Similarities and Differences between Milgram's (1963) Obedience Study and Burger's (2009) Replication

Milgrams obedience experiment is a series of famous social psychology experiments. The experiments sought to elucidate and measure the subjects' willingness to obey an authority who instructs the subject to perform acts that a person would not normally like to perform for reasons of conscience (Zimbardo, 2007). One of the Milgram experiment aims was to investigate obedience and authority, in the impact on a subject's ability to harm another person (Zimbardo, 2007). The experiment involved three participants. A facilitator and an actor who played a volunteer, then a subject, who voluntarily agreed to participate. The actor and the subject were then assigned different roles in the experiment trough a draw, one as a teacher and one as a learner. The draw was arranged so that the subject always came to be the teacher, and so the subject always had the impression that he and the actor had the same voluntary status. Milgram then separated the teacher and the learner using a wall. Then the teacher was told to give the student questions, and with each wrong answer the teacher would administer a shock which strength would increase for every wrong answer. As the voltage of the shocks was increased, the learner complained more vociferously and eventually became silent. The longer the test went on more of the subjects requested to abort and see how the learner was doing, but was then persuaded by the facilitator to continue. The majority of the subjects came to the stage of distributing

Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiment has definitely set the basis to explain the pain inflicted by a human being on another human only if she is ordered to. He asserted that a normal human being can become an element of destructive agents of even when the destructive effects of their work becomes patently clear as they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with basic moral standards.

This experiment was created to induce conflict within the subjects. Milgram achieved this by using a shock generator which appeared to be completely authentic, and had an authority figure command the subjects to

Most people would like to think that they would never do anything to intentionally hurt another human being. However history has shown that human nature does not always prevail with the best outcomes. The following experiments and real life events all reflect that human beings succumb to obedience even when common sense tells them that what they are doing is wrong. Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison experiment, Milgram’s electric shock study, and the scandal surrounding Abu Ghraib are reflections on the outcome of obeying a command regardless of the results and why someone would do so.

Stanley Milgram, a psychologist from Yale University, conducted a series of experiments on obedience to explain some of the concentration camp horrors perpetrated during World War II. He tested the subjects' willingness to cause pain to another person if instructed to by an authority figure.

Milgram’s experiment consisted of a teacher, learner, an authority figure/experimenter, and a false shock generator. The subject of the experiment was the teacher. In the experiment, the teacher asks the learner a question and if they get it wrong, they received an electric shock. The shocks ranged from 15 volts to 450 volts. The learner was instructed to simulate noises of pain at certain level increments and eventually to just stop responding as if they were dead. One subject named Gretchen Brandt refused to continue the experiment once the generator reached

The "Perils of Obedience" by Stanley Milgram details about the classic studies relating to obedience. The main study in focus is the Milgram’s Obedience study, conducted in the 1963 by the Yale University scientist Stanley Milgram. The experiment was designed by Milgram in such a way that participants are forced to obey the instructions of authority figure, even if they are immoral and also when such instructions cause pain/harm to another person. The participants selected for the experiment are ordinary people (Milgram, 630). The participants were willing to administer electric shocks to remaining people when ordered by authority figure. The Milgram experiment does not address the ethical concerns of testing and Jerry Burger of Santa Clara University, upon modifying the Milgram's setup found that situational factors result increased obedience in participants (Milgram, 631). The studies conducted by Burger and Milgram showed under a specific set of circumstances, the

The estimates before Milgram’s experiment were in 2-3% of the subjects would be compliant, even to the point of administering a 450-volt shock to another person. The actual findings of the Milgram experiment being at 65% compliance came as a bit of a shock to everyone involved and to the rest of society. This demonstrates how for the most part, people think of themselves as autonomous, free thinking beings and view others in the same light. But due to the person-situation interaction, for the most part people will let the social influence of a given situation override their beliefs and characteristics (Stangor, Jhangiani, Tarry,

