Social Psychology: Replicating Milgram - Burger (2009)

Flashcards on Social Psychology Contemporary Study Replicating Milgram (Burger, 2009)

Burger (2009)

A contemporary study replicating Milgram's experiment to see if people would still obey today.

150V

The reduced voltage in Burger's study, lowered from Milgram's 450V due to ethical guidelines.

Screening test

A measure implemented by Burger to ensure participants were mentally fit to participate in the study, addressing ethical concerns.

Right to Withdraw

A safeguard given to participants, ensuring they knew they could leave the study at any time.

150V (Point of No Return)

The point at which Burger ended the experiment, acting as a surrogate for the full voltage in Milgram's study.

Stanley Milgram

The researcher who conducted the original obedience study involving electric shocks.

Jerry M. Burger

The researcher who replicated Milgram's obedience experiment with modifications to address ethical concerns.

Aim of Milgram's Experiment

To investigate the level of obedience shown when participants were told by an authority figure to administer electric shocks to another person.

Aim of Burger's Experiment

To investigate obedience by partial replication of Milgram’s study almost 50 years later to examine whether situational factors affect obedience to an authoritative figure.

Participants in Milgram's Experiment

40 male middle-class participants; Experiment 5 variation ‘new baseline condition’ introduced the idea the ‘learner’ had a heart condition.

Participants in Burger's Experiment

29 males and 41 females aged 20-81 years old from a range of backgrounds with differing levels of education, high school to Master’s degree. Random sampling with equal ratios of F to M ppts to reduce sampling bias.

Screening of participants in Burger's Study

Excluding volunteers familiar with Milgram's work and screening participants based on mental health and drug dependency using interviews and scales like the Interpersonal Reactivity Index and Beck Anxiety Inventory.

Procedure - Burger

Same as Milgram, except the experiment only went up to 150 V not 450 V. 15 V real shock not 45 V used in Milgram’s study.

Informed Consent - Milgram

Participants not given informed consent, were told the study is about ‘human learning’.

Informed Consent - Burger

Participants completed a consent form to say they will be videotaped and were told this is a study about the effect of punishment on learning.

Right to Withdraw - Milgram

Participants not given the right to withdraw, instead coerced into continuing by the experimenter ‘you have no other choice but to continue.’

Right to Withdraw - Burger

Right to withdraw given once verbally at the beginning of the experiment and twice written on paper Although verbal prods ‘You must continue’ still used.

Protection from Harm - Milgram

Participants displayed signs of distress after the study, nervous laughter, sweating, stuttering and trembling.

Protection from Harm - Burger

Deemed to be a more ethical experiment than Milgram. 150 v 450 volts for fake shocks and 15 v 45 volts for the one real shock

70%

The percentage of participants in Burger's base condition who continued to 150V.

63.3%

The percentage of participants in Burger's model refusal condition who continued to 150V.

GRAVE

A framework used to evaluate studies for generalisability, reliability, application, ethics, and validity.

Reliable Procedure

Reducing the voltage of fake electric shocks from 450V to 150V, a base condition, and modelled refusal condition demonstrates that Milgram’s study can be replicated and is a repeatable experiment with high reliability.

Lack of Internal Validity

Decreases the internal validity of Burger's research findings as cause and effect between obedience to an authority and administering electric shocks at the full 450V cannot be established.