Miller Arthur G
Deparment of Psychology, Miami University, Oxford, OH 45056, USA.
Am Psychol. 2009 Jan;64(1):20-7. doi: 10.1037/a0014407.
In "Replicating Milgram: Would People Still Obey Today?" Jerry M. Burger reported a high base rate of obedience, comparable to that observed by Stanley Milgram (1974). Another condition, involving a defiant confederate, failed to significantly reduce obedience. This commentary discusses the primary contributions of Burger's study in terms of (a) its novel methodological variation on Milgram's original paradigm (the "150-volt solution") and (b) its attention to ethical concerns so as to minimize participant discomfort and ensure institutional review board approval. Burger's technique could unlock research on behavioral aspects of obedience, which has been essentially muted for several decades. However, Burger's intensive efforts to improve the ethics of the study may be exaggerated, are uncertain in their effectiveness, and pose impractical demands. Different procedures used by Milgram and Burger in the modeled refusal condition preclude a clear explanation for the results and challenge Burger's emphasis on the comparability of his and Milgram's experiments. This study documents the complexities of extending research on destructive obedience in the context of contemporary ethical guidelines.
在《复制米尔格拉姆实验：如今人们仍会服从吗？》一文中，杰里·M·伯格报告了较高的服从率，这与斯坦利·米尔格拉姆（1974年）所观察到的情况相当。另一个条件，即涉及一名反抗的同谋者的情况，并未显著降低服从率。本评论从以下几个方面讨论了伯格研究的主要贡献：（a）其对米尔格拉姆原始范式的新颖方法变体（“150伏解决方案”）；（b）其对伦理问题的关注，以尽量减少参与者的不适并确保获得机构审查委员会的批准。伯格的技术可能会开启对服从行为方面的研究，而这几十年来基本上处于停滞状态。然而，伯格为改进该研究的伦理所付出的巨大努力可能被夸大了，其有效性不确定，且提出了不切实际的要求。米尔格拉姆和伯格在模拟拒绝条件下使用的不同程序使得对结果无法做出清晰解释，并对伯格所强调的他的实验与米尔格拉姆实验的可比性提出了挑战。这项研究记录了在当代伦理准则背景下扩展对破坏性服从研究的复杂性。
