EVALUATION

• LOW INTERNAL VALIDITY: Orne and Holland (1968) argued that Milgram’s experiment lacked internal validity because participants behaved the way they did because they didn’t really believe in the set-up.Gina Perry (2013) confirmed this in her research, where she listened to the Milgram tapes, and participants reported doubts about the shocks. However, Sheridan and King (1972) conducted a similar study in which genuine shocks were given to a puppy. Despite the shocks, 54% of male and 100% of female participants delivered these fatal shocks.
• LOW INTERNAL VALIDITY: Support - Sheridan and King’s research suggests that the effects of Milgram’s experiment were genuine because people behaved the same way when experiencing real shocks. Milgram himself reported that 70% of his participants said they believed

  shocks were real.
• GOOD EXTERNAL VALIDITY: Milgram’s study may appear to lack external validity because it was conducted in a lab. However, the central feature of this situation was the relationship between the authority figure and the participant - Milgram argued that the lab environment accurately reflected wider authority relationships in real life. Other research supports this idea: Hofling et al. (1966) studied nurses on a hospital

  ward and found that the levels of obedience to unjustified demands by doctors were very high (21 out of 22 nurses).
• GOOD EXTERNAL VALIDITY: Support - This suggests that the processes of

  obedience to authority that occurred in Milgram’s lab study can be generalised to other situations. This demonstrates that Milgram’s findings have something valuable to tell us about how obedience operates in real life.
• SUPPORTING REPLICATION: The Game of Death is a reality TV documentary presented on French television in 2010. It includes a replication of Milgram’s study. Participants were paid to give (fake) electric shocks—when ordered by the presenter—to other participants, who were actors, in front of an audience. 80% of participants delivered the maximum shock to an apparently unconscious man. Their behaviour was also identical to that of Milgram’s participants – nervous laughter, nail-biting and other signs of anxiety.
• SUPPORTING REPLICATION: Support - This replication supports Milgram’s original conclusions about obedience to authority and demonstrates that his findings were not just a one-off chance occurrence.
• AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION: According to Social identity theory (SIT), the key to obedience lies in group identification. Haslam & Reicher (2012) found that every time the fourth prod was used, participants quit the experiment - The first three prods appeal to the science of the

  experiment which may be why participants went on with the experiment.
• AN ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION: Limitation - If SIT is correct, participants did not give shocks due to obedience but due to

  their identification with the experimenter as a scientist. This contradicts Milgram’s conclusions.
• ETHICAL ISSUES: Diana Baumrind (1964) was very critical of how Milgram deceived his participants. Milgram led participants to believe that the ‘rigged draw’ and the shocks were real. Baumrind argued that this could damage the way participants view psychologists and their research.
• ETHICAL ISSUES: Limitation - Deception of participants may make them less likely to volunteer for future research.