Replicating Milgram by Jerry M. Burger

Replicating Milgram by Jerry M. Burger

In the original study, Stanley Milgram sought to establish the obedience levels between men and women. The author partially replicates the original study to determine the obedience rate in a set of participants. The obedience studies allowed the author to obtain useful comparisons with the original investigations without compromising the well-being of the participants. The studies featured seventy participants who featured in the partial recreation of Milgram’s Experiment to the extent they first heard the learner’s verbal protests. The author integrates estimates to determine the outcome of the current participants in a situation the experiment proceeded. The results indicate reduced obedience rates in the 2006 replication studies as opposed to the original investigation. Contrary to the expected results, the participants who witnessed the Confederate reject the experimenter’s instructions had the same obedience rates as those who did not see the model (Burger 1). There were no differences in the obedience rates of women and men although evidence showed the differential influence of empathy and desire for control on the responses. This paper will entail a comprehensive summary of Burger’s study replicating the original Milgram experiment. 

Stanley Milgram’s studies provided popular conceptions in the psychological field. The references to the studies and investigations remain evident in popular media such as movies and songs. Psychology textbooks recognize and incorporate the concepts that Milgram derived from the experiments. The lack of a theoretical model in the demonstrations rather than experiments obstructed Milgram’s attempts to publish the initial findings of his studies. However, the extremity involving the use of electric shocks on participants ensure the relevance of the research over the decades. Milgram’s Experiment 5 is the most popular investigation among psychologists although he developed numerous variations of the basic procedure (Burger2). 

In Experiment 5, a participant and a confederate were informed that the study involved the impacts of punishment on learning. It incorporated a deception where the participant took the role of the teacher while the confederate was always ascribed the role of the learner. The participant viewed as the experimenter strapped the learner to a chair in the next room and connected electrodes to the learner’s arm. The participant was assigned the task of administering a paired-associate learning test to the strapped learner through an intercom system. Answer lights operated with the press of a button indicated the learner’s responses. Participants administered an electric shock to the learner for incorrect answers through the shock generator. The labels on the machine indicated the shock intensity and the participants were instructed to increase the voltage level for each successive wrong answer (Burger 2). 

The deception in Experiment 5 involved the notion that the learner received shocks although the learner did not experience shocks in reality. The learner, however, gave many incorrect answers and this required the participant to increase the voltage level when administering the shocks. The learner cried in protest at the point of the administration of the 150-volt punishment. The participant heard the learner through the wall protest the excessive pain experienced. The learner demanded the stoppage of the experiment after each shock because of the pain. After the 300-volt, no response came from the learner, and the experimenter informed the participant to consider it as a wrong answer and administer the shock. The lack of response after the 330-volt shock implied the learner lost consciousness, therefore, losing the ability to respond despite the electric shock (Burger3). 

The dependent variable in the study includes the point the participant refused to obey the experimenter. The experimenter sat within range and motivated the participant to continue administering electric shocks at each verbal or nonverbal indicator of resistance (Burger 4). The study continued until the participant showed resistance to each of the four increasingly demanding prods that the experimenter gave or the participant pressed the highest shock administration three times. The disconcerting finding in the experiment was that sixty-five percent of the participants continued to administer electric shocks to the highest voltage. They did not express resistance and disobey the experimenter. 

In his replication of Milgram’s Experiment 5, Burger takes into consideration the ethical concerns that emerged from the original experiment. Critics of the nature of the experiment argued that it could contribute to the short-term distress and long-term harm to the participants. However, Milgram presented a questionnaire in his defense that showed a majority of the participants appreciated the study, and he further recommended such studies to psychologists. Burger uses reasonable estimates in his replication to adhere to ethical stipulations in research. 

The knowledgeable of the participants’ response to the 150-volt point allows the experimenter to make reasonable estimates of the expected proceedings of the investigation. The decision to stop the participants within seconds after they make a choice ensures they are not exposed to the intense stress that Milgram’s participants experienced during the procedure (Burger 4). Additional safeguards the Burger incorporates in the replicate of Milgram’s experiment include screening the participants for the potential negative reaction before the experiment. The participants were also informed that they could withdraw from the experiment and receive compensation. The use of reduced voltage levels as opposed to Milgram’s extreme voltages constituted another safeguard in the experiment. 

Burger’s replicate of Milgram’s Experiment 5 hypothesizes minimal differences in the obedience levels of the 2006 participants and the 1961-1962 participants. He affirms that people argue that people in current times are more aware of the perils of blindly following authority without questions than they were during the 1960s (Burger 6). However, research does not provide evidence of the change in obedience over time from Milgram’s procedures. Burger argues that the conception of changes in obedience level constitutes an example of the attribution error. In his experiment, Burger acknowledges that the participants’ knowledge on obedience studies would affect the outcome. He, therefore, emphasizes the degree of ambiguity about suitable behavior among the participants in the study. He takes into consideration the effect of the limited norm information on the reaction of the participants. Burger sought to examine the reaction of the participants to the modeled refusal before the psychoanalysis of questionable behavior. 

Gender differences include a deviation of Burger’s replicate of Milgram’s original investigations. The original studies almost exclusively featured male participants. Despite the gender differences in the studies, the outcome remained the same and sixty-five percent of the women complied with the commands of the experimenter. However, women exhibited high levels of empathy during the procedure and reported increased nervousness than male participants. The effect of personality on the obedience study is another aspect that Burger takes into consideration. Disposition empathy includes one of the personality attributes affecting the outcome. Participants with a greater empathy for the leaner’s suffering than the desire to obey the experimenter refused to continue. Burger also examines the individual differences in the degree of motivation to control the events. He speculated that individuals willing to exercise accountability for their actions had an increased likelihood of disobeying the experimenter (Burger 6). 

In his study, Burger recruits participants who responded to advertisements and flyers. They are subjected to several screening procedures that lead to the final sample of twenty-nine men and forty-one women. The interested participants were informed that they would receive $50 for two forty-five minutes sessions. They were also requested to provide personal information including names and telephone numbers through a phone call or email address for the study. A research assistant conducted the initial screening through the phone. The participants were questioned about their educational level and attendance of psychology classes to determine their familiarity with Milgram’s obedience research. The individuals familiar with the research were excluded from the study. The screening procedure further assessed the psychological status of the participants to determine their suitability for the study. An estimated thirty percent of the people who responded to the ads were excluded in the initial screening (Burger 7). 

Participants who succeeded in the first screening attended the second screening session that involved the completion of a series of scales. The scales included a demographic sheet addressing age, occupation, education, and ethnicity. The screening integrated the Interpersonal Reactivity Index, Beck Anxiety Inventory, Desirability of Control Scale and the Beck Depression Inventory. The Interpersonal Reactivity Index constitutes a 28-item self-report inventory that measures dispositional empathy. Jerry Burger was interested in the Empathic Concern Subscale that provides a measure of the tendency to experience emotions of sympathy and compassion for people in unfortunate circumstances. The Beck Anxiety Inventory measures the severity of anxiety while the Desirability of Control Scale assesses the degree of motivation to control one’s life. The Beck Depression Inventory allows a self-assessment of the severity of depression (Burger 7). 

The screening process further featured an interview of the participants with a clinical psychologist. The research assistant escorted the participants to the psychologist after the completion of the scales. The psychologist was instructed to prioritize caution in the process of identifying participants who might have a negative reaction to their participation in the study. The psychologist used responses to both the scales and a semi-structured interview to provide the assessment. The interview was based on an assessment of twenty-two categories of psychological disorders. Forty-seven participants were excluded in the second screening process from a total of one hundred and twenty-three people (Burger 7). 

In the next step, the remaining participants were assigned base conditions. The researcher ensured the equality of the gender ratios. They were introduced to the experimenter and later to the Confederate. In the introduction, the experimenter offered the participant and the confederate $50 for compensation purposes although they had the option to withdraw from the study at their wish. The experimenter informed the participants about the study using a script from Milgram’s study and their roles in the study. After the Confederate and participant had given their consent, they assumed their positions as Milgram prescribes in his studies. The experimenter provided instructions to the participant on the use of the electric shock generator. 

The procedure followed Milgram’s investigations with a few exceptions. The experimenter was expected to stop the study after the participant either expressed refusal after hearing the prods or read the consequent item on the test after the 150-volt switch. The participants stopped the study after pressing the 150-volt switch. After the end of the study, the experimenter informed the participants that the shock generator was not real and the confederate did not receive shocks (Burger 8). Burger also tested the modeled refusal condition following the same procedure with some modifications. 

The examination of the percentage of participants who proceeded after pressing the 150-volt provided the results of the study. According to the tabulated results, seventy percent of the base condition participants attempted to continue with the next item on the test, and the experimenter had to intervene and stop them. The rate is slightly lower than the participants who continued beyond that point in the original study. However, the difference was not substantial to reach statistical significance. However, contrary to expected results, the percentage of participants in the modeled refusal who proceeded past the 150-volt mark was not significantly different from the base condition(Burger 8). 

The dependent variables in the study include the participants who stopped or continued beyond the 150-volt mark. Burger also evaluates the point in the procedure when the participants received the first prod. At this point, the participants first expressed concern about continuing with the procedure. The participants were given a value 1 to 12 depending on the last switch pressed before the prod. The results show that experimenter gave participants in the base condition (m=7.65) a prod significantly earlier than the participants assigned to the modeled refusal condition (m=9.56). A difference in the modeled refusal includes the fact that the participants did not have the opportunity to express their hesitation until after the 90-volt switch. The results also show that the participants who refused to progress scored lower first-prod scores compared to those who proceeded until the experimenter intervened (Burger9). 

The results also show the insignificant differences in the rates of obedience between men and women. However, women were more likely to proceed to the base and modeled refusal conditions than men. There was also little difference between the first prod score for the men and women in the study. The evaluation of the test results for the influence of personality traits on the rates of obedience did not reveal significant differences. The comparison of the excluded participants and those who participated in the experimented did not reveal substantial gender differences. Variables such as ethnicity did not influence the outcome of the study. According to the findings in Burger’s replicate Milgram study, the obedience rates were similar for the refusal model and base condition in all groups. 

In his discussion part of the study, Burger affirms that the partial replication of Milgram’s study shows that Americans will have a similar reaction to the study the same way they reacted forty-five years ago. Despite the influence of societal attitudes on behavior, the findings suggest that similar factors that affected obedience in Milgram’s participants remain in operation. Although the modifications in Burger’s experiments allowed the participants to resist authority, the outcome is similar to the findings of Milgram’s research. Another loophole includes the fact that the participants were aware that the confederate had a similar assurance and could stop the experiment at their wish. Although such loopholes existed in the current study, the results of the two findings were similar. 

Burger’s replicate of Milgram’s study incorporates estimates to avoid ethical violations. In the experiment, the participants do not continue and reach the extremes evident in Milgram’s original study. Burger admits that the current participants might have given different results in the complete Milgram research that maximizes the voltage of the shock generator’s range. He argues that a complete replication of Milgram’s procedure can allow such unequivocal conclusions rather than the partial replication study. Despite this fact, numerous research studies have shown the impact of incrementally large prods. Such studies support the assumptions that participants who progressed beyond the 150-volt mark would have reached the 450-volt switch. It is unlikely for participants to suddenly change their behavior during the procedure because of consistency needs and self-perception processes (Burger 10). 

According to Burger’s anticipation, the participants would have reduced obedience after witnessing another participant refuse to continue. In the base condition, the participants depended on the behavior of the experimenter to determine the appropriateness of the procedure. However, the modeled refusal condition reveals to participants that discontinuation was the preferable option and refusing to continue did not have negative consequences. The exposure of a participant to another person model refusal did not have an effect on the obedience rate in the current study. Burger interprets the high level of obedience in the modeled refusal state as proof of the power of situational forces that compel participants to follow the experimenter’s instructions. An indication or suggestion of normative behavior does not have a noticeable effect on the participant’s behavior(Burger 11). 

Burger infers from the study the absence of evidence to support gender differences in obedience. In the past, researchers have hypothesized the tendency for women to empathize with the learner’s suffering will be offset by their predisposition to have reduced assertiveness than men when refusing the experimenter. Burger speculates the evidence of that hypothesis in the current study. However, the finding may reflect the inclination of situational variables to surpass individual settings in the environment. Although some evidence suggested the effect of personality traits on the participant’s reaction, the inconsistency of the data compromises the conclusion (Burger11). The results indicate that participants with high levels of empathy expressed early reluctance to continue with the experiment. Overall, the dynamics between personality and obedience are speculative although personality traits influence the response of a participant (Blass 23). 

In conclusion, Jerry M. Burger’s replication of Milgram’s obedience research offers a perspective on human behavior. It is logical to speculate that changes in societal attitudes since the 1960s would contribute to a different study outcome. However, results show that individuals would choose to obey in the research (Blass 25). Despite gender differences, personality traits, and Norm information, the participants react in a similar manner. The study shows the inclination of people to follow authority figures regardless of the implications including morality. The findings prove the intrinsic obedient nature of individuals. 

Work Cited

Burger, Jerry M. "Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today?." American Psychologist 64.1 (2009): 1.

Blass, Thomas. "Understanding behavior in the Milgram obedience experiment: The role of personality, situations, and their interactions." Journal of personality and social psychology 60.3 (1991): 398.