Classic and Contemporary Research into Obedience

Have you ever wondered how psychological research has changed over time? We can understand this by making a distinction between classic and contemporary research. Classic research refers to the foundational research in the past, while contemporary research is recent or ongoing, utilising modern technology.

We might notice a few key differences between classic and contemporary research into obedience. A lot of time has passed since classic research took place, i.e., contemporary research exists in the context of more recent research and research practices that have come to light. Contemporary research can often correct or avoid mistakes earlier studies made.

Contemporary research abides by stricter ethical guidelines and avoids the morally grey areas many notable classic studies often operate in. Let’s take a look at classic and contemporary research into obedience and compare where they differ and what we can learn from them.

Research icon of cogwheel, light bulb and magnifying glass, Flaticon

Milgram’s (1961) obedience experiment

Milgram conducted his electric shock experiment originally in 1961, and many subsequent variations followed.

The Milgram experiment summary

• Milgram aimed to determine why seemingly ordinary people (for example, those under the Nazi regime) could commit heinous acts. While some people took the reductive dispositional viewpoint that something innate to the German people resulted in this historical tragedy, Milgram was not satisfied with this answer and attempted to seek out an environmental cause.

Milgram set up a simple experiment. He assigned participants the role of teacher, with two confederates (an actor working with the experiment, aware of the conditions) assigned the researcher and learner roles.

The teacher gave the learner a set of words to pair with another word depending on the condition’s parameters.

If the learner gave an incorrect response, the researcher confederate would order the teacher to deliver a shock to the learner confederate. The shocks grew in intensity with each wrong answer and were labelled from ‘slight shock’ to ‘XXX’. Milgram measured the highest intensity.

While the shocks were not real, the learner would react as if they were painful. If this disturbed the teachers and they expressed doubts about delivering shocks, the researcher would give them ‘prods’, which were verbal encouragement such as ‘the experiment requires you to continue’, which often worked.

Electic shock, Flaticon

Stanley Milgram experiment results

The experiment found that participants obeyed until 300-volts. At the 300v, the learner would go silent, implying severe pain or harm. At that point, some participants continued to refuse to deliver shocks, even after being given the prods. 65% of participants continued until the final 450-volt shock. Milgram concluded that given the right set of circumstances, anyone would commit horrible acts, and the Nazis were unfortunately not unique in their cruelty.

Milgram decided the circumstances included the legitimacy of the location (a prestigious university), the legitimacy of the authority figure (a smartly dressed older man in a lab coat), and the legitimacy of the cause (advancing scientific understanding of memory and learning). These were key factors in deciding whether or not somebody could be compelled to commit cruel acts. Allies were also factors (both in encouraging those to continue and refusing to continue).

Ethical considerations

One of the biggest differences between classic and contemporary research is that contemporary research operates under stricter ethical guidelines and often does a better job at holding to them, resulting in more ethical research. One of the most common criticisms of Milgram’s work is that his study was unethical. Let’s look at how.

• Milgram deceived his participants, hiding the true nature of the experiment from them and placing them in a situation for which they were not prepared. His participants could not give informed consent.

• Since Milgram’s participants truly believed they were delivering extremely powerful and painful shocks to another human being, many experienced and showed signs of psychological distress.

• Milgram’s participants were not given the right of withdrawal, as even when showing clear signs of distress, they were urged to continue with four prods, each increasing in seriousness.

Effects on research at the time: Bocchario et al. (2012)

With this study, Milgram offered an insight into the potential acts of those under an authority figure and allowed people to understand everyone is susceptible to these issues.

Bocchario et al. (2012) came to similar conclusions, using Milgram’s experiment as a base in their study on disobedience and whistleblowing.

It was a laboratory study with volunteer sampling with no independent variable. Bocchario used students.

The first group were simply asked what they would do in a scenario and predict the results of other students (obey the experimenter, disobey, or whistleblow) where a group of students had to write statements recommending participation in an unethical study to other students. They were told not to mention the negative effects the potential participating students would suffer from if they did participate. Students could anonymously whistleblow the study.

The study involved sensory deprivation from which previous participants reported significant distress (hallucinations, a frightening experience).

