Burger addresses that question in his Discussion: > We did our best to replicate Milgram’s procedures up to the 150- > volt point. However, there were some intentional and some > unavoidable differences between Milgram’s procedures and ours that > should be pointed out. It is difficult to know what effect our > screening procedures had on our findings. For ethical reasons, we > excluded people with a history of psychological or emotional > problems and anyone the clinical psychologist deemed might have a > negative reaction to participating in the study. We also excluded > people who had taken more than two college-level psychology > classes. In addition, we recruited participants from all adult > ages, whereas Milgram limited his participants to those 50 and > under. We also had what was most likely a more ethnically diverse > group of participants than Milgram. On the other hand, we went to > great effort to replicate the key features in Milgram’s study > (script, shock generator) as well as many minor features > (experimenter’s lab coat, words in memory task). This attention to > detail probably goes beyond most efforts to replicate psychology > studies. Although we cannot rule out all possible differences > between our sample and Milgram’s that might have affected our > findings, all the data we have fail to identify any such > difference. Participants excluded during the second phase of the > screening did not differ from participants who were not excluded on > any of the characteristics we examined – age, ethnicity, gender, > education, personality variables. Moreover, we found no effect for > education, age or ethnicity on participants’ behavior in the > study. In short, we are as confident as psychology researchers can > ever be that our findings can be legitimately compared to Milgram’s.
He also discusses his rational for why he feels that the 150 volt limit (an ethical necessity these days) does constitute a systematic (if not direct) replication. The article is worth reading. As usual, it's more nuanced than the media accounts of it. On Dec 20, 2008, at 8:12 AM, Paul Okami wrote: > The new reanalysis of disobedience in the original Milgram studies > (Packer, > 2008, Perspectives on Psychological Science vol. 3 no. 4) also > suggests that > the Burger article is no really a replication. This is because > according to > Packer, there is a bimodal distribution in the original Milgram > participants. The majority of those who disobeyed did so soon > after 150 > volts (the end point of the Burger study), while those who obeyed > continued > to do so despite protests of pain, agony, possible unconsciousness, > etc. > Given that Burger didn't go beyond 150 volts, we really don't know > how many > would have continued to obey. > > Paul Okami > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Allen Esterson" <[email protected]> > To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" > <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2008 3:40 AM > Subject: [tips] Milgram's obedience experiment: replication > > > A London "Times" article yesterday (Friday) indicated that there > will be > some disagreement about how closely the new study replicates > Milgram's: > > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article5367721.ece > > Allen Esterson > Former lecturer, Science Department > Southwark College, London > http://www.esterson.org > > ****************************************************************** > > [tips] Milgram's obedience experiment: replication > > sblack > Fri, 19 Dec 2008 15:13:29 -0800 > > According to an item on CNN: > > ww.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/12/19/milgram.experiment.obedience/index.html > > American Psycholgist is set to publish in its January 2009 edition a > replication of the classic Milgram study. This is the one that no one > thought could ever be attempted again, given current restrictions > imposed > by research ethics committees and the concern that the study may have > caused lasting harm to its participants. But it now has been done > again, > by Jerry Burger at Santa Clara University, albeit with some > tweaking of > the methodology to alleviate concern. > > According to the CNN report, it finds that the original Milgram > findings > hold up well today, almost 50 years later. We seem to be about as > obedient as we once were. Scary, isn't it? > > I checked at the AP site, and the study doesn't appear to be out yet. > > Stephen > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. > Professor of Psychology, Emeritus > Bishop's University e-mail: [email protected] > 2600 College St. > Sherbrooke QC J1M 1Z7 > Canada > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly ([email protected]) > > __________ NOD32 3677 (20081209) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com > > > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly ([email protected]) Paul Brandon Emeritus Professor of Psychology Minnesota State University, Mankato [email protected] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
