6 ms·
That’s not true. At best you can say the Stanley milgram experiment was reanalyzed with a poor reproduction involving various amounts of money. Not nearly the s
by gremloni 5y ago
That’s not true. At best you can say the Stanley milgram experiment was reanalyzed with a poor reproduction involving various amounts of money. Not nearly the same and definitely not conclusive.
The little Albert study holds, the tickling study findings are still true, the Stanford prison experiment hasn’t been repudiated, the rat experiment has literally been reproduced outside of the US and the pit of despair findings still hold true.
And yes, it was Stanford but it was off the top, I made a mistake.
- dekhn 5y agoOK, fair enough, I made a mistake not verifying the Little Albert study before saying that it didn't hold. I have since checked on that one and I can't say that I consider it valid. The Prison Experiment's methods were repudiated (in the sense that the methodology as described and carried out is unlikely to answer any sort of true psychological research question). | I'm not sure what to make of the Milgram experiment.
- disgruntledphd2 5y agoThe Milgram obedience studies have been replicated many, many times.