Stanley Milgram Shock Experiment
Saul Mcleod, PhD
Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester
Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.
Learn about our Editorial Process
Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc
Associate Editor for Simply Psychology
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education
Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.
On This Page:
Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University, carried out one of the most famous studies of obedience in psychology.
He conducted an experiment focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience.
Milgram (1963) examined justifications for acts of genocide offered by those accused at the World War II, Nuremberg War Criminal trials. Their defense often was based on obedience – that they were just following orders from their superiors.
The experiments began in July 1961, a year after the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram devised the experiment to answer the question:
Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?” (Milgram, 1974).
Milgram (1963) wanted to investigate whether Germans were particularly obedient to authority figures, as this was a common explanation for the Nazi killings in World War II.
Milgram selected participants for his experiment by newspaper advertising for male participants to take part in a study of learning at Yale University.
The procedure was that the participant was paired with another person and they drew lots to find out who would be the ‘learner’ and who would be the ‘teacher.’ The draw was fixed so that the participant was always the teacher, and the learner was one of Milgram’s confederates (pretending to be a real participant).
![Stanley Milgram Shock Experiment 1 stanley milgram generator scale](https://www.simplypsychology.org/wp-content/uploads/milgram-scale.jpg)
The learner (a confederate called Mr. Wallace) was taken into a room and had electrodes attached to his arms, and the teacher and researcher went into a room next door that contained an electric shock generator and a row of switches marked from 15 volts (Slight Shock) to 375 volts (Danger: Severe Shock) to 450 volts (XXX).
The shocks in Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiments were not real. The “learners” were actors who were part of the experiment and did not actually receive any shocks.
However, the “teachers” (the real participants of the study) believed the shocks were real, which was crucial for the experiment to measure obedience to authority figures even when it involved causing harm to others.
![](http://ortec.site/777/templates/cheerup1/res/banner1.gif)
Milgram’s Experiment (1963)
Milgram (1963) was interested in researching how far people would go in obeying an instruction if it involved harming another person.
Stanley Milgram was interested in how easily ordinary people could be influenced into committing atrocities, for example, Germans in WWII.
Volunteers were recruited for a controlled experiment investigating “learning” (re: ethics: deception).
Participants were 40 males, aged between 20 and 50, whose jobs ranged from unskilled to professional, from the New Haven area. They were paid $4.50 for just turning up.
![Stanley Milgram Shock Experiment 2 Milgram](https://www.simplypsychology.org/wp-content/uploads/shock.jpg)
At the beginning of the experiment, they were introduced to another participant, a confederate of the experimenter (Milgram).
They drew straws to determine their roles – learner or teacher – although this was fixed, and the confederate was always the learner. There was also an “experimenter” dressed in a gray lab coat, played by an actor (not Milgram).
Two rooms in the Yale Interaction Laboratory were used – one for the learner (with an electric chair) and another for the teacher and experimenter with an electric shock generator.
![Stanley Milgram Shock Experiment 3 Milgram Obedience: Mr Wallace](https://www.simplypsychology.org/wp-content/uploads/obedience.jpg)
The “learner” (Mr. Wallace) was strapped to a chair with electrodes.
After he has learned a list of word pairs given to him to learn, the “teacher” tests him by naming a word and asking the learner to recall its partner/pair from a list of four possible choices.
The teacher is told to administer an electric shock every time the learner makes a mistake, increasing the level of shock each time. There were 30 switches on the shock generator marked from 15 volts (slight shock) to 450 (danger – severe shock).
![Stanley Milgram Shock Experiment 4 Milgram Obedience IV Variations](https://www.simplypsychology.org/wp-content/uploads/milgram.jpg)
The learner gave mainly wrong answers (on purpose), and for each of these, the teacher gave him an electric shock. When the teacher refused to administer a shock, the experimenter was to give a series of orders/prods to ensure they continued.
There were four prods, and if one was not obeyed, then the experimenter (Mr. Williams) read out the next prod, and so on.
Prod 1 : Please continue. Prod 2: The experiment requires you to continue. Prod 3 : It is absolutely essential that you continue. Prod 4 : You have no other choice but to continue.
These prods were to be used in order, and begun afresh for each new attempt at defiance (Milgram, 1974, p. 21). The experimenter also had two special prods available. These could be used as required by the situation:
- Although the shocks may be painful, there is no permanent tissue damage, so please go on’ (ibid.)
- ‘Whether the learner likes it or not, you must go on until he has learned all the word pairs correctly. So please go on’ (ibid., p. 22).
65% (two-thirds) of participants (i.e., teachers) continued to the highest level of 450 volts. All the participants continued to 300 volts.
Milgram did more than one experiment – he carried out 18 variations of his study. All he did was alter the situation (IV) to see how this affected obedience (DV).
Conclusion
The individual explanation for the behavior of the participants would be that it was something about them as people that caused them to obey, but a more realistic explanation is that the situation they were in influenced them and caused them to behave in the way that they did.
Some aspects of the situation that may have influenced their behavior include the formality of the location, the behavior of the experimenter, and the fact that it was an experiment for which they had volunteered and been paid.
Ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure, even to the extent of killing an innocent human being. Obedience to authority is ingrained in us all from the way we are brought up.
People tend to obey orders from other people if they recognize their authority as morally right and/or legally based. This response to legitimate authority is learned in a variety of situations, for example in the family, school, and workplace.
Milgram summed up in the article “The Perils of Obedience” (Milgram 1974), writing:
“The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous import, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects’ [participants’] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects’ [participants’] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.”
Milgram’s Agency Theory
Milgram (1974) explained the behavior of his participants by suggesting that people have two states of behavior when they are in a social situation:
- The autonomous state – people direct their own actions, and they take responsibility for the results of those actions.
- The agentic state – people allow others to direct their actions and then pass off the responsibility for the consequences to the person giving the orders. In other words, they act as agents for another person’s will.
Milgram suggested that two things must be in place for a person to enter the agentic state:
- The person giving the orders is perceived as being qualified to direct other people’s behavior. That is, they are seen as legitimate.
- The person being ordered about is able to believe that the authority will accept responsibility for what happens.
According to Milgram, when in this agentic state, the participant in the obedience studies “defines himself in a social situation in a manner that renders him open to regulation by a person of higher status. In this condition the individual no longer views himself as responsible for his own actions but defines himself as an instrument for carrying out the wishes of others” (Milgram, 1974, p. 134).
Agency theory says that people will obey an authority when they believe that the authority will take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. This is supported by some aspects of Milgram’s evidence.
For example, when participants were reminded that they had responsibility for their own actions, almost none of them were prepared to obey.
In contrast, many participants who were refusing to go on did so if the experimenter said that he would take responsibility.
According to Milgram (1974, p. 188):
“The behavior revealed in the experiments reported here is normal human behavior but revealed under conditions that show with particular clarity the danger to human survival inherent in our make-up.
And what is it we have seen? Not aggression, for there is no anger, vindictiveness, or hatred in those who shocked the victim….
Something far more dangerous is revealed: the capacity for man to abandon his humanity, indeed, the inevitability that he does so, as he merges his unique personality into larger institutional structures.”
Milgram Experiment Variations
The Milgram experiment was carried out many times whereby Milgram (1965) varied the basic procedure (changed the IV). By doing this Milgram could identify which factors affected obedience (the DV).
Obedience was measured by how many participants shocked to the maximum 450 volts (65% in the original study). Stanley Milgram conducted a total of 23 variations (also called conditions or experiments) of his original obedience study:
In total, 636 participants were tested in 18 variation studies conducted between 1961 and 1962 at Yale University.
In the original baseline study – the experimenter wore a gray lab coat to symbolize his authority (a kind of uniform).
The lab coat worn by the experimenter in the original study served as a crucial symbol of scientific authority that increased obedience. The lab coat conveyed expertise and legitimacy, making participants see the experimenter as more credible and trustworthy.
Milgram carried out a variation in which the experimenter was called away because of a phone call right at the start of the procedure.
The role of the experimenter was then taken over by an ‘ordinary member of the public’ ( a confederate) in everyday clothes rather than a lab coat. The obedience level dropped to 20%.
Change of Location: The Mountain View Facility Study (1963, unpublished)
Milgram conducted this variation in a set of offices in a rundown building, claiming it was associated with “Research Associates of Bridgeport” rather than Yale.
The lab’s ordinary appearance was designed to test if Yale’s prestige encouraged obedience. Participants were led to believe that a private research firm experimented.
In this non-university setting, obedience rates dropped to 47.5% compared to 65% in the original Yale experiments. This suggests that the status of location affects obedience.
Private research firms are viewed as less prestigious than certain universities, which affects behavior. It is easier under these conditions to abandon the belief in the experimenter’s essential decency.
The impressive university setting reinforced the experimenter’s authority and conveyed an implicit approval of the research.
Milgram filmed this variation for his documentary Obedience , but did not publish the results in his academic papers. The study only came to wider light when archival materials, including his notes, films, and data, were studied by later researchers like Perry (2013) in the decades after Milgram’s death.
Two Teacher Condition
When participants could instruct an assistant (confederate) to press the switches, 92.5% shocked to the maximum of 450 volts.
Allowing the participant to instruct an assistant to press the shock switches diffused personal responsibility and likely reduced perceptions of causing direct harm.
By attributing the actions to the assistant rather than themselves, participants could more easily justify shocking to the maximum 450 volts, reflected in the 92.5% obedience rate.
When there is less personal responsibility, obedience increases. This relates to Milgram’s Agency Theory.
Touch Proximity Condition
The teacher had to force the learner’s hand down onto a shock plate when the learner refused to participate after 150 volts. Obedience fell to 30%.
Forcing the learner’s hand onto the shock plate after 150 volts physically connected the teacher to the consequences of their actions. This direct tactile feedback increased the teacher’s personal responsibility.
No longer shielded from the learner’s reactions, the proximity enabled participants to more clearly perceive the harm they were causing, reducing obedience to 30%. Physical distance and indirect actions in the original setup made it easier to rationalize obeying the experimenter.
The participant is no longer buffered/protected from seeing the consequences of their actions.
Social Support Condition
When the two confederates set an example of defiance by refusing to continue the shocks, especially early on at 150 volts, it permitted the real participant also to resist authority.
Two other participants (confederates) were also teachers but refused to obey. Confederate 1 stopped at 150 volts, and Confederate 2 stopped at 210 volts.
Their disobedience provided social proof that it was acceptable to disobey. This modeling of defiance lowered obedience to only 10% compared to 65% without such social support. It demonstrated that social modeling can validate challenging authority.
The presence of others who are seen to disobey the authority figure reduces the level of obedience to 10%.
Absent Experimenter Condition
It is easier to resist the orders from an authority figure if they are not close by. When the experimenter instructed and prompted the teacher by telephone from another room, obedience fell to 20.5%.
Many participants cheated and missed out on shocks or gave less voltage than ordered by the experimenter. The proximity of authority figures affects obedience.
The physical absence of the authority figure enabled participants to act more freely on their own moral inclinations rather than the experimenter’s commands. This highlighted the role of an authority’s direct presence in influencing behavior.
A key reason the obedience studies fascinate people is Milgram presented them as a scientific experiment, contrasting himself as an “empirically grounded scientist” compared to philosophers. He claimed he systematically varied factors to alter obedience rates.
However, recent scholarship using archival records shows Milgram’s account of standardizing the procedure was misleading. For example, he published a list of standardized prods the experimenter used when participants questioned continuing. Milgram said these were delivered uniformly in a firm but polite tone.
Analyzing audiotapes, Gibson (2013) found considerable variation from the published protocol – the prods differed across trials. The point is not that Milgram did poor science, but that the archival materials reveal the limitations of the textbook account of his “standardized” procedure.
The qualitative data like participant feedback, Milgram’s notes, and researchers’ actions provide a fuller, messier picture than the obedience studies’ “official” story. For psychology students, this shows how scientific reporting can polish findings in a way that strays from the less tidy reality.
Critical Evaluation
Inaccurate description of the prod methodology:.
A key reason the obedience studies fascinate people is Milgram (1974) presented them as a scientific experiment, contrasting himself as an “empirically grounded scientist” compared to philosophers. He claimed he systematically varied factors to alter obedience rates.
However, recent scholarship using archival records shows Milgram’s account of standardizing the procedure was misleading. For example, he published a list of standardized prods the experimenter used when participants questioned continuing. Milgram said these were delivered uniformly in a firm but polite tone (Gibson, 2013; Perry, 2013; Russell, 2010).
Perry’s (2013) archival research revealed another discrepancy between Milgram’s published account and the actual events. Milgram claimed standardized prods were used when participants resisted, but Perry’s audiotape analysis showed the experimenter often improvised more coercive prods beyond the supposed script.
This off-script prodding varied between experiments and participants, and was especially prevalent with female participants where no gender obedience difference was found – suggesting the improvisation influenced results. Gibson (2013) and Russell (2009) corroborated the experimenter’s departures from the supposed fixed prods.
Prods were often combined or modified rather than used verbatim as published.
Russell speculated the improvisation aimed to achieve outcomes the experimenter believed Milgram wanted. Milgram seemed to tacitly approve of the deviations by not correcting them when observing.
This raises significant issues around experimenter bias influencing results, lack of standardization compromising validity, and ethical problems with Milgram misrepresenting procedures.
Milgram’s experiment lacked external validity:
The Milgram studies were conducted in laboratory-type conditions, and we must ask if this tells us much about real-life situations.
We obey in a variety of real-life situations that are far more subtle than instructions to give people electric shocks, and it would be interesting to see what factors operate in everyday obedience. The sort of situation Milgram investigated would be more suited to a military context.
Orne and Holland (1968) accused Milgram’s study of lacking ‘experimental realism,”’ i.e.,” participants might not have believed the experimental set-up they found themselves in and knew the learner wasn’t receiving electric shocks.
“It’s more truthful to say that only half of the people who undertook the experiment fully believed it was real, and of those two-thirds disobeyed the experimenter,” observes Perry (p. 139).
Milgram’s sample was biased:
- The participants in Milgram’s study were all male. Do the findings transfer to females?
- Milgram’s study cannot be seen as representative of the American population as his sample was self-selected. This is because they became participants only by electing to respond to a newspaper advertisement (selecting themselves).
- They may also have a typical “volunteer personality” – not all the newspaper readers responded so perhaps it takes this personality type to do so.
Yet a total of 636 participants were tested in 18 separate experiments across the New Haven area, which was seen as being reasonably representative of a typical American town.
Milgram’s findings have been replicated in a variety of cultures and most lead to the same conclusions as Milgram’s original study and in some cases see higher obedience rates.
However, Smith and Bond (1998) point out that with the exception of Jordan (Shanab & Yahya, 1978), the majority of these studies have been conducted in industrialized Western cultures, and we should be cautious before we conclude that a universal trait of social behavior has been identified.
Selective reporting of experimental findings:
Perry (2013) found Milgram omitted findings from some obedience experiments he conducted, reporting only results supporting his conclusions. A key omission was the Relationship condition (conducted in 1962 but unpublished), where participant pairs were relatives or close acquaintances.
When the learner protested being shocked, most teachers disobeyed, contradicting Milgram’s emphasis on obedience to authority.
Perry argued Milgram likely did not publish this 85% disobedience rate because it undermined his narrative and would be difficult to defend ethically since the teacher and learner knew each other closely.
Milgram’s selective reporting biased interpretations of his findings. His failure to publish all his experiments raises issues around researchers’ ethical obligation to completely and responsibly report their results, not just those fitting their expectations.
Unreported analysis of participants’ skepticism and its impact on their behavior:
Perry (2013) found archival evidence that many participants expressed doubt about the experiment’s setup, impacting their behavior. This supports Orne and Holland’s (1968) criticism that Milgram overlooked participants’ perceptions.
Incongruities like apparent danger, but an unconcerned experimenter likely cued participants that no real harm would occur. Trust in Yale’s ethics reinforced this. Yet Milgram did not publish his assistant’s analysis showing participant skepticism correlated with disobedience rates and varied by condition.
Obedient participants were more skeptical that the learner was harmed. This selective reporting biased interpretations. Additional unreported findings further challenge Milgram’s conclusions.
This highlights issues around thoroughly and responsibly reporting all results, not just those fitting expectations. It shows how archival evidence makes Milgram’s study a contentious classic with questionable methods and conclusions.
Ethical Issues
What are the potential ethical concerns associated with Milgram’s research on obedience?
While not a “contribution to psychology” in the traditional sense, Milgram’s obedience experiments sparked significant debate about the ethics of psychological research.
Baumrind (1964) criticized the ethics of Milgram’s research as participants were prevented from giving their informed consent to take part in the study.
