Evaluating Milgram (1963)

ETHICAL GUIDELINES (LIMITATION): One limitation of Milgram's study is that it has been criticised for breaching ethical guidelines. For example, participants were deceived because they were told the study was about memory and learning, when it was actually about obedience to authority. The allocation of roles was also fixed, which added to the deception. In addition, many participants showed visible signs of distress during the procedure, suggesting that they were not protected from psychological harm. Some critics have also argued that the distress may have continued after the study, leaving participants with feelings of guilt. Therefore, many psychologists have argued that Milgram's violations of ethical guidelines may have damaged the reputation of psychology and discouraged some people from taking part in future research.

EXAM HINT: It should be noted that Milgram informed participants before the study that they had the right to withdraw at any time, so it could be argued that this ethical issue was addressed. However, the experimenter's verbal prods may have made participants feel under pressure to continue, which could have undermined their genuine right to withdraw.

ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY (LIMITATION WITH COUNTERARGUMENT): Another limitation of Milgram's study is that it has been criticised for lacking ecological validity. The study took place in a laboratory, which is very different from real-life situations in which people are expected to obey authority. In everyday life, people are more likely to follow relatively harmless instructions rather than potentially lethal electric shocks. However, Milgram argued that the laboratory can still represent wider authority relationships found in real life, and this is supported by Hofling et al. (1966), who found that nurses obeyed unreasonable instructions from a doctor in a real hospital setting. Therefore, although Milgram's procedure may appear artificial, further evidence suggests that his findings may still tell us something important about obedience in real-world situations.

POPULATION VALIDITY (LIMITATION): A further limitation of Milgram's study is that it has been criticised for lacking population validity. Milgram used a sample of 40 male American volunteers, all drawn from a broadly individualistic culture. This means that the findings were based on a narrow sample that did not include women or people from a wider range of cultural backgrounds. This suggests that the results may not be generalisable to all populations, as levels of obedience may differ depending on gender or culture. Therefore, Milgram's findings cannot be assumed to apply equally to female participants or to individuals from different cultural backgrounds.

ISSUES & DEBATES - GENDER BIAS: Milgram's research can be linked to the issue of gender bias because his original sample consisted entirely of male participants. This means the findings were based only on men's obedience to authority, so the research may be seen as androcentric. It may also show beta bias, because possible gender differences in obedience were ignored or minimised. This is important because it means the findings may give an incomplete picture of obedience and cannot be confidently generalised to women.

CONTROLLED CONDITIONS (STRENGTH): One strength of Milgram's study is that it was conducted under highly controlled conditions. Each participant experienced the same standardised procedure, including the same instructions and the same scripted prompts from the experimenter. This meant that the study was carried out in a consistent way for all participants. This shows that Milgram had a high level of control over extraneous variables, making it easier to identify the factors that influenced obedience. It also allowed him to carry out systematic variations of the original study to test the effects of variables such as proximity, location and uniform. Therefore, the controlled conditions were a major strength because they enabled Milgram to investigate obedience in a precise and systematic way.