|
This is a compulsory study so you are likely to be asked to do more than just "evaluate" this study in a general way. You could be asked about the particular strengths (or weaknesses) of how Milgram recruited his volunteers or the reasons for believing the participants' reactions were genuine (or that they weren't). Gina Perry's criticisms of Milgram are quite recent and the Examiner won't ask you specifically about them - but they make good points to bring up if you are evaluating Milgram's standardised procedures or the credibility of his conclusions.
|
|
EVALUATING MILGRAM
|
|
A serious criticism is levelled by Gina Perry (2012), that Milgram did not follow standardised procedures. John Williams (the Experimenter) admitted to Perry that Milgram was only strict about the pre-scripted “prods” in the first study and afterwards Williams was free to improvise. This made obedience in the Variations seem higher than it really was.
|
|
See the section on VALIDITY for more on Gina Perry and her criticisms of Milgram.
Application
The study demonstrates how obedience to authority works and this can be used to increase obedience in settings like schools, workplaces and prisons. Authority figures should wear symbols of authority (uniforms) and justify their authority with reference to a “greater good”.
The study demonstrates how obedience to authority works and this can be used to increase obedience in settings like schools, workplaces and prisons. Authority figures should wear symbols of authority (uniforms) and justify their authority with reference to a “greater good”.
|
Milgram (1974) links his findings to the My Lai massacre. In 1968, a group of US soldiers (“Charlie Company”) killed the 800 inhabitants of a Vietnamese village. They were obeying the orders of Lt William Calley. The soldiers executed old men, women and children.
Despite an attempted cover-up, 14 officers were eventually tried by a military court, but only Calley was jailed. His 20 year sentence was halved on appeal and he was later paroled. He said he was only following orders from his superiors. |
- Although the My Lai massacre can be explained using Milgram’s study, it also links to intergroup conflict. Charlie Company had lost nearly 30 of its men in the recent Tet Offensive and was keen for revenge against the Viet Cong. They had been told that My Lai was full of Viet Cong sympathizers.
With a better understanding of blind obedience, tragedies like this could be prevented in future. For example, soldiers could be trained to report and refuse orders that would be war crimes.
Validity
Milgram’s study has been criticised for lacking ecological validity because the task is artificial – in real life, teachers are not asked to deliver electric shocks to learners. However, Milgram’s reply is that events like the Holocaust were just as unusual and strange and that people in these situations felt similarly to his participants: they had been dropped into an unfamiliar situation and didn’t know how to respond.
Milgram’s study has been criticised for lacking ecological validity because the task is artificial – in real life, teachers are not asked to deliver electric shocks to learners. However, Milgram’s reply is that events like the Holocaust were just as unusual and strange and that people in these situations felt similarly to his participants: they had been dropped into an unfamiliar situation and didn’t know how to respond.
|
Some critics claim that the participants were play-acting: they knew (or suspected) that the set-up wasn’t real. However, their visible distress (filmed by Milgram) counts against this.
One of the main critics is Australian psychologist Gina Perry, who wrote a book debunking Milgram called Behind The Shock Machine (2012). Perry challenges the validity (and generalisability and reliability) of Milgram's procedures. |
|
Perry claims that Milgram’s data is not to be trusted. She alleges that, as an ambitious young scholar, Milgram twisted the data to make it look as if there was “a Nazi inside all of us” to make himself famous. In Variation #8 in particular, Mr Williams (the Experimenter) would not let the women back out of the study even after using 4 prods. Supposedly, Milgram encouraged this because it was important for his theory that men and women should both experience the Agentic State (otherwise it looks like male obedience isn't really obedience at all - it's just aggression). If Perry's accusations are correct, this would make Milgram’s claim that women were as obedient as men invalid.
Perry also alleges, after studying unpublished letters at Milgram's old department at Yale, that several participants did suspect the study was a trick. Some of them wrote to MIlgram and pointed out that Mr Wallace's cries of pain seemed to come from the speakers, not the room next door. Participants in Variation #7 noticed that, when they pressed a lower voltage switch instead of the higher one, the cries of pain still intensified.
Other participants were suspicious of the shabby state of the electrodes on the electric chair.
Perry also alleges, after studying unpublished letters at Milgram's old department at Yale, that several participants did suspect the study was a trick. Some of them wrote to MIlgram and pointed out that Mr Wallace's cries of pain seemed to come from the speakers, not the room next door. Participants in Variation #7 noticed that, when they pressed a lower voltage switch instead of the higher one, the cries of pain still intensified.
Other participants were suspicious of the shabby state of the electrodes on the electric chair.
|
At that time in America, the most popular TV show was Candid Camera, in which members of the public were set up for elaborate pranks and secretly filmed. Some participants wondered if this might be an episode of Candid Camera.
Milgram certainly ignored these suspicions and reported that his participants believed 100% in the realism of the study. |
|
Milgram’s claim that the drop in obedience in Variation #10 to 47.5% was “not significant” might be another indication that he was determined to conclude that obedience his high. A difference of -17.5% between experimental conditions would usually be significant.
Ethics
The ethical debate between Baumrind (1964) and Milgram (1964b) has already been described.
The main criticism is that participants’ wellbeing was ignored: they were deceived (about the shocks) and did not give informed consent (they were told it was a memory test, not an obedience test). When they tried to withdraw, the “prods” made this difficult for them. This sort of treatment of participants drags science into disrepute and makes it harder to recruit for future research.
The main defence is that the study would not have been possible if participants knew what was being investigated. After all, everyone who had the study described to them beforehand felt sure that they would disobey.
Milgram argues that, after the Holocaust and My Lai, a scientific understanding of obedience is so importance it justifies this sort of research. He also downplayed the seriousness of the distress, claiming his participants experience “excitement” similar to watching a scary movie, not lasting trauma.
Milgram also extensively debriefed his participants and went to lengths to show that no lasting harm had befallen them.
The ethical debate between Baumrind (1964) and Milgram (1964b) has already been described.
The main criticism is that participants’ wellbeing was ignored: they were deceived (about the shocks) and did not give informed consent (they were told it was a memory test, not an obedience test). When they tried to withdraw, the “prods” made this difficult for them. This sort of treatment of participants drags science into disrepute and makes it harder to recruit for future research.
The main defence is that the study would not have been possible if participants knew what was being investigated. After all, everyone who had the study described to them beforehand felt sure that they would disobey.
Milgram argues that, after the Holocaust and My Lai, a scientific understanding of obedience is so importance it justifies this sort of research. He also downplayed the seriousness of the distress, claiming his participants experience “excitement” similar to watching a scary movie, not lasting trauma.
Milgram also extensively debriefed his participants and went to lengths to show that no lasting harm had befallen them.
|
EXEMPLAR ESSAY
|