I think that this was a big factor in increasing obedience because it means that the participant gradually becomes more committed. Increasing the shock by only a small amount each time makes the participant feel as though they have just given a shock which is only a small amount less painful than the one they are about to give, so they are more likely to continue increasing shocks.
4.The experimenter was always there watching the subject give the shocks.
I think that the presence of the experimenter would have increased levels of obedience because if the participant is being watched then they felt more obliged to obey, and thought that if what they were doing was unsafe then the experimenter would intervene. This was proved by a variation of the study in which the participant was given orders over the phone rather than by an experimenter in the room. The obedience levels dropped to 20.5%.
5.The experimenter remained calm throughout the study.
The experimenter staying calm during the study made the participants more likely to obey as it showed them that there was nothing to worry about in what they did. The participants trusted the experimenter so when they saw that he was calm in the situation it made them more likely not to panic.
6.The subjects were told they “must continue” if they tried to stop.
I think that this would have made people more likely to go up to the full shock level because by being instructed to continue with the experiment it made it harder for them to refuse to give shocks. The instruction was also from someone they saw as an ‘expert’ with more knowledge than them, so they are likely to trust him and continue giving shocks.
7.The experiment was conducted at Yale university- one of America’s top universities.
I think that this would have increased obedience by quite a lot because participants would not have believed that they would be instructed to do something unsafe at somewhere with such a high reputation. When this study was done in a run down office instead of at the university, obedience dropped to 48%.
8.The learner could not be seen only heard
I think that this made it less likely that the participant would obey because it makes the plight of the learner less obvious and makes them seem like less of a real person. When variations of the study were carried out, Milgram found that if the victim was heard but not seen the obedience level was 62%, and when the victim was in the same room only one metre away the obedience dropped to 40%.
9.The experimenter wore a grey lab coat
The way the experimenter was dressed would have had an impact on whether the participants obeyed his instructions. By wearing a lab coat he is seen as a scientist and this makes his role as an ‘expert’ more believable so participants are more likely to obey. When the experimenter was an ordinary member of the public, not a coated scientist, the obedience level dropped dramatically, to 20%.
10.The subjects thought it was their role to do as they were told
I think that this would have a slight impact on influencing levels of obedience in Milgram’s study but not as much as some of the other factors. The participants were not told the true nature of the research; they were told it was on memory and were also being paid, so they may have felt more obliged to complete the experiment when asked to do so.
The subjects were all sadists who enjoyed hurting others
I do not think that this was a factor influencing level of obedience because when the experimenter was not in the room, the participants gave lower shocks so they were obviously not sadists. The participants also showed a lot of discomfort at giving shocks to the learner.
The subjects were Americans
I do not think that the subjects all being Americans would have influenced the levels of obedience, because when the study was done in other cultures the levels of obedience were very similar.
The subjects were men
This did not affect levels of obedience because when a variation of the study was carried out using women, the women showed very similar levels of obedience to the men in the first study.