The Validity of Milgram's Experiment - Essay Example

Psychology Bass (2005) examines one of the most seminal social psychology experiments in history. The experiment, conducted by Yale researcher Stanley Milgram, involved a ‘learner’ and a ‘teacher,’ with the learner secretly being a member of the research team. The ‘learner’ was connected to a fake electric shock machine and the ‘teacher’ was to instructed to administer a gradually increasing volt of electricity whenever the learner wrongly answered one of the designated word problems. While Milgram (1963) had expected many individuals to refuse to administer the high voltages, he was surprised to discover that 65% of the test subjects were willing to administer high voltage rates. These results led Milgram to surmise that humans acted independently, while in other situations they acted completely under the agency of an outside entity. In considering the validity of Milgrams experiment, Bass (2005) considers the experiments findings as compared to contemporary social psychological research. This essay examines Bass consideration of Milgrams experiment through a summary of the research, as well as an investigation of the articles strengths and weaknesses. Blass (2005) considers Milgrams famous social experiment in terms of whether one can draw any far reaching social psychological conclusions from its findings. The article considers the Milgram study and the contexts in which it has been cited in, and notes that this seminal social experiment has engendered a broad array of both criticism and support. The situational determinants of psychology are considered, indicating Milgrams strong emphasis on this aspect of action. The collection of research on this subject is examined, with Blass (2005) indicating articulating a breadth of research that correlates with Milgrams findings. Converse to Milgrams findings in terms of voice and remote sensing effecting obedience, Blass (2005) indicates there was no significant difference when these elements were implemented in outside studies. Bass (2005) also considers the interrelation between personality and obedience. One of the key findings in these regards was that individuals who demonstrate higher degrees of authoritarianism were more apt to be obedient; other important factors in these regards were determined to be trust and moral judgment. A hybrid model of understanding obedience is also broached called interactionism. In these regards, personal factors and environmental characteristics interact in determining human actions and levels of obedience. Situational and dispositional moderators were also considered as substantial issues. In terms of situational moderators, Bass (2005) indicated that strong situations were more likely to produce results that were unpredictable. In terms of dispositional moderators, it was argued that the individuals nationality played a slightly significant factor in terms of obedience. Ultimately, Bass (2005, pg. 11-12) concluded in indicating that, “obedience can vary as a function of both personality variables and situational factors but that there are problems that are associated with both types of determinants.” In these regards, its indicated that Milgrams study and findings may be more slanted in indicating the importance of situational factors over personal variables than contemporary research attests. In great part the research contains a substantial breadth of literature on the subject in question. While minimal new studies are carried out, the collection of literature on the subject supplies the reader with a substantial background on the social psychological insights into the nature of obedience as explored by Milgram in his seminal experiment. In addition to the substantial body of literature considered in relation to Milgram, the insights Bass draws from their findings reveals a well-considered and structured argument. In these regards, the importance of personality in regards to obedience rather than simply environment or situational variables is well established. Another of the strengths of the research is its reflective acknowledgment of its own shortcomings. For instance, Bass (2005, pg. 12) indicates that, “one can also argue that some of the evidence is too far afield from the original Milgram experiments to have a bearing on them.” There is also acknowledgment of the mixed nature of the findings. In addition to these aspects, one notes that this meta-critical examination of Milgrams work is highly relevant and necessary Milgrams findings extend well-beyond the merely psychological realm. For instance, his research has been utilized in fields as diverse as education (Hamacheck, 1976) and communication research (Eckman, 1977). In these regards, one of the greatest strengths of the article is its widespread applicability and relevancy. In addition to the articles strengths there are a number of notable weaknesses. One of the notable weaknesses is that the investigation is left to the qualitative insight and evaluation of the researcher. In these regards, one questions whether it would have been more successful to concentrate on one aspect of social psychology in relation to Milgrams study and develop a statistical model of this research area to determine the extent that it both correlates and either supports and rejects Milgrams study. While Bass study does make a number of strong and thought-provoking insights, one questions the extent that they are valid, or have been expertly structured to reflect the researchers preconceived conclusions. In some regards, the literature examined functions too much in accord with the narrative flow of the research, and one might expect there is to be more variety of opinions on these complex social psychological matters. Ultimately, the research gives no indication why the specific studies were chosen outside of their relation to Milgrams experiment. Another weakness is that in examining Milgrams study the research arguably offers no truly groundbreaking additions, but to some extent merely regurgitates material that already examined Milgram and presents it in a montage and juxtaposed structure. One might also contend that in conflates Milgrams work with true human nature to a greater extent than it already necessitates, as some researchers have indicated that Milgrams contribution to social psychology is less about the deep structure of human personality, and rather an examination of human situational actions (Helmreich, Bakeman, & Schweritz, 1973). In these regards, one can argue that the scope of the study is not a far reaching as the author might lead one to believe. In conclusion, Bass (2005) examines the extent that personality variables or environmental and situational factors can be indicated to contributed to obedience within the context of Milgrams seminal study. In these regards, a qualitative consideration of contemporary social psychology research reveals that there are significant reasons to consider the importance of individual personality in regards to obedience; however, the findings between personality and environment were mixed. Ultimately, the study does not reach any groundbreaking discoveries, nor does it out-rightly contradict Milgrams original study, yet its in-depth qualitative consideration of the factors influencing human behavior make it a valid and important research. References Blass, T. (1991). Understanding Behavior in the Milgram Obedience Experiment: the Role of Personality, Situations, and their Interactions. Journal of Personality and Psychology. 1991. Vol. 60, 3 398-413. Eckman, B.K. (1977). Stanley Milgrams Obedience Studies. Etcetera. 34. 88-99. Hamacheck, D.E. (1976). Removing the Stigma from Obedience Behavior. Phi Delta Kappan. 57. 443- 446. Helmreich, R. Bakeman, R. & Schweritz, R. (1973). The Study of Small Groups. Annual Review of Psychology. 24, 337-354. Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 67. 371-378. Read More