A summary and evaluation of Burger, J.M. 2009 Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? This essay will offer a critical analysis of the study Replicating Milgram carried out by Jerry M. Burger looking principally at Burgers aims, meth

Authors Avatar

A summary and evaluation of Burger, J.M. 2009 Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today?

This essay will offer a critical analysis of the study ‘Replicating Milgram’ carried out by Jerry M. Burger looking principally at Burger’s aims, methods and his subsequent findings and the complexities of extending research on destructive obedience in the context of contemporary ethical guidelines. It will then go on to look what ethical issues that he addresses with regard to Stanley Milgrams’ original 1974 experiment. Furthermore the sample will be looked at, were his findings somewhat limited in size. It will ascertain whether the study replicated the original well enough to accept that obedience levels are almost the same as they were 45 years ago, and did his study have applicability?

Jerry M. Burger professor at Santa Clara University carefully designed a replication of the Stanley Milgrams obedience study carried out in 1974. He aimed for the experiment to be as close as possible to Milgrams original study while being modified so it could be fully ethically approved. He advertised for participants in local newspapers, online listing and in other community areas. Interested individuals went through a series of screening procedures in order to eliminate those who may experience a negative reaction to the experiment. (Burger, 2009) Approximately 30% of applicants were excluded during the initial screening.(Burger, 2009) The final sample consisted of seventy participants, they ranged between the ages of twenty and eighty-one, whereas Milgram limited his sample to those aged fifty or younger. The sample consisted of a more ethnically diverse group of participants all from varying ethnic backgrounds and educational levels. Volunteers were told that the experiment was looking at the effects of punishment on learning, and that they would receive $50 for participating in the experiment in contrast to the $4.50 Milgram offered. Selected individuals were informed on several times (twice in writing) that they could withdraw from the study at anytime and still receive the $50.(Burger,2009) The participant played the role of a teacher and the learner was a strooge. Participants were given a sample shock of 15v which is a very low voltage in comparison to Milgrams 45v. The learner was then strapped to a chair which was connected to a shock generator. The teacher would ask the learner questions, when answered incorrectly they administered electric shocks of increasing voltage (no real shock was administered)up to 150v as apposed to Milgrams maximum of 450v.  Burgers finding were very similar to that of Milgrams.

Join now!

Elms argued that the reason Burger did not find lower levels of obedience was because, in his efforts to get IRB approval for the study, he excluded many participants who probably would not have obeyed, they were exactly the type of people who would have disobeyed. Using 15 instead of 45volts as a sample shock could have also had a significant impact on the findings because, it may have lead people to assume that the shock generator was not really that shocking. For all these reasons, the participant who survived Burger’s double screening and who then faced the redefined shock ...

This is a preview of the whole essay