Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Burger (2009) - Coggle Diagram
Burger (2009)
Procedure
-
Screening Procedures Individuals responded to Ads in local newspapers. Ads promised 50 dollars for taking part. Individuals expressed their interest by phone/email. A researcher asked pps if they had been to college/took psychology- 2 or more psychology lessons took then they couldn't take part. Asked about their mental/physical health or whether they had experienced any traumatic experiences in their life - further 30% of pps excluded.
Second Screening Process
PPS completed a number of scales/questionnaires/ demographic sheet/interpersonal reactivity index(measures empathy)/beck anxiety inventory/desirability of control scale( measures locus of control).
Volunteer Sample/ 70 A's/ 29M/41F age 20- 81 - 60% uni degrees/ 55% white Caucasian/ 4% Black- Afro American
Baseline Condition
PPs split into two groups - Used a similar script to Milgram's.
Explained the procedure to the PP. Confederate used - always received the role of the learner/PP teacher (rigged).
Confederate put in an adjoining room/teacher put in front of the electric generator - PP watches the learner strapped into electric chair - real shock 15v compared to 45v Milgram. Teacher read out 25 multiple choice questions/ learner used buzzer to answer/wrong answer/ experimenter directs teacher to give an electric shock/ 15v a time/highest 150v/ compared to M 450v.
Learner 'light hear condition' - E says shocks no harm
75V sound of pain
150V Learner cries out that he wants to stop - chest pains
Same verba prods used.
Ethical Guidelines followed-
PPs given three reminders of their 'Right to Withdraw'.
PPs were debriefed at the end of the study - met the actor/learner/told shocks weren't real.
Clinical psychologist supervised all trials/end trial if anyone was distressed. .
Modelled Refusal Condition - PPs followed same procedure as baseline. 2 confederates used instead of 1, 2nd posed a PP, same gender too. Teacher 1 confederate/ teacher 2 PP. Teacher 1 took lead delivering shocks, Teacher 2 sat there. 90V T1 turns to T2, 'I don't know about this' - he refuses to go on/ tells the naïve PP to take over delivering shocks.
Evaluation
Strengths
Acknowledge the ethical concerns associated with M's original experiments/took several measures to ensure the well-being of the PP's. Screening process, rigorous to ensure that PP's deemed unsuitable for the study weren't used (physical/mental health checks/asked if they had studied psychology/fill in scales/ questionnaires- Beck anxiety inventory). PPs informed 3 times they had the right to withdraw, pps given 15V sample shock, instead of a 45V shock (protection for harm), a clinical psychologist was present and the PP's were debriefed straight after the study - can be said to be ethical.
Strong internal validity- none of the PPs had knowledge of Milgram's research - enhancing the study's IV. All pps, asked if they took psychology, anyone who had taken 2 or more eliminated from the research. 5 admitted their awareness of M's research/ dropped out - suggests demand characteristics would not be a problem.
-
Weaknesses
Low generalisability - sample is not representative of the target population. After PPs had been asked about their mental/physical health, 30% of PPs were eliminated from taking part in the study, as they may have found the study distressing. This is important as the sample may have been more psychologically robust than the general population. This may have led to lower levels of O and overall the findings aren't generalisable to those who may have found the situation distressing.
-
AIMS
Wanted to see if Milgram's findings (1963) were era- bound. Investigate obedience, partially replicating Milgram's study to examine whether situational factors affect obedience to an authoritative figure.Obedience is affected by gender, as well as personality traits - empathetic/personal control.
Results
Stopped at 150V- Base Con 30%- Modelled Refusal 36.7
Continuing past 150V - Base Con 70%- Model Refusal 63.3
In baseline condition 70% had to be stopped going past 150V, compared to Milgram 82.5%.
In E.2 63.3% went to go past 150V, results similar to E.1.
Little difference in O levels between genders - E.1 - F 66.7% -M 72.7& went to go past 150V.
Founded that those who showed reluctance to give the shocks early in on the procedure scored higher on desirability for control in BC.
No diff found comparing MR % BC to personality scores.
Conclusion
Results in both experiements are similar to what M found - M's findings aren't era-bound nor androcentric. Lack of valid empathy isn't a valid explanation for the high obedience rates. Change in time/society culture doesn't have an effect on obedience levels/ neither did refusal of the confederate.