Strengths / Supporting Evidence: Milgram gave ppts a thorough debrief. Followed up a year later - 84% glad they took part, 74% felt had learned something  , Milgram’s procedure has been replicated all over the world and consistent and similar obedience levels have been found. Although Germany was higher in obedience than Australia., Hofling et al (1966) conducted a similar study in a real life setting with nurses. 21/22 nurses (95%) obeyed doctor (confederate) who gave an order over the phone to increase dosage to twice that advised on the bottle., Opened our eyes to the situational reasons that cause obedience rather than just the personality. We could use this to reduce or prevent future destructive examples of obedience., Internal validity was good because when followed up, participants had believed the shocks were real., Weaknesses / Conflicting Evidence: Baumrind (1964) – participants under immense emotional stress. Stutter. Nervous laughter. Also knowledge in long-term that they are capable of administering shocks., Orne and Holland (1968) doubt internal validity – demand characteristics - ppts may have guessed what was going on., Mandel (1998) proposed that Milgram’s findings have been over-generalised and oversimplified as an explanation of the atrocities of the holocaust. His study must not provide an obedience alibi and excuse this atrocity., Ethical issues such as informed consent, deception, right to withdraw, Rank and Jacobsen (1998) asked nurses to carry out an irregular order. 89% refused (16 / 18). In this study, nurses were allowed to consult with peers and they also knew the drug (Valium).,

Evaluating Milgram

さんの投稿です
印刷
埋め込み

リーダーボード

表示スタイル

オプション

テンプレートを切り替える

自動保存: を復元しますか?