Burger (2009)

Outline

Aim(s)

• To undertake conducted a partial replication of Milgram’s (1963, 1965, 1974) obedience studies that allow for useful comparisons with the original investigations.

• To be able to protect the well-being of participants with greater ethical considerations.

• To investigate if participants today would still obey an authority figure.
  

Procedure

Individuals were recruited through advertisements and flyers and the message in these replicated Milgram’s recruitment notices. Participants were promised $50 for two 45-min sessions.

The respondents to the adverts went through a series of screening procedures. They were asked if they had been to college and if they had taken any psychology classes to screen out individuals who might be familiar with Milgram’s research. People who had taken more than two psychology classes were excluded from the study.

A series of questions that were questions were created by two clinical psychologists was also included in the first screening process. Burger excluded anyone who answered yes to any of the questions.

A second screening session was held on the Santa Clara University campus. Respondents were given a series of clinical psychology inventories to complete. Then the respondent was interviewed by a licensed clinical psychologist. The psychologist used responses on the anxiety and depression inventories along with responses to a semi-structured interview to assess the respondents. 123 people participated in second screening and 47 (38.2%) were excluded from the study by the clinical psychologist.

76 participants were scheduled for a second on-campus session. Six of these participants were dropped from the study. One did not return for the second session, and five expressed awareness of Milgram’s obedience research.

The final sample was 29 men and 41 women. Participants’ ages ranged from 20 to 81 years, and the mean age was 42.9 years.

Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions but an attempt was made to keep the gender ratios in the conditions equal. Participants assigned to the base condition were introduced to the experimenter - a White Caucasian man in his mid-30s. A research assistant then escorted the confederate into the lab room - a White Caucasian male in his 50s. Both were selected because of their resemblance to the experimenter and confederate used by Milgram.

The experimenter gave the participant and confederate a $50 bill for their participation and said the money was theirs to keep even if they chose to end their participation at any time.

A script taken largely from the one used by Milgram was used. It was explained that the research about the effects of punishment on learning. Participants were informed that one would play the role of teacher and one, the role of learner. Role would be decided through a random drawing, which was rigged so that the participant was always the teacher.

A consent form informed participants that they could end their participation at any time and keep their money and that they might be videotaped during the study.

The participant stood a few feet away while the experimenter secured the confederate’s arms to wooden armrests with nylon straps “to prevent excessive movement during the experiment.” He also attached an electrode and added electrode to “provide a good contact to prevent blisters or burns.”

The confederate was told to try to remember 25 word pairs (e.g., strong–arm) (which were identical to Milgram’s) and that the experimenter would read the first word in each pair followed by four other words, they should indicate by pressing one of four buttons which of the words was paired with the word on the original list. Incorrect answers would result in an electric shock and the test would continue until all 25 word pairs were learned.

At this point, the confederate said they had a heart condition and the experimenter told them “While the shocks may be painful, they’re not dangerous.”

The participant was seated in front of a shock generator in another room. As in Milgram’s studies, the experimenter gave the participant a sample shock if the participant agreed (only two declined). It was explained that if the learner gave a wrong answer then the participant was to say “wrong” and tell them the number of volts they were going to administer. Each time the learner gave a wrong answer, the participant was instructed to move up one switch on the shock generator. They were told “It’s important that you follow the procedure exactly.”

After participants pressed the 75- volt switch, they heard a small grunt. This was then heard after each successive shock, and each was a little louder than the previous one. When the participant pressed the 150-volt switch, the confederate yelled through the wall, “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.”

If the participant hesitated , the experimenter gave one of four prods, in this order:

• “Please continue” or “Please go on”

• “The experiment requires that you continue”

• “It is absolutely essential that you continue”

• “You have no other choice, you must continue”

If the participant continued to express reluctance after the fourth prod, the experimenter ended the study. No participant could press any more switches after the 150-volt switch. As soon as the study was over, the participant was told that the shock generator was not real and the learner was not receiving electric shocks.

The confederate entered the lab room to assure the participant that he was fine. The participant was escorted to a nearby room, where a thorough debriefing took place.

Participants assigned to the modelled refusal condition went through the same procedures as participants in the base condition, with a few exceptions.

• Two confederates were used. One was the same man who played the learner in the base condition. The other posed as a participant and was the same gender as the real participant.

• Both teachers watched the learner being strapped into the chair.

• The confederate participant started pressing the electric shock buttons first.

The confederate participant showed no signs of hesitation until hearing the learner after the 75-volts. At that point, the confederate paused for a few seconds before continuing. After pressing the 90-volt switch and hearing the response they said, “I don’t know about this.” The experimenter responded with his initial prod, “Please continue.”

The confederate participant paused, then said, “I don’t think I can do this,” and pushed his or her chair a few inches back from the table. The real participant was then asked to continue the test, picking up where the other teacher had left off. The confederate participant then sat silently and avoided eye contact with the participant.

Results

70% of the base condition participants continued with the next item on the test and had to be stopped by the experimenter.

63.3% of participants in the modelled refusal condition continued past the 150-volt point, which was not significantly different from the base condition. Table 1 shows a comparison between the two conditions in Burger’s study and Milgram’s experiment five.