Participants assumed the experiment was benign and expected to be treated with dignity.
As a result of studies like Milgram’s, the APA and BPS now require researchers to give participants more information before they agree to take part in a study.
The participants actually believed they were shocking a real person and were unaware the learner was a confederate of Milgram’s.
However, Milgram argued that “illusion is used when necessary in order to set the stage for the revelation of certain difficult-to-get-at-truths.”
Milgram also interviewed participants afterward to find out the effect of the deception. Apparently, 83.7% said that they were “glad to be in the experiment,” and 1.3% said that they wished they had not been involved.
Protection of participants
Participants were exposed to extremely stressful situations that may have the potential to cause psychological harm. Many of the participants were visibly distressed (Baumrind, 1964).
Signs of tension included trembling, sweating, stuttering, laughing nervously, biting lips and digging fingernails into palms of hands. Three participants had uncontrollable seizures, and many pleaded to be allowed to stop the experiment.
Milgram described a businessman reduced to a “twitching stuttering wreck” (1963, p. 377),
In his defense, Milgram argued that these effects were only short-term. Once the participants were debriefed (and could see the confederate was OK), their stress levels decreased.
“At no point,” Milgram (1964) stated, “were subjects exposed to danger and at no point did they run the risk of injurious effects resulting from participation” (p. 849).
To defend himself against criticisms about the ethics of his obedience research, Milgram cited follow-up survey data showing that 84% of participants said they were glad they had taken part in the study.
Milgram used this to claim that the study caused no serious or lasting harm, since most participants retrospectively did not regret their involvement.
Yet archival accounts show many participants endured lasting distress, even trauma, refuting Milgram’s insistence the study caused only fleeting “excitement.” By not debriefing all, Milgram misled participants about the true risks involved (Perry, 2013).
However, Milgram did debrief the participants fully after the experiment and also followed up after a period of time to ensure that they came to no harm.
Milgram debriefed all his participants straight after the experiment and disclosed the true nature of the experiment.
Participants were assured that their behavior was common, and Milgram also followed the sample up a year later and found no signs of any long-term psychological harm.
The majority of the participants (83.7%) said that they were pleased that they had participated, and 74% had learned something of personal importance.
Perry’s (2013) archival research found Milgram misrepresented debriefing – around 600 participants were not properly debriefed soon after the study, contrary to his claims. Many only learned no real shocks occurred when reading a mailed study report months later, which some may have not received.
Milgram likely misreported debriefing details to protect his credibility and enable future obedience research. This raises issues around properly informing and debriefing participants that connect to APA ethics codes developed partly in response to Milgram’s study.
Right to Withdrawal
The BPS states that researchers should make it plain to participants that they are free to withdraw at any time (regardless of payment).
When expressing doubts, the experimenter assured them all was well. Trusting Yale scientists, many took the experimenter at his word that “no permanent tissue damage” would occur, and continued administering shocks despite reservations.
Did Milgram give participants an opportunity to withdraw? The experimenter gave four verbal prods which mostly discouraged withdrawal from the experiment:
- Please continue.
- The experiment requires that you continue.
- It is absolutely essential that you continue.
- You have no other choice, you must go on.
Milgram argued that they were justified as the study was about obedience, so orders were necessary.
Milgram pointed out that although the right to withdraw was made partially difficult, it was possible as 35% of participants had chosen to withdraw.
Replications
Direct replications have not been possible due to current ethical standards . However, several researchers have conducted partial replications and variations that aim to reproduce some aspects of Milgram’s methods ethically.
One important replication was conducted by Jerry Burger in 2009. Burger’s partial replication included several safeguards to protect participant welfare, such as screening out high-risk individuals, repeatedly reminding participants they could withdraw, and stopping at the 150-volt shock level. This was the point where Milgram’s participants first heard the learner’s protests.
As 79% of Milgram’s participants who went past 150 volts continued to the maximum 450 volts, Burger (2009) argued that 150 volts provided a reasonable estimate for obedience levels. He found 70% of participants continued to 150 volts, compared to 82.5% in Milgram’s comparable condition.
Another replication by Thomas Blass (1999) examined whether obedience rates had declined over time due to greater public awareness of the experiments. Blass correlated obedience rates from replication studies between 1963 and 1985 and found no relationship between year and obedience level. He concluded that obedience rates have not systematically changed, providing evidence against the idea of “enlightenment effects”.
Some variations have explored the role of gender. Milgram found equal rates of obedience for male and female participants. Reviews have found most replications also show no gender difference, with a couple of exceptions (Blass, 1999). For example, Kilham and Mann (1974) found lower obedience in female participants.
Partial replications have also examined situational factors. Having another person model defiance reduced obedience compared to a solo participant in one study, but did not eliminate it (Burger, 2009). The authority figure’s perceived expertise seems to be an influential factor (Blass, 1999). Replications have supported Milgram’s observation that stepwise increases in demands promote obedience.
Personality factors have been studied as well. Traits like high empathy and desire for control correlate with some minor early hesitation, but do not greatly impact eventual obedience levels (Burger, 2009). Authoritarian tendencies may contribute to obedience (Elms, 2009).
In sum, the partial replications confirm Milgram’s degree of obedience. Though ethical constraints prevent full reproductions, the key elements of his procedure seem to consistently elicit high levels of compliance across studies, samples, and eras. The replications continue to highlight the power of situational pressures to yield obedience.
Milgram (1963) Audio Clips
Below you can also hear some of the audio clips taken from the video that was made of the experiment. Just click on the clips below.
Why was the Milgram experiment so controversial?
The Milgram experiment was controversial because it revealed people’s willingness to obey authority figures even when causing harm to others, raising ethical concerns about the psychological distress inflicted upon participants and the deception involved in the study.
Would Milgram’s experiment be allowed today?
Milgram’s experiment would likely not be allowed today in its original form, as it violates modern ethical guidelines for research involving human participants, particularly regarding informed consent, deception, and protection from psychological harm.
Did anyone refuse the Milgram experiment?
Yes, in the Milgram experiment, some participants refused to continue administering shocks, demonstrating individual variation in obedience to authority figures. In the original Milgram experiment, approximately 35% of participants refused to administer the highest shock level of 450 volts, while 65% obeyed and delivered the 450-volt shock.
How can Milgram’s study be applied to real life?
Milgram’s study can be applied to real life by demonstrating the potential for ordinary individuals to obey authority figures even when it involves causing harm, emphasizing the importance of questioning authority, ethical decision-making, and fostering critical thinking in societal contexts.
Were all participants in Milgram’s experiments male?
Yes, in the original Milgram experiment conducted in 1961, all participants were male, limiting the generalizability of the findings to women and diverse populations.
Why was the Milgram experiment unethical?
The Milgram experiment was considered unethical because participants were deceived about the true nature of the study and subjected to severe emotional distress. They believed they were causing harm to another person under the instruction of authority.
Additionally, participants were not given the right to withdraw freely and were subjected to intense pressure to continue. The psychological harm and lack of informed consent violates modern ethical guidelines for research.
Baumrind, D. (1964). Some thoughts on ethics of research: After reading Milgram’s” Behavioral study of obedience.”. American Psychologist , 19 (6), 421.
Blass, T. (1999). The Milgram paradigm after 35 years: Some things we now know about obedience to authority 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 29 (5), 955-978.
Brannigan, A., Nicholson, I., & Cherry, F. (2015). Introduction to the special issue: Unplugging the Milgram machine. Theory & Psychology , 25 (5), 551-563.
Burger, J. M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64 , 1–11.
Elms, A. C. (2009). Obedience lite. American Psychologist, 64 (1), 32–36.
Gibson, S. (2013). Milgram’s obedience experiments: A rhetorical analysis. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52, 290–309.
Gibson, S. (2017). Developing psychology’s archival sensibilities: Revisiting Milgram’s obedience’ experiments. Qualitative Psychology , 4 (1), 73.
Griggs, R. A., Blyler, J., & Jackson, S. L. (2020). Using research ethics as a springboard for teaching Milgram’s obedience study as a contentious classic. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology , 6 (4), 350.
Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2018). A truth that does not always speak its name: How Hollander and Turowetz’s findings confirm and extend the engaged followership analysis of harm-doing in the Milgram paradigm. British Journal of Social Psychology, 57, 292–300.
Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., & Birney, M. E. (2016). Questioning authority: New perspectives on Milgram’s ‘obedience’ research and its implications for intergroup relations. Current Opinion in Psychology, 11 , 6–9.
Haslam, S. A., Reicher, S. D., Birney, M. E., Millard, K., & McDonald, R. (2015). ‘Happy to have been of service’: The Yale archive as a window into the engaged followership of participants in Milgram’s ‘obedience’ experiment. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54 , 55–83.
Kaplan, D. E. (1996). The Stanley Milgram papers: A case study on appraisal of and access to confidential data files. American Archivist, 59 , 288–297.
Kaposi, D. (2022). The second wave of critical engagement with Stanley Milgram’s ‘obedience to authority’experiments: What did we learn?. Social and Personality Psychology Compass , 16 (6), e12667.
Kilham, W., & Mann, L. (1974). Level of destructive obedience as a function of transmitter and executant roles in the Milgram obedience paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29 (5), 696–702.
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience . Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 67, 371-378.
Milgram, S. (1964). Issues in the study of obedience: A reply to Baumrind. American Psychologist, 19 , 848–852.
Milgram, S. (1965). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority . Human Relations, 18(1) , 57-76.
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view . Harpercollins.
Miller, A. G. (2009). Reflections on” Replicating Milgram”(Burger, 2009), American Psychologis t, 64 (1):20-27
Nicholson, I. (2011). “Torture at Yale”: Experimental subjects, laboratory torment and the “rehabilitation” of Milgram’s “obedience to authority”. Theory & Psychology, 21 , 737–761.
Nicholson, I. (2015). The normalization of torment: Producing and managing anguish in Milgram’s “obedience” laboratory. Theory & Psychology, 25 , 639–656.
Orne, M. T., & Holland, C. H. (1968). On the ecological validity of laboratory deceptions. International Journal of Psychiatry, 6 (4), 282-293.
Orne, M. T., & Holland, C. C. (1968). Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. On the ecological validity of laboratory deceptions. International Journal of Psychiatry, 6 , 282–293.
Perry, G. (2013). Behind the shock machine: The untold story of the notorious Milgram psychology experiments . New York, NY: The New Press.
Reicher, S., Haslam, A., & Miller, A. (Eds.). (2014). Milgram at 50: Exploring the enduring relevance of psychology’s most famous studies [Special issue]. Journal of Social Issues, 70 (3), 393–602
Russell, N. (2014). Stanley Milgram’s obedience to authority “relationship condition”: Some methodological and theoretical implications. Social Sciences, 3, 194–214
Shanab, M. E., & Yahya, K. A. (1978). A cross-cultural study of obedience. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society .
Smith, P. B., & Bond, M. H. (1998). Social psychology across cultures (2nd Edition) . Prentice Hall.
Further Reading
- The power of the situation: The impact of Milgram’s obedience studies on personality and social psychology
- Seeing is believing: The role of the film Obedience in shaping perceptions of Milgram’s Obedience to Authority Experiments
- Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today?
Learning Check
Which is true regarding the Milgram obedience study?
- The aim was to see how obedient people would be in a situation where following orders would mean causing harm to another person.
- Participants were under the impression they were part of a learning and memory experiment.
- The “learners” in the study were actual participants who volunteered to be shocked as part of the experiment.
- The “learner” was an actor who was in on the experiment and never actually received any real shocks.
- Although the participant could not see the “learner”, he was able to hear him clearly through the wall
- The study was directly influenced by Milgram’s observations of obedience patterns in post-war Europe.
- The experiment was designed to understand the psychological mechanisms behind war crimes committed during World War II.
- The Milgram study was universally accepted in the psychological community, and no ethical concerns were raised about its methodology.
- When Milgram’s experiment was repeated in a rundown office building in Bridgeport, the percentage of the participants who fully complied with the commands of the experimenter remained unchanged.
- The experimenter (authority figure) delivered verbal prods to encourage the teacher to continue, such as ‘Please continue’ or ‘Please go on’.
- Over 80% of participants went on to deliver the maximum level of shock.
- Milgram sent participants questionnaires after the study to assess the effects and found that most felt no remorse or guilt, so it was ethical.
- The aftermath of the study led to stricter ethical guidelines in psychological research.
- The study emphasized the role of situational factors over personality traits in determining obedience.
Answers : Items 3, 8, 9, and 11 are the false statements.
Short Answer Questions
- Briefly explain the results of the original Milgram experiments. What did these results prove?
- List one scenario on how an authority figure can abuse obedience principles.
- List one scenario on how an individual could use these principles to defend their fellow peers.
- In a hospital, you are very likely to obey a nurse. However, if you meet her outside the hospital, for example in a shop, you are much less likely to obey. Using your knowledge of how people resist pressure to obey, explain why you are less likely to obey the nurse outside the hospital.
- Describe the shock instructions the participant (teacher) was told to follow when the victim (learner) gave an incorrect answer.
- State the lowest voltage shock that was labeled on the shock generator.
- What would likely happen if Milgram’s experiment included a condition in which the participant (teacher) had to give a high-level electric shock for the first wrong answer?
Group Activity
Gather in groups of three or four to discuss answers to the short answer questions above.
For question 2, review the different scenarios you each came up with. Then brainstorm on how these situations could be flipped.
For question 2, discuss how an authority figure could instead empower those below them in the examples your groupmates provide.
For question 3, discuss how a peer could do harm by using the obedience principles in the scenarios your groupmates provide.
Essay Topic
- What’s the most important lesson of Milgram’s Obedience Experiments? Fully explain and defend your answer.
- Milgram selectively edited his film of the obedience experiments to emphasize obedient behavior and minimize footage of disobedience. What are the ethical implications of a researcher selectively presenting findings in a way that fits their expected conclusions?
![Stanley Milgram Shock Experiment 5 Print Friendly, PDF & Email](https://www.simplypsychology.org/wp-content/uploads/three-icons-with-text-light-blue.jpg)
The Milgram Experiment: How Far Will You Go to Obey an Order?
Understand the infamous study and its conclusions about human nature
- Archaeology
- Ph.D., Psychology, University of California - Santa Barbara
- B.A., Psychology and Peace & Conflict Studies, University of California - Berkeley
In the 1960s, psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted a series of studies on the concepts of obedience and authority. His experiments involved instructing study participants to deliver increasingly high-voltage shocks to an actor in another room, who would scream and eventually go silent as the shocks became stronger. The shocks weren't real, but study participants were made to believe that they were.
Today, the Milgram experiment is widely criticized on both ethical and scientific grounds. However, Milgram's conclusions about humanity's willingness to obey authority figures remain influential and well-known.
Key Takeaways: The Milgram Experiment
- The goal of the Milgram experiment was to test the extent of humans' willingness to obey orders from an authority figure.
- Participants were told by an experimenter to administer increasingly powerful electric shocks to another individual. Unbeknownst to the participants, shocks were fake and the individual being shocked was an actor.
- The majority of participants obeyed, even when the individual being shocked screamed in pain.
- The experiment has been widely criticized on ethical and scientific grounds.
Milgram’s Famous Experiment
In the most well-known version of Stanley Milgram's experiment, the 40 male participants were told that the experiment focused on the relationship between punishment, learning, and memory. The experimenter then introduced each participant to a second individual, explaining that this second individual was participating in the study as well. Participants were told that they would be randomly assigned to roles of "teacher" and "learner." However, the "second individual" was an actor hired by the research team, and the study was set up so that the true participant would always be assigned to the "teacher" role.
During the study, the learner was located in a separate room from the teacher (the real participant), but the teacher could hear the learner through the wall. The experimenter told the teacher that the learner would memorize word pairs and instructed the teacher to ask the learner questions. If the learner responded incorrectly to a question, the teacher would be asked to administer an electric shock. The shocks started at a relatively mild level (15 volts) but increased in 15-volt increments up to 450 volts. (In actuality, the shocks were fake, but the participant was led to believe they were real.)
Participants were instructed to give a higher shock to the learner with each wrong answer. When the 150-volt shock was administered, the learner would cry out in pain and ask to leave the study. He would then continue crying out with each shock until the 330-volt level, at which point he would stop responding.
During this process, whenever participants expressed hesitation about continuing with the study, the experimenter would urge them to go on with increasingly firm instructions, culminating in the statement, "You have no other choice, you must go on." The study ended when participants refused to obey the experimenter’s demand, or when they gave the learner the highest level of shock on the machine (450 volts).
Milgram found that participants obeyed the experimenter at an unexpectedly high rate: 65% of the participants gave the learner the 450-volt shock.
