the rebellious action of others severely undermines authority - in one variation, three teachers (two actors and a real subject) administered a test and shocks. when the two actors disobeyed the experimenter and refused to go beyond a certain shock level, thirty - six of forty subjects joined their disobedient peers and refused as well. although the experimenters authority was fragile in some respects, it is also true that he had almost none of the tools used in ordinary command structures. for example, the experimenter did not threaten the subjects with punishment - such as loss of income, community ostracism, or jail - for failure to obey. neither could he offer incentives. indeed, we should expect the experimenters authority to be much less than that of someone like a general, since the experimenter has no power to enforce his imperatives, and since participation in a psychological experiment scarcely evokes the sense of urgency and dedication found in warfare. despite these limitations, he still managed to command a dismaying degree of obedience. he perils of obedience\ (text only) abridged & adapted from obedience to authority by stanley milgram. copyright © 1974 by stanley milgram. reprinted by permission of harpercollins publishers. unless otherwise noted, this content is licensed under the cc by - nc - sa 4.0 license. guiding questions how does milgram describe the experimenters authority? a fabricated, as the experimenters lied about their power b flimsy, as they couldnt actually do anything to the teachers c strong, as they could refuse to pay the teachers for their time d uncertain, as the experimenters didnt define the power they had.

Question

the rebellious action of others severely undermines authority - in one variation, three teachers (two actors and a real subject) administered a test and shocks. when the two actors disobeyed the experimenter and refused to go beyond a certain shock level, thirty - six of forty subjects joined their disobedient peers and refused as well. although the experimenters authority was fragile in some respects, it is also true that he had almost none of the tools used in ordinary command structures. for example, the experimenter did not threaten the subjects with punishment - such as loss of income, community ostracism, or jail - for failure to obey. neither could he offer incentives. indeed, we should expect the experimenters authority to be much less than that of someone like a general, since the experimenter has no power to enforce his imperatives, and since participation in a psychological experiment scarcely evokes the sense of urgency and dedication found in warfare. despite these limitations, he still managed to command a dismaying degree of obedience. 	he perils of obedience\ (text only) abridged & adapted from obedience to authority by stanley milgram. copyright © 1974 by stanley milgram. reprinted by permission of harpercollins publishers. unless otherwise noted, this content is licensed under the cc by - nc - sa 4.0 license. guiding questions how does milgram describe the experimenters authority? a fabricated, as the experimenters lied about their power b flimsy, as they couldnt actually do anything to the teachers c strong, as they could refuse to pay the teachers for their time d uncertain, as the experimenters didnt define the power they had.

Accepted Answer

# Brief Explanations:
The text states that the experimenter had almost none of the tools used in ordinary command structures like punishment or incentives, and participation in the experiment didn't evoke a strong sense of urgency or dedication as in warfare. This indicates that the experimenter's authority was not very robust, described as flimsy as they couldn't actually do anything to the teachers if they disobeyed.
# Answer:
B. flimsy, as they couldn't actually do anything to the teachers

Sovi.AI - AI Math Tutor

QUESTION IMAGE

Question

Explanation:

Answer: