milgram

• La Jeu de la Mort includes a replication of Milgram's study where 80% of the participants delivered the maximum shock to an apparently unconscious man. Their behaviour was almost identical to Milgram's participants (for example, nervous laughing, nail biting, etc).

  This replication supports Milgram's original conclusions about obedience to authority and demonstrates that his findings were not an anomalous result. This gives the study greater external validity.
• The study has been criticised for demand characteristics as it is possible that the participants did not believe that the shocks were real.

  Many researchers have listened to the recordings of the study and confirmed that some participants had doubts.

  This undermines Milgram's conclusions that they suspended their usual moral judgement.
• However, a similar study was conducted in which real shocks were given to a puppy. 54% of male participants and 100% of female ones delivered what they thought was a fatal shock.

  This suggests that there is supporting evidence that human beings do act callously and suspend their morals when under pressure from an authority figure.

  Therefore, it seems that Milgram's findings are credible.
• The study appears to lack external validity as it was conducted in a lab, however Milgram argues that the central feature of the study was the relationship between the authority figure and the participant. And so, he argued that the laboratory environment accurately reflected wider authority relationships in real life.
• Hofling et al found that 21 out of 22 nurses obeyed unjustified demands by doctors in a hospital ward.

  Since a similar tendency towards blind obedience was found in a real-life setting and context, it suggests that Milgram's findings are well-supported and not just the result of an artificial setting.

  It can therefore be argued that his findings do tell us something valuable about how obedience operates in real-life.
• Social identity theory argues that obedience in the study is due to identification with the science of the study.

  When obedience levels fell, this was because the participants identified less with the science and more with the victim. It has been argued that the first three prods don't demand obedience, but instead appeal for help with the science.

  As they tended to quit when the fourth prod was used, it suggests that they were actually behaving in response to respect for the science, rather than respect for authority.
• This is a weakness of Milgram's study as these claims by other psychologists suggest that he may have misinterpreted his results and drew the wrong conclusions.