lesson 07 - Milgram; validity and ethics

limitation: demand characteristics

the participants in Milgram's study may have been aware the procedure was fake. this is even more likely in his variations because of the extra manipulation of variables, e.g. the variation where the 'experimenter' is replaced by a 'member of the public'. even Milgram recognised that this situation was so contrived that some participants may well have worked out the truth.

limitation: validity

Milgram's procedure may not have been testing what he intended to test. he reported that 75% of his participants said they believed the shocks were genuine. however, other researchers argued that participants behaved as they did because they didn't really believe the set-up, so they were 'play-acting'. this was confirmed in research involving listening to tapes of Milgram's participants where only about half of them seemed to believe that the shocks were real. two thirds of these participants were disobedient.

strength: external support (puppy experiment)

Sheridan and King conducted a study using a procedure like Milgram's. participants (students) gave real shocks to a puppy in response to orders from an experimenter. despite the real distress of the animal, 54% of the men and 100% of the women gave what they thought was a fatal shock

strength: external support (reality TV experiment)

Milgram’s findings were replicated in a French documentary that was made about reality TV in 2012. this documentary focused on a game show made especially for the programme. the participants in the ‘game’ believed they were contestants in a pilot episode for a new show called Le Jeu de la Mort. they were paid to give (fake) electric shocks (ordered by the presenter) to other participants (who were actually actors) in front of a studio audience. 80% of the participants delivered the maximum shock of 460 volts to an apparently unconscious man. their behaviour was almost identical to that of Milgram’s participants – nervous laughter, nail-biting and other signs of anxiety

strength: external support (uniform experiment)

in a field experiment in New York City, Bickman (1974) had three confederates dress in different outfits – jacket and tie, a milkman’s outfit, and a security guard’s uniform. the confederates individually stood in the stress and asked passers-by to perform tasks such as picking up litter or handing over a coin for the parking meter. people were twice as likely to obey the confederate dressed as a security guard than the one dressed in jacket and tie

strength: external support (job interview experiment)

Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) used a more realistic procedure than Milgram’s to study obedience in Dutch participants. the participants were ordered to say stressful things in an interview to someone (a confederate) desperate for a job. 90% of participants obeyed. the researchers also replicated Milgram’s findings concerning proximity. when the person giving the orders was not present, obedience decreased dramatically

how Milgram dealt with deception

thoroughly debriefed ppts and arranged a reconciliation with the learner

how Milgram dealt with lack of informed consent

claimed he attempted to gain presumptive consent by asking others how many ppts would go to the maximum shock on the generator

how Milgram dealt with lack of protection from harm

study tested destructive obedience, therefore including psychological distress. involved coercion of ppts by omitting to remind them that they could withdraw. a follow up questionnaire resulted in only 1% saying that they were sorry to have taken part. a year later, psychiatrists visited ppts and found no harm. ppts weren’t prevented from withdrawing