Burger had to make some changes in Milgram’s experiment to get his institutional review board’s permission to do it. Are those changes so significant that he can’t really claim he has replicated Milgram?
Burger says his modified experiment gives the same results as Milgram’s, showing that the Californians of the mid-2000s were just as obedient as Milgram’s New Haveners of the early 1960s. Does it give that result? How?
On pp. 3-4, Burger gives four reasons why “teachers” might go so far in shocking the “learner.” Which of the four seems most convincing to you? Least convincing? Is this the way people’s psychologies really work?
Twenge thinks Burger is misreading his own results and that the later generation is less obedient. Is she right? Why or why not?
Burger’s participants were much more ethnically diverse than Milgram’s. Does that make a difference? If so, in what ways?
Is even Burger’s milder version of the obedience experiment so upsetting (to the participants and/or in its implications for us all) that it should not have been permitted? On the other hand, could it show us such important insights about ourselves that even Milgram’s harsher version should be allowed?
Which author is more convincing, Burger or Twenge? Does one have a stronger argument? If so, what was it that convinced you in their argument? Is it just that one writes more clearly than the other?
