My answer are always very long to model all the various chains of reason we have discussed in class. You know that you don’t have to write all of this to get 8/8 or even 12/12, 16//16 or maybe 20/20!!! But what you do need to do is tick the ATCHOO(BC) boxes on the >8 essay planner sheet!

Evaluate one contemporary study that has been used to explain human social behaviour (8)

Burger (2009) conducted a partial replication of Milgram’s experiment on obedience; however he made some critical alterations to the procedure in order to meet ethical guidelines. He concluded that Milgram’s findings were not era-bound and that people are as obedient today as they were in the 1960s.

However, one might argue that these conclusions are not generalizable because Burger, like Milgram used a volunteer sample gained from adverts placed in a local newspaper and flyers posted at coffee shops, libraries and farmers’ markets. Pps gained in this way tend to be more motivated and willing and therefore may have been more obedient because of this. They also may not have been representative of the target population as not everyone reads the local paper or will go to the chosen public places. On the other hand, it is possible that Burger’s results can be seen to be more generalizable than Milgram’s results as the sample was larger at 70 Pps, comprising both males and females and with a wider age range going up to 81 years rather than the upper limit of 50 in Milgram’s original study. This said, it is argued because of the screening process which removed around 30% of the original respondents, (see below), that Burger may have removed a swathe of people from his sample who may have been more or less obedient. This means that the results may not be generalizable to people who answered ‘yes’ to any of the questions relating to anxiety and depression or those who chose to study psychology at college. Further evidence to suggest that the sample may not be representative of certain groups in society are the fact that 60% were university educated which is more than you might expect in some regions and also that only 4% were Black Afro-American and this is a weakness of the study with regards generalisability, meaning that some groups may not be as obedient as this study suggests.

A further strength of the study is the internal validity, which was increased by the screening process which eliminated people who had studied two or more psychology classes. This meant that the Pps would not have heard of the Milgram study and therefore were less likely to exhibit demand characteristics and start to guess at the genuine aim of the study. However, it could be argued that just because they had not studied psychology does not mean that they did not see through the deception and realise that the shocks were fake, rendering their results invalid or indeed that they had not heard about the Milgram study in some way other than formal education, such as seeing the study in a film or on TV. However, 6 people did drop out following stage 2 screening saying they had awareness of Milgram‘s study and this too adds to the internal validity.

The independent measures design is a strength of the study as this avoids order effects associated with repeated measures; this means that the Pps were not affected in the second trial through their knowledge of the first, for example Pps may have become suspicious if they were asked to complete the learning trials again with the same learner and another confederate teacher on the modelled refusal conditions.  The random allocation to the baseline and modelled refusal condition was a further strength of the study regarding internal validity, as this would also have eliminated participant variables which might have affected levels of obedience across the two groups.

Despite the problems outlined above the study is good with regard to reliability as Burger ensured that he stuck to a standardised procedure whereby every Pps had the exact same experience with regard to the actor playing the role of teacher and researcher, the same prods in the same order and the same pre-recorded voice feedback from the learner. Also, the tests that he used to measure personality gathered quantitative data from Likert scales; this provides objective data that does not require interpretation and therefore the measures of personality can be deemed objective and reliable.

The fact that Burger used hidden cameras to tape what was going on was a strength of the study as when making observational notes during the trial it might be easy to miss something, or not be able to write down exactly what was said correctly. However, the tape means the trials can be viewed again by multiple observers meaning one can check the reliability of the data collected. This is good as observational notes of his kind can be subjective but if there is a video tape available then inter-rater reliability can be established and this increases the credibility of the data as it becomes more objective.

Ethically the study is far better than Milgram’s study as Burger put multiple safeguards in place to protect Pps from potential psychological or indeed physical harm, including the 150 V solution, whereby the experiment was terminated at when Pps pressed the 150 V switch to ensure they did not undergo too high a level of moral strain. Also he used the two step screening to ensure no-one took part who might be likely to suffer negatively as a consequence relating to pre-existing anxiety or depression He also ensured the Pps welfare was safeguarded by having a clinical psychologist act as the researcher meaning they could terminate the trial early should any issues present themselves which appeared to jeopardise the Pps wellbeing. Burger also ensured that Pps were aware of their right to withdraw at any point both orally and in writing and ensured that all Pps were fully debriefed immediately after the study. This meant that harm was minimised whilst preserving the validity of the findings. The benefits to society of the study are that we now know, more than 50 years after the original study, that people are still highly obedient when commanded to carry out orders to harm another individual. This suggests that it is still advantageous to educate people about the risks of destructive obedience and train those with authority to consider their requests of others with great care, due to the probability that orders will be conducted despite personal feelings of misgiving.

In conclusion, Burger’s creativity regarding the 150V solution allowed him to find a way of testing an aspect of human social behaviour that has tantalised us for more than 50 years. Whilst the study still lacks some generalisability and ecological validity, in the same way as the original, (the task of shocking a stranger was certainly not part of the ordinary repertoire of the Pps), the reliability and ethics were well considered. Burger’s study indicates that destructive obedience is a facet of human social behaviour still in the 21 Century and has also added to understanding of the role of situation, personality and gender in this field.