Evaluation of Milgram's experiment

• A strength of Milgram's experiment is that it heavily relied on laboratory experiments, increasing the internal validity. Evidence comes from Sheridan & King that conducted a study like Milgram's. Participants gave real shocks in response to orders from an experimenter. Despite the real distress of the animal 54% of men & 100% of the women gave what they thought was a fatal shock. This suggests that Milgram's study had high internal validity, as people behaved obediently just like in Milgram's experiment.
• A limitation of this study is that the procedure may not have tested what he intended to test. Milgram reported that 75% of participants said they believed the shocks were genuine, However, Orne & Holland argued that participants behaved as they did because they did not really believe in the set-up, so they were "Play-acting". Perry listened to tapes of MIlgram's study, and found that only half believed that the shocks were real and 2/3 of these people were disobedient. This suggests that participants may have been responding to demand characteristics trying to fulfil the aims of the study.
• The study may lack ecological study as the experimental situation was very different to everyday life situations of obedience. The study also lacks population validity - they were all white, male Americans.
• The study could also be considered unethical as participants were deceived, as well as experiencing psychological harm, as they thought they couldn't withdraw. However, a follow-up questionnaire stated that 84% of participants were glad they had taken part.