The participants were warned 3 times in writing that they could withdraw at any point and still keep the $50
- The experimenter was actually 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
Within a few seconds of the study’s end, the learner entered the room to reassure the participant that he was fine - Jerry Burger
Results
Burger found that 70% of participants in the baseline condition were prepared to go past 150V, compared to 82.5% in Milgram’s Variation #5. This sounds like a big difference but it is not statistically significant given the number of people involved.
Burger found that 70% of participants in the baseline condition were prepared to go past 150V, compared to 82.5% in Milgram’s Variation #5. This sounds like a big difference but it is not statistically significant given the number of people involved.
Burger also compared men and women but didn’t find a difference in obedience. Women were slightly less likely to obey in the “model refusal” condition but this was not statistically significant.
Empathy did not make a significant difference to obedience. However, in the base condition, those who stopped at 150V or sooner did have a significantly higher locus of control (but this was not the case in the “model refusal” condition).
Conclusions
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.
Empathy did not make a significant difference to obedience. However, in the base condition, those who stopped at 150V or sooner did have a significantly higher locus of control (but this was not the case in the “model refusal” condition).
Conclusions
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.
my partial replication of Milgram’s procedure suggests that average Americans react to this laboratory situation today much the way they did 45 years ago - Jerry Burger
Burger makes the assumption that any participant who was willing to go beyond 150V would have been willing to go all the way to 450V the way Milgram’s participants did. He argues that their “self perception” would have made them do this. People like to see themselves as consistent; once they had made a decision to ignore the heart condition, they would not go back on that.
The “model refusal” results were not very different from the base condition. This is odd because Social Impact Theory suggests the impact of the authority figure would be lessened if divided between two teachers rather than focused on one. Milgram found less obedience in this condition, 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.
The “model refusal” results were not very different from the base condition. This is odd because Social Impact Theory suggests the impact of the authority figure would be lessened if divided between two teachers rather than focused on one. Milgram found less obedience in this condition, 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 - Jerry Burger
However, locus of control did make a bit of a difference, suggesting some people resist the agentic state. However, 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
this tendency. 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 - Jerry Burger
|
EVALUATING BURGER AO3
| ||||
|
Miller (2009) evaluated Burger's study in the same year it came out and you can read his article here.
|
| ||
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.
However, when you add up all Milgram’s samples across all his Variations, there are much more than 70 and Milgram did test women in Variation #8.
Burger also excluded a lot of people from his final sample; for example people with emotional issues or some education in Psychology. This may have affected the results and Milgram used a wider range of types of people.
Reliability
Milgram’s original procedure is very reliable because it can be replicated. In 1974, Milgram published the results of his 19 Variations, which all replicated his baseline 1963 study. Burger is replicating aspects of Variation #5 (heart condition to test for empathy) and Variation #17 (model refusal) as well as Variation #8 (testing women). 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”.
Testing people for locus of control might identify those most likely to be disobedient – people with a strong need to be in control are less likely to take orders. Social Impact Theory suggests strategies for increasing the pressure on these people to be obedient.
Validity
Milgram’s study was criticised for lacking ecological validity because the task is artificial – in real life, teachers are not asked to deliver electric shocks to learners. This criticism still applies to Burger’s study.
In other ways the study is valid. Because the participants were paid fully in advance, we can be fairly sure it was social pressure that made them continue shocking, not a cost/benefit calculation about whether they personally would gain or lose money.
However, 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. The “model refusal” group, in particular, might have had second thoughts as the shocks got stronger.
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..
The study was approved by the university Ethics Panel, who had the power to shut it down if it looked like anyone was being harmed.
Burger reduced the test shock from a painful 45V to a mild 15V. He also stopped the study at 150V so he didn’t force anyone to “go the distance” to 450V, which reduced many of Milgram’s participants to tears (and three of them fainted).
Nonetheless, there are still ethical criticisms. Burger deceived his participants just as Milgram had done – the shocks weren’t real, the learner’s cries were a tape recording, the learner and second teacher were confederates. He did not get informed consent (as with Milgram, this was advertised as a memory study), although he did debrief participants afterwards. The BPS Ethical Guidelines say participants must not be distressed; even though no one was reduced to tears, the procedure was surely distressing for at least some participants.
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.
However, when you add up all Milgram’s samples across all his Variations, there are much more than 70 and Milgram did test women in Variation #8.
Burger also excluded a lot of people from his final sample; for example people with emotional issues or some education in Psychology. This may have affected the results and Milgram used a wider range of types of people.
Reliability
Milgram’s original procedure is very reliable because it can be replicated. In 1974, Milgram published the results of his 19 Variations, which all replicated his baseline 1963 study. Burger is replicating aspects of Variation #5 (heart condition to test for empathy) and Variation #17 (model refusal) as well as Variation #8 (testing women). 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”.
Testing people for locus of control might identify those most likely to be disobedient – people with a strong need to be in control are less likely to take orders. Social Impact Theory suggests strategies for increasing the pressure on these people to be obedient.
Validity
Milgram’s study was criticised for lacking ecological validity because the task is artificial – in real life, teachers are not asked to deliver electric shocks to learners. This criticism still applies to Burger’s study.
In other ways the study is valid. Because the participants were paid fully in advance, we can be fairly sure it was social pressure that made them continue shocking, not a cost/benefit calculation about whether they personally would gain or lose money.
However, 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. The “model refusal” group, in particular, might have had second thoughts as the shocks got stronger.
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..
The study was approved by the university Ethics Panel, who had the power to shut it down if it looked like anyone was being harmed.
Burger reduced the test shock from a painful 45V to a mild 15V. He also stopped the study at 150V so he didn’t force anyone to “go the distance” to 450V, which reduced many of Milgram’s participants to tears (and three of them fainted).
Nonetheless, there are still ethical criticisms. Burger deceived his participants just as Milgram had done – the shocks weren’t real, the learner’s cries were a tape recording, the learner and second teacher were confederates. He did not get informed consent (as with Milgram, this was advertised as a memory study), although he did debrief participants afterwards. The BPS Ethical Guidelines say participants must not be distressed; even though no one was reduced to tears, the procedure was surely distressing for at least some participants.
|
EXEMPLAR ESSAY
|