Critiques of the Milgram Experiment
Milgram’s experiment has been widely criticized on ethical grounds. Milgram’s participants were led to believe that they acted in a way that harmed someone else, an experience that could have had long-term consequences. Moreover, an investigation by writer Gina Perry uncovered that some participants appear to not have been fully debriefed after the study —they were told months later, or not at all, that the shocks were fake and the learner wasn’t harmed. Milgram’s studies could not be perfectly recreated today, because researchers today are required to pay much more attention to the safety and well-being of human research subjects.
Researchers have also questioned the scientific validity of Milgram’s results. In her examination of the study, Perry found that Milgram’s experimenter may have gone off script and told participants to obey many more times than the script specified. Additionally, some research suggests that participants may have figured out that the learner was not actually harmed : in interviews conducted after the study, some participants reported that they didn’t think the learner was in any real danger. This mindset is likely to have affected their behavior in the study.
Variations on the Milgram Experiment
Milgram and other researchers conducted numerous versions of the experiment over time. The participants' levels of compliance with the experimenter’s demands varied greatly from one study to the next. For example, when participants were in closer proximity to the learner (e.g. in the same room), they were less likely give the learner the highest level of shock.
Another version of the study brought three "teachers" into the experiment room at once. One was a real participant, and the other two were actors hired by the research team. During the experiment, the two non-participant teachers would quit as the level of shocks began to increase. Milgram found that these conditions made the real participant far more likely to "disobey" the experimenter, too: only 10% of participants gave the 450-volt shock to the learner.
In yet another version of the study, two experimenters were present, and during the experiment, they would begin arguing with one another about whether it was right to continue the study. In this version, none of the participants gave the learner the 450-volt shock.
Replicating the Milgram Experiment
Researchers have sought to replicate Milgram's original study with additional safeguards in place to protect participants. In 2009, Jerry Burger replicated Milgram’s famous experiment at Santa Clara University with new safeguards in place: the highest shock level was 150 volts, and participants were told that the shocks were fake immediately after the experiment ended. Additionally, participants were screened by a clinical psychologist before the experiment began, and those found to be at risk of a negative reaction to the study were deemed ineligible to participate.
Burger found that participants obeyed at similar levels as Milgram’s participants: 82.5% of Milgram’s participants gave the learner the 150-volt shock, and 70% of Burger’s participants did the same.
Milgram’s Legacy
Milgram’s interpretation of his research was that everyday people are capable of carrying out unthinkable actions in certain circumstances. His research has been used to explain atrocities such as the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide, though these applications are by no means widely accepted or agreed upon.
Importantly, not all participants obeyed the experimenter’s demands , and Milgram’s studies shed light on the factors that enable people to stand up to authority. In fact, as sociologist Matthew Hollander writes, we may be able to learn from the participants who disobeyed, as their strategies may enable us to respond more effectively to an unethical situation. The Milgram experiment suggested that human beings are susceptible to obeying authority, but it also demonstrated that obedience is not inevitable.
- Baker, Peter C. “Electric Schlock: Did Stanley Milgram's Famous Obedience Experiments Prove Anything?” Pacific Standard (2013, Sep. 10). https://psmag.com/social-justice/electric-schlock-65377
- Burger, Jerry M. "Replicating Milgram: Would People Still Obey Today?." American Psychologist 64.1 (2009): 1-11. http://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2008-19206-001
- Gilovich, Thomas, Dacher Keltner, and Richard E. Nisbett. Social Psychology . 1st edition, W.W. Norton & Company, 2006.
- Hollander, Matthew. “How to Be a Hero: Insight From the Milgram Experiment.” HuffPost Contributor Network (2015, Apr. 29). https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/how-to-be-a-hero-insight-_b_6566882
- Jarrett, Christian. “New Analysis Suggests Most Milgram Participants Realised the ‘Obedience Experiments’ Were Not Really Dangerous.” The British Psychological Society: Research Digest (2017, Dec. 12). https://digest.bps.org.uk/2017/12/12/interviews-with-milgram-participants-provide-little-support-for-the-contemporary-theory-of-engaged-followership/
- Perry, Gina. “The Shocking Truth of the Notorious Milgram Obedience Experiments.” Discover Magazine Blogs (2013, Oct. 2). http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2013/10/02/the-shocking-truth-of-the-notorious-milgram-obedience-experiments/
- Romm, Cari. “Rethinking One of Psychology's Most Infamous Experiments.” The Atlantic (2015, Jan. 28) . https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/01/rethinking-one-of-psychologys-most-infamous-experiments/384913/
- Gilligan's Ethics of Care
- What Is Behaviorism in Psychology?
- What Was the Robbers Cave Experiment in Psychology?
- What Is the Zeigarnik Effect? Definition and Examples
- What Is a Conditioned Response?
- Psychodynamic Theory: Approaches and Proponents
- Social Cognitive Theory: How We Learn From the Behavior of Others
- Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development
- What's the Difference Between Eudaimonic and Hedonic Happiness?
- Genie Wiley, the Feral Child
- What Is the Law of Effect in Psychology?
- What Is the Recency Effect in Psychology?
- Heuristics: The Psychology of Mental Shortcuts
- What Is Survivor's Guilt? Definition and Examples
- 5 Psychology Studies That Will Make You Feel Good About Humanity
- What Is Cognitive Bias? Definition and Examples
![milgram experiment procedure summary Encyclopedia Britannica](https://cdn.britannica.com/mendel/eb-logo/MendelNewThistleLogo.png)
- History & Society
- Science & Tech
- Biographies
- Animals & Nature
- Geography & Travel
- Arts & Culture
- Games & Quizzes
- On This Day
- One Good Fact
- New Articles
- Lifestyles & Social Issues
- Philosophy & Religion
- Politics, Law & Government
- World History
- Health & Medicine
- Browse Biographies
- Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
- Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
- Environment
- Fossils & Geologic Time
- Entertainment & Pop Culture
- Sports & Recreation
- Visual Arts
- Demystified
- Image Galleries
- Infographics
- Top Questions
- Britannica Kids
- Saving Earth
- Space Next 50
- Student Center
![milgram experiment procedure summary Stanley Milgram](https://cdn.britannica.com/09/236909-004-43C85686/Stanley-Milgram-shock-generator.jpg)
- When did science begin?
- Where was science invented?
![milgram experiment procedure summary Blackboard inscribed with scientific formulas and calculations in physics and mathematics](https://cdn.britannica.com/76/194476-131-85FEB7A3/Blackboard-formulas-calculations-mathematics-physics.jpg?w=200&h=200&c=crop)
Milgram experiment
Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.
- Open University - OpenLearn - Psychological research, obedience and ethics: 1 Milgram’s obedience study
- Social Science LibreTexts - The Milgram Experiment- The Power of Authority
- Verywell Mind - What was the Milgram Experiment?
- BCcampus Open Publishing - Ethics in Law Enforcement - The Milgram Experiment
- Nature - Modern Milgram experiment sheds light on power of authority
- SimplyPsychology - Stanley Milgram Shock Experiment: Summary, Results, & Ethics
- University of California - College of Natural Resources - Milgrams Experiment on Obedience to Authority
![milgram experiment procedure summary Stanley Milgram](https://cdn.britannica.com/09/236909-050-932EF95E/Stanley-Milgram-shock-generator.jpg?w=400&h=300&c=crop)
Milgram experiment , controversial series of experiments examining obedience to authority conducted by social psychologist Stanley Milgram . In the experiment, an authority figure, the conductor of the experiment, would instruct a volunteer participant, labeled the “teacher,” to administer painful, even dangerous, electric shocks to the “learner,” who was actually an actor. Although the shocks were faked, the experiments are widely considered unethical today due to the lack of proper disclosure, informed consent, and subsequent debriefing related to the deception and trauma experienced by the teachers. Some of Milgram’s conclusions have been called into question. Nevertheless, the experiments and their results have been widely cited for their insight into how average people respond to authority.
Milgram conducted his experiments as an assistant professor at Yale University in the early 1960s. In 1961 he began to recruit men from New Haven , Connecticut , for participation in a study he claimed would be focused on memory and learning . The recruits were paid $4.50 at the beginning of the study and were generally between the ages of 20 and 50 and from a variety of employment backgrounds. When they volunteered, they were told that the experiment would test the effect of punishment on learning ability. In truth, the volunteers were the subjects of an experiment on obedience to authority. In all, about 780 people, only about 40 of them women, participated in the experiments, and Milgram published his results in 1963.
![milgram experiment procedure summary milgram experiment procedure summary](https://cdn.britannica.com/51/236751-050-561BE710/milgram-experiment-set-up.jpg?w=300)
Volunteers were told that they would be randomly assigned either a “teacher” or “learner” role, with each teacher administering electric shocks to a learner in another room if the learner failed to answer questions correctly. In actuality, the random draw was fixed so that all the volunteer participants were assigned to the teacher role and the actors were assigned to the learner role. The teachers were then instructed in the electroshock “punishment” they would be administering, with 30 shock levels ranging from 15 to 450 volts. The different shock levels were labeled with descriptions of their effects, such as “Slight Shock,” “Intense Shock,” and “Danger: Severe Shock,” with the final label a grim “XXX.” Each teacher was given a 45-volt shock themselves so that they would better understand the punishment they believed the learner would be receiving. Teachers were then given a series of questions for the learner to answer, with each incorrect answer generally earning the learner a progressively stronger shock. The actor portraying the learner, who was seated out of sight of the teacher, had pre-recorded responses to these shocks that ranged from grunts of pain to screaming and pleading, claims of suffering a heart condition, and eventually dead silence. The experimenter, acting as an authority figure, would encourage the teachers to continue administering shocks, telling them with scripted responses that the experiment must continue despite the reactions of the learner. The infamous result of these experiments was that a disturbingly high number of the teachers were willing to proceed to the maximum voltage level, despite the pleas of the learner and the supposed danger of proceeding.
Milgram’s interest in the subject of authority, and his dark view of the results of his experiments, were deeply informed by his Jewish identity and the context of the Holocaust , which had occurred only a few years before. He had expected that Americans, known for their individualism , would differ from Germans in their willingness to obey authority when it might lead to harming others. Milgram and his students had predicted only 1–3% of participants would administer the maximum shock level. However, in his first official study, 26 of 40 male participants (65%) were convinced to do so and nearly 80% of teachers that continued to administer shocks after 150 volts—the point at which the learner was heard to scream—continued to the maximum of 450 volts. Teachers displayed a range of negative emotional responses to the experiment even as they continued to obey, sometimes pleading with the experimenters to stop the experiment while still participating in it. One teacher believed that he had killed the learner and was moved to tears when he eventually found out that he had not.
![milgram experiment procedure summary milgram experiment procedure summary](https://cdn.britannica.com/10/236910-050-81CD9E03/Shock-generator-equipment-Stanley-Milgram-Experiments.jpg?w=300)
Milgram included several variants on the original design of the experiment. In one, the teachers were allowed to select their own voltage levels. In this case, only about 2.5% of participants used the maximum shock level, indicating that they were not inclined to do so without the prompting of an authority figure. In another, there were three teachers, two of whom were not test subjects, but instead had been instructed to protest against the shocks. The existence of peers protesting the experiment made the volunteer teachers less likely to obey. Teachers were also less likely to obey in a variant where they could see the learner and were forced to interact with him.
The Milgram experiment has been highly controversial, both for the ethics of its design and for the reliability of its results and conclusions. It is commonly accepted that the ethics of the experiment would be rejected by mainstream science today, due not only to the handling of the deception involved but also to the extreme stress placed on the teachers, who often reacted emotionally to the experiment and were not debriefed . Some teachers were actually left believing they had genuinely and repeatedly shocked a learner before having the truth revealed to them later. Later researchers examining Milgram’s data also found that the experimenters conducting the tests had sometimes gone off-script in their attempts to coerce the teachers into continuing, and noted that some teachers guessed that they were the subjects of the experiment. However, attempts to validate Milgram’s findings in more ethical ways have often produced similar results.
- Bipolar Disorder
- Therapy Center
- When To See a Therapist
- Types of Therapy
- Best Online Therapy
- Best Couples Therapy
- Best Family Therapy
- Managing Stress
- Sleep and Dreaming
- Understanding Emotions
- Self-Improvement
- Healthy Relationships
- Student Resources
- Personality Types
- Sweepstakes
- Guided Meditations
- Verywell Mind Insights
- 2024 Verywell Mind 25
- Mental Health in the Classroom
- Editorial Process
- Meet Our Review Board
- Crisis Support
What Was the Milgram Experiment?
Milgram's Famous and Controversial Studies of Obedience
Isabelle Adam (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) via Flickr
Factors That Influence Obedience
- Ethical Concerns
- Replications
The Milgram experiment was a famous and controversial study that explored the effects of authority on obedience.
During the 1960s, Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted a series of obedience experiments that led to some surprising results.
In the study, an authority figure ordered participants to deliver what they believed were dangerous electrical shocks to another person. These results suggested that people are highly influenced by authority, and highly obedient . More recent investigations cast doubt on some of the implications of Milgram's findings and even the results and procedures themselves. Despite its problems, the study has, without question, made a significant impact on psychology .
Milgram started his experiments in 1961, shortly after the trial of the World War II criminal Adolf Eichmann had begun. Eichmann’s defense that he was merely following instructions when he ordered the deaths of millions of Jews roused Milgram’s interest.
In his 1974 book "Obedience to Authority," Milgram posed the question, "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?"
Procedure in the Milgram Experiment
The participants in the most famous variation of the Milgram experiment were 40 men recruited using newspaper ads. In exchange for their participation, each person was paid $4.50.
Milgram developed an intimidating shock generator, with shock levels starting at 15 volts and increasing in 15-volt increments all the way up to 450 volts. The many switches were labeled with terms including "slight shock," "moderate shock," and "danger: severe shock." The final three switches were labeled simply with an ominous "XXX."
Each participant took the role of a "teacher" who would then deliver a shock to the "student" in a neighboring room whenever an incorrect answer was given. While participants believed that they were delivering real shocks to the student, the “student” was a confederate in the experiment who was only pretending to be shocked.
As the experiment progressed, the participant would hear the learner plead to be released or even complain about a heart condition. Once they reached the 300-volt level, the learner would bang on the wall and demand to be released.
Beyond this point, the learner became completely silent and refused to answer any more questions. The experimenter then instructed the participant to treat this silence as an incorrect response and deliver a further shock.
Most participants asked the experimenter whether they should continue. The experimenter then responded with a series of commands to prod the participant along:
- "Please continue."
- "The experiment requires that you continue."
- "It is absolutely essential that you continue."
- "You have no other choice; you must go on."
Results of the Milgram Experiment
In the Milgram experiment, obedience was measured by the level of shock that the participant was willing to deliver. While many of the subjects became extremely agitated, distraught, and angry at the experimenter, they nevertheless continued to follow orders all the way to the end.
Milgram's results showed that 65% of the participants in the study delivered the maximum shocks. Of the 40 participants in the study, 26 delivered the maximum shocks, while 14 stopped before reaching the highest levels.
Why did so many of the participants in this experiment perform a seemingly brutal act when instructed by an authority figure? According to Milgram, there are some situational factors that can explain such high levels of obedience:
- The physical presence of an authority figure dramatically increased compliance .
- The fact that Yale (a trusted and authoritative academic institution) sponsored the study led many participants to believe that the experiment must be safe.
- The selection of teacher and learner status seemed random.
- Participants assumed that the experimenter was a competent expert.
- The shocks were said to be painful, not dangerous.
Later experiments conducted by Milgram indicated that the presence of rebellious peers dramatically reduced obedience levels. When other people refused to go along with the experimenter's orders, 36 out of 40 participants refused to deliver the maximum shocks.
More recent work by researchers suggests that while people do tend to obey authority figures, the process is not necessarily as cut-and-dried as Milgram depicted it.
In a 2012 essay published in PLoS Biology , researchers suggested that the degree to which people are willing to obey the questionable orders of an authority figure depends largely on two key factors:
- How much the individual agrees with the orders
- How much they identify with the person giving the orders
While it is clear that people are often far more susceptible to influence, persuasion , and obedience than they would often like to be, they are far from mindless machines just taking orders.
Ethical Concerns in the Milgram Experiment
Milgram's experiments have long been the source of considerable criticism and controversy. From the get-go, the ethics of his experiments were highly dubious. Participants were subjected to significant psychological and emotional distress.
Some of the major ethical issues in the experiment were related to:
- The use of deception
- The lack of protection for the participants who were involved
- Pressure from the experimenter to continue even after asking to stop, interfering with participants' right to withdraw
Due to concerns about the amount of anxiety experienced by many of the participants, everyone was supposedly debriefed at the end of the experiment. The researchers reported that they explained the procedures and the use of deception.
Critics of the study have argued that many of the participants were still confused about the exact nature of the experiment, and recent findings suggest that many participants were not debriefed at all.
Replications of the Milgram Experiment
While Milgram’s research raised serious ethical questions about the use of human subjects in psychology experiments , his results have also been consistently replicated in further experiments. One review further research on obedience and found that Milgram’s findings hold true in other experiments. In 2009, researchers conducted a study designed to replicate Milgram's classic obedience experiment. The researchers made several alterations to Milgram's experiment.
- The maximum shock level was 150 volts as opposed to the original 450 volts.
- Participants were also carefully screened to eliminate those who might experience adverse reactions to the experiment.
The results of the new experiment revealed that participants obeyed at roughly the same rate that they did when Milgram conducted his original study more than 40 years ago.
Some psychologists suggested that in spite of the changes made in the replication, the study still had merit and could be used to further explore some of the situational factors that also influenced the results of Milgram's study. But other psychologists suggested that the replication was too dissimilar to Milgram's original study to draw any meaningful comparisons.
Recent Criticisms and New Findings
Psychologist Gina Perry suggests that much of what we think we know about Milgram's famous experiments is only part of the story. While researching an article on the topic, she stumbled across hundreds of audiotapes found in Yale archives that documented numerous variations of Milgram's shock experiments.
Participants Were Often Coerced
While Milgram's reports of his process report methodical and uniform procedures, the audiotapes reveal something different. During the experimental sessions, the experimenters often went off-script and coerced the subjects into continuing the shocks.
"The slavish obedience to authority we have come to associate with Milgram’s experiments comes to sound much more like bullying and coercion when you listen to these recordings," Perry suggested in an article for Discover Magazine .
Few Participants Were Really Debriefed
Milgram suggested that the subjects were "de-hoaxed" after the experiments. He claimed he later surveyed the participants and found that 84% were glad to have participated, while only 1% regretted their involvement.
However, Perry's findings revealed that of the 700 or so people who took part in different variations of his studies between 1961 and 1962, very few were truly debriefed.
A true debriefing would have involved explaining that the shocks weren't real and that the other person was not injured. Instead, Milgram's sessions were mainly focused on calming the subjects down before sending them on their way.
Many participants left the experiment in a state of considerable distress. While the truth was revealed to some months or even years later, many were simply never told a thing.
Variations Led to Differing Results
Another problem is that the version of the study presented by Milgram and the one that's most often retold does not tell the whole story. The statistic that 65% of people obeyed orders applied only to one variation of the experiment, in which 26 out of 40 subjects obeyed.
In other variations, far fewer people were willing to follow the experimenters' orders, and in some versions of the study, not a single participant obeyed.
Participants Guessed the Learner Was Faking
Perry even tracked down some of the people who took part in the experiments, as well as Milgram's research assistants. What she discovered is that many of his subjects had deduced what Milgram's intent was and knew that the "learner" was merely pretending.
Such findings cast Milgram's results in a new light. It suggests that not only did Milgram intentionally engage in some hefty misdirection to obtain the results he wanted but that many of his participants were simply playing along.
A review of Milgram's research materials suggests that the experiments exerted more pressure to obey than the original results suggested. Other variations of the experiment revealed much lower rates of obedience, and many of the participants actually altered their behavior when they guessed the true nature of the experiment.
Impact of the Milgram Experiment
Since there is no way to truly replicate the experiment due to its serious ethical and moral problems, determining whether Milgram's experiment really tells us anything about the power of obedience is impossible to determine.
So why does Milgram's experiment maintain such a powerful hold on our imaginations, even decades after the fact? Perry believes that despite all its ethical issues and the problem of never truly being able to replicate Milgram's procedures, the study has taken on the role of what she calls a "powerful parable."
Milgram's work might not hold the answers to what makes people obey or even the degree to which they truly obey. It has, however, inspired other researchers to explore what makes people follow orders and, perhaps more importantly, what leads them to question authority.
Recent findings undermine the scientific validity of the study. Milgram's work is also not truly replicable due to its ethical problems. However, the study has led to additional research on how situational factors can affect obedience to authority.
A Word From Verywell
Milgram’s experiment has become a classic in psychology , demonstrating the dangers of obedience. The research suggests that situational variables have a stronger sway than personality factors in determining whether people will obey an authority figure. However, other psychologists argue that both external and internal factors heavily influence obedience, such as personal beliefs and overall temperament.
Milgram S. Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. Harper & Row.
Russell N, Gregory R. The Milgram-Holocaust linkage: challenging the present consensus . State Crim J. 2015;4(2):128-153.
Russell NJC. Milgram's obedience to authority experiments: origins and early evolution . Br J Soc Psychol . 2011;50:140-162. doi:10.1348/014466610X492205
Haslam SA, Reicher SD. Contesting the "nature" of conformity: What Milgram and Zimbardo's studies really show . PLoS Biol. 2012;10(11):e1001426. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001426
Milgram S. Liberating effects of group pressure . J Person Soc Psychol. 1965;1(2):127-234. doi:10.1037/h0021650
Perry G. Deception and illusion in Milgram's accounts of the obedience experiments . Theory Appl Ethics . 2013;2(2):79-92.
Blass T. The Milgram paradigm after 35 years: some things we now know about obedience to authority . J Appl Soc Psychol. 1999;29(5):955-978. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00134.x
Burger J. Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? . Am Psychol . 2009;64(1):1-11. doi:10.1037/a0010932
Elms AC. Obedience lite . American Psychologist . 2009;64(1):32-36. doi:10.1037/a0014473
Miller AG. Reflections on “replicating Milgram” (Burger, 2009) . American Psychologist . 2009;64(1):20-27. doi:10.1037/a0014407
Haslam SA, Reicher SD, Millard K, McDonald R. ‘Happy to have been of service’: The Yale archive as a window into the engaged followership of participants in Milgram’s ‘obedience’ experiments . Br J Soc Psychol . 2015;54:55-83. doi:10.1111/bjso.12074
By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."
The Milgram Shock Experiment
![milgram experiment procedure summary practical psychology logo](https://practicalpie.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/practical-psychology-logo-60x60.jpg)
Would you give someone a deadly electric shock? Would you follow orders to commit a violent crime against an innocent person? Would you support an unjust cause, just because you are told to?
People rarely see themselves as violent or capable of committing violent acts. People rarely see themselves on the wrong side of history. And yet, human history is full of violence, genocides, and atrocities. You might see friends and family now, people that you believe are good people, supporting violence. How does this happen?
I’m going to tell you about an experiment in psychology that set out to explain why people commit violence against others. And then I’ll ask you these questions again. The true answers to these questions might surprise you.
History of the Milgram Shock Study
This study is most commonly known as the Milgram Shock Study or the Milgram Experiment. Its name comes from Stanley Milgram, the psychologist behind the study.
Milgram was born in the 1930s in New York City to Jewish immigrant parents. As he grew up, he witnessed the atrocities of the Holocaust from thousands of miles away. How could people commit such atrocities? How could people see the horror in front of them and continue to participate in it?
These questions followed him as he became a psychologist at Yale University. In 1961, he decided to set up a study that might show how people follow orders from authority, even if it goes against their morals.
How Did the Study Work?
Over the course of two years, Milgram recruited men to participate in a study. Milgram created a few variations of the study, but in general, they involved the participant, a “learner,” and an experimenter. The participant acted as a “teacher,” reading out words to the learner. The learner would have to repeat the words back to the participant. If the learner got it wrong, the teacher had to deliver an electric shock.
These shocks increased in voltage. At first, the shocks were around 15 volts - just a mild sensation. But the shocks reached up to 450 volts, which is extremely dangerous. (Of course, these shocks weren’t real. The learner was an actor who played along with the study.)
The experimenter encouraged the participants to administer the shocks whenever the learner was incorrect. As the voltages increased, some participants resisted. In some variations of the study, the experimenter would urge the participants to administer the shocks. This happened in stages. Some participants were told to please continue, and eventually told that they had no choice but to continue.
In some variations of the study, the participant would beg the participant not to administer the shocks, complaining of a heart problem. The participant would even fake death once the highest voltages were reached.
Conclusions
You might be surprised to hear that this study even took place - there are obviously some ethical concerns behind asking participants to deliver dangerous electric shocks. The trauma of that study could impact participants, some of whom did not learn the truth about the study for months after it was over.
But you also might be surprised to hear that a lot of the participants did administer the most dangerous shocks.
After the experiment was complete, Milgram asked a group of his students how many participants they thought would deliver the highest shock. The students predicted 3%. But in the most well-known variation of the study, a shocking 65% of participants reached the highest level of shocks. All of the participants reached the 300-volt level.
Legacy of the Study
The Milgram Shock Study took place over 50 years ago, and it is still considered one of the most controversial and infamous studies in modern history. The study even inspired made-for-TV movies!
But not everyone praises Milgram for his boldness.
Critiques of the Study
The results of this study aren’t particularly optimistic, and there have been critiques from psychologists over the years. After all, Milgram’s selection of participants wasn’t perfect. All of the participants were male, a group that only represents 50% of the population. Would the results be different if women were asked to deliver the electric shocks? Another factor to consider is that, like in the Stanford Prison Experiment, all of the participants answered a newspaper ad to participate in the study for money. Would the results be different if the participants were not the type to volunteer for an unknown study?
Other critics believe that documentation of Milgram’s experiment suggest that some participants were coerced into completing the study. Psychologist Gina Perry believes that participants were even “bullied” into completing the study.
Perry also believes that Milgram failed to tell participants the truth about the study. Rather than telling participants that the learner was an actor and shocks were never delivered, experimenters simply allowed participants to calm down after the study and sent them home. Many were never told the truth. That’s not very ethical, especially when their participation could have meant injuring another person.
Replications
With most studies from 50 years ago, psychologists have attempted to retest Milgram’s theories. It’s been hard to replicate the study because of its controversial methods. But similar studies that have slightly tweaked Milgram’s methods have yielded similar results. Other replications take Milgram’s findings a step further. People are more obedient than they might seem.
Does this mean that we’re all bad people, just hiding under a mirage of sound judgement? Not exactly. Five years after the publication of Milgram’s experiment, psychologist Walter Mischel published Personality and Assessment. It suggested that trait theorists were looking at personality theory all wrong. Mischel suggested that different situations could drive different behaviors. Thus, situationism was born. Studies like Milgram’s experiment and the Stanford Prison Experiment are still considered supporting evidence of situationism.
So let me ask the questions that I asked at the beginning of this video. Would you give someone a deadly electric shock? Would you follow orders to commit a violent crime against an innocent person? Would you support an unjust cause, just because you are told to? Would it just depend on the situation?
Related posts:
- Stanley Milgram (Psychologist Biography)
- The Psychology of Long Distance Relationships
- The Monster Study (Summary, Results, and Ethical Issues)
- Beck’s Depression Inventory (BDI Test)
- Operant Conditioning (Examples + Research)
Reference this article:
About The Author
![milgram experiment procedure summary Photo of author](https://practicalpie.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/practical-psychology-logo-400x400.jpg)
PracticalPie.com is a participant in the Amazon Associates Program. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Follow Us On:
Youtube Facebook Instagram X/Twitter
Psychology Resources
Developmental
Personality
Relationships
Psychologists
Serial Killers
Psychology Tests
Personality Quiz
Memory Test
Depression test
Type A/B Personality Test
© PracticalPsychology. All rights reserved
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use
- Skip to main content
- Skip to primary sidebar
IResearchNet
Stanley Milgram’s Experiment
Stanley Milgram was one of the most influential social psychologists of the twentieth century. Born in 1933 in New York, he obtained a BA from Queen’s College, and went on to receive a PhD in psychology from Harvard. Subsequently, Milgram held faculty positions in psychology at Yale University and the City University of New York until his untimely death in 1984. Although Milgram never held a formal appointment in sociology, his work was centrally focused on the social psychological aspects of social structure.
![milgram experiment procedure summary Stanley Milgram’s Experiment](https://psychology.iresearchnet.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Stanley-Milgram’s-Experiment-300x220.jpg)
In a historic coincidence, in 1961, just as Milgram was about to begin work on his famous obedience experiments, the world witnessed the trial of Adolf Otto Eichmann, a high ranking Nazi official who was in charge of organizing the transport of millions of Jews to the death camps. To many, Eichmann appeared not at all to be the fervent anti Semite that many had suspected him to be; rather, his main defense was that he was only ‘‘following orders’’ as an administrator. To the political theorist Hannah Arendt, Eichmann’s case illustrated the ‘‘banality of evil,’’ in which personal malice appeared to matter less than the desire of individuals to fulfill their roles in the larger context of a bureaucracy. Milgram’s research is arguably the most striking example to illustrate this dynamic.
Milgram planned and conducted his obedience experiments between 1960 and 1963 at Yale University. In order to be able to study obedience to authority, he put unsuspecting research participants in a novel situation, which he staged in the laboratory. With the help of actors and props, Milgram set up an experimental ruse that was so real that hardly any of his research participants suspected that, in reality, nothing was what it pretended to be.
For this initial study, using newspaper ads promising $4.50 for participation in a psychological study, Milgram recruited men aged 20 to 50, ranging from elementary school drop outs to PhDs. Each research participant arrived in the lab along with another man, white and roughly 30 years of age, whom they thought to be another research participant. In reality, this person was a confederate, that is, an actor in cahoots with the experimenter. The experimenter explained that both men were about to take part in a study that explored the effect of punishment on memory. One man would assume the role of a ‘‘teacher’’ who would read a series of word pairings (e.g., nice day, blue box), which the other (‘‘the learner’’) was supposed to memorize. Subsequently, the teacher would read the first word of the pair with the learner having to select the correct second word from a list. Every mistake by the learner would be punished with an electric shock. It was further made clear that, although the shocks would be painful, they would not do any permanent harm.
Following this explanation, the experimenter assigned both men to the roles. Because the procedure was rigged, the unsuspecting research participant always was assigned to the role of teacher. As first order of business, the learner was seated in an armchair in an adjoining room such that he would be separated by a wall from the teacher, but would other wise be able to hear him from the main room. Electrodes were affixed to the learner’s arms, who was subsequently strapped to the chair apparently to make sure that improper movements would not endanger the success of the experiment.
In the main room, the teacher was told that he would have to apply electric shocks every time the learner made a mistake. For this purpose, the learner was seated in front of an electric generator with various dials. The experimenter instructed the teacher to steadily increase the voltage of the shock each time the learner made a new mistake. The shock generator showed a row of levers ranging from 15 volts on the left to 450 volts on the right, with each lever in between delivering a shock 15 volts higher than its neighbor on the left. Milgram labeled the voltage level, left to right, from ‘‘Slight Shock’’ to ‘‘Danger: Severe Shock,’’ with the last two switches being marked ‘‘XXX.’’ The teacher was told that he simply should work his way from the left to the right without using any lever twice. To give the teacher an idea of the electric current he would deliver to the learner, he received a sample shock of 45 volts, which most research participants found surprisingly painful. However, despite its appearance, in reality the generator never emitted any electric shocks. It was merely a device that allowed Milgram to examine how far the teacher would go in harming another person based on the experimenter’s say so.
As learning trials started, the teacher applied electric shocks to the learner. The learner’s responses were scripted such that he apparently made many mistakes, requiring the teacher to increase shock levels by 15 volts with every new mistake. As the strength of electric shocks increased, occasional grunts and moans of pain were heard from the learner. At 120 volts the learner started complaining about the pain. At 150 volts, the learner demanded to be released on account of a heart condition, and the protest continued until the shocks reached 300 volts and the learner started pounding on the wall. At 315 volts the learner stopped responding altogether.
As the complaints by the learner started, the teacher would often turn to the experimenter, who was seated at a nearby desk, wondering whether and how to proceed. The experimenter, instead of terminating the experiment, replied with a scripted succession of prods:
- Prod 1: ‘‘Please continue.’’
- Prod 2: ‘‘The experiment requires that you continue.’’
- Prod 3: ‘‘It is absolutely necessary to continue.’’
- Prod 4: ‘‘You have no other choice: you must go on.’’
These prods were successful in coaxing many teachers into continuing to apply electric shocks even when the learner no longer responded to the word memory questions. Indeed, in the first of Milgram’s experiments, a stunning 65 percent of all participants continued all the way to 450 volts, and not a single participant refused to continue the shocks before they reached the 300 volt level! The high levels of compliance illustrate the powerful effect of the social structure that participants had entered. By accepting the role of teacher in the experiment in exchange for the payment of a nominal fee, participants had agreed to accept the authority of the experimenter and carry out his instructions. In other words, just as Milgram suspected, the social forces of hierarchy and obedience could push normal and well adjusted individuals into harming others.
