Milgram Behavioural Study of Obedience Essay

The method acting used by Milgram was the laboratory experiment. The main profit that Milgram had with this method was the amount of control he had over the feature. He controlled what the participants saw, comprehend and experienced and was able to manipulate their behaviour through what they were exposed to. This method also allowed accurate measurement of variables and the clear standardised procedures meant that replication was possible.The dis wagess of this method include low bionomical validity and the influence of demand characteristics on the participants and it could be argued that they were behaving in the way that they thought was expected of them rather than producing earthy behaviour. Milgram has also been heavily criticised regarding the ethics of this study (see below) . Was the sample representative? Milgrams sample was a self-selected sample of 40 male persons obtained through advertising. This could be regarded as being a biased sample as they were all male A merican citizens.They were also volunteers and the majority of the population is un plausibly to volunteer to have got part in research and those who do may be unorthodox of the target population in some way. Hence there may be problems generalising from these results. What type of data was collected? The data collected was quantitative in that it involved measuring participants obedience level, numerically, in terms of how outlying(prenominal) up the voltage scale they were prepargond to go. This type of data has the advantage of being easy to compare and statistically analyse.However, Milgram included no qualitative descriptions of why the participants obeyed or how they felt during the experiment although there are a few brief descriptions of participants behaviour during the experiment. Does this study have high or low Ecological Validity? As with all laboratory experiments there are problems with Milgrams study regarding its ecological validity. It involved an extremely w himsical depute carried out under very artificial conditions and as such, is likely to have produced very unnatural behaviour from the participants.This has implications for the extent to which we can talk from these results to real life situations and it can be argued that the study tells us zip fastener close obedience in everyday life but merely shows us how obedient these people were, in this environment, performing this task. Was the study honourable? Milgrams study was probably one of the most unethical pieces of mental research ever conducted. It can be criticised in terms of well-nigh all the British Psychological Society Ethical Guidelines including informed consent, deception, function to withdraw and protection from harm.However, in Milgrams defence, we can argue that he did not expect the participants to obey to the extent that they did or to find the task so stressful. He also conducted a thorough debriefing and review article monitoring of his participants. A survey conducted one year later revealed that 84% of the participants were glad to have taken part in the study and psychiatric examinations of them showed that none had suffered long term harm. What does this study tell us to the highest degree Individual and Situational Explanations of behaviour?The individual exposition for the behaviour of the participants would be that it was something about them as people that caused them to obey, but a more realistic explanation is that the situation they were in influenced them and caused them to behave in the way that they did. Some of the aspects of the situation that may have influenced their behaviour include the formality of the location, the behaviour of the experimenter and the event that it was an experiment for which they had volunteered and been paid. How useful is this research and to what extent can it be apply to everyday life?As stated previously, the stimulus for this study was the final solution and this study has contrib uted significantly to the discussions regarding the behaviour of the Germans at this time. In particular, it provides strong picture against the Germans are different hypothesis. It also gives a valuable insight into the precedent of situations and of authorisation. The results suggest that we have a natural tendency to obey authority figures even when we feel that what we are being asked to do is morally wrong. However, the applications are restricted by the methodological limitations such as low ecological validity and an unrepresentative sample.