A03 Milgram

• Evaluate Milgram's Electric Shock Study?


  + Hofling et al (1966) supporting research

  + Replications have supported Milgram's results

  -Lacks Internal validity (Perry 2013)

  + Against lacking internal validity (Sheridan & King 1972)

  -Lacks population validity

  -Lack of consideration of Ethics (Baumrind 1964)
• + Hofling et al (1966) supporting research- Milgram

  P: Supporting research from a field experiment by Hofling et al (1966) who investigated obedience levels of nurses on a hospital ward.

  E: They studied how the nurses respond to unjustified demands from doctors such as giving twice the recommended dosage of a drug to a patient.

  E: The found high levels of obedience as 21 of the 22 nurses obeyed the doctor.

  L: This adds external validity to Milgram's experiment (which he was criticised for lacking in his lab based study). Strengthening his studies' findings and enabling it to be generalised.
• Lacks population validity - Milgram



  P: Another reason why Milgram was criticised was for lacking population validity as he used only males.

  E: There may be a gender difference in obedience levels with women being more likely or less likely to obey.

  E: This is supported by the findings of the Sheridan & King study where 100% of women OBEYED and only 54% of the men OBEYED.

  L: This would suggest that Milgram was wrong to exclude female. (Yet, when he replicated his study on women he found they have the same level of obedience).
• Lacks Ethics - Milgram




  P: Milgram has been criticised for his lack of consideration of ethics.

  E: Baumrind (1964) criticised Milgram's deceptions - deceived ppt about the fact they were not actually delivering harmful electric shocks and that roles were randomly assigned (they actually fixed). This impacted informed consent (i.e they couldn't give).

  E: He didn't protect his ppt from psychological harm as they experienced trauma in delivering the shocks & humiliation upon finding out the extent of the deceit.

  L: This is not acceptable and such research would never be approved today.
• Lacks internal validity - Milgram


  P: Milgram's work been criticised for lacking internal validity due to his ppt not truly believing they delivering real shocks.

  E: This reinforced by Perry (2013) who analysed tape recordings from the experiment, finding many ppt expressed doubts about the authenticity of the task. Orne & Hill (1968) also suggested the ppt guessed shocks were fake.

  L: Thus, Milgram may not been testing what he wanted to test (obedience) & so study lacks internal validity weakening it. HOWEVER - see next card
• Against lacking internal validity - Milgram


  Sheridan & King's (1972) ppt gave real shocks to a real puppy: 54% males & 100% females obeyed giving the shock (they were able to see the puppy).

  SO obedience in Milgram's study may be genuine and the ppt may have actually believe they were giving real electric shocks.