Evaluation of Milgram

• Generalisability - weaknesses

  • Only males - androcentric.
  • All from New Haven, America.
  • Only 40 ppts.
  • Students were excluded.
  • Volunteers act different to general public.
• Generalisability - strengths

  • A range of education levels and socioeconomic statuses were used.
  • A range of ages took part.
• Reliability - strengths

  • Standardised procedures used such as voltage increments and verbal prods.
  • Sample followed strict requirements.
  • Same confederates used for same role each time.
  • Every ppt experienced the same thing.
  • Learners mistakes were at the same point each time.
• Reliability - weaknesses

  Perry (2012) argued that experimenter sometimes deviated from script and used prompts more times than allowed.
• Application

  Can explain obedience in extreme situations, e.g. mass genocide.
• Validity - weaknesses

  • Lab setting impaires ecological validity.
  • Task lacks mundane realism.
  • Volunteer sample produced different results to general public.
  • Ppts may have only administered shocks because they were told they wouldn't cause harm.
• Ethics - weaknesses

  • Verbal prods impaired ppts right to withdraw.
  • Ppts were deceived of true aim.
  • Teacher was put through harm and mental stress.
  • Informed consent could not be given by ppts.
• Ethics - strengths

  • Ppts were debriefed