The first group personally predicted that 3.6% of them would obey, 31.9% would disobey, and 64.5% would be whistleblowers.

Experimental results

When the study was conducted, 149 students were involved in the actual experimental condition, and 76.5% of them obeyed the experimenter, a stark difference to the original 3.6% that the first group insinuated would be the case for themselves. Only 14.1% disobeyed, and a mere 9.4% were whistleblowers, again, a considerable difference from the original answers the first group gave.

It appears that behaving morally and challenging authority is a demanding characteristic for most people. It is hard to do so when obeying is the easiest and least confrontational option.

The contemporary aspect of Bocchario et al. (2012)

As it was a recent study, it offered a new insight into different aspects of the population and how they would respond to authority figures and their willingness to obey. Both Milgram and Bocchario question this authority. However, Bocchario suffers from limited generalisability as the sample was based on students.

Burger’s replication of Milgram (2009)

Burger’s experiment is a contemporary take on Milgram’s electric shock experiment. The procedure remains mostly the same, but a few key differences make his work an important addition to our understanding of obedience.

Most notably, Burger conducted a more ethical take on Milgram’s experiment and changed the independent variable to make results more valid and holistic.

Burger specifically focused on a variation where Milgram included the idea of the learner confederate supposedly having a heart condition and another variation where a second teacher confederate would go against the researcher’s wishes and repeatedly try to get the participant to stop.

How did Burger make his replication more ethical?

Burger did several things to make his replication of Milgram’s study more ethical in terms of procedure, sampling and treatment of participants.

Procedure

• When looking at Milgram’s heart condition variation, Burger realised that all participants who refused to obey and give in to authority would do so at the 150-volt level, refusing to go any further. He then realised that the participants who did obey would continue to deliver shocks to the highest level of 450 volts. Burger marked this as an essential point to consider, believing that this represented a moral ‘point’ which those who were not authoritarian-minded would refuse to cross.
• Burger called this idea the ‘point of no return’.
• With the point of no return in mind, Burger decided that it would simply be more ethical to run the experiment, but only up to 150 volts. He believed he could now make a reasonable assumption that participants willingly progressing past the point of no return were likely to continue to the end. Making this judgement call would spare everyone involved from the unpleasant effects of the original Milgram study, which included stress and anxiety.
• Participants were also treated much more ethically in Burger’s procedure. They were informed well in advance they had a right to withdraw from the experiment whenever they felt the need to. Participants were also immediately informed the shocks were not real and that the learner confederate was unharmed and okay when the experiment ended at any point.
• While the researcher in the original Milgram study was simply an actor, Burger made sure that in his replication, the researcher was a trained psychologist who would respond swiftly and appropriately in the event of any participants experiencing distress.

Sampling

Like Milgram, Burger used a volunteer sample method to advertise the study through digital and print media. They were offered payment simply just for signing up before the study started. Unlike Milgram, Burger carefully screened his participants, first for knowledge of psychology and the original Milgram experiment, and then for factors that may make them especially prone to distress when taking part.

These factors included mental health and drug-related issues.

How was Burger’s research more valid?

Potential participants were also informed well in advance that despite what the prods would say, they had a right to withdraw from the experiment whenever they felt the need to.

While Milgram’s study of situational factors was important and accurate, Burger believed that he would need to test for dispositional factors to gain a more precise understanding of obedience.

Burger’s main dispositional focuses were empathy and ‘locus of control’.

Burger had his participants take a test that would estimate their levels of empathy and which locus of control they had. He then checked them against the findings of his experiment, which provided more of a qualitative insight into obedience and which types of people are likely to act in specific ways under authority.

However, Burger’s study also had issues, for instance, assuming a point of no return has no factual basis of truth beyond the assumption.

Summary

In summary, Burger aimed to see if he could achieve the same results as Milgram with a new set of modern-day participants and to see if he could discover whether the ‘disobedient model’ affected the results.

Burger used an independent groups design to compare how participants acted in a replication of the original electric shock experiment with how they acted in the variation where there was a second teacher who encouraged the participant to stop.

Burger’s results were largely similar to Milgram’s original study, which cements its importance and relevance even today, despite its ethical concerns.