799210
Description
Mind Map by jess.courtney13, updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by jess.courtney13
about 10 years ago
|
|
Milgrams Electric Shock
Study- Evaluation
- GENERALISABILITY
- Findings cannot be generalised
to the whole population
- 40 Participants
- American middle- aged
men= ANDROCENTRIC
- From USA= ETHNOCENTRIC
- American middle- aged
men= ANDROCENTRIC
- NOT REPRESENTATIVE to
women and other epople aprt
from in USA
- LIMITED
- 40 Participants
- Findings cannot be generalised
to the whole population
- RELIABILITY
- Labatory Experiment
- Therefore high control of variaibles
- The study can be repilicated
and tested for reliability
- The study can be repilicated
and tested for reliability
- Therefore high control of variaibles
- Results were consistent with 'Meeus and
Raaijmakers' and 'Hoflings' Experiment
- All found high obedience levels
making study more reliable
- For example: Hofling (1966) alike Milgram Found that the nurses
(participants) were prepared to go against their conscience and obey an
order given to them by an authority figure- even though it may have
caused harm
- All found high obedience levels
making study more reliable
- Labatory Experiment
- APPLICATION
- Can be related to the key issue-
Blind Obedience in Abu Ghraib
- Relate back to Tajfels Agency Theory
- Autonomus State
- Moral Strain
- Agentic State
- Autonomus State
- Can be related to the key issue-
Blind Obedience in Abu Ghraib
- VALIDITY
- LACKS ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY
- Artificial nature of the
task- isn't something that
you do in day to day life
- Lab Experiment = The setting wasn't
natural, behaviour of participants may
have differed
- Artificial nature of the
task- isn't something that
you do in day to day life
- LACKS ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY
- ETHICS
- DECEPTION- participants were
decieved
- In briefing they were
told the study was
on learning, not
obedience
- Fake Scrreams, Rigged Draw, other
participant was a confederate
- In briefing they were
told the study was
on learning, not
obedience
- PROTECTION- limited
- Particiapnts experienced stress
and emotional conflict- Milgram
didn't take precautions to limit these
effects
- MILGRAMS DEFENCE
- ... He did a debreifing, conveying
that the leanrer wasnt harmed
- And did a psychology
test a year later
- And did a psychology
test a year later
- ... He did a debreifing, conveying
that the leanrer wasnt harmed
- Particiapnts experienced stress
and emotional conflict- Milgram
didn't take precautions to limit these
effects
- RIGHT TO WITHDRAW
- VERBAL PRODS- suggest that
withdrawal was not possible
- ETHICALLY INCORRECT
- ETHICALLY INCORRECT
- However we we should consider whetehr it
would have been a valid experiement, if
participnt was remined of withdrawl often
- VERBAL PRODS- suggest that
withdrawal was not possible
- DECEPTION- participants were
decieved
Want to create your own Mind Maps for free with GoConqr? Learn more.