Eval on milgram's study Flashcards
Low internal validity
Orne and Holland argued that the participants behaved in they way they did because they didn’t really believe in the set up. They guessed it wasn’t real shocks. So the study lacks internal validity as it didn’t test what he intended to. Perry’s research supports this as she listened to tapes of Milgram’s study and reported that many of them expressed their doubts about the shocks. However this is contradicted by Sheridan and King’s research who did the same experiment but used dogs as learners. The results were the same as 54% of male ppt and 100% of female ppt applied a fatal shock. This suggest that Milgram’s study was genuine people behaved the same way with real shocks. Milgram himself reported that 70% of ppt thought the shock was real.
Good external validity
Although the experiment was conducted in a lab the key point of this research was the relationship between the authority figure and the ppt. Milgram’s lab environment reflected wider relationships in real life. Hofling et al studied nurses and found that the level of obedience to unjustified demands by doctors were very high(21 out of 22 obeying). This suggests obedience that was shown in Milgram’s lab study can be generalised. So his findings do have something valuable to tell us about how obedience operates on real life. However Rank and Jacobson contradict Hofling’s study on obedient nurses. they replicated Hofling’s study and asked nurses to administer a real drug which was familiar to the nurses . They also gave a real doctor’s name. They found that in this situation only 2 out of 18 nurses obeyed the doctor’s order. As a result their findings do not support Milgram’s study on obedience. The more realistic the situation, the more resistance to obedience. this shows that high levels of obedience do not extend to situations outside the lab so you could say it lacks external validity.
Ethical issues
Baumrind was very critical of the ways Milgram deceived his ppt. Milgram deceived his ppt by telling them that the role of learner and teacher was random but in fact it was fixed. The most significant deception was the ppt thinking that the shocks were real. Baumrind criticizes Milgram’s study as she sees it as a betrayal of trust that could damage the reputation of psychologist and their research. Moreover deception means that the ppt may experience psychological harm like in Milgram’s study where people were anxious and it may make the ppt feel they are torturers
Research support for the variation of uniform(for situational variables)
In a field experiment In New York City Bickman had three confederates dressed in three different outfits. Jacket and tie, milkman’s outfit and a security guard’s uniform. They asked random people on the street to perform a task such as picking up litter from the street or giving the confederate a coin for the parking meter. In conclusion they found that people were twice as likely to obey the confederate dressed in a guard outfit. This supports Milgram’s conclusion that uniform is the main situational factor to produce obedience.
Lack of internal validity (situational variables)
Orne and Holland criticised Milgram’s original study as the ppt worked out that the procedure was faked. Its even more likely that ppt in Milgram’s variations realised this because of extra manipulation. A good example is when they used a member of public who replaced the experimenter. Even Milgram himself knew that the situation was so contrived that some ppt may have worked out the truth. This is a limitation in Milgram’s study because it is unclear whether the results were due to the operation of obedience or because the ppt saw through the deception an acted accordingly
Cross cultural replications (situational variables)
A strength of Milgram’s research, that applies to his variations as well, is that his findings have been replicated in other cultures. Miranda et al found obedience rate of over 90% amongst Spanish students. This suggests that the Milgram’s findings are not limited to American Males, but are valid across cultures and apply to females too. However Smith and Bond make the point that most replications have taken place in Western countries. These countries are culturally not different to the USA so its wrong to say that his findings on Situational variables can apply to all people. This mean that Milgram’s research is a form of cultural bias and is ethnocentric to the western cultures as it doesn’t take into account cultures such as the collectivist culture
Control of variables in Milgram’s variations
Milgram systematically altered one variable at a time such as proximity to see what effect it would have on the level of obedience. All the variables were kept the same as the study was replicated over and over again with more than 1000 ppt in total. This means that the results of the experiment are valid and isn’t just a one-off chance events. Also the sample size is huge and this means that results are representative and can be generalised.
Obedience serves as an Alibi
Mandel challenges the relevance of obedience studies as an explanation of real life atrocities. The men of the reserve Police Battalion 101 received orders to carry out a mass killing of Jews. The officer in charge said that those who weren’t up for the task can opt out. However only a small minority chose to opt out and the vast majority chose to go ahead on the order. This is a problem as Mandle concludes that using obedience as an explanation for these atrocities serves only as an alibi, masking the real reason (anti-Semitism) behind such behaviours
