1 Social Psychology A review of J.M Burgers 2006 Replication of the Milgrams Experiment 5: In 2006, Jerry M.
Burger conducted a replication of Milgrams Experiment 5 to assess whether the rate of obedience by participants to the experimenters direction to administer electrical shocks to the confederate would be as high as it was in the 1960s, when Milgram conducted his experiment. Given the constraints imposed by the ethical concerns that Milgrams experiment aroused, Burger altered the original experiment, while attempting to retain as close a simulation to the original as possible. A final sample of 70 participants included 29 men and 41 women who were assigned to one of two conditions, so that an almost equal number of men and women were assigned to the base condition and to the modeled refusal condition. Burger hypothesized that societal change since the time of Milgrams experiment would not be a factor strong enough to override situational factors, and that the results would be roughly the same. Despite the 3-stage screening process, the results confirmed his hypothesis, although his speculation regarding norm information was not supported by the results. 70% of base condition participants reached the stage where the 150-volt shock was to be administered (the highest stage in this replication), and 63.3%of the modeled refusal condition participants came this far, despite Burgers hypothesis. The greatest and most obvious weakness of this experiment would be modifications made to the original screening process and procedure owing to ethical concerns. Although it is admirable that Burger invested thought and resources into abiding by the ethical prerequisites that an experiment like Milgrams entailed, it seems unlikely that the results were not be influenced by these improvisations, which leads one to suspect whether the results are truly comparable with the results of Milgrams original experiment. The initial screening process excluded 30% of the
2 random sample that consisted of individuals who responded to flyers and ads on the basis of responses to 6 questions designed to gauge whether they were psychologically or emotionally vulnerable. The last screening session included the administering of scales and an interview by a clinical psychologist of each participant, and this session eliminated 38.2% of the remaining people (Burger 5-6). Thus, the final sample was not truly representative, and since more than 30% of the initial sample was excluded, skepticism concerning the results is only natural since not knowing how 30% of the population would respond implies the attainment of only partial insight into whether people at large would obey. Secondly, although the viewing of the 150-Volt switch as a point of no return (Burger 2) given the responses to the original experiment seems reasonable and convincing, it still is an assumption not backed up by results. Since the purpose of the experiment was to determine whether people today would obey, the 150-Volt solution (although ethical) justified on the basis of 1965 results, does at some level defeat the purpose of the experiment. In addition, ending the experiment at this stage without reaching a point where the confederate yells in pain, does not allow the participant to experience a high level of dissonance resulting from moral conflict and emotional disturbance, and hence the results dont gauge whether the rate of obedience would be the same had there been a higher level of dissonance. Finally, in examining whether personality accounts for obedience, Burgers selection of only 2 aspects of personality (empathy and motivation to control) is disappointing. The administration of the Myers-Briggs personality test in addition to this would have produced more interesting results. One of the strengths of the experiments is the inclusion of women participants, in contrast to Milgram who had only male participants. Also, the modeled refusal condition definitely takes obedience studies to a different level, demonstrating that a single, non-dramatic example of
3 disobedience witnessed by an observer in the same situation is not sufficient motivation for him or her to disobey. Milgrams more forceful and authoritative examples of disobedience witnessed by the control group produced very different results. Hence, this modification is definitely provides deeper insight into how people may come to disobey. Thus, Burgers replication of Milgrams Experiment 5 cannot truly be called a replication since the elements it eliminates on ethical grounds were probably among the most crucial in producing the results it did. Hence, though the results from this experiment cant be used in conjunction with Milgrams in a time-study, Burgers experiment is useful in expanding insight into the nature of norm information that prevents obedience. Also, Burgers experiment is useful in directing obedience studies towards research that co-relates personality types with rates of obedience.
Works Cited Burger, M. Jerry. Replicating Miligram: Would people still obey today? American Psychologist 64.1 (2009): 1-11. Print.