Perhaps the most noteworthy individual to replicate Stanley Milgram's work, Jerry Burger, conducted his experiment at Santa Clara University in 2007. Burger held a lot of the same characteristics when going forward with his version of Milgram's Obedience Experiment, such as using the same words held in the memory test, as well as the same lab coat used by the experimenter. With that being said, there were also substantial differences in the experiment. During Milgram's Experiment, the voltage that the teacher believed to be producing--up to 450 volts--was instead cut off at 150 volts. Burger believed that past 150 volts was "the point of no return" (Burger, 2007). Instead, he instructed his "learner" to begin to ask the "teacher" to cut off the machine and let himself go as early as possible, in a bid to achieve different results. In addition to stopping at this junction, Burger also wished to inhibit his participants from achieving any additional stress that Milgram's participants later achieved post-experiment.
Secondly, Burger initiated a two-step process into selecting participants. First, they participated in an extensive questionnaire that highlighted any psychiatric history, alcohol/drug abuse, emotional distress, etc. If the participants answered yes to any of the questions then they were to be excluded from the study. Secondly, they were subjected to being screened for anxiety, and depression disorders by a licensed clinician.
Finally, all participants were instructed that they can exit the study at any time with no consequences--such as not being paid--in addition to the experimenter being a licensed clinical psychologist who was informed to pull the plug on the study at any time if there were visual signs of distress from the participant.
In the end, it was revealed that similar findings were found between the two experiments. Both Burger and Milgram concluded that participants will willingly participate in varying degrees of collusion, that many may deem inappropriate or unethical if being asked to by an authoritative figure, in this case, the experimenter due to the fact they were wearing a lab coat and claiming to be a doctor of influence.
Furthermore, there are several other instances where individuals are being influenced and are being motivated to promote obedience in varying contexts, I'll go into those further on the remaining pages.