Question

Which of the following is an implication consistent with Milgram’s findings? a. As proximity between the teacher and the learner decreased, rates of obedience increased. b. People are more likely to operate a drone that harms a person whom they can neither see nor hear. c. Individuals without uniforms have more influence than those with uniforms. d. Moving the experiment off campus produced a significant drop in obedience.

Answer 1

The correct implication from Milgram’s experiments is that as the proximity between the teacher and the learner decreased, obedience rates increased.

Step-by-step explanation:

Implications of Milgram’s Findings

One implication consistent with Milgram’s findings is that as the proximity between the teacher and the learner decreased, rates of obedience increased. Milgram's experiments demonstrated that individuals are more likely to follow orders to harm others when there is a greater distance between them and the victim. This can be observed in the variations of Milgram's experiment where the obedience levels changed based on the physical closeness to the learner and the presence of authority figures.

Therefore, the most accurate answer to the question is:
a. As proximity between the teacher and the learner decreased, rates of obedience increased.

Answer 2

Answer: B. People are more likely to operate a drone that harms a person whom they can neither see nor hear

Explanation: Milgram's experiments started as a way to test conformity in individuals. He wondered what would happen if he asked participants to deliver electric shocks if the subject got something wrong. He wanted to know of they would conform when doing so involved hurting another human being, and to his utmost surprise many participants continued to deliver the maximum level of shock to the subjects.

However, one of the forces breaking conformity was seeing the subject's suffering. Some parricipants actually turned away with close proximity to the subject and the punishment reduced while the punishment increased the farther away the subject was.

One of the scary inferences of the experiments is that the more removed we are from others, the easier it is to hurt them. Consider operating a drone to harm victims you neither see nor hear; the remoteness of the victims in such cases makes the harm done to them abstract, so the emotional brakes on aggression are weakened dramatically.