The overall level of obedience, however, does not reveal the tremendous amount of stress that all teachers experienced. Because the situation was extremely realistic, teachers were agonizing over whether or not to continue the electric shocks. Should they care for the well being of the obviously imperiled learners and even put their life in danger? Or should they abide by a legitimate authority figure, who presented his instructions crisply and confidently? Participants typically sought to resolve this conflict by seeking assurances that the experimenter, and not themselves, would accept full responsibility for their actions. Once they felt assured, they typically continued to apply shocks that would have likely electrocuted the learner.
Milgram expanded his initial research into a series of 19 experiments in which he carefully examined the conditions under which obedience would occur. For instance, the teacher’s proximity to the learner was an important factor in lowering obedience, that is, the proportion of people willing to deliver the full 450 volts. When the teacher was in the same room with the learner, obedience dropped to 40 percent, and when the teacher was required to touch the learner and apply physical force to deliver the electric shock, obedience dropped to 30 percent.
Milgram further suspected that the social status of the experimenter, presumably a serious Yale University researcher in a white lab coat, would have important implications for obedience. Indeed, when there was no obvious connection with Yale, and the above experiment was repeated in a run down office building in Bridgeport, Connecticut, obedience dropped to 48 percent. Indeed, when not the white coated experimenter but another confederate encouraged the teacher to continue the shocks, all participants terminated the experiment as soon as the confederate complained. Milgram concluded that ‘‘a substantial proportion of people do what they are told to do, irrespective of the content of the act and with out limitations of conscience, so long as they perceive that the command comes from a legitimate authority’’ (1965). However, additional studies highlighted that obedience is in part contingent on surveillance. When the experimenter transmitted his orders not in person but via telephone, obedience levels dropped to 20 percent, with many participants only pretending to apply higher and higher electric shocks.
Since its initial publication in 1963, Mil gram’s research has drawn a lot of criticism, mainly on ethical grounds. First, it was alleged that it was unethical to deceive participants to the extent that occurred in these studies. It is important to note that all participants were fully debriefed on the deception, and most did not seem to mind and were relieved to find out that they had not shocked the learner. The second ethical criticism is, however, much more serious. As alluded to earlier, Milgram exposed his participants to tremendous levels of stress. Milgram, anticipating this criticism, inter viewed participants after the experiment and followed up several weeks later. The over whelming majority of his participants commented that they enjoyed being in the experiment, and only a small minority experienced regret. Even though personally Milgram rejected allegations of having mistreated his participants, his own work suggests that he may have gone too far: ‘‘Subjects were observed to sweat, tremble, bite their lips, groan, and dig their fingernails into their flesh . . . A mature and initially poised businessman entered the laboratory smiling and confident. Within 20 minutes, he was reduced to a twitching, stuttering wreck who was rapidly approaching a point of nervous collapse’’ (1963: 375). Today, Milgram’s obedience studies are generally considered unethical and would not pass muster with regard to contemporary regulations protecting the well being of research participants. Ironically, partly because Milgram’s studies illustrated the power of hierarchical social relationships, contemporary researchers are at great pains to avoid coercion and allow participants to terminate their participation in any research study at any time without penalty.
Another type of criticism of the obedience studies has questioned their generality and charged that their usefulness in explaining real world events is limited. Indeed, Milgram conducted his research when trust in authorities was higher than it is nowadays. However, Milgram’s studies have withstood this criticism. Reviews of research conducted using Milgram’s paradigm have generally found obedience levels to be at roughly 60 percent (see, e.g., Blass 2000). In one of his studies Milgram further documented that there was no apparent difference in the responses of women and men. More recent research using more ethically acceptable methods further testifies to the power of obedience in shaping human action (Blass 2000).
Milgram offers an important approach to explaining the Holocaust by emphasizing the bureaucratic nature of evil, which relegated individuals to executioners of orders issued by a legitimate authority. Sociologists have extended this analysis and provided compelling accounts of obedience as root causes of many horrific crimes, ranging from the My Lai massacre to Watergate (Hamilton & Kelman 1989). How ever, it is arguably somewhat unclear to what extent Milgram’s findings can help explain the occurrence of the Holocaust itself. Whereas obedience kept the machinery of death running with frightening efficiency, historians often caution against ignoring the malice and sadism that many of Hitler’s executioners brought to the task (see Blass 2004).
Milgram’s dramatic experiments have left a lasting impression beyond the social sciences. They are the topic of various movies, including the 1975 TV film The Tenth Level starring William Shatner. Further, the 37 percent of participants who did not obey were memorialized in a 1986 song by the rock musician Peter Gabriel titled ‘‘We Do What We’re Told (Milgram’s 37).’’
References:
- Blass, T. (Ed.) (2000) Obedience to Authority: Current Perspectives on the Milgram Paradigm. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
- Blass, T. (2004) The Man Who Shocked the World: The Life and Legacy of Stanley Milgram. Basic Books, New York.
- Hamilton, V. L. & Kelman, H. (1989) Crimes of Obedience: Toward a Social Psychology of Authority and Responsibility. Yale University Press, New Haven.
- Milgram, S. (1963) Behavioral Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 69: 371-8.
- Milgram, S. (1965) Some Conditions of Obedience and Disobedience to Authority. Human Relations 18: 57-76.
- Milgram, S. (1974) Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. Harper & Row, New York.
- Skip to main content
- Keyboard shortcuts for audio player
Author Interviews
Taking a closer look at milgram's shocking obedience study.
![milgram experiment procedure summary Behind the Shock Machine](https://media.npr.org/assets/bakertaylor/covers/b/behind-the-shock-machine/9781595589217_custom-8b324b07e922ffacac8fc873a12cc2c6aedf3905.jpg?s=1100&c=85&f=jpeg)
Behind the Shock Machine
Buy featured book.
Your purchase helps support NPR programming. How?
- Independent Bookstores
In the early 1960s, Stanley Milgram, a social psychologist at Yale, conducted a series of experiments that became famous. Unsuspecting Americans were recruited for what purportedly was an experiment in learning. A man who pretended to be a recruit himself was wired up to a phony machine that supposedly administered shocks. He was the "learner." In some versions of the experiment he was in an adjoining room.
The unsuspecting subject of the experiment, the "teacher," read lists of words that tested the learner's memory. Each time the learner got one wrong, which he intentionally did, the teacher was instructed by a man in a white lab coat to deliver a shock. With each wrong answer the voltage went up. From the other room came recorded and convincing protests from the learner — even though no shock was actually being administered.
The results of Milgram's experiment made news and contributed a dismaying piece of wisdom to the public at large: It was reported that almost two-thirds of the subjects were capable of delivering painful, possibly lethal shocks, if told to do so. We are as obedient as Nazi functionaries.
Or are we? Gina Perry, a psychologist from Australia, has written Behind the Shock Machine: The Untold Story of the Notorious Milgram Psychology Experiments . She has been retracing Milgram's steps, interviewing his subjects decades later.
"The thought of quitting never ... occurred to me," study participant Bill Menold told Perry in an Australian radio documentary . "Just to say: 'You know what? I'm walking out of here' — which I could have done. It was like being in a situation that you never thought you would be in, not really being able to think clearly."
In his experiments, Milgram was "looking to investigate what it was that had contributed to the brainwashing of American prisoners of war by the Chinese [in the Korean war]," Perry tells NPR's Robert Siegel.
Interview Highlights
On turning from an admirer of Milgram to a critic
"That was an unexpected outcome for me, really. I regarded Stanley Milgram as a misunderstood genius who'd been penalized in some ways for revealing something troubling and profound about human nature. By the end of my research I actually had quite a very different view of the man and the research."
Watch A Video Of One Of The Milgram Obedience Experiments
On the many variations of the experiment
"Over 700 people took part in the experiments. When the news of the experiment was first reported, and the shocking statistic that 65 percent of people went to maximum voltage on the shock machine was reported, very few people, I think, realized then and even realize today that that statistic applied to 26 of 40 people. Of those other 700-odd people, obedience rates varied enormously. In fact, there were variations of the experiment where no one obeyed."
On how Milgram's study coincided with the trial of Nazi officer Adolf Eichmann — and how the experiment reinforced what Hannah Arendt described as "the banality of evil"
"The Eichmann trial was a televised trial and it did reintroduce the whole idea of the Holocaust to a new American public. And Milgram very much, I think, believed that Hannah Arendt's view of Eichmann as a cog in a bureaucratic machine was something that was just as applicable to Americans in New Haven as it was to people in Germany."
On the ethics of working with human subjects
"Certainly for people in academia and scholars the ethical issues involved in Milgram's experiment have always been a hot issue. They were from the very beginning. And Milgram's experiment really ignited a debate particularly in social sciences about what was acceptable to put human subjects through."
![milgram experiment procedure summary](https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2013/08/06/perry_gina_chris_beck-4ffe9396b4af9f282ba92e83644ee5d34e4e2d13.jpg?s=1100&c=50&f=jpeg)
Gina Perry is an Australian psychologist. She has previously written for The Age and The Australian. Chris Beck/Courtesy of The New Press hide caption
Gina Perry is an Australian psychologist. She has previously written for The Age and The Australian.
On conversations with the subjects, decades after the experiment
"[Bill Menold] doesn't sound resentful. I'd say he sounds thoughtful and he has reflected a lot on the experiment and the impact that it's had on him and what it meant at the time. I did interview someone else who had been disobedient in the experiment but still very much resented 50 years later that he'd never been de-hoaxed at the time and he found that really unacceptable."
On the problem that one of social psychology's most famous findings cannot be replicated
"I think it leaves social psychology in a difficult situation. ... it is such an iconic experiment. And I think it really leads to the question of why it is that we continue to refer to and believe in Milgram's results. I think the reason that Milgram's experiment is still so famous today is because in a way it's like a powerful parable. It's so widely known and so often quoted that it's taken on a life of its own. ... This experiment and this story about ourselves plays some role for us 50 years later."
Related NPR Stories
![milgram experiment procedure summary Shocking TV Experiment Sparks Ethical Concerns](https://media.npr.org/assets/news/2010/03/26/frenchtv_sq-cd4e7c5a66b93b664bb52c3fa3fe9cd017553414.jpg?s=100&c=85&f=jpeg)
Shocking TV Experiment Sparks Ethical Concerns
How stanley milgram 'shocked the world', research news, scientists debate 'six degrees of separation'.
- Tools and Resources
- Customer Services
- Affective Science
- Biological Foundations of Psychology
- Clinical Psychology: Disorders and Therapies
- Cognitive Psychology/Neuroscience
- Developmental Psychology
- Educational/School Psychology
- Forensic Psychology
- Health Psychology
- History and Systems of Psychology
- Individual Differences
- Methods and Approaches in Psychology
- Neuropsychology
- Organizational and Institutional Psychology
- Personality
- Psychology and Other Disciplines
- Social Psychology
- Sports Psychology
- Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter
Article contents
Milgram’s experiments on obedience to authority.
- Stephen Gibson Stephen Gibson Heriot-Watt University, School of Social Sciences
- https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.511
- Published online: 30 June 2020
Stanley Milgram’s experiments on obedience to authority are among the most influential and controversial social scientific studies ever conducted. They remain staples of introductory psychology courses and textbooks, yet their influence reaches far beyond psychology, with myriad other disciplines finding lessons in them. Indeed, the experiments have long since broken free of the confines of academia, occupying a place in popular culture that is unrivaled among psychological experiments. The present article begins with an overview of Milgram’s account of his experimental procedure and findings, before focussing on recent scholarship that has used materials from Milgram’s archive to challenge many of the long-held assumptions about the experiments. Three areas in which our understanding of the obedience experiments has undergone a radical shift in recent years are the subject of particular focus. First, work that has identified new ethical problems with Milgram’s studies is summarized. Second, hitherto unknown methodological variations in Milgram’s experimental procedures are considered. Third, the interactions that took place in the experimental sessions themselves are explored. This work has contributed to a shift in how we see the obedience experiments. Rather than viewing the experiments as demonstrations of people’s propensity to follow orders, it is now clear that people did not follow orders in Milgram’s experiments. The experimenter did a lot more than simply issue orders, and when he did, participants found it relatively straightforward to defy them. These arguments are discussed in relation to the definition of obedience that has typically been adopted in psychology, the need for further historical work on Milgram’s experiments, and the possibilities afforded by the development of a broader project of secondary qualitative analysis of laboratory interaction in psychology experiments.
- experimentation
- interaction
- standardization
You do not currently have access to this article
Please login to access the full content.
Access to the full content requires a subscription
Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Psychology. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).
date: 05 August 2024
- Cookie Policy
- Privacy Policy
- Legal Notice
- Accessibility
- [185.80.151.41]
- 185.80.151.41
Character limit 500 /500
Learning Materials
- Business Studies
- Combined Science
- Computer Science
- Engineering
- English Literature
- Environmental Science
- Human Geography
- Macroeconomics
- Microeconomics
- Milgram Experiment
When he was 13, Ishmael Beah was separated from his parents because of the civil war in his home country, Sierra Leone. After six months of wandering the country, he was recruited by the rebel army and became a child soldier.
![milgram experiment procedure summary Milgram Experiment](https://www.studysmarter.co.uk/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/dist/assets/images/explanations/welcome-laptop.png)
Create learning materials about Milgram Experiment with our free learning app!
- Instand access to millions of learning materials
- Flashcards, notes, mock-exams and more
- Everything you need to ace your exams
Millions of flashcards designed to help you ace your studies
- Cell Biology
What did Milgram’s study investigate?
What was the outcome of Milgram’s study?
What’s it called when an indirectly measurable phenomenon is made measurable?
What speaks for the reliability of Milgram’s study?
How did Milgram operationalise
human obedience behaviour?
If the participants of Milgram’s obedience study knew they
weren’t really harming the other person, how would this
change the outcome of the study?
What’s it called when results obtained in a lab
hold true in a natural setting as well?
What is the problem with Milgram’s sample?
Milgram’s obedience experiment has been replicated many times, the world over, with similar results. Which cross-cultural replication gave different results and what do these results mean?
Why would you not be able to repeat Milgram’s obedience study nowadays?
Milgram's research focus on _______ factors influencing obedience.
Convert documents into flashcards for free with AI!
![milgram experiment procedure summary milgram experiment procedure summary](https://www.studysmarter.co.uk/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/dist/assets/images/ab-test/ai-header-AB.png)
- Approaches in Psychology
- Basic Psychology
- Ainsworth's Strange Situation
- Alternatives To The Medical Model
- Animal Studies of Attachment
- Attachment Figures
- Attachment and Later Relationships
- Auditory Attention
- BBC Prison Study
- Behaviour Strategies For Autism
- Biological Explanations for Autism
- Bowlby Theory of Maternal Deprivation
- Bowlby’s Monotropic Theory
- Caregiver Infant Interactions
- Categorising Mental Disorders
- Classic and Contemporary Research into Memory
- Classic and Contemporary Research into Obedience
- Cognitive Approach to Depression
- Cognitive Interview
- Conformity to Social Roles
- Contemporary Research Language Of Psychopaths
- Context-Dependent Memory
- Cross-Cultural Altruism
- Cue-Dependent Forgetting
- Cultural Variations in Attachment
- Definitions of Abnormality
- Deprivation Privation and Separation
- Developmental Pattern of Digit Span
- Developmental Psychology in Memory
- Developmental Psychology in Obedience/Prejudice
- Disobedience and Whistle-Blowing
- Dispositional Factors Social Influence
- Explanations for Prejudice
- Explanations of Attachment
- Eyewitness Identification under Stress
- Eyewitness Testimony
- Features of Memory
- Forgetting in Psychology
- Gould Bias in IQ Testing
- Hazan and Shaver
- History of Mental Health
- Inattentional Blindness
- Individual Differences In Autism
- Individual Differences In Ideological Attitudes And Prejudice
- Individual Differences In Memory
- Informational Social Influence
- Issues and Debates in the Context of Obedience/Prejudice
- Learning Theory
- Long-Term Memory
- Measuring Individual Differences
- Medical Model
- Milgram’s Variation Studies
- Minority Influence and Social Change
- Multi-Store Model of Memory
- Normative Social Influence
- Phobia Treatment
- Piliavin Subway Study
- Prosocial Behaviour And Altruism
- Psychopathology
- Realistic Conflict Theory
- Reconstruction From Memory In Naturalistic Environments
- Reconstructive Memory
- Resistance to Social Influence
- Rethinking the Psychology of Tyranny
- Romanian Orphan Studies
- Schema Theory
- Semantic Knowledge in Patient HM
- Short-Term Memory
- Situational Influence
- Social Identity Theory
- Social Impact Theory
- Social Influence
- Stages of Attachment
- Stanford Prison Experiment
- Studies on Interference
- The Robbers Cave Experiment
- Theories of Autism
- Working Memory Model
- Biological Bases of Behavior
- Biopsychology
- Careers in Psychology
- Clinical Psychology
- Cognition and Development
- Cognitive Psychology
- Data Handling and Analysis
- Developmental Psychology
- Eating Behaviour
- Emotion and Motivation
- Famous Psychologists
- Forensic Psychology
- Health Psychology
- Individual Differences Psychology
- Issues and Debates in Psychology
- Personality in Psychology
- Psychological Treatment
- Relationships
- Research Methods in Psychology
- Schizophrenia
- Scientific Foundations of Psychology
- Scientific Investigation
- Sensation and Perception
- Social Context of Behaviour
- Social Psychology
Children are known to be more vulnerable to being coerced into obeying than adults. But what other factors determine whether a human will or won’t display a specific behaviour in response to a command? Is it just part of some people’s nature, or do the circumstances determine whether people obey? Finding the answers to these questions is a major topic in social psychology .
