Asch
One strength of Asch’s research into social influence is that it used standardised procedures. The conditions
of Asch’s study were consistent for all participants who took part; they were put in amongst a group of
confederates and asked to identify which line fit was the same length as the test line. This aims to ensure
that we can identify whether the independent variable does in fact impact the dependent variable. Therefore,
the validity of the findings is enhanced by the standardised nature of the study.
One limitation of Asch's study is that there was a lack of informed consent. Asch’s participants were told that
they were partaking in a test of eyesight as opposed to their level of conformity being tested. This deception
through lack of informed consent can lead to psychological harm which may have affected the results of the
study. Therefore, we must question the validity of Asch’s research as the same results could have been
obtained without causing psychological harm.
Another limitation of Asch’s study is that it was extremely controlled. The experiment took place in a lab
setting which is an artificial environment unfamiliar to the participants. For this reason we cannot be sure
whether the findings were a result of the unfamiliar setting or due to the independent variable impacting the
dependent variable. Therefore we must question the reliability of Asch’s study as the lack of mundane
realism may mean that the results do not truly reflect people’s tendency to conform to majority influence.
Milgram
One strength of Milgram’s research is that it was a controlled experiment. The study took place in a lab
setting in which Milgram could control extraneous variables such as room temperature and amount of people
in the room that may have influenced the results. Because of this, we can conclude that the independent
variable (‘learner’s’ reaction to ‘shock’) did in fact impact the dependent variable (amount of voltage
administered by participant). Therefore, the validity of Milgram’s study is enhanced as it found results which
fit the aim of the experiment.
One limitation of Milgram’s research is that there was a lack of informed consent. The participants were
deceived and told that they were partaking in a study to investigate the relationship between punishment and
learning. Ths deception may have caused psychological harm, with 13% of participants saying in later
interviews that they wish they had been told the true aims. Therefore, we must question the validity of the
results and the same findings could have been achieved without the deception and psychological harm.
One limitation of Milgram’s study is that it lacks population validity. The participants of the study were all
male, aged 20-50. This means that the findings do not represent those not included in this sample such as
women or men aged above 50 and under 20. Therefore, the findings cannot be used as a general rule or
representation of the ways people obey unjust orders from an authority figure.
One limitation of Milgram’s research is that participants were denied their right to withdraw. Ethical guidelines
for psychological research dictate that participants must be made aware of their right to withdraw from a
study before, during and after the study has been completed. In Milgram’s study, when reluctance to continue
was shown by participants, they were given prods such as ‘the experiment requires you to continue’ and ‘it is
essential to continue’ which meant they felt they could not withdraw which can cause psychological harm.
Therefore, we must question the validity of the research as the same results may have been obtained without
causing psychological harm.
One strength of Asch’s research into social influence is that it used standardised procedures. The conditions
of Asch’s study were consistent for all participants who took part; they were put in amongst a group of
confederates and asked to identify which line fit was the same length as the test line. This aims to ensure
that we can identify whether the independent variable does in fact impact the dependent variable. Therefore,
the validity of the findings is enhanced by the standardised nature of the study.
One limitation of Asch's study is that there was a lack of informed consent. Asch’s participants were told that
they were partaking in a test of eyesight as opposed to their level of conformity being tested. This deception
through lack of informed consent can lead to psychological harm which may have affected the results of the
study. Therefore, we must question the validity of Asch’s research as the same results could have been
obtained without causing psychological harm.
Another limitation of Asch’s study is that it was extremely controlled. The experiment took place in a lab
setting which is an artificial environment unfamiliar to the participants. For this reason we cannot be sure
whether the findings were a result of the unfamiliar setting or due to the independent variable impacting the
dependent variable. Therefore we must question the reliability of Asch’s study as the lack of mundane
realism may mean that the results do not truly reflect people’s tendency to conform to majority influence.
Milgram
One strength of Milgram’s research is that it was a controlled experiment. The study took place in a lab
setting in which Milgram could control extraneous variables such as room temperature and amount of people
in the room that may have influenced the results. Because of this, we can conclude that the independent
variable (‘learner’s’ reaction to ‘shock’) did in fact impact the dependent variable (amount of voltage
administered by participant). Therefore, the validity of Milgram’s study is enhanced as it found results which
fit the aim of the experiment.
One limitation of Milgram’s research is that there was a lack of informed consent. The participants were
deceived and told that they were partaking in a study to investigate the relationship between punishment and
learning. Ths deception may have caused psychological harm, with 13% of participants saying in later
interviews that they wish they had been told the true aims. Therefore, we must question the validity of the
results and the same findings could have been achieved without the deception and psychological harm.
One limitation of Milgram’s study is that it lacks population validity. The participants of the study were all
male, aged 20-50. This means that the findings do not represent those not included in this sample such as
women or men aged above 50 and under 20. Therefore, the findings cannot be used as a general rule or
representation of the ways people obey unjust orders from an authority figure.
One limitation of Milgram’s research is that participants were denied their right to withdraw. Ethical guidelines
for psychological research dictate that participants must be made aware of their right to withdraw from a
study before, during and after the study has been completed. In Milgram’s study, when reluctance to continue
was shown by participants, they were given prods such as ‘the experiment requires you to continue’ and ‘it is
essential to continue’ which meant they felt they could not withdraw which can cause psychological harm.
Therefore, we must question the validity of the research as the same results may have been obtained without
causing psychological harm.
