Download 1 Social Psychology A review of J.M Burger`s 2006 Replication of

1
Social Psychology
A review of J.M Burger’s 2006 Replication of the Milgram’s Experiment 5:
In 2006, Jerry M. Burger conducted a replication of Milgram’s Experiment 5 to assess
whether the rate of obedience by participants’ to the experimenter’s direction to administer
electrical shocks to the confederate would be as high as it was in the 1960’s, when Milgram
conducted his experiment. Given the constraints imposed by the ethical concerns that Milgram’s
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 Milgram’s 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 Burger’s 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 Milgram’s entailed, it seems unlikely that the results were not be
influenced by these improvisations, which leads one to suspect whether the results are truly
2
comparable with the results of Milgram’s original experiment. The initial screening process
excluded 30% of the 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 don’t 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, Burger’s 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
3
obedience studies to a different level, demonstrating that a single, non-dramatic example of
disobedience witnessed by an observer in the same situation is not sufficient motivation for him
or her to disobey. Milgram’s more forceful and authoritative examples of disobedience witnessed
by the control group produced very different results. Hence, this modification definitely provides
deeper insight into how people may come to disobey.
Thus, Burger’s replication of Milgram’s 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 can’t be used in
conjunction with Milgram’s in a time-study, Burger’s experiment is useful in expanding insight
into the nature of norm information that prevents obedience. Also, Burger’s 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.