Proximity of the Victim: Obedience levels drop significantly when the teacher is in the same room as the learner or is required to physically force the learner's hand onto a shock plate. Increased proximity forces the participant to confront the reality of their actions.
Proximity of the Authority: When the experimenter gives orders over the phone rather than being physically present, obedience rates plummet. The physical presence of the authority figure reinforces the social pressure to comply.
Location and Prestige: Moving the experiment from a prestigious university to a run-down office building reduces obedience. The institutional setting provides a 'veneer of legitimacy' that justifies the experimenter's commands.
Social Support (Dissenters): The presence of other 'teachers' (confederates) who refuse to continue is the most powerful factor in reducing obedience. Seeing others rebel provides the participant with a social model for defiance.
| Feature | Obedience | Conformity |
|---|---|---|
| Hierarchy | Occurs within a vertical hierarchy (authority to subordinate). | Occurs among peers of equal status. |
| Instruction | Involves explicit commands or orders. | Involves implicit social pressure to 'fit in'. |
| Awareness | Participants often admit to obeying because they were told to. | Participants often deny they were conforming to the group. |
| Motivation | Driven by fear of consequences or respect for authority. | Driven by the need for social approval or accuracy. |
Focus on Percentages: Always remember the baseline finding that approximately 65% of participants continued to the maximum voltage of 450V. This statistic is frequently tested to illustrate the surprising power of obedience.
Identify the 'Prods': Be familiar with the standardized verbal prods used by the experimenter (e.g., 'The experiment requires that you continue'). These are critical for understanding how the authority maintained control.
Ethical Critiques: Be prepared to discuss the ethical violations, specifically the lack of informed consent, the psychological distress caused to participants, and the perceived inability to exercise the right to withdraw.
Situational vs. Dispositional: In exam questions, emphasize that Milgram's findings support a situational explanation (the environment causes the behavior) rather than a dispositional explanation (the person's character causes the behavior).
The 'Evil' Participant Myth: A common mistake is assuming that the participants who shocked the learner were sadistic or 'bad' people. Milgram's point was that these were ordinary citizens who were caught in a powerful social trap.
Misunderstanding the Shocks: Students often forget that no real shocks were ever administered; the 'learner' was a confederate (an actor) and the screams were pre-recorded. The study measures the intent to harm under orders, not actual harm.
The Right to Withdraw: While participants were technically told they could leave, the verbal prods used by the experimenter made many feel they had no choice but to continue, which is a major point of ethical contention.
