– Journal: American Psychologist
– Date: January 2009
The 60’s and 70’s experiment that Stanley Milgram conducted were controversial but explored the human capacity for obedience in terms of following orders from figures
of authority vis-a-vis the subject’s own moral and ethical capacity. Just like Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison experiment, Milgram’s own experiment is controversial
primarily because it was a haunting experiment that saw many of the volunteers ‘cross the line’. The gist is simple – men and women were recruited via newspaper ads to
volunteer for an experiment, in the guise of ‘punishment for learning’. The volunteer is to inflict electric shocks on the learner if the learner got the answer wrong.
What the volunteer does not know is that the shocks were fake and that Milgram and the so-called learner were complicit in the experiment. The study has elements of
deceit as full disclosure is necessary in such an experiment in this day and age. The volunteers suffered through the experiment being that they thought they were
causing severe emotional distress on the ‘learners’. This Burger study released in 2009 replicated the experiment, including the manner of recruitment. The recruits
were sampled randomly and there was no bias. Ads, flyers and classified were distributed in a particular area with 70 respondents. His results showed that people are
willing to proceed to hurt others up to a certain level, with 83% of Milgram’s respondents going above the 150-volt jolt and Burger’s respondents set at 70%.
Critique 1
Burger’s study asked for volunteers only, there was no mention of a fee per session. Thus, the participants in Burger’s study are in one way ’employed’ to follow
instructions. There is therefore a different purpose to the actions taken as what happened with Burger is what is known as ‘volunteer sampling’. As such, the
participants, even though they know that they will be paid in each session either way, still feel that compulsion to participate and ‘perform’ by obeying the commands
accordingly. After all, the person paying them is expecting them to do so.
Critique 2
Based on Critique 1, the Burger study is therefore not random. For the study to have unquestionable generizability and validity, it has to have utilized random
sampling. In this kind of experiment, the challenge to do random sampling is difficult due to the unethical elements particularly that of deceit and likely participant
discomfort. Statistics Canada (2012), advise that, “Sampling voluntary participants as opposed to the general population may introduce strong biases.” In the Burger
study, I contend that the bias is towards performance because the participants were paid to perform in the sessions.
Relevance
The Milgram experiment, however questionable, is relevant primarily because of the social conditions at the period – the Vietnam War was ongoing and then there was the
Mai Lai Massacre – one of the single most horrific events of the Vietnam War. The fact that the soldiers were acting on orders and in the field, the brutality of war
means that authority is the most overwhelming and ‘rational’ line that can lead to survival. But then again, is it? What about notions of morality and ethics as well
as our own will and freedom of choice? This is what this experiment is about – to measure that. Burger’s own efforts are commendable but the sampling utilized in this
study is voluntary which introduces the question of bias into the study raising questions of generalizability, reliability and validity.
Study Sampling Review
– Author: Jerry Burger
– Title: Replicating Milgram: Would People Still Obey?
– Journal: American Psychologist
– Date: January 2009
The 60’s and 70’s experiment that Stanley Milgram conducted were controversial but explored the human capacity for obedience in terms of following orders from figures
of authority vis-a-vis the subject’s own moral and ethical capacity. Just like Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison experiment, Milgram’s own experiment is controversial
primarily because it was a haunting experiment that saw many of the volunteers ‘cross the line’. The gist is simple – men and women were recruited via newspaper ads to
volunteer for an experiment, in the guise of ‘punishment for learning’. The volunteer is to inflict electric shocks on the learner if the learner got the answer wrong.
What the volunteer does not know is that the shocks were fake and that Milgram and the so-called learner were complicit in the experiment. The study has elements of
deceit as full disclosure is necessary in such an experiment in this day and age. The volunteers suffered through the experiment being that they thought they were
causing severe emotional distress on the ‘learners’. This Burger study released in 2009 replicated the experiment, including the manner of recruitment. The recruits
were sampled randomly and there was no bias. Ads, flyers and classified were distributed in a particular area with 70 respondents. His results showed that people are
willing to proceed to hurt others up to a certain level, with 83% of Milgram’s respondents going above the 150-volt jolt and Burger’s respondents set at 70%.
Critique 1
Burger’s study asked for volunteers only, there was no mention of a fee per session. Thus, the participants in Burger’s study are in one way ’employed’ to follow
instructions. There is therefore a different purpose to the actions taken as what happened with Burger is what is known as ‘volunteer sampling’. As such, the
participants, even though they know that they will be paid in each session either way, still feel that compulsion to participate and ‘perform’ by obeying the commands
accordingly. After all, the person paying them is expecting them to do so.
Critique 2
Based on Critique 1, the Burger study is therefore not random. For the study to have unquestionable generizability and validity, it has to have utilized random
sampling. In this kind of experiment, the challenge to do random sampling is difficult due to the unethical elements particularly that of deceit and likely participant
discomfort. Statistics Canada (2012), advise that, “Sampling voluntary participants as opposed to the general population may introduce strong biases.” In the Burger
study, I contend that the bias is towards performance because the participants were paid to perform in the sessions.
Relevance
The Milgram experiment, however questionable, is relevant primarily because of the social conditions at the period – the Vietnam War was ongoing and then there was the
Mai Lai Massacre – one of the single most horrific events of the Vietnam War. The fact that the soldiers were acting on orders and in the field, the brutality of war
means that authority is the most overwhelming and ‘rational’ line that can lead to survival. But then again, is it? What about notions of morality and ethics as well
as our own will and freedom of choice? This is what this experiment is about – to measure that. Burger’s own efforts are commendable but the sampling utilized in this
study is voluntary which introduces the question of bias into the study raising questions of generalizability, reliability and validity.
