Similarities and Differences between Milgrams (1963) Obedience and Burgers (2009) Replication - Essay Example

SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MILGRAM’S1963) OBEDIENCE STUDY AND BURGER’S 2009) REPLICATION By Location PART I: similarities and differences Differences The manner, in which Milgram conducted his study, depicts a researcher who ignored sampling as a crucial stage in any psychological research. The study strictly recruited men, and it is interesting how Milgram used a population of the same cultural and socio-economic backgrounds (Milgram, 2009). In fact, the researcher ignored the fact that scientific authority compels individuals to react in a certain way that he referred to as obedience. Another difference between the replication study is that Milgram majorly focused on the general human behavior and the human condition. Therefore, the study is different from the replication study in the sense that the researcher relied on Universalist assumption. The implication is that Universalist assumption in psychological research presumes that an observable behavior within a particular population is common among the worlds population. Besides, Milgrams study lacked representativeness as a crucial aspect of psychological research. Milgram recruited men of the age bracket 20-50 as the participants(Milgram, 2009). On the contrary, the selection was a poor sampling as it neither represented the entire population of the American society at that time nor the whole world in general. Milgram regarded position of each individual as crucial thus he illustrated the laboratory’s layout. However, Burger did not give his laboratory’s layout. Later on, peer-views on Milgrams study revealed a study that violated ethics of psychological research. Milgram became the first researcher to recommend using shocks on human participants, and this has continued to attract outcry from fellow psychologists. Another difference is the setting and context of the study. In his era, Milgram used male participants since they were the representatives of the worlds population. The selection was different from the modern Burger study where both male and females are the true representations of a society. A significant difference of in the replication study is the fact that it first recognizes psychological research in some situation does not generalize human behavior thus they require comprehensive research. Unlike Milgrams research, the study proposes the use of larger samples that can give more accurate results. When replicating Milgram’s study, Burger ensured that his study was focusing on explaining the extent of obedience in the modern society (Milgram, 2009). A notable difference in his replication study is the use of both male and female participants. By using both genders, Burger was in a position to explore how gender differences influence obedience. Conversely, Burger took into consideration the potential harm the experiment would pose to the participants. The study allowed the experimenter to administer the shock of up to 150-V, unlike Milgrams experiment that exposed the participants to 450-V shock (Milgram, 2009). In fact, Burger did not allow participants the press the switches beyond 150-V thus it took take of harm as an ethical consideration. Though initial procedures stated that the experiment administered up to 450-V shocks in the Milgram’s study, it later came out that the experiment never exposed participants to dangers of electric shock like Burger’s experiment. In fact, Milgrams study hurt no participant in the real sense since the experiment only used 45-V tester on the teacher. The cries and moans were playing from a recorder in the adjacent room. Similarities Shock generator was the same for the two experiments (Milgram, 2009). Burgers experiment instructed participants how they would press switches with clear instructions demonstrating the manner in which the buttons would remain in the middle. The instructions would help the experiment to determine the switches that the experiment had used. Burgers instructions were rather similar to Milgrams study that offered participants with sample shocks upon agreement to take part in the experiment. Nonetheless, the experimenter of the Burger’s study handed participants with word pairs and took them through instruction reviews. Milgram also used the same word pairs as well as word options, and they were identical to both the studies (Milgram, 2009). Moreover, the confederate in the Burger’s study used the same correct and incorrect responses that matched the predetermined schedule that Milgram used in his research. Besides, Burgers study instructed the experimenter to follow Milgrams procedure when giving predetermined answers that participants were asking. Since Burger was replicating a study, he used the same script and also maintained other original features like the lab coat of the experimenter, specific words, as well as the same confederate. Another important similarity is that the two studies attained the same results (Milgram, 2009). Burger successfully replicated the original findings of Milgram’s study. His study reported the same obedience rates as Milgram’s. Thus, Burger concluded that situational factors that Milgram found out to affect obedience in his participants still operate in the modern society. Though Burger incorporated both male and female participants in his study, he concluded that gender difference has nothing to do with obedience. When trying to approve the validity of Milgram’s study, Burger tried to determine the relationship that exist between obedience and personality. He noted that empathic individuals, despite being concerned about harming their colleagues, still conformed to orders. Thus, Burgers inferred that situational factors supersede personality and Milgram’s made the same conclusion too. Burger took into consideration the importance of variation in the experimental designs thus he used both male and female participants (Milgram, 2009). However, Milgrams used variation is a different context, and this explains the similarity of the two studies. For instance, Milgram introduced variation by putting individuals in different situations. He would; for example, scare the participants that the whole procedure could result in heart attack so as to see if affects their level of obedience Conversely, the two studies are similar in the way in which the handled ethical consideration of the experiments (Milgram, 2009). The first ethical concern is that both the experiments would put participants in stressful situations. Though the researchers were fooling around with the participants to have administered shocks, it caused distressed among them, and this was an ethical concern. Nonetheless, both the studies took care of potential harm to the participants by assuring them that the experiments were least dangerous. Besides, both the studies gave all the participants the opportunity to withdraw from the experiments if the suspected potential harm to their bodies. PART II Since the study is seeking to find out alcohol and drug use, the study could have gone more general and not focus on a single secondary school. Therefore, a possible shortcoming in the research is the ability to generalize results from laboratory to everyday situations. The other shortcoming of the study is ethical consideration where the study recorded feedbacks without the pupils consent. Nonetheless, genuineness of the response is a shortcoming of the study as it would be ridiculous to conclude that secondary school pupils least indulge in alcohol and drug abuse. The study is simply a generalization of laboratory findings to everyday situations since alcohol and drug abuse may be prevalent in a certain area and a phenomenon which is unheard of in another location. To handle the issue, the study could have been a bit broader by drawing participants from various secondary schools. It is not recommendable for the teachers to select the participants since they should take part in the study at will. The study is ignoring informed consent of the participants. To avoid the ethical concern, the researcher must first consult with the pupils before presenting the recorded feedback to the administration since it may mean harm to some students. Finally, genuineness of the response as a shortcoming implies that the study may be presenting unreliable findings to the school’s administrations. Maybe the pupils were recommended low use of alcohol and drugs for fear of victimization. However, the study can best handle the situation by encouraging voluntary participation. Bibliography Milgram, S 2009, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View, reprint, HarperCollins, New York City. Read More