- What was Milgram's obedience experiment based on?
- How was Milgram's obedience experiment set up?
- What was Milgram's hypothesis?
- What are the strengths and weaknesses of Milgram's experiment?
- What are the ethical issues with Milgram's experiment?
Milgram’s Original Obedience Experiment
A year after the trial of Adolf Eichmann, a high-ranking officer in Nazi Germany, Stanley Milgram (1963) carried out a series of experiments to investigate why and to what extent people obey authority. Eichmann’s legal defence, and that of many other Nazis prosecuted after the holocaust, was: ‘ We were just following orders .
Were these Germans particularly obedient people, or was it just part of human nature to follow orders from someone in authority? This is what Milgram wanted to find out in his psychology experiment.
Aim of Milgram's Experiment
Milgram’s first obedience test investigated destructive obedience . He continued investigating many specific variations in his later experiments in 1965 and mostly focused on situational influences on obedience, such as location, uniforms, and proximity.
After his first study, Milgram went on to develop his agency theory which offers some explanations as to why people obey.
Forty male participants from different professional backgrounds from the local area around Yale in Connecticut, between 20-50 years of age, were recruited through a newspaper advertisement and paid $4.50 per day to participate in a study on memory .
Milgram's Obedience to Authority Experiment Setup
When participants arrived at Milgram’s lab at Yale University in Connecticut, they were told that they were participating in an experiment about punishment in learning. An individual participant and a confederate (‘Mr. Wallace’) would draw numbers out of a hat to see which one would take on the role of ‘learner’ or ‘teacher’. The draw was rigged, so the participant would always end up as the ‘teacher’. A third person was also involved; an ‘experimenter’ wearing a grey lab coat, who represented the authority figure.
The participant would witness the ‘learner’ being strapped into an ‘electric chair’ in the neighbouring room, and he and the ‘experimenter’ would sit on the other side of a wall. The participant was instructed to run through a set of learning tasks with the ‘learner’. Each time the ‘learner’ got an answer wrong, the ‘experimenter’ was to turn up the voltage by one unit and deliver a shock until the ‘learner’ had achieved the task without error.
The study was designed so that no real shocks were administered and the ‘learner’ was never going to succeed in his memory task. The experiment was designed to be open-ended so that the participant’s conscience alone would determine the outcome of the experiment.
The levels of voltage that the participant was administering were clearly labelled and ranged from 15 volts (slight shock) to 300 volts (Danger: severe shock) and 450 volts (XXX). They were informed that the shocks would be painful but cause no permanent tissue damage and given a sample shock of 45 volts (fairly low) to prove that the shocks actually hurt.
While carrying out the procedure, the ‘learner’ would provide standardised reactions. When the voltages got beyond 300 volts, the ‘learner’ would start pleading for the ‘teacher’ to stop, saying he wanted to leave, shout, pound the wall, and at 315 volts, there would be no responses given from the ‘learner’ anymore at all.
Usually, around the 300 volts mark, the participant would ask the ‘experimenter’ for guidance. Each time the ‘teacher’ tried to protest or asked to leave, the ‘experimenter’ would reinforce the instructions using a script of four stock answers in sequence, called prods.
Prod 1: ‘Please continue', or ‘Please go on.’
Prod 2: ‘The experiment requires that you continue.’
Prod 3: ‘It is absolutely essential that you continue.’
Prod 4: ‘You have no other choice, you must go on.’
There were also similar standardised responses the ‘experimenter’ gave when asked whether the subject was going to be harmed by the shocks. If the subject asked if the learner was liable to suffer permanent physical injury, the experimenter said:
Although the shocks may be painful, there is no permanent tissue damage, so please go on.’
If the subject said that the learner did not want to go on, the experimenter replied:
Whether the learner likes it or not, you must go on until he has learned all the word pairs correctly. So please go on.’
The Hypothesis of Milgram's Experiment
Milgram’s hypothesis was based on his World War II observations. He hypothesized that the Nazi soldiers were following orders in extreme situations. He said that the pressure that these people were under was so great that they obeyed demands they would not normally have done.
Results of Milgram's Obedience Experiment
During the trials, all of the participants went up to at least 300 volts. Five of the participants (12.5%) stopped at 300 volts when the first signs of distress by the learner appeared. Thirty-five (65%) went up to the highest level of 450 volts, a result that neither Milgram nor his students anticipated.
Participants also showed intense signs of tension and distress including nervous laughing fits, groaning, ‘digging fingernails into their flesh’ and convulsions. For one participant the experiment had to be cut short because they had started having a seizure.
![milgram experiment procedure summary Photograph of a woman who is stressed. StudySmarter](https://s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/studysmarter-mediafiles/media/1865576/summary_images/1865576/summary_images/adult-1850268_1280.webp?X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIA4OLDUDE42UZHAIET%2F20240804%2Feu-central-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20240804T221749Z&X-Amz-Expires=604800&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=52caf055a6cead5e5d1b6f0b09d1cdee2ae424403a8397f816c80f60b4dfe8ec)
Milgram’s experiment indicates that it is normal to obey legitimate authority figures , even if the order goes against our conscience.
After the study, all the participants were told of the hoax and debriefed, including meeting the ‘learner’ again.
Conclusion of Milgram’s Obedience to Authority Experiment
All of the study participants obeyed the authority figure when asked to go against their better judgement rather than refuse to proceed. Although they were met with resistance, all study participants had been informed at the start that they could stop the experiment at any point. Milgram argued that it’s normal for humans to give in to destructive obedience when pressured.
What was surprising about Milgram’s experiment was how easy it was to get people to be destructive - participants obeyed even in the absence of force or threat. Milgram’s results speak against the idea that particular groups of people are more prone to obedience than others.
For your exam, you might be asked how Milgram measured the level of obedience of his participants, as well as how variables were controlled in the laboratory.
Strengths and Weaknesses of Milgram’s Experiment
First, let us explore the contributions and positive aspects overall of Milgram’s experiment.
Some of its strengths include:
Operationalisation of Human Behaviour
Let's first review what operationalisation means.
In psychology, operationalisation means being able to measure invisible human behaviour in numbers.
It’s a major part of making psychology a legitimate science that can produce objective results. This allows for comparison of people with each other and statistical analysis as well as comparison with other similar experiments that happen in other places in the world and even in the future. By creating a fake shocking apparatus, Milgram was able to measure in numbers to which extent humans would obey authority.
The control of variables through set prods, a unified setting, and procedure means that it’s more likely that the results of Milgram’s experiment produced internally valid results. This is a strength of laboratory experiments in general; because of the controlled environment, it is more likely that the researcher can measure what they set out to measure.
Reliability
With the shock experiment, Milgram was able to reproduce a similar result with forty different participants. After his first experiment, he also went on to test many different variables that could influence obedience.
There were numerous criticisms and debates surrounding Milgram’s obedience experiment. Let’s explore a couple of examples.
External validity
There is some debate about whether Milgram’s obedience study has external validity. Even though conditions were strictly controlled, the laboratory experiment is an artificial situation and this might factor into how the participants behaved. Orne and Holland (1968) thought that the participants might have guessed that they were not really harming anyone. This casts doubt on whether the same behaviour would be seen in real life - what is known as ecological validity .
However, some factors speak for the external validity of Milgram’s study, one example being a similar experiment having been conducted in a different setting. Hofling et al. (1966) conducted a similar study to Milgram, but in a hospital setting. Nurses were instructed to administer an unknown drug to a patient over the phone by a doctor they didn’t know. In the study, 21 out of 22 nurses (95%) were heading to give the drug to the patient before being intercepted by the researchers. On the other hand, when this experiment was replicated by Rank and Jacobson (1977) using a known doctor and known drug (Valium), only two out of 18 nurses (10%) carried out the order.
The Debate about Internal Validity
The internal validity was questioned after Perry (2012) examined the tapes of the experiment and noted that many participants expressed doubts that the shocks were real to the ‘experimenter’. This might indicate that what was displayed in the experiment was not genuine behaviour but rather the effect of unconscious or conscious influence by the researchers.
Biased sample
The sample was made up exclusively of American men, so it’s not clear whether the same results would be obtained using other gender groups or cultures. To investigate this, Burger (2009) partially replicated the original experiment using a mixed male and female American sample with diverse ethnic backgrounds and a broader age range. The results were similar to Milgram’s, showing that gender , ethnic background, and age might not be contributing factors to obedience.
There have been many replications of Milgram’s experiment in other Western countries and most have delivered similar results; however, Shanab’s (1987) replication in Jordan showed remarkable differences in that Jordanian students were significantly more likely to obey across the board. This raises the question of whether there is a difference in levels of obedience in different cultures.
![](http://ortec.site/777/templates/cheerup1/res/banner1.gif)
Ethical Issues with Milgram’s Experiment
Although the participants were debriefed and 83.7% of them went away from the experiment satisfied, the experiment itself was ethically problematic. Using deception in a study means that the participants can’t give their full consent as they don’t know what they’re agreeing to.
Also, keeping participants in an experiment against their will is a violation of their autonomy, but Milgram’s four stock answers (prods) meant that the participants were denied their right to leave. It is the researcher’s responsibility to ensure that no harm comes to the participants, but in this study, the signs of mental distress became so extreme that the study subjects went into convulsions.
After the conclusion of the experiment, the participants were informed of what was actually being measured. However, do you think the participants had long-lasting mental harm from the experiment and what they did?
At the time that Milgram carried out his experiment into obedience, there were no official research ethics standards. It was studies like that of Milgram and Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison experiment that forced psychologists to put ethics rules and regulations in place. However, ethics rules aren’t as strict outside of the scientific context, so replications of the experiment can still be carried out for entertainment purposes on TV shows.
Milgram Experiment - Key takeaways
- Milgram investigated obedience to legitimate authority in his 1963 study. He based his study on Germans obeying to Nazi order during the Holocaust and World War II.
- Milgram found that when pressured by an authority figure, 65% of people would shock another person with dangerous levels of electricity. This indicates that it is normal behaviour for humans to obey authority figures.
- The strengths of Milgram’s obedience experiment were that the laboratory setting allowed for a controlling of many variables, internal validity was good as well as reliability.
- Criticisms of Milgram’s obedience experiment include that the results might not be applicable in the real world and across cultures.
- Participants weren’t told the truth about what they were being tested on, so it’s considered an unethical experiment by today’s standards.
Flashcards in Milgram Experiment 28
Milgram’s obedience experiment investigated destructive obedience
in a sample of American males in the 1960’s.
The majority of people shocked the other study subjects to the maximum level of 450v. Most regular people will obey authority even if it means going against their own conscience.
Making an indirectly measurable phenomenon measurable is called operationalisation.
It took place in the controlled environment of the lab, so there wasn’t interference from other variables, and the measurements were reproducible.
He used a fake shock machine with a numerical scale to measure at which point the study participants would refuse to inflict pain on another participant.
It would call into question if the results of the experiment would really hold true outside of the lab situation. Possibly, people might have more qualms about obeying an authority figure if they knew they were truly harming another person.
![milgram experiment procedure summary Milgram Experiment](https://www.studysmarter.co.uk/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/dist/assets/images/explanations/flashcards-listx2.png)
Learn with 28 Milgram Experiment flashcards in the free StudySmarter app
We have 14,000 flashcards about Dynamic Landscapes.
Already have an account? Log in
Frequently Asked Questions about Milgram Experiment
What did Milgram's experiment conclude?
The Milgram obedience experiment showed that when pressured, most people will obey orders that could be harmful to other people.
What were the criticisms of Milgram’s research?
The criticisms of Milgram’s research were that the laboratory experiment can’t be applied to situations in the real world, so his conclusions can’t be taken as indicators of true human nature. Also, the experiment was unethical. As the sample used for Milgram’s obedience experiment were mainly American men, there is also the question of whether his conclusions apply to other genders as well as across cultures.
Was Milgram's experiment ethical?
The Milgram obedience experiment was unethical because the study participants were misled about the real aim of the experiment, meaning they couldn’t consent, and it caused extreme distress to some of the participants.
Is the Milgram experiment reliable?
The Milgram obedience experiment is considered reliable because variables were mainly controlled and the results are reproducible.
What did Milgram's experiment test?
Milgram’s first obedience test investigated destructive obedience. He continued to investigate many specific variations in his later experiments in 1965 and mostly focused on situational influences on obedience such as location, uniforms, and proximity.
Test your knowledge with multiple choice flashcards
Milgram's research focus on _______ factors influencing obedience.
In Milgram's experiment, the participants were either assigned the role of a teacher or a learner.
Who was the authority figure in Milgram's experiment?
![milgram experiment procedure summary Milgram Experiment](https://www.studysmarter.co.uk/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/src/assets/images/va-signup-laptop.png)
Join the StudySmarter App and learn efficiently with millions of flashcards and more!
Keep learning, you are doing great.
Discover learning materials with the free StudySmarter app
![milgram experiment procedure summary 1](https://www.studysmarter.co.uk/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/dist/assets/images/explanations/about.webp)
About StudySmarter
StudySmarter is a globally recognized educational technology company, offering a holistic learning platform designed for students of all ages and educational levels. Our platform provides learning support for a wide range of subjects, including STEM, Social Sciences, and Languages and also helps students to successfully master various tests and exams worldwide, such as GCSE, A Level, SAT, ACT, Abitur, and more. We offer an extensive library of learning materials, including interactive flashcards, comprehensive textbook solutions, and detailed explanations. The cutting-edge technology and tools we provide help students create their own learning materials. StudySmarter’s content is not only expert-verified but also regularly updated to ensure accuracy and relevance.
![milgram experiment procedure summary Milgram Experiment](https://www.studysmarter.co.uk/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/dist/assets/images/explanations/sidebar-logo.webp)
StudySmarter Editorial Team
Team Psychology Teachers
- 12 minutes reading time
- Checked by StudySmarter Editorial Team
Study anywhere. Anytime.Across all devices.
Create a free account to save this explanation..
Save explanations to your personalised space and access them anytime, anywhere!
By signing up, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and the Privacy Policy of StudySmarter.
Sign up to highlight and take notes. It’s 100% free.
Join over 22 million students in learning with our StudySmarter App
The first learning app that truly has everything you need to ace your exams in one place
- Flashcards & Quizzes
- AI Study Assistant
- Study Planner
- Smart Note-Taking
![milgram experiment procedure summary Join over 22 million students in learning with our StudySmarter App](https://www.studysmarter.co.uk/app/themes/studypress-core-theme/dist/assets/images/tbs/cta-desktop@1x.png)
Get unlimited access with a free StudySmarter account.
- Instant access to millions of learning materials.
- Flashcards, notes, mock-exams, AI tools and more.
- Everything you need to ace your exams.
![milgram experiment procedure summary Second Popup Banner](https://www.studysmarter.co.uk/app/themes/studypress-core-theme//dist/assets/images/ab-test/second-popup-image.png)
![milgram experiment procedure summary](https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5b69a01ba2e409e5d5e055c6/64c635cf4e8053b433560a2f_Structural%20Learning%20Logo.png)
The Stanley Milgram Experiment: Understanding Obedience
May 3, 2023
Discover the intriguing Stanley Milgram Experiment, exploring obedience to authority & human nature. Uncover shocking results & timeless insights.
Main, P (2023, May 03). The Stanley Milgram Experiment: Understanding Obedience. Retrieved from https://www.structural-learning.com/post/stanley-milgram-experiment
What was the Stanley Milgram experiment?
