Introduction to Burger's (2009) study

Burger's 2009 study is a contemporary replication of Stanley Milgram's famous 1963 experiment on obedience to authority. Obedience refers to the act of following orders from someone perceived to have authority, even if those orders conflict with personal morals. Burger aimed to investigate whether obedience levels had changed over nearly 50 years, while addressing ethical concerns from Milgram's original work.

Aims of the study

Burger designed his experiment to update and refine Milgram's research on obedience. By replicating key elements, he sought to determine if modern participants would show similar levels of compliance. The study also explored how ethical adjustments might affect outcomes, while testing specific hypotheses about social and individual factors.

Key aims

• Replication of Milgram's findings - To check if obedience rates remain high almost 50 years later, despite societal changes.
• Impact of modelled refusal - To observe whether seeing another person refuse to continue influences a participant's own obedience, using this as a reference for normative behaviour (how people look to others to guide their actions).
• Gender differences - To investigate if men and women differ in their obedience levels.
• Personality differences - To explore whether individual traits affect how people respond to authority in this setting.
• Ethical improvements - To conduct the study more humanely, avoiding the intense distress seen in Milgram's work.

Participants and method

Burger recruited participants through advertisements in a local newspaper, attracting a diverse group to ensure the findings could generalise to average Americans. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions (base condition and moral refusal condition).

The method followed an experimental design, closely mirroring Milgram's script but with ethical limits. A confederate posed as the learner, and pre-recorded responses simulated errors in a word-pair memory task. This setup tested obedience by seeing if participants would administer what they believed were increasingly painful shocks.

Ethical safeguards

Before starting, participants received a mild 15-volt sample shock (with consent) to demonstrate the equipment's reality without causing harm. The experiment stopped at 150 volts to prevent distress, unlike Milgram's which went up to 450 volts.

Procedure in the base condition

In the base condition, participants acted as the "teacher" in a supposed learning experiment. This setup replicated Milgram's procedure to allow direct comparisons, while incorporating ethical stops.

Steps in the base condition procedure

1. Introduction and setup - Participants arrived at the lab and met a research assistant and the experimenter. A minute later, a white male in his 50s entered the room (the confederate).
2. Task explanation - The task was explained: the teacher (participant) would read 25 word-pairs to the confederate (learner), who would need to try to remember them. The teacher would then test the learner's memory, and an incorrect answer would result in an electric shock, continuing until all 25 word-pairs were learned.
3. Shock administration - Responses were pre-recorded, ensuring consistent errors.
4. Stopping point and debrief - No participant proceeded beyond 150 volts. The experiment ended immediately, followed by a full debrief where participants met the unharmed confederate.

Modelled refusal condition

The modelled refusal condition introduced a social influence element by adding a second confederate who demonstrated refusal. This tested whether observing defiance would reduce obedience, providing a norm for resistance.

Variations from the base condition

• Additional confederate - Two confederates were used. One was the same man who played the learner in the base condition. The other confederate, also posing as a participant, was of the same gender as the real participant (white Caucasian woman in her late 20s or a white Caucasian male in his mid-30s).
• Role assignment - The draw was rigged so that the real participant was Teacher 2 and the new confederate was Teacher 1.
• Setup and initial steps - Both "teachers" watched the learner being strapped in and were given the sample shock. They sat next to each other in front of the generator with the participant on the right.
• Refusal demonstration - Teacher 1 began the procedure by reading the words and pressing the switches. The confederate showed no signs of hesitation until reaching 75 volts. The confederate paused before continuing and after the 90-volt switch said, 'I don't know about this', while the experimenter used the prod 'Please continue'. The confederate then paused for a few seconds and said, 'I don't think I can do this'.
• Shift to participant - The experimenter then focused on the real participant instead, asking them to continue with the test.

Results

Burger's results provided quantitative data on obedience levels, compared across conditions and with Milgram's original study. Obedience was measured by whether participants continued past 150 volts, the point where the learner first protested strongly.

Obedience rates

• Base condition - 70% of participants obeyed beyond 150 volts, similar to Milgram's 82.5%.
• Modelled refusal - 63.3% continued, showing little reduction in obedience despite the example of refusal.
• Gender and personality - No significant differences were found between men and women, or based on personality traits like empathy.

Conclusions and evaluation

Burger drew several insights from the study, emphasising the enduring nature of obedience. These conclusions connect back to the aims, highlighting implications for understanding human behaviour.

Conclusions

• Persistence of obedience - People today respond similarly to authority as in the 1960s, indicating that the same situational factors that affected obedience then still apply.
• Limited impact of modelled refusal - Seeing someone refuse did not significantly reduce obedience, underscoring the strength of authority pressures over social norms.
• No gender or personality effects - The failure to find gender differences may reflect the power of situational variables in this setting to override individual differences (such as women's tendency to be more concerned about the learner's plight). Alternatively, women's greater concern for others may have been weaker than their ability to stand up to the experimenter (compared to men).