AO3- 1963 study

• The sample of all white, males is not representative of the wider population.
• The sample was all American males, so is biased (ethnocentric).
• The sample was small with only 40 participants making generalisation more difficult.
• The sample were all males which is biased (androcentric).
• Reliability was high as the experiment was carried out under strictly controlled conditions in the lab.
• There was high control over variables, increasing the reliability of the study.
• Each participant went through the same standardised procedure, increasing the reliability.
• This study provides a useful understanding of the power of people in positions of legitimate authority.
• This study could help us understand 'blind obedience' and why Nazi soldiers acted that way in WW2.
• Provides practical applications and advice for how we need to be aware of the power of authority.
• Has useful applications for the police, prison officers or those in a position of legitimate authority.
• The study lacks ecological validity, as the setting is artificial and does not reflect real life.
• The task lacks mundane realism, as participants would not ordinarily electrocute another person.
• The study lacks population validity as the sample is not representative of the wider population.
• The study may lack temporal validity, as more recent replications have not provided the same results.
• The study has high internal validity as it was strictly controlled and the manipulation from the authority figure caused changes in the results.
• Informed Consent: participants were not told the true nature of the study, so did not give full informed consent.
• Deception: participants were led to believe the learner was a real participant and roles were assigned fairly.
• Deception: participants were led to believe the electric shock generator was real.
• Deception: participants were led to believe the experiment was for scientific benefit, as the researcher was wearing a lab coat.
• Right to Withdraw: participants were not given the right to withdraw immediately. They had to ask four times before they were allowed to stop.
• Confidentiality: participants were video and audio recorded during the experiment.
• Confidentiality: participants' names were not published.
• Protection from Harm: participants suffered from moral strain and showed high levels of anxiety.
• Protection from harm: some participants showed physical signs of distress.
• Debriefing: participants received a full debriefing and was reunited with the learner at the end.
• Debriefing: participants were offered support for months following the study.
• This study supports the Agency Theory (Milgram, 1977).
• Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) who conducted a cross-cultural variation and found 91.7% of participants obeyed orders from an authority figure.