Stanley Milgram's Experiment: The Nature Of Obedience
What is the nature of obedience? A question that two leading scientists of the 1960’s tried to answer. At the heart of the cycle of enquiry stands Stanley Milgram with his initial experiment on obedience performed in 1963. The research results were so notorious that it determined scientists like Charles Hofling to replicate the study, and in 1966, he completed a conceptual replication of Milgram’s experiment. First we will look at how the two studies explore a similar topic using a different design and experimental condition, and second, we will explore some of the similarities between their results and ethical aspects.
In the experiment conducted by Milgram participants played a ‘match the word game’ that required them to administrate an electric …show more content…
For example, their experimental design is different. Milgram’s study is performed in a laboratory, while Hofling’s study is conducted in a natural setting. Conducting research in a lab has the advantages of full control over the independent variables, but also limitations such as inability to associate the findings to a real life situation (ecological validity) (Colman, 2008). On the other hand, the field study has more ecological validity, however, limited control over variables, therefore, more exposed to other influences not controlled by the experimenter (confounding variables) (Brace, 2014, p. 97). Furthermore, studies differ in their sample choice. Milgram recruited his participants using a ‘self-selected’ sample (Colman, 2008) advertising his study in a local paper, calling for ordinary people (Banyard, 2012, p. 74), whereas Hofling, used an ‘opportunity sample’ targeting a “pre-existing service group” (Colman, 2008) consisted of educated nurses (Hofling et al., 1966, p. 171). Sampling is an important phase of research because it has to be representative of the population the hypothesis refers to. Moreover, Milgram’s hypothesis considered the general population and at the effect of self-conflict over obedience (Banyard, 2012, p. 74), while Hofling focused on the effect of nurse-physician relations over obedience (Hofling et al., 1966, p.
In the experiment conducted by Milgram participants played a ‘match the word game’ that required them to administrate an electric …show more content…
For example, their experimental design is different. Milgram’s study is performed in a laboratory, while Hofling’s study is conducted in a natural setting. Conducting research in a lab has the advantages of full control over the independent variables, but also limitations such as inability to associate the findings to a real life situation (ecological validity) (Colman, 2008). On the other hand, the field study has more ecological validity, however, limited control over variables, therefore, more exposed to other influences not controlled by the experimenter (confounding variables) (Brace, 2014, p. 97). Furthermore, studies differ in their sample choice. Milgram recruited his participants using a ‘self-selected’ sample (Colman, 2008) advertising his study in a local paper, calling for ordinary people (Banyard, 2012, p. 74), whereas Hofling, used an ‘opportunity sample’ targeting a “pre-existing service group” (Colman, 2008) consisted of educated nurses (Hofling et al., 1966, p. 171). Sampling is an important phase of research because it has to be representative of the population the hypothesis refers to. Moreover, Milgram’s hypothesis considered the general population and at the effect of self-conflict over obedience (Banyard, 2012, p. 74), while Hofling focused on the effect of nurse-physician relations over obedience (Hofling et al., 1966, p.