Evaluating Milgram’s research on obedience

?

Evaluating Milgram’s research on obedience

Advantages

  • Research support - Beauvois created a reality show based on Milgram’s experiment, in which participants were paid to give (fake) electric shocks to another participant. The participants in Beauvois’ study showed similar anxious mannerisms to Milgram’s. This shows that Milgram found evidence of obedience to authority which was not limited to certain circumstances.
  • Countering low internal validity - Sheridan and King’s participants gave real shocks to a puppy - 100% of female participants gave a “fatal” shock. Suggests that Milgram’s data was correct as participants behaved the same way when they were using real shocks.

Disadvantages

  • Low internal validity - Milgram stated that 75% of participants believed the shocks were genuine. Orne and Holland said the participants obeyed as an acting role, and Perry found that 2/3 of participants were disobedient and  only 50% of them believed the shocks were real. Suggests that participant# were responding to demand characteristics.
  • Alternative interpretations - Haslam found that the participants always disobeyed the final verbal prod “you have no other choice, you must go on”. The participants obeyed when the scientific aims of the study were made clear (“The experiment requires you continue”), but did not follow orders blindly. The social identity theory is perhaps a more valid explanation.
  • Milgram used deception in his study. Despite debriefing the participants, they had suffered physical and psychological harm.

Evaluation

Overall, Milgram’s experiment lacked internal validity and may have been explained by other theories. He broke the ethical guidelines, which were created after this experiment due to the unethical nature of it. The counterpoint of Sheridan and King is cruel as it is an animal study and also caused psychological damage. Overall this study is a limitation of understanding obedience. 

Comments

No comments have yet been made