Since this introduction of ethicalguidelines, there have been improvements in the ethics of studies. One example ofthis is a partial replication of Milgram (1963) conducted by Burger (2009).This study replicated Milgram in as many ways as it ethically could, however itmade several changes in the procedure of the study. In Milgram’s study, shocks went up to 450V somany participants became distressed towards the end, which was unethical. Burgernoted that in Variation 5 of Milgram’s experiment, allthe participants who dropped out did so by 150V and the participants who continuedafter 150V went on to the end. So, 150V was named the “point of no return”. Therefore, inBurger’s study, if participants went to continue past 150V, the experimentwould be stopped and it was assumed that they would carry on to 450V,preventing them from experiencing high levels of distress. Also in Burger’sstudy, participants were told at least three times that they couldwithdraw from the study at any time.
However, this was not done in Milgram’s study.The participants were therefore made more aware of their right to withdraw inthis study than in Milgram’s. Also in Burger’s replication, the participantonly received a 15V sample shock as opposed to the 45V sample shock given toparticipants in Milgram’s study (these were done to give a taste of what theshocks felt like for the learner), therefore meaning that there was lessphysical harm done to the participants in Burger’s study as the shock theyreceived was lower.