The Stanley Milgram experiment is one of the most famous and controversial studies in the history of psychology. The study was conducted in the early 1960s, and it examined people's willingness to obey an authority figure , even when that obedience caused harm to others. In this article, we'll take a closer look at the Milgram experiment, its significance, and its impact on psychology.
The Milgram experiment was designed to test people's willingness to obey authority, even when that obedience caused harm to others. The study involved three participants: the experimenter, the learner, and the teacher. The learner was actually a confederate of the experimenter, and the teacher was the real participant.
The teacher was instructed to administer electric shocks to the learner whenever the learner gave a wrong answer to a question. The shocks started at a low level and increased in intensity with each wrong answer. The learner was not actually receiving shocks, but they pretended to be in pain and begged the teacher to stop. Despite this, the experimenter instructed the teacher to continue shocking the learner.
The results of the Milgram experiment were shocking. Despite the learner's protests, the majority of participants continued to administer shocks to the maximum level, even when they believed that the shocks were causing serious harm.
The Milgram experiment is perhaps one of the most well-known experiments on obedience in psychology . Milgram's original study involved 40 participants who were instructed to deliver electric shocks to a confederate, who pretended to be receiving shocks.
The shocks were delivered via a "shock machine" and ranged in severity from slight shocks to severe shocks. Despite the confederate's cries of pain and protest, the majority of participants continued to administer shocks up to the maximum level, demonstrating high rates of obedience to authority figures.
Milgram's experiments on obedience generated a great deal of interest and controversy in the scientific community. The results of his study challenged commonly held beliefs about human behavior and the limits of individual autonomy . The study also raised important ethical concerns and spurred a renewed focus on informed consent and debriefing in behavioral research.
In subsequent variations of the experiment, Milgram sought to explore the factors that influenced obedience rates, such as the presence of peers or the proximity of the authority figure. These variations provided further insight into the complex nature of obedience and social influence .
The Milgram experiment remains a significant and influential study in the field of social psychology, providing valuable insights into the power of authority and the limits of individual autonomy. Despite its ethical concerns, Milgram's study continues to be discussed and debated by scholars and students alike, highlighting the enduring impact of this groundbreaking behavioral study.
Who was Stanley Milgram?
Stanley Milgram was a renowned American social psychologist who was born in New York City in 1933. He received his PhD in Social Psychology from Harvard University in 1960 and went on to teach at Yale University, where he conducted his famous obedience experiments. Milgram's research focused on the areas of personality and social psychology, and he is best known for his studies on obedience to authority figures.
Milgram's obedience experiments were controversial and sparked a great deal of debate in the field of psychology. His research showed that ordinary people were capable of inflicting harm on others when instructed to do so by an authority figure. Milgram's work had a profound impact on the field of social psychology and influenced other researchers, such as Philip Zimbardo , to study similar topics.
Milgram's contributions to the field of social psychology were significant, and his obedience experiments remain some of the most well-known and widely discussed studies in the history of psychology. Despite the controversy surrounding his work, Milgram's research continues to be taught in psychology courses around the world and has had a lasting impact on our understanding of obedience, authority, and human behavior.
![milgram experiment procedure summary Stanley Milgram with shock generator](https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5b69a01ba2e409501de055d1/64526ee2ce0c39228f362005_Stanley%20Milgram%20with%20shock%20generator.jpg)
Milgram's Independent Variables
As we have seen, in Stanley Milgram's famous experiment conducted at Yale University in the 1960s, he sought to investigate the extent to which ordinary people would obey the commands of an authority figure, even if it meant administering severe electric shocks to another person.
The study of obedience to authority figures was a fundamental aspect of Milgram's research in social psychology. To explore this phenomenon, Milgram manipulated several independent variables in his experiment. One key independent variable was the level of shock administered by the participants, ranging from slight shocks to increasingly severe shocks, labeled with corresponding shock levels.
Another independent variable was the proximity of the authority figure, with variations of physical proximity or remote instruction via telephone.
Additionally, the presence or absence of social pressure from others and the authority figure's attire, varying between a lab coat and everyday clothing, were also manipulated.
Through these carefully controlled independent variables, Milgram examined the obedience rates and the level of obedience demonstrated by the participants in response to the concrete situation created in his experiment.
Change of Location
One significant factor that influenced the results of the Milgram experiment was the change of location. Originally conducted at Yale University, the experiment was later moved to a set of run-down offices in Bridgeport, Connecticut. This change had a profound impact on the rates of obedience observed in the study.
In the original experiment at Yale University, the obedience rates were shockingly high, with approximately 65% of participants following the instructions of the authority figure to administer what they believed to be increasingly severe electric shocks to another person. However, when the experiment was relocated to the less prestigious and less authoritative setting of run-down offices, the obedience rates dropped significantly to 47.5%.
This change in location created a shift in the dynamic of the experiment . Participants were less likely to view the authority figure as credible or legitimate in the less prestigious environment. The environment in run-down offices appeared less official and therefore may have weakened the perceived authority of the experimenter. This resulted in a lower level of obedience observed among the participants.
The change in location in the Milgram experiment demonstrated the influence of contextual factors on obedience rates. It highlighted how obedience to authority figures can be influenced by the specific setting in which individuals find themselves. The study serves as a reminder that obedience is not solely determined by individual characteristics but is also shaped by situational factors such as the environment and perceived authority.
In conclusion, the change of location from Yale University to run-down offices had a significant impact on the obedience rates in the Milgram experiment. The move resulted in a drop in obedience, suggesting that the context in which the experiment took place influenced participants' responses to authority .
![milgram experiment procedure summary Milgram Experiment Results](https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5b69a01ba2e409501de055d1/64ca71a91e2f96bea7d79b71_Milgram%20Experiment%20Results.jpg)
One important aspect of Stanley Milgram's obedience experiment was the role of the experimenter's uniform, specifically the lab coat. The uniform or attire worn by the authority figure in the experiment played a significant role in influencing obedience levels among the participants.
The lab coat served as a symbol of authority and expertise, creating a sense of credibility and legitimacy for the experimenter. By wearing the lab coat, the authority figure appeared more knowledgeable and trustworthy, which influenced participants to follow their instructions more readily.
The uniform also helped establish a clear power dynamic between the authority figure and the participants. The experimenter's attire reinforced the perception of being in a formal and professional setting, where obedience to authority was expected.
Milgram's experiment included variations to the uniform to examine its impact on obedience levels. In some versions of the experiment, the experimenter wore regular clothing instead of the lab coat. This modification significantly reduced the perceived authority of the experimenter, leading to lower levels of obedience among the participants.
By manipulating the presence or absence of the lab coat, Milgram demonstrated how even a simple change in attire could influence obedience levels . This emphasized the role of external factors, such as the uniform, in shaping human behavior in a social context.
Touch Proximity Condition
In the Touch Proximity Condition of the Milgram experiment, participants were subjected to a unique and intense situation that aimed to test the limits of their obedience to authority. In this particular condition, when the learner refused to participate after reaching 150 volts, the participants were required to physically force the learner's hand onto a shock plate. This manipulation was intended to eliminate the psychological buffer that existed between the participants and the consequences of their actions.
The introduction of touch proximity significantly altered the dynamics of the experiment. The physical act of forcing the learner's hand onto the shock plate made the participants more directly responsible for the pain and discomfort experienced by the learner. This direct physical connection to the consequences of their actions created a profound impact on the participants, leading to a notable decrease in obedience levels.
In the Touch Proximity Condition, obedience rates dropped to just 30%, highlighting the significant influence of the removal of the buffer between the participants and the consequences of their actions. The participants were confronted with the immediate and tangible effects of their obedience, which made it much more difficult to justify their continued compliance.
Overall, the Touch Proximity Condition revealed the critical role that the removal of psychological distance plays in obedience to authority. By eliminating the buffer between the participants and the consequences of their actions, Milgram's experiment demonstrated the tremendous impact that immediate physical proximity can have on individuals' behavior in a difficult and morally challenging situation.
![milgram experiment procedure summary Milgram Experiment Summary](https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5b69a01ba2e409501de055d1/64ca71e410c6e416be3e4465_Milgram%20Experiment%20Summary.jpg)
Two Teacher Condition
In Milgram's Two Teacher Condition, participants were given the opportunity to instruct an assistant, who was actually a confederate, to press the switches administering electric shocks to the learner. This variation aimed to investigate the impact of participants assuming a more indirect role in the act of shocking the learner.
Surprisingly, the results showed that in this condition, a staggering 92.5% of participants instructed the assistant to deliver the maximum voltage shock. This high rate of obedience indicated that participants were willing to exert their authority over the assistant to carry out the harmful actions.
The Two Teacher Condition aligns with Milgram's Agency Theory, which suggests that people tend to obey authority figures when they perceive themselves as agents carrying out instructions rather than personally responsible. In this variation, participants may have seen themselves as simply giving orders rather than directly causing harm, which diminished their sense of personal responsibility and increased their obedience.
This condition demonstrates how the dynamic of obedience can change when individuals are given the opportunity to delegate harmful actions to others. It sheds light on the complex interplay between authority figures, personal responsibility, and obedience to explain the unexpected and alarming levels of compliance observed in the Milgram experiment.
Social Support Condition
In the Social Support Condition of Stanley Milgram's experiment, participants were not alone in their decision-making process. They were joined by two additional individuals who acted as confederates. The purpose of this condition was to assess the impact of social support on obedience.
The presence of these confederates who refused to obey the authority figure had a significant effect on the level of obedience observed. When one or both confederates refused to carry out the harmful actions, participants became more likely to question the legitimacy of the authority figure's commands and were less willing to comply.
The specific actions taken by the two confederates involved expressing their refusal to deliver the electric shocks. They openly dissented and voiced their concerns regarding the ethical implications of the experiment. These actions served as powerful examples of disobedience and created an atmosphere of social support for the participants.
As a result, the level of obedience decreased in the presence of these defiant confederates. Seeing others defy the authority figure empowered participants to assert their own autonomy and resist carrying out the harmful actions. The social support provided by the confederates challenged the participants' perception of the experiment as a concrete situation and encouraged them to question the legitimacy of the authority figure's instructions.
Overall, the Social Support Condition demonstrated that the presence of individuals who refused to obey had a profound influence on the level of obedience observed. This highlights the importance of social support in challenging authority and promoting ethical decision-making.
![milgram experiment procedure summary Milgrams obedience experiment](https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5b69a01ba2e409501de055d1/6571aa8846995ef83f65985c_Milligrams%20obedience%20experiment.webp)
Absent Experimenter Condition
In Stanley Milgram's famous obedience experiment, the proximity of authority figures played a crucial role in determining the level of obedience observed. One particular condition, known as the Absent Experimenter Condition, shed light on the impact of physical proximity on obedience.
In this condition, the experimenter instructed the teacher, who administered the electric shocks, by telephone from another room. The results were striking. Obedience plummeted to a mere 20.5%, indicating that when the authority figure was not physically present, participants were much less inclined to obey.
Without the immediate presence of the experimenter, many participants displayed disobedience or cheated by administering lesser shocks than instructed. This deviation from the experimenter's orders suggests that the absence of the authority figure weakened the participants' sense of obligation and decreased their willingness to comply.
The findings of the Absent Experimenter Condition highlight the significant influence of proximity on obedience. When the authority figure was physically present, participants were more likely to obey, even when faced with morally challenging actions. However, when the authority figure was not in close proximity, obedience rates dramatically decreased. This emphasizes the impact of physical distance on individuals' inclination to follow orders, indicating that proximity plays a crucial role in shaping obedience behavior.
Milgram's Absent Experimenter Condition underscored the importance of physical proximity with authority figures in determining obedience levels. When the experimenter instructed the teacher by telephone from another room, obedience fell to 20.5%, revealing the diminished compliance when the authority figure was not physically present.
![milgram experiment procedure summary Milgram Experiment Study Notes](https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5b69a01ba2e409501de055d1/64ca721df6829b60d1995887_Milgram%20Experiment%20Study%20Notes.png)
Milgram's Legacy and Influence on Modern Psychology
The Milgram experiment was significant for a number of reasons. Firstly, it highlighted the power of obedience to authority, even in situations where that obedience causes harm to others. This has important implications for understanding real-world situations, such as the Holocaust, where ordinary people were able to commit atrocities under the authority of a fascist regime.
Secondly, the experiment sparked a debate about the ethics of psychological research . Some critics argued that the study was unethical because it caused psychological distress to the participants. Others argued that the study's findings were too important to ignore, and that the benefits of the research outweighed the harm caused.
Stanley Milgram's study of obedience is widely recognized as one of the most influential experiments in the history of psychology. Although Milgram faced significant criticism for the ethical implications of his work, the study has had a lasting impact on our understanding of the power of authority and social influence.
Milgram's legacy can be seen in a variety of ways within the field of personality and social psychology. For example, his research has inspired a multitude of studies on the impact of social norms and conformity on behavior, as well as the importance of individual autonomy and free will in decision-making processes.
In addition, Milgram's influence can be seen in modern psychological research that utilizes variations of his study to explore new questions related to social influence and obedience. One such example is the Milgram Re-enactment, which sought to replicate the original study in a more ethical and controlled manner. This variation of the study found that individuals were still willing to administer shocks to the confederate, albeit at lower levels than in Milgram's original study.
Milgram's work has also had a significant impact on the way that researchers approach the treatment of participants in psychological experiments. The ethical concerns raised by Milgram's study led to a renewed focus on informed consent and debriefing procedures, ensuring that participants are aware of the potential risks and benefits of their involvement in research studies.
Milgram's legacy is one of both controversy and innovation. His study of obedience has contributed greatly to our understanding of human behavior and has served as a catalyst for important ethical discussions within the scientific community . While his work may continue to generate debate, there is no doubt that Milgram's contributions to the field of psychology have had a profound and lasting impact.
![milgram experiment procedure summary Milgram experimental conditions](https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5b69a01ba2e409501de055d1/64526f300fe9643673fa59ca_Milgram%20experimental%20conditions.png)
Milgram's Relationship with Other Prominent Psychologists
Stanley Milgram was a highly influential figure in the field of social psychology, and his work has been cited by a number of other prominent psychologists throughout the years. One of his contemporaries, Albert Bandura, was also interested in the power of social influence and developed the theory of social learning , which explored the ways in which people learn from one another and their environments.
Gordon Allport was another important figure in the field of social psychology, known for his work on personality and prejudice. Allport's research was highly influential in shaping Milgram's own understanding of social influence and obedience.
Milgram's infamous obedience studies demonstrated how individuals could be led to obey authority figures and commit acts that violated their own moral codes. Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment similarly showed how individuals could adopt new identities and exhibit aggressive and abusive behavior when placed in positions of power. Both studies highlight the importance of social context in shaping behavior and have had a significant impact on our understanding of the role of situational factors in human behavior.
Jerome Bruner, another influential psychologist , was known for his work on cognitive psychology and the importance of active learning in education. Although Bruner's work was not directly related to Milgram's study of obedience, his emphasis on the importance of individual autonomy and active learning aligns with some of the key themes in Milgram's work.
Roger Brown, a psychologist known for his research on language and cognitive developmen t, also shared some common ground with Milgram in terms of their interest in human behavior and social influence. Finally, Solomon Asch , another prominent psychologist, conducted important research on conformity that helped to lay the groundwork for Milgram's own study of obedience.
Milgram's work was highly influential and contributed significantly to the field of social psychology. His relationship with other prominent psychologists reflects the collaborative and interdisciplinary nature of psychological research and highlights the ways in which researchers build upon one another's work over time.
![milgram experiment procedure summary Milgram experiment advert](https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5b69a01ba2e409501de055d1/64526f6782a3dab2b018c8f7_Milgram%20experiment%20advert.jpg)
Criticisms of the Milgram Experiment
Despite its significance, the Milgram experiment has been heavily criticized by some psychologists. One of the main criticisms is that the study lacked ecological validity - that is, it didn't accurately reflect real-world situations. Critics argue that participants in the study knew that they were taking part in an experiment, and that this affected their behavior.
Another criticism is that the experiment caused psychological distress to the participants. Some argue that the experimenter put too much pressure on the participants to continue administering shocks, and that this caused lasting psychological harm.
![milgram experiment procedure summary Shock level increase](https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5b69a01ba2e409501de055d1/64526f9f3efdd99084f46e2c_Shock%20level%20increased.jpg)
The Impact of Milgram's Research on Social Psychology
The Milgram experiment, conducted at Yale University in 1961, shocked the world with its findings on obedience to authority. Despite its groundbreaking contribution to the field of personality and social psychology, the study has also faced significant criticism for its treatment of participants.
Critics have raised concerns about the potential psychological harm inflicted on participants, who were led to believe that they were administering painful electric shocks to a real victim. Nevertheless, the Milgram experiment remains a critical turning point in the history of experiments with people.