Obedience is defined as “Compliance with an order, request, or law or submission to another’s authority” (“Obedience”). In 1963, Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at the University of Yale, conducted an experiment to examine the effects of authority. The Obedience to Authority has become one of the most renowned psychological experiments to date. Milgram explains how seemingly normal individuals, could be driven to commit inhumane acts. Furthermore he outlines substantial parallels between his experiments, and Nazi crimes. He devised the Obedience to Authority experiments to understand the psychology of submission to authority. Many scholarly articles have been produced comparing the psychology of Obedience to Authority, to crimes committed by

The milligram experiment is a widely criticised experiment that focused on obedience and authority, by Stanley Miligram (1963). This paper looks at Gibson’s analysis of this experiment and will discuss the importance of context for studying social influence. The Milligram experiment focused on obedience, which is ingrained deeply in individuals. The experiment was to discover how far people obey orders when the experiment was an upsetting experience. It involved ordering subjects to carry out electric shocks to a victim, by a shock generator.

In response, Milgram states that “there was every reason to expect, prior to actual experimentation, that subjects would refuse to follow the experimenter’s instruction beyond the point where the victim protested; many colleagues and psychiatrist were questioned on this point, and they virtually all felt this would be the case” (849). Milgram is saying that the subject had the choice to continue with the experiment when they heard the victim protested. Baumrind argues that the tension during the experiment reached extremes” (422). The subjects would feel extremely uncomfortable during the experiment, that in many cases the subject would have seizures, nervous laughing and lip biting. This would be the rise of tension during the experiment.

Firstly, laboratory settings occur at one specific period in one specific place to one carefully selected sample of participants. Relating this to Milgram's experiment, his study was conducted with the purpose of investigating whether people are inherently predisposed to follow orders. Milgram's question, to be specific, was the following: "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?" (Milgram, 1963).

Psychologist Jerry Burger of Santa Clara University and writer of the analysis specified the purpose of Stanley Milgram's analysis today. Jerry Burger’s task was made achievable by the investigation that almost everyone in Stanley Milgram’s experiments who go on past the 150-volt level kept on carrying out the shocks right up to the highest of 450 volts, when the experiment was at a halt. It was at the 150-volt level in Stanley Milgram’s researches that the student asked to be discharged from the experiment. Many of the definite experimental subjects pondered at this point, but commonly they kept going, and it showed that this was the crucial outcome, when they persuaded themselves that they’d endured in the analysis no matter what. To ease the odds of long-term psychological risk, Jerry Burger stopped the experiment once it was evident that this urgent 150-volt result was made. The actor who was hiding from the view urgently returned to the study room and revealed that he was in one piece, and the definite experimental subject who portrayed the act of teacher was told of the definite plan of the

If a person in a position of authority ordered you to deliver a 400-volt electrical shock to another person, would you follow orders? Most people would answer this question with an adamant no, but Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted a series of obedience experiments during the 1960s that led to some surprising results.

The overall purpose of Burger’s study was to ethically replicate Milgram’s study of obedience. While maintaining important procedures Milgram did, Burger made several ethical changes. Burger inferred the 150 volt switch is a point which can be assumed the participant would most likely continue to the end of the shock range. Burger did not continue past this voltage to prevent unnecessary intense stress on the participant, but was still able to draw conclusions. Additionally, Burger used a two-step screening process to ensure no participant would have a negative reaction to the study. Throughout the study, participants were told they could withdraw at any point and still receive compensation. With the participants’ consent, the experimenter gave a mild sample shock, unlike Milgram’s stronger sample shock. When stopping the study, Burger allowed no time to pass to debrief participants, he also had the learner come in the room immediately to show no harm was done. Lastly, the experimenter running the study was a clinical psychologist so they could regulate participant stress levels. In my opinion, making these ethical changes was essential in regards to APA ethical standards and participants’ rights, and there were no statistical differences in the data results compared to Milgram’s as seen below.