criticisms

• Orne & Holland


  -criticised work on 2 counts of validity

  -lacking internal validity

  -lacking external validity
• internal validity - Orne & Holland


  -believed Ps didn't believe they were giving shocks

  -pretended to please experimenter > demand characteristics

  -argued many clues present > experimenter remaining calm & saying to continue

  (Milgram disputes this)
• androcentric


  -doesn't generalise to women

  (although shown to have similar obedience levels in females)
• ethnocentric


  -doesn't generalise to collectivist cultures

  (Milgram's procedures replicated in other countries with similar results)

  CAN generalise
• lacks ecological validity 


  -giving shocks too artificial

  (Hofling disproves)
• Rank & Jacobson - Hofling


  -concerned that nurses had no knowledge of drug / no opportunity to seek advice

  -repeated procedure using drug valium & nurses could speak to others
• Rank & Jacobson - findings


  -2/18 nurses proceeded to prepare medication

  -shows Hofling's study lacked ecological validity

  -doesn't support Milgram
• Holocaust comparison not valid


  -shocks in Milgram's study not harmful , torturing & killing victims in Holocaust

  -Ps showed distress in Milgram's study , Nazi officers enjoyed harming Jews

  -obedience in Milgram's study decreased when authority figure not present , not necessary in Holocaust
• deception- Baumrind


  -told study about effects of punishment on memory

  -believed giving real shocks

  -confederate was real P
• unprotected from psychological harm- Baumrind


  -showed extreme stress

  -long term psychological effects of guilt > learning they're willing to give lethal shocks
• struggles with withdrawal rights- Baumrind


  -Ps informed had no choice but to go on

  -verbal prods from experimenter
• major critic of Milgram's ethics

  Baumrind