Evaluate the methodology of Milgrims study
+ high control of variables: study was conducted in an artificial labratory setting and so was less likely to be affected by extraneous variables (distractions, noise etc) Increases the internal validity of the experiment, Milgrim was able to determine whether the independent variable (authority figure) was causing the dependant variable (obedience) to change
+ use of volunteer sample , which made it easier to get a range of ppts efficiently. For example, Milgrim advertised for ppts in his study through a newspaper ad attracting a wide range of males from different occupational backgrounds. This is a + because it allowed Milgrim to access a large number of ppts quickly making the study more manageable and cost effective. It also meant ppts were willing and motivated to take part. This therefore increases the replicability of the research, making it more generalisable.
One - is the amount of gender bias involved in the sample of ppts. The sample in Milgrims study consisted of 40 males aged 20 to 50. This is a - as it decreases the population validity; the findings are not generalisable to the target population as a whole as it doesn’t conclude any observations on obedience levels in women.
Another - is its low ecological validity due to the artificial setting it was conducted in. For example, the study was conducted in a lab at Yale university, and the task of giving electric shocks to a stranger under instruction isn’t something people would typically encounter in real life. This is a - since it means the behaviour observed may not reflect how people would respond to authority in real world situations. Therefore ppts may have acted differently because they were aware it was an experiment, reducing the generalisability of the findings. This decreases the ecological validity of the study, meaning the findings may not be applicable to real life scenarios.
Evaluate the procedure of Milgrims study
+ highly standardised procedure which makes it easy to replicate. For example, every pot was given the same verbal prods by the experimenter such as ‘please continue’ and ‘the experiment requires that you continue’ and the same pre recorded responses from the learner. This is a + since this control means the study can be repeated in the same way to test for consistency in results. This increases the reliability of the research
+ generated large amounts of useful systematic data. For example, Milgrim not only recorded how far each ppt went on the shock generator but also documented their physical and verbal responses during the procedure. This is a + because it gave both quantitative and qualitative data (measurable obedience levels) and rich detail about how ppl behaved under pressure. This increases the reliability of the procedure as it accurately measures both obedience and also the emotional impact
A - of the study is that the task may have led to demand characteristics, affecting the validity of the results. For example some ppts may have guessed that the shocks weren’t real and went along with the study simply because they thought that’s what was expected of them. This is a - because if ppts didn’t believe the set up was genuine then their behaviour may not reflect true obedience but instead a desire to please the experimenter or behave in line with perceived expectations. This decreases the internal validity of the findings since it’s difficult to tell whether ppts were truly obeying or just responding to demand characteristics
Another - of the study is the non random assignment of roles which may have caused experimenter bias. For example, although ppts were told the roles were chosen randomly, the teacher was always the actual ppt and the learner was always a conferdate. This is a - since this could have made the set up feel staged which could reduce the ppts engagement or could affect how they interpreted the situation. This decreases the internal validity of the study since ppts may have been responding to perceived demand characterised rather than truly obeying authority.
Evaluate the ethics or Milgrims study
+ ppts were throughly debriefed after the study. For example, after the experiment, Milgrim explained the true nature of the study, reassured ppts that the shocks weren’t fake and the learner had not been harmed. This is a + since it helped to reduce potential long term psychological harm. This supports ethical responsibility and improves ppts well being improving the study ethical credibility
an ethical - is the lack of informed consent. For example, ppts were told they were taking part in a study on learning and memory, not obedience and were unaware that the shocks were fake and the learner was a conferdate. This is a - because they were misled about the true purpose of the experiment, ppts could not give informed consent to what they were actually being asked to do. This decreases the ethical validity of the study and has negative ethical implications
