Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Burger (2009) - Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today?…
Burger (2009) - Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? (SOCIAL CONTEMPORARY STUDY)
Aim
To partially replicate Milgram's (1963) studies into obedience to explore whether people would still obey authority in contemporary society of 2006.
To investigate how gender and personality (such as empathy and personal desire for control) impacted obedience.
Results
Burger (2009) found high levels of obedience in the base condition as 70% of participants in the base condition continued after 150 volts. This was slightly lower than Milgram's experiment 5 of 82.5% but not statistically significant.
There was no significant difference in the obedience rates of males and females, although women were more likely than men to pass 150V. (women 72.7% and men 66.7%)
There was no significant difference in the empathic concern scores between the defiant (19.25) and obedient (19.20) participants. However, the defiant had significantly higher desire for personal control scores (106.92) than obedient (98.24) particpants.
In the modelled refusal condition, contrary to expectation 63.3% of participants continued past 150V.
Conclusion
The findings show that Milgram's findings are not era-bound nor are they androcentric. Lack of empathy doesn't seem to be a valid explanation for high obedience rates as both defiant and obedient participants had very similar scores for this trait. However, the desire for personal control does seem to determine the likelihood of defiance.
Evaluation
✓ Reliability - The standardised procedure meant that Burger (2009) could be replicated to test for reliability which is a strength of the study. There is test-retest reliability in Burger (2009) because the obedience levels were consistent to that of Milgram’s original obedience research in the 1960s. 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.
✓/✗ Validity - The ‘teacher’ who gave the shocks may not have acted in the way they would have normally as they were in an unfamiliar setting. This reduces the task validity and ecological validity. However, none of the participants had knowledge of Milgram's research prior. Anyone who had taken two or more psychology classes was deselected and this reduced the chance of demand characteristcs. A standarides procedure and good use of controls allowed for this. So overall, the study had high internal validity.
✓/✗ Generalisability - Burger’s (2009) study had population validity as the sample had variety in terms of age, gender, education and ethnicity so could be generalised to the wider US population. However, after pre-screening it was found that 38% of voluteers were deselected to exclude anyone who might have found the study distressing. This is important as people in the final sample may have been more psychologically robust than many people in the general target population. This may have led to lower levels of obedience and reduces the generalisability.
✓ Ethics - Burger reduced the sample shock from a 45V to a mild 15V and terminated the study at 165V, to reduce the distress that was caused to the participants compared to Milgram's study. He didn't get informed consent (as with Milgram, this was advertised as a memory study), although he did debrief participants afterwards. Participants were told at least three times (twice in writing) that they had the right to withdraw from the study. A clcinical psychologist ran the experiment and was instructed to terminate the experiment upon ay exessive signs of stress show. Overall, the participants were protected well throught the study.
✗ Application - Elms (2009) claimed that Burger's research tells us little about real-world obedience andlacks application. The fact that participants were stopped before they showed significant distress or dissonance of what they were doing, suggests the situation lost its potency. Milgram's research of using post-150V provided useful findings about obedience but Burger was unable to explore this. This reduces the meaningfulness of the study.
Sample
70 volunteer participants (29 men and 41 women) aged 20 to 81 years old were randomly assigned to two conditions after are two-screening process was done. These participants were from different educational levels and or varied ethnicities. They were all paid $50.
Method
This was a laboratory experiment that used an independent groups design and took place at Santa Clara university.
Procedure
The study replicated Milgram's Experiment 5 but employed six ethical guidelines to protect the participants. Burger stopped the shocks at 150V and a sample shock of a mild 15V rather than Milgram's 45V was given. In the base condition, the participant (teacher) watches the confederate (learner) being strapped into the electric chair and then sits at the shock generator in an adjacent room. The teacher read questions and for every wrong answer, shocked the learner in increasing 15V increments. If the teacher moved to deliver the 165V shock, the experiment was terminated. In the “model refusal” condition, a second confederate pretends to be a second teacher. This teacher delivers the shocks, with the naïve participant watching. At 90V the confederate teacher turns to the naïve participant and says “I don’t know about this.” He refuses to go on and the experimenter tells the naïve participant to take over delivering the shocks. Burger used questionnaires to measure empathy and locus of control which may have been factors in obedience.