milgram findings/conc/evaluation

Question 1

conclusions

Answer 1

• milgram concluded that it was the circumstances in which participant found themselves in made it hard to disobey
• location of experiment was presitgious, gave authority
• dilemma between not wanting to harm someone and not wanting to disobey autority
• experimenter was already told that they were administering shocks that lef tno permanent tissue damage
• felt under obligation by the experimenter
• new situation didnt know how to act.

Question 2

what things to evaluate?

Answer 2

• internal validity

- ethical issues

Question 3

what can you say about internal validity?

Answer 3

• orne and holland claim the research lacks internal validity as the participants didn’t believe the shocks were real. wouldnt have made sense to have let them administer fatal shocks as part of a psyuchology experiment
• in the follow up questionnaire, participants knew they werent hurting anybody, as they were suspicious because the experimenter was so calm

Question 4

what can you say about ethical issues?

Answer 4

• baumrind (64) claimed milgram caused psychological damage that could not be justified. nonetheless milgram defended himself saying he didnt know it would have caused such high levels of distress.
• furthermore perry (2012) has recently argued that milgram failed in his duty of care for participants because some were waiting for up to a year before they were debriefed, potentially a year of participants believing that they had killed somebody could ave drove some to even suicidal tendencies?