Variables affecting obedience

Question 1

Milgram participants

Answer 1

40 male volunteers were randomly selected

Question 2

Aim of Milgram’s study

Answer 2

To observe whether people would obey a figure of authority when told to harm another person, evaluating the influence of a destructive authority figure.

Question 3

Procedure of Milgrams study

Answer 3

• Participant assigned as ‘teacher,’ confederate assigned as ‘learner’ through random allocation.
• Teacher asked the learner a series of questions.
• If the learner answered incorrectly, the teacher administered an electric shock (which was fake but believed to be real).
• Shocks increased by 15V, ranging from 300V to 450V, with 330V marked as ‘lethal.’
• Experimenter used prods to encourage obedience, with the final prod demanding obedience specifically to the confederate.

Question 4

Findings of Milgram

Answer 4

100% of participants went up to 300V.

65% continued to 450V.

12.5% stopped at 300V, showing most participants were willing to administer lethal shocks.

Question 5

Factors Affecting Obedience - Proximity
Definition

Answer 5

Obedience is higher when the authority figure is physically closer to the participant

Question 6

Example for Factors Affecting Obedience - Proximity
Definition

Answer 6

Obedience was 62.5% when the experimenter was in the same room.

It dropped to 40% when in separate rooms and to 30% in the touch-proximity condition

Question 7

Factors affecting obedience - Location definition

Answer 7

Obedience is influenced by the perceived legitimacy of the location.

Question 8

Example for factors affecting obedience - location

Answer 8

• Obedience was higher at Yale University compared to a rundown office (where obedience dropped to 20.5%).
• Prestige increases trust in authority figures.

Question 9

Factors Affecting Obedience - Uniform
Definition

Answer 9

A uniform enhances perceived authority and increases obedience

Question 10

Example for factors affecting obedience

Answer 10

• Obedience was higher when the experimenter wore a lab coat compared to normal clothes.
• However, some participants saw through the deception

Question 11

A03 - Real life application
( Strength)

Answer 11

✅Point: Research helps explain real-world obedience to destructive authority.

✅Evidence: Kilham and Mann’s study linked Milgram’s findings to the My Lai Massacre.

✅Explanation: Soldiers obeyed their generals due to legitimate authority and agentic shift, as
a result, Hitler managed to get what he wanted and what he wanted was not what the majority of people wanted.

✅ Explanation: Such research also
gives an insight into why people were so willing to kill innocent Jews simply when told to, and so highlights how we can all easily be victims to such pressures

✅Link: This supports the theory of obedience as a key factor in real-life atrocities.

Question 12

A03 - ethical issues
(weakness)

Answer 12

✅ Point: Milgram’s study raised significant ethical concerns, including deception and psychological harm.

✅Evidence: Participants were deceived about the true nature of the experiment and were led to believe they were administering real electric shocks.
As a result, informed consent was not truly given.
Many participants showed signs of severe stress, such as trembling, sweating, and nervous laughter.

✅ Similar stress responses were observed in the replication study ‘Le Jeu de la Mort,’ confirming that this was not just due to individual differences.

✅ Explanation: The study’s deception was justified as a way to prevent demand characteristics.

✅ Counterpoint: Milgram conducted a thorough debriefing, and 84% of participants reported being glad they took part, while 74% said they learned something valuable.

✅ Link: Although the study provided valuable insights into obedience, it raises ethical concerns that would likely prevent replication under modern ethical guidelines.

Question 13

A03 - Internal validity
(ekness)

Answer 13

✅ Point: The study may have measured trust rather than obedience.

✅ Evidence: Since the experiment was conducted at Yale University, participants may have trusted that the researchers would not allow real harm to occur.

• When the study was replicated in a rundown office, obedience dropped significantly to 20.5%, suggesting the legitimacy of the setting played a role.

✅ Explanation: Participants might have complied because they assumed the situation was safe rather than because they were truly obeying an authority figure.

✅ Counterpoint: However, 70% of participants still believed the shocks were real, suggesting that obedience was genuine for most.

✅ Link: While situational factors may have influenced obedience, the study still demonstrates the power of authority.