contemporary study: replicating milgram: would people still obey today? (Burger, 2009)

Question 1

background

Answer 1

• Burger wanted to see if people would still obey an authority figure today
• responded to claims that people are now more aware of the dangers of blind obedience
• believed his study would show similar levels of obedience to Milgram’s
• thought cultural and societal changes since the 1960s would not significantly affect obedience

Question 2

aims

Answer 2

• to investigate obedience by partially replicating Milgram’s 1963 study
• to examine whether situational factors affect obedience to an authoritative figure

Question 3

procedure (screening)

Answer 3

• ppts responded via ads, flyers phone or email
• ad offered $49 for 2 x 45 min sessions
• initial screening:
• asked about college experience and psychology knowledge (to screen out those familiar with Milgram)
• asked about physical and mental health, including traumatic childhood experiences
• 30% excluded at this stage
• second screening:
• done by 2 clin psychologists at Santa Clara University
• completed questionnaires (age, job, education, ethnicity)
• 30-minute interview assessed for psychological disorders or vulnerability
• 123 interviewed, 47 excluded (reasons confidential)
• 76 invited back, 6 dropped out (5 aware of Milgram)
• final sample:
• 70 ppts
• 29 males, 41 females
• ages 20-81, mean age: 42.9

Question 4

procedure (exp 1: baseline condition)

Answer 4

• ppts split into 2 equal groups (equal male/female ratios)
• met the exp’er and confederate
• both given $50 and told they’d keep it even if they withdrew
• script similar to Milgram’s explained shock generator
• role assigned was rigged:
  
  • confederate = learner
  • ppt = teacher
• both signed consent forms
• learner placed in adjacent room
• ppt saw electrode attached to learner’s wrist
• Milgram’s procedure followed:
  
  • teacher read 25 word pairs
  • wrong answers = shock administered
  • shocks increased with each error
  • learner claimed to have a heart condition
  • teacher given a 15v sample shock
• pre-recorded learner responses played:
  
  • grunts at 75v
  • at 150v
    
    • “Urgh. That’s all. Get me out of here. I told you I had a heart trouble. My hearts starting to bother me now. Get me out of here, please. My hearts starting to bother me. I refuse to go on. Let me out.”
• if teacher resisted, the exp ended
• exp was forcibly stopped at 150v
• immediate debrief:
  
  • told shocks weren’t real
  • met the learner (confederate)

Question 5

procedure (experiment 2: modelled refusal condition)

Answer 5

• same overall procedure, with some changes
• 2 confederates instead of 1
• roles were rigged:
  
  • learner = confederate
  • teacher 1 = confederate
  • teacher 2 = real ppt
• teacher 1 asked questions and gave shocks
  
  • teacher 2 sat with them
• at 75v, teacher 1 hesitated after hearing learner’s grunt
• at 90v, teacher 1 said:
  
  • “I don’t know about this”
• exp’er promoted teacher 1 to continue
  
  • teacher 1 refused
• exp’er then asked teacher 2 (real ppt) to continue

Question 6

results

Answer 6

• exp 1:
  
  • 70% of ppts had to be stopped before continuing past 150v
• exp 2
  
  • 63.3% were willing to continue after 150v
  • similar to baseline results, despite teacher 1’s refusal
• gender differences:
  
  • little difference between males and females
  • first verbal prod needed at similar point for both genders

Question 7

conclusions

Answer 7

• time and societal changes had no significant effect on obedience levels
• refusal of confederate (teacher 1) also didn’t reduce obedience
• Burger’s results were very similar to Milgram’s 1960s findings

Question 8

strengths generalisability

Answer 8

• ppts consisted of both male and female
• they had a huge age range, going from 20 to 81
  
  • representative sample