Burger (2009) Replicating Milgram (Edexcel A-Level Psychology): Revision Notes
Burger (2009) Replicating Milgram
Background
In 2009, Jerry Burger undertook a partial replication of Milgram's famous 1963 obedience study, adapting it for contemporary society. The research addressed whether people would still obey authority figures when ordered to cause potential harm to others. Burger hypothesised that despite the 45-year gap and cultural changes, obedience levels would remain similar to those observed in Milgram's original work.
The replication was necessary for several reasons. Psychologists debated whether modern awareness of the consequences of blind obedience might lead people to reconsider their actions when commanded by authority figures. Additionally, Milgram's original study faced considerable ethical criticism, requiring Burger to adapt his methodology to align with current ethical guidelines whilst minimising participant distress.
Aim
To investigate obedience by partially replicating Milgram's (1963) study to examine whether situational factors affect obedience to an authoritative figure in contemporary society.
Participants
Participants were recruited through advertisements and flyers placed in local newspapers and community establishments (libraries, businesses) as well as online platforms. The advertisements offered US$50 for participation in two 45-minute sessions. After rigorous screening procedures, the final sample comprised 70 participants: 29 males and 41 females, aged 20-81 years with a mean age of 42.9 years.
Screening procedures
Burger implemented a comprehensive two-stage screening process to ensure ethical standards and exclude individuals who might be negatively affected by the study experience.
Stage one: Initial screening
Individuals who responded to the advertisements received a telephone call from a research assistant who conducted preliminary screening. The assistant asked whether participants had attended college and whether they had taken psychology lessons. This aimed to reject individuals with two or more psychology classes who might be familiar with Milgram's original study. Participants were also questioned about their physical and psychological health, including whether they had experienced any traumatic childhood experiences.
Following this initial stage, approximately 30% of potential participants were excluded from further involvement, demonstrating the rigorous nature of the screening process.
Stage two: In-person screening
The remaining participants attended a second screening session led by two clinical psychologists at Santa Clara University campus. This stage required completion of several psychological assessment tools.
Questionnaires administered:
- The Interpersonal Reactivity Index: A 28-item scale designed to analyse empathy levels
- The Beck Anxiety Inventory: A 21-item scale allowing individuals to rate their anxiety levels against 21 different anxiety symptoms
- The Desirability of Control Scale: A 20-item scale measuring individuals' impressions of themselves regarding self-control of their lives
- The Beck Depression Inventory: A 21-item scale designed to assess the severity of depression in individuals
Additionally, participants completed a demographic sheet requesting information about age, occupation, education and ethnicity.
Following completion of the questionnaires, participants were interviewed by a clinical psychologist to identify anyone who should not participate in the study. The interview followed the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) procedure, which examines psychological disorders. Each interview lasted approximately 30 minutes.
In total, 123 individuals participated in the second screening stage. Of these, 47 participants (38.2%) were removed from continuing with the study but received their advertised payment. Their specific reasons for exclusion remain unknown due to confidentiality agreements. A week later, 76 individuals were invited to return, but six withdrew at this point (five expressed awareness of Milgram's research during the second session), leaving the final sample of 70 participants.
Procedure
Experiment one – Baseline condition
Participants were divided into two groups, with attempts made to maintain equal gender ratios. Upon arrival, each participant met the experimenter and a confederate. Both the experimenter and confederate were selected due to their resemblance to those in Milgram's original study. Participants and confederates received US$50 and were instructed to retain this payment even if they withdrew from the study.
Burger employed a similar script to Milgram's original procedure, explaining the study's purpose and the use of an electric generator. As in Milgram's research, role assignment was rigged: the confederate always received the learner role whilst the participant became the teacher. Both parties then signed consent forms.
The setup mirrored Milgram's arrangement: the learner (confederate) was placed in an adjoining room whilst the teacher (participant) remained before the electric generator. The teacher was asked to join the experimenter whilst preparing the learner. The participant witnessed the experimenter placing an electrode onto the learner's left wrist, sealing it with paste and explaining that it would 'provide a good contact to prevent blisters or burns'.
Following Milgram's procedure, the teacher was instructed to read aloud a list of 25 word pairs. The teacher was informed that if the learner failed to remember the word pair after being given the first word in the pair correctly, an electric shock should be administered using the generator positioned before them. Each incorrect answer resulted in a progressively stronger shock. At this point, the confederate revealed a heart problem detected during a hospital visit.
The learner received instruction on using the electric shock generator and was given a 15-volt sample shock. Burger's study employed the same four verbal prods from Milgram's research. Pre-recorded voice feedback grunts from the learner were audible from the 75-volt shock level.
At 150 volts, the recording stated: 'Ugh. That's all. Get me out of here. I told you I had heart trouble. My heart's starting to bother me now. Get me out of here, please. My heart's starting to bother me. I refuse to go on. Let me out.'
The 150-volt stopping point:
Following this point, if the teacher showed resistance to continuing after the experimenter used the verbal prods, the experiment was terminated. The experiment also ended forcibly at the point where the teacher read out the next instruction following administration of the 150-volt shock. This represented a key ethical modification from Milgram's original study, which allowed participants to continue to maximum voltage.
Upon completing the experiment, the experimenter immediately informed the teacher that the shocks were not genuine and introduced them to the learner to confirm they were unharmed.
