Burger's Replication of Milgram's Obedience Study: Methods & Ethics

Introduction to Milgram and Burger's Replication

Stanley Milgram's groundbreaking psychological experiments on obedience remain famous not just because of what they revealed about human behavior, but also because of how they drew attention to the need for more robust ethical codes in psychological research. Burger (2009) replicates Milgram's most famous obedience studies in "Replicating Milgram," tweaking the methodology to ensure ethical treatment of research participants. The Burger (2009) experiment therefore uses slightly different experimental approaches. Experimental approaches "have long been a mainstay of the natural science disciplines," and the "value and applicability of these approaches is relatively new to research examining the psychological, political, and economic dimensions of human life online" (Oxford Internet Institute, 2017, p. 1). No non-experimental approaches were used in either the original Milgram study or the Burger (2009) replication.

Hypotheses, Variables, and Experimental Design

The Milgram experiments were so groundbreaking as to lead to new theory development in behavioral and social psychology. Milgram worked with the hypothesis that obedience is a function of authority; people are more likely to obey orders "when that person's authority is seen as legitimate" (Burger, 2009, p. 3). In other words, the researchers predicted that the perceived legitimacy of authority determines obedience. Obedience, the dependent variable, was operationalized quantitatively—via measuring the participant's response to the order to deliver an electric shock. However, Burger (2009) claims that the primary dependent variable is not obedience itself but "the point in the procedure at which the participant refused to continue" (p. 1).

Burger (2009) notes that experimenter characteristics may have played a major role in the original Milgram study precisely because an experimenter is viewed as someone with legitimate authority. In fact, participants might have believed that their obedience would reflect on their performance and behaved accordingly—what is known as demand characteristics. Because many participants in 2009 would have been familiar with the Milgram study, demand characteristics would have been doubly problematic for Burger. For this reason, Burger (2009) implemented a screening procedure that eliminated participants with too much familiarity with the original experiment—something that Miller (2009) claims to be inefficient and unnecessary (p. 23). Miller (2009) also criticizes the Burger (2009) study for overly reducing the perceived harm, which he argues impacts the validity and reliability of the results.

The Burger (2009) study recreates the experimental conditions of the original Milgram obedience experiments as accurately and ethically as possible, using similar independent and dependent variables while changing mainly how those variables are measured and defined. The primary difference is that Burger's (2009) study attempts to conduct a more ethical experiment while still yielding usable, meaningful results. Independent variables in both the original and the Burger (2009) replication included variations in the experimenter's behavior and verbalizations. Burger (2009) also notes that situational constraints and situational variables may affect subject responses. Dispositional empathy and motivation to control events were subject variables mentioned by Burger (2009) but not by Milgram. Instructional variables were also at play, particularly in the different ways Milgram and Burger provided instructions and, in Burger's case, administered informed consent. Unlike the original Milgram study, Burger (2009) also informed participants that they were free to leave at any time and could retain their incentive payment regardless.

Participant Selection, Assignment, and Demand Characteristics

Neither the original Milgram experiments nor the Burger (2009) replication used true random selection of participants. In Burger's (2009) case, participants self-selected by responding to an advertisement. However, both the original and the Burger (2009) experiment did rely on random assignment to bolster reliability and validity, and both studies involved between-subjects designs.

One noted problem with the original Milgram experiments was the use of obtrusive approaches, which Burger (2009) does not significantly attempt to correct for in his updated version of the obedience experiments. In fact, the role of the experimenter is integral to the research design, as the experimenter is positioned as an authority figure. As Miller (2009) points out, previous attempts to replicate the Milgram experiments substantially changed the research design by artificially attempting to improve internal validity. For example, some researchers introduced "mediated violence" instead of the more direct violence assessed in the original experiment (p. 22). Burger (2009) avoids using the mediated violence method.

References

Burger, J. M. (2009). Replicating Milgram. American Psychologist, 64(1), 1–11.

"Ethical Issues in Psychology." (n.d.). Retrieved from http://psychyogi.org/ethical-issues-in-psychology/

"Experimental Realism." (n.d.). Psychology. Retrieved from https://psychology.iresearchnet.com/social-psychology/social-psychology-experiments/experimental-realism/

Miller, A. G. (2009). Reflections on "Replicating Milgram." American Psychologist, 64(1), 20–27.

Oxford Internet Institute. (2017). Experimental approaches. Retrieved from