Contemporary studies
Summary
CONTEMPORARY STUDY
BURGER (2009) : Replication of Milgram’s original experiment
Despite the large time gap between Milgram and Burger’s study, and change in society’s
culture and values, this would not have a significant effect on obedience.
Adapted his research to adhere to current ethical guidelines and cause minimal pp
distress.
Aim: investigate obedience by partially replicating Milgram.s (1963) study to examine
whether situational factors affect obedience to an authoritative figure.
To see if personality variables like empathy and locus of control influence obedience.
To see if the presence of a disobedient model makes a difference to obedience levels.
Screening procedures : advertisements and flyers in local newspaper and
establishments, online, promising $50 for 2 45 min sessions.
Pps received a call from a research assistant after expressing their interest via
phone/email, who then began the screening procedure.
● If they had been college
● Took 2+ psychology lessons
, 2
Purpose to reject those who had 2+ psychology classes and were familiar with
Milgram’s study.
● Physical and psychological health
● Suffered any traumatic experiences
30 % excluded from further involvement in the study.
2nd screening process by 2 clinical psychologists at Santa Clara university campus
● Complete scales/questionnaires
● Demographic sheet about age, occupation, education, ethnicity
● Interview by clinical psychologist to assess those may be negatively affected by
study : Mini Interpersonal Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) finds psychological
disorders and identifies anyone that shouldn’t be part of study. Lasted 30 mins.
123 pps took part but 47 (38.2%) removed but gained money as advertised.
76 pps invited back a week later, but 6 dropped out with 5 aware of Milgram’s research,
leaving : 29 males and 41 females, ranging 20-81 yrs with mean of 42.9 yrs old.
Experiment 2: Modelled refusal condition
Procedure :
2 confederates : learner, teacher 1 posing as a real pp with the same gender as real pp.
Pp and confederate(learner) both given $50 told to keep it even if they chose to
withdraw from study
Real pp shown how use shock generator and given 15v sample shock
4 same verbal prods used as in Milgram’s original experiment
Drawing of lots rigged: learner and teacher 1 (both confederates), teacher 2 (real pp)
Teacher 1 began the experiment by asking questions and administering shocks, while
teacher 2 sat with them.
75v: scripted, teacher 1 hesitated after earring learner grunt (pre-recorded)
90v: teacher 1”i don’t know about this” -forming dissent
, 3
Teacher 1 prompted the experimenter but refused to continue and pushed the chair
back from the table.
Experimenter asked teacher 2 to continue.
150v:
Experiment forcibly ended if the teacher read out the next instruction after
administering 150v shock.
Experimenter immediately admitted to teacher shocks were not real; teacher
introduced to learner to ensure he was fine.
Experiment ended if the teacher was still resistant to continue after hearing the learner's
grunts and verbal prods from the experimenter.
Results: Experiment 2 = 63.3 % continued after 150v, despite confederate who withdrew
Little difference in obedience between gender
Little difference to those who stopped and those who continued with their empathy and
control scales.
Higher score on desirability of control for those reluctant to give shocks early in study
(internal LOC = resistant to compliance, authority, believe they can control their fate).
Conclusion: results similar to Milgram’s research 45 yrs ago.
Time and changes in society’s culture didn’t affect obedience nor did refusal of the
confederate had an effect on obedience.
Generalisability
Burger’s sample of 70 larger than Milgram’s sample of 40
Wider age range : Milgram 20-50 yrs old, whereas Burger 20-81 yrs old.
⅔ Burger’s sample: female, whilst Milgram’s sample: all male
All Milgram’s samples across variations added up are much more than Burger’s sample
of 70. Milgram’s did test women in variation #8.
Burger excluded lots with emotional issues or education in psychology which may have
affected results; Milgram however used a wider range of types of people.
Summary
CONTEMPORARY STUDY
BURGER (2009) : Replication of Milgram’s original experiment
Despite the large time gap between Milgram and Burger’s study, and change in society’s
culture and values, this would not have a significant effect on obedience.
Adapted his research to adhere to current ethical guidelines and cause minimal pp
distress.
Aim: investigate obedience by partially replicating Milgram.s (1963) study to examine
whether situational factors affect obedience to an authoritative figure.
To see if personality variables like empathy and locus of control influence obedience.
To see if the presence of a disobedient model makes a difference to obedience levels.
Screening procedures : advertisements and flyers in local newspaper and
establishments, online, promising $50 for 2 45 min sessions.
Pps received a call from a research assistant after expressing their interest via
phone/email, who then began the screening procedure.
● If they had been college
● Took 2+ psychology lessons
, 2
Purpose to reject those who had 2+ psychology classes and were familiar with
Milgram’s study.
● Physical and psychological health
● Suffered any traumatic experiences
30 % excluded from further involvement in the study.
2nd screening process by 2 clinical psychologists at Santa Clara university campus
● Complete scales/questionnaires
● Demographic sheet about age, occupation, education, ethnicity
● Interview by clinical psychologist to assess those may be negatively affected by
study : Mini Interpersonal Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) finds psychological
disorders and identifies anyone that shouldn’t be part of study. Lasted 30 mins.
123 pps took part but 47 (38.2%) removed but gained money as advertised.
76 pps invited back a week later, but 6 dropped out with 5 aware of Milgram’s research,
leaving : 29 males and 41 females, ranging 20-81 yrs with mean of 42.9 yrs old.
Experiment 2: Modelled refusal condition
Procedure :
2 confederates : learner, teacher 1 posing as a real pp with the same gender as real pp.
Pp and confederate(learner) both given $50 told to keep it even if they chose to
withdraw from study
Real pp shown how use shock generator and given 15v sample shock
4 same verbal prods used as in Milgram’s original experiment
Drawing of lots rigged: learner and teacher 1 (both confederates), teacher 2 (real pp)
Teacher 1 began the experiment by asking questions and administering shocks, while
teacher 2 sat with them.
75v: scripted, teacher 1 hesitated after earring learner grunt (pre-recorded)
90v: teacher 1”i don’t know about this” -forming dissent
, 3
Teacher 1 prompted the experimenter but refused to continue and pushed the chair
back from the table.
Experimenter asked teacher 2 to continue.
150v:
Experiment forcibly ended if the teacher read out the next instruction after
administering 150v shock.
Experimenter immediately admitted to teacher shocks were not real; teacher
introduced to learner to ensure he was fine.
Experiment ended if the teacher was still resistant to continue after hearing the learner's
grunts and verbal prods from the experimenter.
Results: Experiment 2 = 63.3 % continued after 150v, despite confederate who withdrew
Little difference in obedience between gender
Little difference to those who stopped and those who continued with their empathy and
control scales.
Higher score on desirability of control for those reluctant to give shocks early in study
(internal LOC = resistant to compliance, authority, believe they can control their fate).
Conclusion: results similar to Milgram’s research 45 yrs ago.
Time and changes in society’s culture didn’t affect obedience nor did refusal of the
confederate had an effect on obedience.
Generalisability
Burger’s sample of 70 larger than Milgram’s sample of 40
Wider age range : Milgram 20-50 yrs old, whereas Burger 20-81 yrs old.
⅔ Burger’s sample: female, whilst Milgram’s sample: all male
All Milgram’s samples across variations added up are much more than Burger’s sample
of 70. Milgram’s did test women in variation #8.
Burger excluded lots with emotional issues or education in psychology which may have
affected results; Milgram however used a wider range of types of people.