Experiment two – Modelled refusal condition
This variation maintained the same procedure as the baseline condition with several modifications. Two confederates participated instead of one. The second confederate acted as another participant with the same gender as the actual participant. Role assignment was rigged so that the drawing resulted in a learner (confederate), Teacher 1 (confederate of the study) and Teacher 2 (the real participant).
Teacher 1 assumed the lead role and commenced the procedure, asking the questions and administering shocks whilst Teacher 2 sat beside them. At 75 volts (as scripted), Teacher 1 hesitated after hearing the learner grunt, and at 90 volts Teacher 1 stated 'I don't know about this'. Teacher 1 was prompted by the experimenter but refused to continue and pushed their chair back from the table. The experimenter would then request Teacher 2 (the real participant) to continue.
Results
| Number (%) of participants who stopped | Male | Female | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Experiment one – Baseline condition | |||
| Stopped at 150 volts or earlier | 6 (33.3) | 6 (27.3) | |
| Went to continue after 150 volts | 12 (66.7) | 16 (72.7) | 28 (70.0) |
| Experiment two – Modelled refusal condition | |||
| Stopped at 150 volts or earlier | 5 (45.5) | 6 (31.6) | |
| Went to continue after 150 volts | 6 (54.5) | 13 (68.4) | 19 (63.3) |
In the baseline condition (Experiment one), 70% of participants were stopped before attempting to continue past 150 volts. This rate was slightly lower than Milgram's 82.5% who continued to maximum voltage.
In the modelled refusal condition (Experiment two), 63.3% of participants continued past 150 volts despite witnessing a confederate withdraw. The results were comparable to the baseline condition.
Gender and personality factors:
Gender differences in obedience levels were minimal across both experiments. The point at which male and female participants required the first prod was also similar. Burger compared the results with screening test scores relating to empathy and control. Little difference emerged between participants who stopped and those who continued regarding their corresponding empathy and control scores. However, those who demonstrated reluctance to administer shocks early in the procedure scored higher on desirability for control in the baseline condition. No difference was observed when comparing the modelled refusal condition and baseline condition to personality scores.
Conclusion
Results from both experimental conditions demonstrated similar obedience levels to those found in Milgram's research conducted over 45 years earlier. Time and changes in society's culture did not affect obedience levels, nor did the refusal of a confederate.
Evaluation
Strengths
Ethical improvements: Burger acknowledged the ethical concerns associated with Milgram's original experiments and implemented several measures to ensure participant well-being. The screening process was rigorous to ensure that individuals deemed unsuitable were not used. Participants received three notifications before the experiment that they could leave without consequence, making certain they understood their right to withdraw.
Additional ethical considerations included:
- Participants received only a 15-volt sample shock rather than the 45 volts given in Milgram's study
- The experimenter was a clinical psychologist instructed to stop the experiment if excessive stress was detected during the procedure
- Participants were immediately debriefed following the experiment to alleviate any distress or anxiety caused
Diverse sample: Compared to Milgram, Burger recruited a more diverse sample regarding ages and ethnicities, enhancing the findings' generalisability. The age range (20-81 years) and mixed gender composition provide a broader representation than Milgram's original male-only sample.
Weaknesses
Partial replication limitations: Burger only partially replicated Milgram's study because he did not permit participants to exceed the 150-volt level due to ethical concerns about experiencing greater distress beyond this point (as observed in Milgram's study). This represents an ethical strength but creates an interpretative limitation.
The key limitation:
It can only be assumed that participants would have continued to obey after 150 volts, as the experiment terminated at this point. This assumption was based on the observation that the majority of Milgram's participants continued once they had reached this seemingly 'point of no return'. However, certainty is absent regarding whether participants involved in Burger's study would have continued to obey.
Lack of mundane realism: Despite ethical considerations, participants were deliberately placed in a situation designed to cause anxiety, and the verbal prods used by the experimenter effectively removed any previously established right to withdraw, even if only temporarily. Laboratory research demanding obedience to shock another person based on a word-pair association task differs substantially from real-life obedience, which can be a commonplace experience (complying with a teacher's or parent's request). Therefore, this research lacks mundane realism.
The artificial nature of the task means findings about obedience may not generalise to the complex factors involved in real-world atrocities committed throughout history.
Generalisability concerns: Similar to Milgram's research, caution should be maintained when generalising the findings from laboratory research to the real world, particularly regarding atrocities that have been committed throughout history, which involve considerably more complex factors than blind obedience to authority.
Remember!
Key Points to Remember:
-
Burger's 2009 replication found that 70% of participants were stopped before continuing past 150 volts, demonstrating that obedience levels remained similar to Milgram's findings from 1963 despite 45 years of societal change.
-
The study implemented rigorous ethical safeguards including two-stage screening, multiple withdrawal opportunities, lower shock voltage (15V vs 45V), and immediate debriefing with a clinical psychologist present.
-
Two experimental conditions were tested: baseline (replicating Milgram) and modelled refusal (where a confederate withdrew), with both producing similar obedience rates.
-
The study's main limitation is that it represents a partial replication – stopping at 150 volts means we cannot confirm whether participants would have continued to maximum voltage like in Milgram's original study.
-
The research demonstrates limited mundane realism as laboratory-based obedience to shock someone differs substantially from everyday obedience situations, limiting generalisability to real-world contexts.