APMRC – Burger’s Study

AIM

 Burger’s aim was to investigate obedience by replicating Milgram’s study, 1963, with modern
participants in 2009. He did this so that he could identify whether the situation was a factor
affecting the rate of obedience to an authoritative figure or it was a personality trait that
influenced the obedience rate.

POST/SAMPLING

 Burger had a total of 70 participants, including both men and women, who were involved in this
experiment. The advertisement was sent out via newspapers, online ads and libraries. Each
participant was paid $50 before the study.
 The people who volunteered went through a screening to remove those who may have heard of
Milgram’s experiment, attended more than 2 psychology lessons and those who had anxiety
issues. After the removal of them, they went through a second screening where people
completed questionnaires about their health status.

METHOD

 Burger replicated Milgram’s experiment (variation 5), to the best he could in his experiment. He
replicated the script Milgram had used, however, this time, the participant received a 15V test
shock compared to Milgram who used 45V. The positioning of the learner and the teacher were
exactly the same also.
 Firstly, the teacher read out 25-word pairs and if the learner got it wrong/refused to answer they
received an electric shock, the shock got stronger each time the learner got an incorrect answer.
The learner eventually mentions his ‘slight heart condition’, however, the experimental tells the
teacher that the shocks are not painful and they should carry on. At 75 volts the learner starts
making sounds of pain and at 150 volts the learner cries that he wants to stop and complains
about chest pains. If the teacher delivers shocks to 165V, the experimenter stops the
experiment.
 In the “model refusal” condition, another confederate pretends to be a second teacher. This
teacher delivers the shocks, with the real participant watching. At 90V the confederate teacher
turns to the real participant and says “I don’t know about this.” He refuses to go on and the
experimenter tells the real participant to take over delivering the shocks.

RESULTS

 70% of participants in the baseline condition wanted to passed 150V

CONCLUSION

 Burger discovered that people are still influenced by the situational factors to obey an authority
figure even if it meant they were harming another
 The model refusal results had similar results to the base condition which was unexpected
 Empathy did not make a big difference to the level of obedience
 APMRC – Burger’s Study

Evaluation Evidence Limitations

Burger had a sample of 70 participants which Burger, however, excluded a lot more
Generalisability included both males and female ranging from people from the experiment and this
20 – 81 years old. This was better in may have affected the results. Also,
comparison to Milgram’s sample where he this would have limited the different
only had 40 participants and his were all types of people included therefore, it
males. makes the experiment not very
generalisable.
This experiment is reliable as it was
Reliability replicated from Milgram’s study in 1963,
therefore it can be repeated several more
times. Burger followed Milgram’s script and
used the same confederates each time.
The study does show that people are likely to However, due to Burger testing for
Application obey people in high authorities even if they people’s locus of control, it may
are doing something to harm another. It also instead show those who will disobey
helps us to identify what we need to do to which is not what Burger was trying to
increase obedience in areas including schools investigate.
and prisons. For example, people in authority
must wear uniform that represents their
importance.
Burger’s experiment was valid as the This test can be seen as invalid due to
Validity participants were paid before the the lack of ecological validity as in real
experiment, showing that money was not a life, teachers do not administer electric
factor to the results as they did not lose shocks to learners.
money once they volunteered. This meant Burger made an assumption that
that the responses were completely genuine. people that reached up to 150 V would
continue the experiment, however,
some may have dropped out before
then, therefore this shows invalidity.
In Burger’s experiment, he screened those Burger still deceived his participants as
Ethics who may have been distressed or could have the shocks were not real, the learner’s
had anxiety during the experiment. reaction was a video tape and the
The experimenter was a trained clinical learner/ second teacher were
psychologist so he used him to identify signs confederates.
of distress in the participants. In the experiment, it caused some
The study had approval from the university distress to some participants even
Ethics Panel, so if there was any harm, the though it’s against the ethical
experiment would have to be put to a close. guidelines.
Burger, stopped the study at 150V and did
not force anyone to reach up to 450V just
how Milgram had done.