Marking criteria
[How to get a perfect answer for the above question]
Although this question asks candidates to consider the extent to
which obedience research can be defended, candidates may take a
position which agrees with the sentiment in the quotation. For example,
Orne and Holland (1968) claimed that Milgram’s research lacked
experimental validity (participants had not been deceived), and
therefore the conclusions drawn from the study were inappropriate.
They also claimed that the study lacked ecological validity, having
been carried out within the psychology lab of a prestigious
university.
In defending this particular study, Milgram provided evidence from
debriefing sessions with participants, and through film evidence
which showed that participants were in considerable distress when
delivering the shocks. Milgram carried out a replication in more
salubrious surroundings, and found that obedience levels, although
lower, were still far higher than predicted at the start of the
research. Some candidates may choose research other than Milgram’s,
perhaps considering the cross-cultural validity of the research
findings through an examination of replications of the research
in other countries.
Answers which offer appropriate material but at a descriptive level
only may receive a maximum of 4 marks for this question part. In
order to gain marks above this ceiling, candidates must engage with
this material in the manner required by the question. |