Evaluation

• One strength of Milgram’s Research is that replications have supported Milgram’s research findings. In a French TV documentary contestants were paid to give a fake electric shock when ordered to by a presenter 80% went up to 480 volts to an apparently unconscious man. The participants behaviour was like that of Milgram’s participants for eg many showed signs of anxiety. This supports Milgram’s original findings about obedience to authority.
• One limitation of Milgram’s study is that it lacks internal validity.Orne and Holland argued that the participants guessed the electric shocks were fake and were play acting. This was supported by Perry’s discovery that only half of the participants believed the shocks were real as some participants voiced there suspicions about the shocks This suggests that the participant’s may have been showing demand characteristics
• A further limitation is that the participants were deceived as they though the shocks were real Milgram dealt with this by debriefing. Baumrind felt that this deception could have serious consequences for participants and researchers as participant’s aren’t able to give informed consent. Therefore research can damage the reputation of psychologist and their research in the eyes of the public
• One strength is that other studies have demonstrated the influence of situational variables on obedience. Bickman (1974) conducted a field experiment. He had 3 confederates dress in three different outfits. • A suit and tie • Milkman’s outfit • Security guard’s uniform
• The confederates stood in the street and asked passers-by to perform tasks such as picking up litter or giving the confederate a coin for the parking meter. People were twice as likely to obey the confederate dressed as a security guard than a suit and tie/milkman. This supports the view that a situational variables, such as uniform, does have a powerful effect on obedience
• One limitation is that participants may have worked out that the procedure was faked. Milgram’s research was criticised by Orne and Holland (1968), who suggested that participants in Milgram variations were likely to realise this because of the extra manipulation. A good example is the variation where the experimenter replaced by 'a member of the public', even Milgram recognised that this situation was so unnatural that some participants may well have worked out the truth.
• Therefore, it is unclear whether the findings are genuinely due to obedience or because participants saw through deception (demand characteristics) and just play acted.
• A strength of Milgram research is that his findings have been replicated in other cultures and found consistency in results. Wim Meeus and Quintin Raaijmakers(1986) used a more realistic procedure of Milgram’s study to test obedience levels in Dutch participants. The (genuine) participants were ordered to say stressful things to make them nervous and to disturb them; during an interviews (a confederate) who was desperate for a job, consequently, the applicant failed the test and remained unemployed. Over, 90% of the participants obeyed.
• The researchers also replicated Milgram's proximity variation. When the person given the orders was not present, obedience decreased drastically. This suggests that Milgram's findings about obedience are not limited to American but are valid across cultures.
• However, Smith and Bond (1998) made a critical point that most replication has occurred in Western cultures (such as Spain, Australia, and Scotland) - all of which are culturally very similar to the United States, therefore the results may ONLY reflect behaviours relevant to western societies. As a result, it may be incorrect to conclude that Milgram's findings apply to people from all or most cultures
• Milgram altered one variable at a time (I.e. proximity, location and uniform independently) to see what effect it would have on the level of obedience. Procedures and variables were kept constant as the study was replicated over and over again with more than 1000 participants in total. This level of control is a clear strength as it means we can be certain that the change in obedience levels was caused by the single variable which was manipulated Therefore, this high level of control ensures a clear cause and effect link and leaves small room for scrutiny of the method.