Evaluation: Milgram's Research

Ethical concerns were massive in Milgram's study, and they're still discussed today. Participants thought they were testing how punishment affects learning, not obedience - that's serious deception. The role allocation was rigged too, so participants never actually had a fair chance of being the 'learner'.

The real problem was psychological harm. Many participants showed genuine distress during the experiment, sweating and trembling as they believed they were hurting someone. Imagine how they felt afterwards, thinking they could have seriously injured another person.

Critics worried these ethical breaches would damage psychology's reputation and make future research harder. It's a fair point - if people can't trust psychologists to treat participants properly, why would they volunteer for studies?

Internal validity is questionable according to some researchers. Orne and Holland argued that participants didn't actually believe the setup was real. Think about it - if someone was genuinely being electrocuted, wouldn't the experimenter show some concern?

Perry's research backs this up. She listened to original recordings and found many participants had doubts about whether the shocks were real. If participants were just 'playing along' rather than genuinely obeying, then Milgram wasn't really measuring obedience at all.

However, the study shows impressive external validity. The authority relationship between experimenter and participant mirrors real-life power dynamics. Hofling's hospital study proves this - 21 out of 22 nurses obeyed doctors' unreasonable demands, showing that lab-based obedience findings do translate to genuine situations.

Key Point: Despite its flaws, Milgram's research revealed important truths about how ordinary people respond to authority - lessons that remain relevant today.