Marking criteria
[How to get a perfect answer for the above question]
• AO1 credit should be given for the description of the findings
from relevant studies.
• AO2 credit is given for the effective use of this material
to consider whether the methods
used can be justified. Commentary and analysis are also relevant
to AO2.
Since the question asks candidates to ‘consider’ they
need to present arguments from both sides of the debate. However,
they do not need to restrict themselves to the work of Milgram or
Zimbardo, other relevant studies may also be used effectively in
this answer. Conformity research would also gain credit. Thus candidates
could argue that the means can never justify the ends and unethical
research is never acceptable.
They could consider the criticisms made by psychologists such as
Baumrind, that Milgram’s work was unnecessarily cruel to his
participants, that they were not protected sufficiently and that
they suffered harm.
Others claimed that Milgram conducted work that was unacceptably
lacking in ethical constraints. For example, informed consent was
not obtained; participants were deceived and were placed under considerable
stress. On the other hand they could also argue that the research
of Milgram, and also Zimbardo, radically changed our perception
of obedience. Their research demonstrated that we all have the capacity
to obey orders, not merely a minority of disturbed individuals.
Milgram set out to test the hypothesis that ‘Germans are different’;
in fact he showed that they are no different from the rest of the
world.
Candidates may introduce further studies and/or theories as a form
of commentary/evaluation. The degree to which candidates use this
material as part of a critical commentary, rather than simply describing
alternatives, will constitute the effectiveness of the evaluation
and hence the number of marks awarded for AO2. Candidates who offer
no commentary may still be judged to have selected appropriate material
and thus commentary can be described as ‘just discernible’. |