Jerry Burger Strengths And Weaknesses

The main theme of the study is to criticize a research which was done by Jerry Burger who wanted to observe whether the previous study of obedience would give result same as from the research conducted by Stanley Milgram which was conducted some decades ago. The article in review then provokes the results which were obtained from the research of Jerry Burger. The approach he had towards research was that he wanted to identify whether a research which had been done in the same area in several decades ago would yield the same results and justify the research was correct. But his research at first place doesn’t seem to be correct and that is what the article by Dr. Stephen Behnke talks about (Behnke, 2009).

The research which was conducted by

The reason for this is that he was trying to disapprove through his research results and that were obtained by the same type of research which was conducted by Stanley Milgram. Another weakness is that Jerry Burger altered the methodology which was applied by Stanley Milgram during the research therefore obtaining of the research results which were same as for the case of the Milgram become impossible. As the responded were required to go a certain obedience test, it reached a point where most of respondents required to terminate the procedure as they were undergoing stress. In this stage Jerry had to make very cautious assumption to complete the research of which it might have not been correct for the research. For Jerry Burger he only concentrated on two things that is the science of psychology to the phenomenon of obedience to authority and also to remove the misconception which many have during the study by Stanley Milgram which the distress induced to the

Weaknesses are what surrounds this research starting all the way from the research methodology to the approval stage of the research by the Institution Review Board (IRBS). The approval of the research meant that the IRBS is a failure in concerning the procedures by which research is conducted and thus the responsibility of the IRBs was too lenient leading to the results being unjustifiable and full maliciousness. Approval of such research is an indication of poor code of ethics which are being induced in the IRBS responsiveness in relation to