Stanley Milgram's Study

“I was just following orders.” That line was infamously muttered as Stanley Milgram witnessed the Nuremberg Trial of Major German War Criminals (Cuomo et al., 2007), after which he began to experiment to answer the question: “just how likely are human beings to blindly follow the orders, just or unjust, given by a legitimate figure of established authority?” In his studies, he provided a way to study obedience to authority by operationalizing obedience. According to Dr. Schreier (September 13, 2016), to operationalize is to label and describe variables of interest, giving a concrete meaning to a variable that would otherwise be quite ambiguous. There can easily be many interpretations of the term “obedience,” but in his study, Milgram simply

One way he altered his design was by varying the closeness of the experimenter to the subject; conditions included the experimenter being a mere few feet from the subject, the experimenter leaving the laboratory in the middle of the experiment, and even the experimenter giving orders by telephone. The dependent variable, obedience, dropped sharply as the experimenter was physically removed from the laboratory (Center for Media Services, 1965). An additional altercation in another experiment was the different physical settings in which the experiment was conducted, such as Yale University, an institution mainly regarded with respect and awe, and a rundown office building in the city, where obedience was reduced by a minimal amount (1965). As I observed these variable changes in Milgram’s experiments, a variable I saw remain controlled was the general appearance of the experimenter himself. I believe the obedience rates of the experiments would decrease if the experimenter was a race other than Caucasian, because most of the political leaders and authoritative figures in America are Caucasian. In order to test this hypothesis, I would have African American, Mexican, and men of other ethnicities conduct the experiment the same way it was done in

Jerry M. Burger conducted a partial replication of Milgram’s obedience studies in order to answer a follow-up question to the original studies: After many years of social reconstruction, would people still obey today? Although Milgram’s numerous obedience experiments are highly valued because of their groundbreaking scientific discoveries about ourselves, that did not stop the criticism the experimenter received; according to Burger himself, “critics argued that the short-term stress and potential long-term harm to participants could not be justified” (2009). In response to these criticism, Burger inserted the “150-Volt Solution,” in which he stopped the experiment if subject decided to keep going after the 150-volt mark, rather than having them continue onto 450-volts like in Milgram’s study. He also had participants feel a sample shock of 15-volts rather than 45-volts (2009). These measures were taken by Milgram in order to decrease the likelihood of stress in the subjects engendered by the uncomfortable thought of causing serious harm a stranger. However, I believe these changes affect the validity of the construct of obedience because the measurements are of a smaller range. Burger felt content with the 150-Volt Solution because he stated that there is an 79% chance that a subject is willing to go all the way if he/she passes the 150-volt mark; however, that is according to a study decade ago, and Burger is looking for the willingness to obey