Milgram Study Update

According to the American Psychologist of January 2009, Stanley Milgram’s outlawed obedience study was recently reproduced. The original study was formerly prohibited due to violations of ethical concern, but professor at Santa Clara University, Jerry M. Burger was able to resurrect the study, but of course with limiters. His theory stated that the threshold of concern sat at the 150 volt mark, where the learners involved in the study would begin to scream, and show signs of serious injury. He said that the majority of the participants who administered a shock past the 150 volt mark, went all the way to the highest dosage of shock. Burger concludes that by stopping the participants around the 150 volt mark, he is able to make an estimate from their responses throughout the test as to whether they would administer shocks up to the last switches or not. By stopping the test at such a critical stressful point, he concludes that ethical standards are met.

Burger’s focal point in this re-conduction of Milgram’s experiment was to find out whether obedience levels today would differ from the obedience levels of around 63% in the 1960’s. His estimate with the inclusion of modern societal differences from forty years ago was that obedience variance would be minimal. He claims that people underestimate the power of situational variables, and that this plays a large role in the decision of the participant. Other variable such as personality factors, gender differences, and how informed the participant was of the “norm” response to a situation of the type were also factored into the study. Gender variance suggested that women would be more empathetic towards those who are suffering, yet they would be less likely than men to oppose an authority figure, therefore gender differences did not account for much. Personality factor was also an important role, as some participants may have possessed more of an empathetic trait than others. The norm response can be seen as a moral standard. If most people do something, it is easier to follow that trend, than to go the opposite way. If pre-informed that most participants discontinued the study, the individual would be more inclined to discontinue the study as well.

Overall, the results showed small variance from Milgram’s original studies, with again over 60% of participants going past the 150 volt mark. This suggests that in spite of the societal and ethical differences today, situational variables and diffusion of responsibility still play a large role in aggressive behavior. Unfortunately, the study cannot be thoroughly compared to Milgram’s studies because assumptions are not scientifically classifiable evidence.

Burger, Jerry M. “Replicating Milgram – Would People Still Obey Today?.” American Psychologist (2009).