Example of an evaluation of Milgrams 1961 experiment Watch

Matilda612
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 10 months ago
#1
Just doing some last minute revision and just wanted to know if someone could proivde me with an example of a full 8 mark answer.
I always miss somthing and im ussally one mark off

Evalaute Milgrams experiment on obedience (8marks) the Electric shock experiment.
1
reply
X_Hope_X
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#2
Report 10 months ago
#2
What is your exam board?
0
reply
Noodlzzz
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 10 months ago
#3
Remember PERVERT

Practical
Ethical
Reliability
Validity
Example
Representativeness
Theoretical

Pick out a few of them that are relevant and it should get you the full 8 marks
4
reply
random_matt
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 10 months ago
#4
There are tons of pros and cons, from peripheral cues to environmental settings. Then there is the case of Milgram burying unwanted data.
0
reply
random_matt
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 10 months ago
#5
(Original post by Noodlzzz)
Remember PERVERT

Practical
Ethical
Reliability
Validity
Example
Representativeness
Theoretical

Pick out a few of them that are relevant and it should get you the full 8 marks
What wise *******told you that?
0
reply
Noodlzzz
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 10 months ago
#6
(Original post by random_matt)
What wise *******told you that?
I learnt it off TSR a few years ago back when I was doing A-levels.

Are you suggesting it's wrong? It got me 100% in A2 psych and A* overall using PERVERT
0
reply
random_matt
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#7
Report 10 months ago
#7
(Original post by Noodlzzz)
I learnt it off TSR a few years ago back when I was doing A-levels.

Are you suggesting it's wrong? It got me 100% in A2 psych and A* overall using PERVERT
Not at all, if it works for you, cool.
1
reply
X_Hope_X
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#8
Report 10 months ago
#8
Generalisability

Volunteers are likely to be particularly obedient (after all, they want to be doing the experiment). Generalisability. On the other hand, volunteers tend to listen to instructions and take the procedure seriously, which is representative of people in real life situations of power being misused.

A sample of 40 is quite large, but anomalies (unusually cruel, gullible or timid people) might spoil the results. The original sample was all-male, which cannot generalise to women, and all-American, which may not generalise to other cultures. It may also be “time-locked” in the early 1960s with its rather deferential culture.

When you put all of Milgram’s variations together, he tested 780 people, which should remove anomalies. However, some of the Variations (like #13) only tested 20 participants, so a few rebellious individuals (like the ones who overpowered the confederate) might spoil things.

Variation #8 tested women, with the same obedience level (65%) as men. This lends support to the idea that the original sample was representative.

Reliability

Milgram’s procedure is very reliable because it can be replicated – between 1961-2 he carried out 19 Variations of his baseline study. Burger followed Milgram’s script wherever possible, indicating high reliability. Milgram also filmed parts of his study, allowing viewers to review his findings (inter-rater reliability).

Features that make for standardised procedure in this study include the pre-scripted “prods” used by the Experimenter, the tape-recorded responses from Mr Wallace, the fact that the Teacher cannot see Mr Wallace.

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.

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”.

Milgram (1974) links his findings to the actions of the Nazi’s following the orders by Hitler.

Validity

lacks 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.

However Perry challenges the validity (and generalisability and reliability) of Milgram's procedures - 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). 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

Ethics

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 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, 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.
1
reply
Matilda612
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 10 months ago
#9
My exam board is Edexcel
0
reply
Matilda612
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#10
Report Thread starter 10 months ago
#10
(Original post by X_Hope_X)
Generalisability

Volunteers are likely to be particularly obedient (after all, they want to be doing the experiment). Generalisability. On the other hand, volunteers tend to listen to instructions and take the procedure seriously, which is representative of people in real life situations of power being misused.

A sample of 40 is quite large, but anomalies (unusually cruel, gullible or timid people) might spoil the results. The original sample was all-male, which cannot generalise to women, and all-American, which may not generalise to other cultures. It may also be “time-locked” in the early 1960s with its rather deferential culture.

When you put all of Milgram’s variations together, he tested 780 people, which should remove anomalies. However, some of the Variations (like #13) only tested 20 participants, so a few rebellious individuals (like the ones who overpowered the confederate) might spoil things.

Variation #8 tested women, with the same obedience level (65%) as men. This lends support to the idea that the original sample was representative.

Reliability

Milgram’s procedure is very reliable because it can be replicated – between 1961-2 he carried out 19 Variations of his baseline study. Burger followed Milgram’s script wherever possible, indicating high reliability. Milgram also filmed parts of his study, allowing viewers to review his findings (inter-rater reliability).

Features that make for standardised procedure in this study include the pre-scripted “prods” used by the Experimenter, the tape-recorded responses from Mr Wallace, the fact that the Teacher cannot see Mr Wallace.

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.

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”.

Milgram (1974) links his findings to the actions of the Nazi’s following the orders by Hitler.

Validity

lacks 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.

However Perry challenges the validity (and generalisability and reliability) of Milgram's procedures - 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). 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

Ethics

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 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, 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.
Thanks! I guess I lost marks due to my lack of application and my bad conclusion.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

University open days

  • Cardiff University
    Undergraduate Open Day Undergraduate
    Wed, 27 Mar '19
  • University of Portsmouth
    Postgraduate and Part-Time Open Evenings Postgraduate
    Wed, 27 Mar '19
  • Middlesex University London
    Postgraduate Open Evening Postgraduate
    Wed, 27 Mar '19

How old were you when you first saw porn?

I've never seen it (23)
17.04%
Before I was 12 (50)
37.04%
13 (26)
19.26%
14 (17)
12.59%
15 (10)
7.41%
16 (4)
2.96%
17 (0)
0%
18 (2)
1.48%
Between the ages of 19 - 24 (3)
2.22%
Over 25 (0)
0%

Watched Threads

View All