t-1787721025","/_next/static/chunks/05e~jud0~hmyw.js?dpl=nogit-1787721025","/_next/static/chunks/0gauv99574ynn.js?dpl=nogit-1787721025"],"TopicQuestionBank"] 46:T4e8,- Explains **deception** and **informed consent** as key issues in obedience research, where participants are misled about the true research aims B1 - Explains **protection from psychological harm** and the **right to withdraw**, noting how prods and stressful tasks can cause significant distress B1 - Outlines how these issues apply to Dr Vance's study, specifically the deception regarding the deletion of "irreplaceable company files" M1 - Outlines how the supervisor's prods in Dr Vance's study would compromise the participants' right to withdraw M1 - Discusses the role of **debriefing** as an essential retrospective safeguard to manage psychological harm and explain the deception B1 - Evaluates the **cost-benefit analysis** of obedience research, weighing the social/corporate utility of the findings against participant distress A1 - Discusses how Dr Vance could implement ethical safeguards, such as pre-screening or an early termination point (similar to Burger's 2009 replication) A1 - Presents a coherent, well-structured discussion of obedience ethics with clear links between classic research and the novel scenario C147:Tae1,- Outlines **proximity**: describes the proximity variation where teacher and learner are in the same room, resulting in obedience dropping from $65\%$ to $40\%$ B1 - Outlines **touch proximity** (obedience falling to $30\%$) or **remote instruction** (giving orders by phone, obedience falling to $20.5\%$) B1 - Outlines **location**: describes changing venue from prestigious Yale University to a run-down office in Bridgeport, with obedience dropping to $47.5\%$ B1 - Outlines **uniform**: describes replacing the experimenter in a lab coat with an 'ordinary member of the public' in everyday clothes, causing obedience to drop to $20\%$ B1 - Accurately references the original baseline obedience rate of $65\%$ as the comparison control condition B1 - Explains how Milgram systematically manipulated these variables to isolate their direct quantitative impact on obedience levels B1 - Explains how location and uniform variations support the **legitimacy of authority** explanation by showing how external cues signal societal hierarchy C1 - Discusses how the absence of these authority cues (e.g., run-down office, ordinary clothes) weakens the perceived power and social sanction, reducing obedience C1 - Explains how proximity variations demonstrate the mechanics of the **agentic shift**, where a remote victim lowers moral strain and facilitates the agentic state C1 - Discusses how close physical proximity or touch increases moral strain through direct feedback, forcing the individual back into an autonomous state C1 - Discusses the **situational vs. dispositional debate**, arguing that the dramatic changes in obedience rate support situational over dispositional (personality) explanations C1 - Evaluates the **methodological control** of Milgram's variations, allowing clear causal relationships to be established by manipulating one variable at a time C1 - Criticises the variations for potential **demand characteristics** (Orne and Holland), arguing that situations like the 'ordinary member of the public' lacked mundane realism C1 - Explains how guessing the contrived nature of the experiment could lead to participants playing along rather than displaying genuine obedience C1 - Evaluates **cross-cultural support**, noting replications (such as Miranda et al. finding over $90\%$ obedience in Spain) which support the generalisability of situational explanations C1 - Synthesises how these variables overall suggest

Obedience

Question 10

Obedience Questions

Obedience

Question 10

Obedience Questions