Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Milgram (1963) Obedience study (Lack of internal validity (Orne and…
Milgram (1963) Obedience study
Lack of internal validity
Orne and Holland (1968) suggested ppts guessed shocks were fake
Meaning Milgram not testing what intended to test
Sheridan and King (1972) ppts gave real shocks to a puppy
54% males and 100% females delivered "fatal shocks"
Obedience in Milgram's study might be genuine
70% ppts thought shocks were genuine
Good external validity
Lab-based relationship between experimenter and ppt
Reflects wider real-life authority relationships
Hofling (1966) - obedience rates in nurses on hospital ward to unjustified demands by doctors
20/21 nurses obeyed - very high obedience rates
Processes of obedience in Milgram's study can be generalised
Replications support research findings
French documentary, contestants in reality TV show paid to give fake electric shocks to other ppts when ordered by presenter.
80% gave maximum 450V to "unconscious man"
Behaviour was similar to Milgram's ppts - signs of anxiety
Supports Milgram's original conclusions about obedience to authority
Shows findings weren't a fluke
Alternative explanation of social identity theory
Obedience about group identification
Milgram's ppts identified with experimenter (science of study)
When obedience rates fell, ppts identified with victim
First 3 prods appeal for help with science - experiment requires you to continue
4th prod demands obedience - every time used, ppt quit.
Ppts didn't give shocks due to obedience but because of identification with experimenter as scientist (SIT)
Ethical issues
Other researchers have criticised Milgram's deceptions
Ppts believed allocation to roles was randomly assigned but it was fixed.
Most significant deception was that ppts believed electric shocks were real
Deception is betrayal of trust that damages reputation of psychologists and their research
Damages confidence in Milgram's other research
Deception of participants may make them less likely to volunteer for future research