Evaluation of research into obedience
- Created by: Megan Cameron
- Created on: 26-02-13 10:50
View mindmap
- Evaluating Research into Obedience
- Ethical issues
- Deception and lack of informed consent
- Milgram decieved his participants by telling them they were involved in a study of the effects of punishment on learning. He argued that the experiment would have pointless without some degree of deception
- Milgram argued that the experiment would have pointless without some degree of deception
- This effectvely denied the participants the right to informed consent.
- Despite this many of the participants subsequently felt they had learned something of personal importance from their participation.
- This effectvely denied the participants the right to informed consent.
- Milgram argued that the experiment would have pointless without some degree of deception
- Milgram decieved his participants by telling them they were involved in a study of the effects of punishment on learning. He argued that the experiment would have pointless without some degree of deception
- Right to withdraw?
- Milgram claimed that the participants knew they were free to leave at any time, as demonstrated by the fact that some people did leave.
- Others argued that the 'prods' from the experimenter made this very difficult for some participants who felt they had no choice about continuing.
- Milgram claimed that the participants knew they were free to leave at any time, as demonstrated by the fact that some people did leave.
- Protection of psychological harm
- Baumrind (1964) attacked Milgram's study claiming he placed his participants under great emotional strain, causing psychological harm.
- Milgram defended himself in several ways. First, he did not know such high levels of distress would be caused.
- Second, he asked participants afterwards if they had found the experience distressing, and interviewed them again a year later.
- At this point 84% were glad to have participated and 74% felt they had learned something of personal importance.
- Second, he asked participants afterwards if they had found the experience distressing, and interviewed them again a year later.
- Milgram defended himself in several ways. First, he did not know such high levels of distress would be caused.
- Darley (1992) suggested that the experience of administering shocks may activate a previously dormant aspect of an individuals personality so that they feel more able and more motivated to repeat the actions.
- Baumrind (1964) attacked Milgram's study claiming he placed his participants under great emotional strain, causing psychological harm.
- Why was Milgram's research subjected to so much hostile criticism?
- Milgram's findings were more shocking because they challenged Western ideas about freedom and personal responsibility.
- The capacity for moral decision making is suspended when an individual is embedded within a powerful social heirarchy.
- Milgram's findings were more shocking because they challenged Western ideas about freedom and personal responsibility.
- Deception and lack of informed consent
- Validity
- Realism
- According to Orne and Holland (1968) there is doubt about the internal validity of Milgrams study.
- They claim that participants in psychological studies have learned to distrust experimenters because they know the purpose of the experiment may be disguised.
- Milgram challenged this. Post experimental interviews showed that, during the study, the vast majority had believed they were giving real shocks and that the victims distress was likewise real.
- They claim that participants in psychological studies have learned to distrust experimenters because they know the purpose of the experiment may be disguised.
- According to Orne and Holland (1968) there is doubt about the internal validity of Milgrams study.
- Generalisability
- Hofling et al (1966) conducted a study in a hospital. Nurses were telephoned by a 'Dr Smith' who asked that they give 20mg of a drug to a patient.
- The order contravened hospital regulations in a number of ways. Nurses were not to take instructions over the phone from an unknown doctor and the dosage was twice that advised on the bottle
- Despite this 95% of nurses did as requested
- The order contravened hospital regulations in a number of ways. Nurses were not to take instructions over the phone from an unknown doctor and the dosage was twice that advised on the bottle
- Rank and Jacobsen also asked nurses to carry out an irregular order. This time 89% refused - this time the drug was familiar and the nurses were allowed to consult with peers a more realistic representation of actual hospital practices.
- Hofling et al (1966) conducted a study in a hospital. Nurses were telephoned by a 'Dr Smith' who asked that they give 20mg of a drug to a patient.
- Realism
- Ethical issues
Comments
No comments have yet been made