1. IS THE RESEARCH MEASURING WHAT IT AIMED TO MEASURE?
VALIDITY
IS THE RESEARCH MEASURING WHAT IT AIMED TO MEASURE?

2. EXPERIMENTAL (INTERNAL) VALIDITY…
Orne & Holland (1968) criticise Milgram’s study for lack of:
Experimental (Internal) Validity
Ecological (External) Validity
EXPERIMENTAL (INTERNAL) VALIDITY…
…is a measure of whether experimental procedures actually work and the results are genuine!
e.g.
The controls (did anything else affect PPs?)
The measurements (accurate & meaningful?)
The demand characteristics (could PPs work out the aims & change their behaviour?)

3. 2. Ecological (External) Validity…
…The extent to which the study’s results can be generalised beyond the research situation
e.g.
The setting (was it realistic?)
The sample (was it representative? What about females, or the elderly?)
The task (does it have mudane realism?)

4. LOW v HIGH
VALIDITY GAME

5. EXPERIMENTAL (INTERNAL) VALIDITY
Milgram argued that the distress shown by the PPs taking part was evidence of the fact that they believed they were administering real electric shocks to the learner. He said they did this because they were ordered to do so.
HIGH VALIDITY!

6. It means the findings are Reliable –nothing to do with validity
The study was repeated many times using the same procedure!
It means the findings are Reliable –nothing to do with validity

7. Participants may have only shocked the learner as they were paid to take part and were bound to a contract. They were not being obedient
This would suggest LOW INTERNAL VALIDITY. Is being obligated the same as being obedient?

8. Does this point indicate the research has high or low validity?
Orne and Holland (1968) argue that the participants did not believe the experiment was real, they said the ppts did not think they were really hurting the learner.
Does this point indicate the research has high or low validity?
LOW INTERNAL VALIDITY!

9. HIGH INTERNAL VALIDITY!
Milgram asked participants after the study (using a questionnaire) if they thought it was fake, they all responded that they thought it was real.
HIGH INTERNAL VALIDITY!

10. Ecological (external) validity
Research conducted in other countries (following the same procedure) found varying levels of obedience: Holland, Germany and Austria were higher than Britain and Australia (however procedure may have varied so comparison difficult)
LOW ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY!

11. HIGH ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY!
Hoffling (1966) repeated the study in a real life setting in a hospital and got similar results showing obedience is high in real life situation
HIGH ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY!

12. LOW ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY
Rank and Jacobson carried out an obedience study on nurses on a known drug and they were not obedient which questions Milgram’s findings
LOW ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY

13. LOW ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY!
When Milgram repeated his study in run down offices the obedience rate was lower suggesting the setting affected obedience
LOW ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY!

14. HIGH ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY!
When study was conducted with females, similar results were shown!
HIGH ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY!

15. WHY DO OEDIENCE LEVELS VARY IN THE STUDIES LOOKED AT SO FAR….?

16. Create your own way of explaining the following reasons for obedience..
Legitimate authority
Gradual commitment
Contractual Obligation
Altering meaning of situation
The genetic shift
Buffer
Personality Factors

17. Independent behaviour
‘Going against the pressure to conform or obey so that behaviour is not altered.’
Why do you think this might occur?