Evaluation of Milgram

• The study provided a powerful explanation for how ordinary people can commit harmful acts under authoritative pressure—a finding that has been applied to understanding events such as the Holocaust. Milgram argued that situational forces, rather than individual personality alone, are key in driving obedience.
• Use of Deception and Presumptive Consent:

  Although controversial, the deception was deemed necessary to elicit genuine responses. Milgram defended this by noting that participants, in retrospect, showed a high degree of acceptance—about 84% stated they were not sorry they had taken part—and an independent psychiatrist found no lasting psychological harm. At the time, ethical guidelines were less stringent, and participants were allowed to withdraw at any point.
• Individual Differences

  While the overall obedience rate was approximately 65%, further research (e.g. Eagley, 1978) has indicated that individual factors, including gender, can influence obedience levels, adding nuance to our understanding of the phenomenon. The rate of obedience between the genders was similar. Blass (1999) studied both genders found no differences
• Baumrind

  Participants were misled about the true nature of the experiment—believing they were administering real shocks—which breaches the principle of fully informed consent. Critics such as Baumrind have strongly condemned this aspect, he said Milgram did not have the adequate measures to protect Ps from Psychological harm
• Some critics have argued that paying participants might have contributed to a sense of contractual obligation, thereby inflating obedience levels.
• Critics including Orne and Holland have contended that the artificial laboratory setting (a simulated shock experiment in an academic environment) does not fully replicate the complexities and pressures of real-life situations of authority. This calls into question the generalisability of the findings to actual settings where harmful obedience might occur.
• The standardised verbal prods used by the experimenter (e.g., “You have no other choice, you must continue”) were highly directive and arguably coercive, which limits the right to withdraw.