Low internal validity: Ethical issues –
One limitation is that Milgram's procedure may not have been testing what he The participants in this study were deceived. For
intended to test. Milgram reported that 75% of his participants said they believed the example, the participants thought that the allocation of
shocks were genuine. However, Martin Orne and Charles Holland (1968) argued that roles (Teacher and Learner) was random, but in fact it
participants behaved as they did because they didn't really believe in the set up, so was fixed. They also thought the shocks were real.
they were 'play-acting Gina Perry's (2013) research confirms this. She listened to tapes Milgram dealt with this by debriefing participants.
of Milgram's participants and reported that only about half of them believed the However, Diana Baumrind (1964) criticised Milgram for
shocks were real. Two-thirds of these participants were disobedient. deceiving his participants. She objected because she
This suggests that participants may have been responding to demand characteristics, believed that deception in psychological studies can have
trying to fulfil the aims of the study. serious consequences for participants and researchers.
Counterpoint However, Charles Sheridan and Richard King (1972) conducted a study
using a procedure like Milgram's. Participants (all 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.
This suggests that the effects in Milgram's study were genuine because people behaved
obediently even when the shocks were real.
Alternative interpretations of finding:
Another limitation is that Milgram's conclusions about blind obedience may not be
justified. Alex Haslam et al. (2014) showed that Milgram's participants obeyed when
the Experimenter delivered the first three verbal prods (see facing page). However,
every participant who was given the fourth prod ('You have no other choice, you must
go on') without exception disobeyed. According to social identity theory (SIT),
participants in Milgram's study only obeyed when they identified with the scientific
aims of the research (The experiment requires that you continue).
When they were ordered to blindly obey an authority figure, they refused.
This shows that SIT may provide a more valid interpretation of Milgram's findings,
especially as Milgram himself suggested that 'identifying with the science' is a reason
for obedience.
One limitation is that Milgram's procedure may not have been testing what he The participants in this study were deceived. For
intended to test. Milgram reported that 75% of his participants said they believed the example, the participants thought that the allocation of
shocks were genuine. However, Martin Orne and Charles Holland (1968) argued that roles (Teacher and Learner) was random, but in fact it
participants behaved as they did because they didn't really believe in the set up, so was fixed. They also thought the shocks were real.
they were 'play-acting Gina Perry's (2013) research confirms this. She listened to tapes Milgram dealt with this by debriefing participants.
of Milgram's participants and reported that only about half of them believed the However, Diana Baumrind (1964) criticised Milgram for
shocks were real. Two-thirds of these participants were disobedient. deceiving his participants. She objected because she
This suggests that participants may have been responding to demand characteristics, believed that deception in psychological studies can have
trying to fulfil the aims of the study. serious consequences for participants and researchers.
Counterpoint However, Charles Sheridan and Richard King (1972) conducted a study
using a procedure like Milgram's. Participants (all 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.
This suggests that the effects in Milgram's study were genuine because people behaved
obediently even when the shocks were real.
Alternative interpretations of finding:
Another limitation is that Milgram's conclusions about blind obedience may not be
justified. Alex Haslam et al. (2014) showed that Milgram's participants obeyed when
the Experimenter delivered the first three verbal prods (see facing page). However,
every participant who was given the fourth prod ('You have no other choice, you must
go on') without exception disobeyed. According to social identity theory (SIT),
participants in Milgram's study only obeyed when they identified with the scientific
aims of the research (The experiment requires that you continue).
When they were ordered to blindly obey an authority figure, they refused.
This shows that SIT may provide a more valid interpretation of Milgram's findings,
especially as Milgram himself suggested that 'identifying with the science' is a reason
for obedience.
