Variables affecting obedience - Milgram

• How many male volunteers participated in the study?

  40 male volunteers
• What was the aim of the study?

  To observe whether people would obey a figure of authority when told to harm another person
• What was the procedure of the experiment?

  • Participant assigned as 'teacher'
  • Confederate assigned as 'learner'
  • Teacher asked questions and administered electric shocks for wrong answers
  • Shocks increased by 15 volts, ranging from 300V to 450V
  • Participants believed shocks were real; no real shocks were given
  • Experimenter provided orders when participants refused to administer shocks
• What voltage was marked as 'lethal' in the study?

  330V
• What percentage of participants went up to 450V?

  65%
• What was the effect of the experimenter's proximity on obedience?

  Obedience increased to 62.5% when the experimenter was in the same room
• How did the location of the study affect obedience?

  Obedience was higher when conducted at a prestigious university like Stanford
• How did the experimenter's uniform influence obedience?


  Participants obeyed more when the experimenter wore a lab coat
• What were the strengths of the study's evaluation?

  • Thorough debriefing of participants
  • High percentage of participants felt positive about their involvement
  • Real-life applications to understanding obedience
  • High internal validity supported by participant beliefs
  • Highly replicable with consistent findings
  • External validity established by supporting studies
• What percentage of participants were glad to be part of the study in the follow-up?

  84%
• What ethical issue was raised regarding deception in the study?

  Informed consent could not be obtained due to deception
• What signs of psychological distress did participants show?

  Participants showed signs such as trembling, sweating, and nervous laughter
• What are the weaknesses of the study's evaluation?

  • Ethical issues including deception and psychological harm
  • Socially sensitive implications regarding moral responsibility
  • Lack of internal validity due to trust in the experiment's setting
  • Lack of ecological validity due to unrealistic tasks
• How did the study's location affect participants' trust?

  Participants may have trusted that nothing serious would happen due to the prestige of Stanford University
• What was the obedience rate when the experiment was replicated in a run-down office?

  Obedience decreased to 20.5%
• What did Hofling et al. (1966) find regarding obedience in a hospital setting?

  95% of nurses obeyed a doctor's orders over the phone
• How does Milgram's study relate to the actions of the Nazis during World War II?

  It highlights how obedience to authority can lead to harmful actions, such as the Nazis' compliance with orders
• What is the 'Please-U' effect in the context of this study?

  It refers to participant reactivity where individuals change their behavior when they know they are being observed
• What does the term 'mundane realism' refer to in the context of ecological validity?

  Mundane realism refers to how closely the tasks in the study resemble real-life situations