It has had a profound impact on psychology, inspiring numerous studies that continue to shed light on obedience, conformity, and group dynamics. It has also sparked important debates about the ethics of psychological research and raised awareness of the importance of protecting the rights and well-being of research participants .
![milgram experiment procedure summary Participant in the Stanley Milgram experiment](https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5b69a01ba2e409501de055d1/64526ff36eca605ed2a7e8ab_Participant%20in%20the%20Stanley%20Milgram%20experiment.png)
Real-Life Examples of Obedience Leading to Human Catastrophe
Stanley Milgram's obedience experiments have had profound implications for understanding human behavior, especially in contexts where obedience to authority might have contributed to catastrophic outcomes. Here are seven historical examples that resonate with Milgram's findings:
- Nazi Germany : The obedience to authority during the Holocaust, where individuals followed orders to commit atrocities, can be understood through Milgram's experiments. The willingness to administer "lethal shocks" to human subjects reflects how ordinary people can commit heinous acts under authoritative pressure.
- My Lai Massacre : American soldiers massacred hundreds of Vietnamese civilians during the Vietnam War. Milgram's work helps explain how soldiers obeyed orders despite the moral implications, emphasizing the power of authority in a difficult situation.
- Rwandan Genocide : The obedience to ethnic propaganda and authority figures led to the mass killings in Rwanda. Milgram's experiments shed light on how obedience can override personal judgment, leading to an unexpected outcome.
- Jonestown Massacre : Followers of Jim Jones obeyed his orders to commit mass suicide. Milgram's findings on obedience help explain how charismatic leaders can exert control over their followers, even to the point of death.
- Chernobyl Disaster : The obedience to flawed protocols and disregard for safety by the plant operators contributed to the catastrophe. Milgram's work illustrates how obedience to procedures and hierarchy can lead to disaster.
- Iraq War - Abu Ghraib Prison Abuse : The abuse of prisoners by U.S. military personnel can be linked to obedience to authority, a phenomenon explored in Milgram's experiments. The willingness to inflict harm under orders reflects the human participants' compliance in his studies.
- Financial Crisis of 2008 : Blind obedience to corporate culture and regulatory authorities contributed to unethical practices leading to the global financial meltdown. Milgram's insights into obedience help explain how organizational pressures can lead to widespread harm.
These examples demonstrate the pervasive influence of obedience in various historical and contemporary contexts. Milgram's experiments, documented in various Stanley Milgram Papers and the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , continue to be a critical reference in understanding human behavior.
The documentary film "Shocking Obedience" further explores these themes, emphasizing the universal relevance of Milgram's work. His experiments remind us of the human capacity for obedience , even in the face of morally reprehensible orders, and continue to provoke reflection on our own susceptibilities.
![milgram experiment procedure summary Milgram demonstrating Shocking Obedience](https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5b69a01ba2e409501de055d1/6571aa3ea3b2b5f373944046_Milgram%20demonstrating%20Shocking%20Obedience.webp)
Key Takeaways
- The Milgram experiment was a famous and controversial study in psychology that examined people's willingness to obey authority.
- Participants in the study were instructed to administer electric shocks to a learner, even when that obedience caused harm to the learner.
- The results of the study showed that the majority of participants continued to administer shocks to the maximum level, even when they believed that the shocks were causing serious harm.
- The study has been heavily criticized for lacking ecological validity and causing psychological distress to participants.
- Despite the criticisms, the Milgram experiment has had a lasting impact on psychology and has inspired numerous other studies on obedience and authority.
In conclusion, the Milgram experiment remains an important and controversial study in the field of psychology. Its findings continue to influence our understanding of obedience to authority.
Further Reading on the Milgram Experiment
These papers offer a comprehensive view of Milgram's experiment and its implications, highlighting the profound effects of authority on human behaviour.
1. Stanley Milgram and the Obedience Experiment by C. Helm, M. Morelli (1979)
This paper delves into Milgram's experimen t, revealing the significant control the state has over individuals, as evidenced by their willingness to administer painful shocks to an innocent victim.
2. Credibility and Incredulity in Milgram’s Obedience Experiments: A Reanalysis of an Unpublished Test by G. Perry, A. Brannigan, R. Wanner, H. Stam (2019)
This study reanalyzes an unpublished test from Milgram's experiment , suggesting that participants' belief in the pain being inflicted influenced their level of obedience.
3. The Man Who Shocked the World: The Life and Legacy of Stanley Milgram by R. Persaud (2005)
Persaud's paper discusses the profound impact of Milgram's experiments on our understanding of human behavior , particularly the willingness of people to follow scientific authority.
4. Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? by J. Burger (2009)
Burger's study replicates Milgram's Experiment 5 , finding slightly lower obedience rates than 45 years earlier, with gender showing no significant influence on obedience.
5. Personality predicts obedience in a Milgram paradigm. by L. Bègue, J. Beauvois, D. Courbet, Dominique Oberlé, J. Lepage, Aaron A. Duke (2015)
This research explores how personality traits like conscientiousness and agreeableness, along with political orientation and social activism, can predict obedience in Milgram-like experiments.
These papers offer a comprehensive view of Milgram's experiment and its implications, highlighting the profound effects of authority on human behavior .
![milgram experiment procedure summary](https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/603d836696d4194d16f232d7/61fa437b0628d843ca3e87f6_noun-download-4557315-9B9B9B.png)
Enhance Learner Outcomes Across Your School
Download an Overview of our Support and Resources
We'll send it over now.
Please fill in the details so we can send over the resources.
What type of school are you?
We'll get you the right resource
Is your school involved in any staff development projects?
Are your colleagues running any research projects or courses?
Do you have any immediate school priorities?
Please check the ones that apply.
![milgram experiment procedure summary](https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/603d836696d4194d16f232d7/61fa43ce519af2809ff6b1eb_noun-download-4557315-FFFFFF.png)
Download your resource
Thanks for taking the time to complete this form, submit the form to get the tool.
![milgram experiment procedure summary milgram experiment procedure summary](https://conductscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/logo-cs.webp)
- Podcast , Podcast: Method Section
The Method Section: The Milgram Experiment
The method section: the milgram experiment – timestamps.
00:00 – Intro
03:08 – The experiment
06:54 – The results
11:21 – Alternate hypotheses’
13:02 – How this relates to the Holocaust
14:16 – Problems with the experiment design
15:30 – Ethical problems
18:07 – Takeaways and conclusion
18:56 – Outro
You can listen to The Method Section by using the player above, searching for “The Conduct Science Podcast” on any place you listen to your podcasts, using any of the links below or you can download it HERE!
Links from the show:
- Short movie from the real experiments
- Derren Brown recreating the Milgram experiments on TV
![milgram experiment procedure summary](https://conductscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/method-section-by-Conduct-Science-76.png)
Episode Description
This week on The Method Section, Tom is taking a look at obedience and the Milgram experiment. There have been many times throughout history where people have committed atrocious acts but their defence, as was the case with Eichmann and the holocaust, was they were following orders. At what point do orders overtake morality and ethics of an individual? And even in an experiment testing this were scientific moral protocols broken? Find out in The Method Section! Music by: Joakim Karud – https://soundcloud.com/joakimkarud.
Thanks for Listening!
Feel free to share your thoughts on our Twitter here: @Conduct_Science
Use #ConductScience on twitter to:
- Suggest a guest
- Suggest a topic
- Ask a question we can answer on the show
- Or to just get in touch!
Learn about our products:
- Visit our Lab
- Find Resources for your lab including protocols , methodologies , and more.
- Are you a scientist with a new device that you would like tech transferred? Join our Tech Transfer Program
We’ve collected the items for you to purchase for your convenience.
Get the entire package for up to 50% discount with our Replication program.
![milgram experiment procedure summary](https://conductscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/logo.png)
Our Location
Conduct science.
- Become a Partner
- Social Media
- Career /Academia
- Privacy Policy
- Shipping & Returns
- Request a quote
Customer service
- Account details
- Lost password
DISCLAIMER: ConductScience and affiliate products are NOT designed for human consumption, testing, or clinical utilization. They are designed for pre-clinical utilization only. Customers purchasing apparatus for the purposes of scientific research or veterinary care affirm adherence to applicable regulatory bodies for the country in which their research or care is conducted.
- Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT)
- Dual Process Theory
- Rough and Tumble Play (R&T Play)
- Caveata: Notes On This Book
- Part I: Contemporary Psychology
- Chapter 1: Skepticism and Brainwashing
- Stanford Prison Experiment
- Asch Conformity Experiment
Milgram Shock Experiment
- Philosophies of Psychology
- Hume's Guillotine
- Moral Foundations Theory: Jonathan Haidt and The Righteous Mind
- Week 1.1 Core Content
- Week 1.1 Supplemental Content
- Week 1.2 Core Content
- Week 1.2 Supplemental Content
- Chapter 2: Evidence-Based Practice
- Evidence Hierarchy in Academic Research
- Correlation and Causation
- Experimental Design
- Major Research Methodologies
- Collective Teacher Efficacy
- Common Neuromyths of Education
- Dual-coding theory
- John Hattie and Visible Learning
- Treatment, Control, and The Placebo Effect
- Week 2.1 Core Content
- Week 2.1 Supplemental Content
- Week 2.2 Core Content
- Week 2.2 Supplemental Content
- Chapter 3: Tools of the Scientist
- The Replication Crisis
- The Statistics of Psychology
- The Four Cognitive Artifices: Biases, Fallacies, Devices, and Distortions.
- The Great Inquiry Learning Debate
- Week 3.1 Core Content
- Week 3.1 Supplemental Content
- Week 3.2 Core Content
- Week 3.2 Supplemental Content
- Chapter 4: Toward a Better Psychology
- Social Media Impacts on Students/Children
- Social Media Impact on Mental Health
- Overidentification Crisis (AKA Over-diagnosis crisis)
- Audience Capture
- Mental Health Crisis
- Individual Preventative Factors for Mental Illness
- Screeners vs. diagnostics
- Anxiety: Etiology, Diagnosis, Treatment
- ADHD: Etiology, Diagnosis, Treatment
- Depression: Etiology, Diagnosis, and Treatment
- Perfectionism: Etiology, Diagnosis, Treatment
- Scrupulosity: Etiology, Diagnosis, Treatment
- Efficacy: Pharmacology and Therapy
- Positive Psychology
- Part II: Developmental Psychology
- Attachment Styles
- Week 4.1 Supplemental Content
- Week 4.2 Supplemental Content
- Chapter 5: Child Development and Parenting
- Parenting Styles
- Critical and Sensitive Periods
- Dangers of Permissive Parenting
- ACEs and PACEs
- Neuroplasticity
- Week 5.1 Core Content
- Week 5.1 Supplemental Content
- Week 5.2 Core Content
- Week 5.2 Supplemental Content
- Chapter 6: Theories of Development
- Piaget's Stages
- Cognitive Milestones
- Object Permanence
- Kohlberg's Stages
- Erikson's Stages
- Stages of Carol Gilligan
- Effective Media Use
- Dramatic Play and the Importance of Play
- Schema/schemata
- Personal Theory
- Vygotsky's ZPD and Scaffolding
- Scaffolding
- Role Confusion
- Peer Pressure/Conformity
- Personal Fable
- Week 6.1 Supplemental Content
- Week 6.2 Core Content
- Week 6.2 Supplemental Content
- Chapter 7: Adolescent Development
- Freud: Id, Ego, Superego and the Psyche
- Durkheim on Belonging: Integration and Regulation
- Bandura's Social Learning Theory
- Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Systems Theory
- Erikson’s Psychosocial Theory
- Vygotsky's Sociocultural Theory
- Part III: Motivational Psychology
- Week 7.1 Core Content
- Week 7.1 Supplemental Content
- Week 7.2 Core Content
- Week 7.2 Supplemental Content
- Chapter 8: Personality, Agency, and Efficacy
- Personality Change
- OCEAN Personality Test
- Scientific Validity of Personality Tests
- Self-Regulation
- Self Actualization
- HEXACO Honesty-humility Trait
- Trait Anxiety
- State Anxiety
- Behavioral Disorders
- Week 8.1 Core Content
- Week 8.1 Supplemental Content
- Week 8.2 Core Content
- Week 8.2 Supplemental Content
- Chapter 9: Social Psychology and Anthropology
- Attributional Styles
- Growth Mindset and Intelligence Malleability
- Discrimination (Psychology)
- Extrinsic Motivation
- Intrinsic motivation
- Week 9.1 Core Content
- Week 9.1 Supplemental Content
- Week 9.2 Supplemental Content
- Chapter 10: Behaviorism
- Behaviorism, Pavlov's Dogs, Token Economies
- Behaviorism, Pavlov’s Dogs, Token Economies
- Classical/Operant Conditioning; Learned Helplessness; Learned Optimism
- PBIS and the 4-to-1 Ratio
- School Culture Research
- Partnership with Parents
- The ripple effect
- Planned Ignoring
- Natural (Logical) Consequences
- Active Listening
- I-Messages (I feel that...)
- Tiered Instruction
- Tier-1 Instruction
- Tier-1 Instruction for ADHD
- Talk: Procedural, Content, Control
- Non-Verbal Correction
- Ten Basics of Classroom Management
- Stimulus and Response
- Stimulus and Response; Conditioning
- Part IV: Cognitive Psychology
- Week 10.1 Core Content
- Week 10.1 Supplement Content
- Week 10.2 Core content
- Week 10.2 Supplement Content
- Chapter 11: Cognitive Load Theory
- Gender Psychology
- Models of Intelligence
- Retrieval Practice
- Spaced Practice
- Affective Domain
- Cognitive Domain
- Multiple Intelligences (Gardner)
- Psychomotor domain
- Triarchic Intelligence (Sternberg)
- Week 11.1 Core Content
- Week 11.1 Supplemental Content
- Week 11.2 Core Content
- Week 11.2 Supplemental Content
- Chapter 12: Intelligence
- Bloom's Taxonomy
- Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs
- Myelination
- Theory of Mind
- Week 12.1 Supplemental Content
- Week 12.2 Core Content
- Week 12.2 Supplemental Content
- Chapter 13:
- Cognitive Load Theory
- Metacognition
- Constructivism, Assimilation, and Accommodation
- Knowledge Construction
- Mastery Learning
- Science of Reading
- Inquiry-Based Learning
- Information Processing
- Explicit Instructions
- Nature vs. Nurture
- Genetic Essentialism
- Week 13.1 Core Content
- Week 13.1 Supplemental Content
- Week 13.2 Supplemental Content
- Translations
Choose a Sign-in Option
Tools and Settings
Questions and Tasks
Citation and Embed Code
![milgram experiment procedure summary milgram experiment procedure summary](https://books.byui.edu/qr/538/12944.png)
Moderate Concept: Milgram Shock Experiment
Author: Andres Rodriguez Espinosa
"I observed a mature and initially poised businessman enter the laboratory smiling and confident. Within 20 minutes he was reduced to a twitching, stuttering wreck, who was rapidly approaching a point of nervous collapse. He constantly pulled on his earlobe and twisted his hands. At one point he pushed his fist into his forehead and muttered: 'Oh God, let’s stop it.' And yet he continued to respond to every word of the experimenter, and obeyed to the end."
-Stanley Milgram on the observed effects of obedience.
![milgram experiment procedure summary](https://books.byui.edu/content_images/development_motivati/Stanley_Milgram_Profile.jpg)
The Behavioral Study of Obedience by Stanley Milgram
Stanley Milgram, a Yale University psychologist, conducted one of his most famous studies from the 60s. His study is sometimes referred to as "Milgram's Shock Experiment." In this experiment, Milgram focused on the understanding of obedience as being a structure of social life through authority . Milgram's interest in the topic of obedience stemmed from his understanding of World War II and the obedience of the Nazi Reich towards Hitler's Jewish extermination plan. As referenced in Milgram's study, the death quota of the Jewish population "could only be carried out on a massive scale if a very large number of persons obeyed" (1963). Therefore, Milgram viewed obedience from the perspective that obedience could enable acts of charity and kindness, or enable destructive actions.
Milgram controlled experiment was presented to his 40 male participants as a learning investigation. Two members of Milgram's team partook in the experiment but were mostly actors portraying a role as part of Milgram's plan. The participants drew straws so that three roles could be established: the learner, the teacher, and the experimenter. The learner and the experimenter were fixed roles and played by actors who were aware of Milgram's intentions. Once roles were established, the experimenter and the teacher went into one room where the shock machine was while the learner went into a room to be strapped into a chair that could emit electric shocks.
![milgram experiment procedure summary](https://books.byui.edu/content_images/development_motivati/256px-Milgram_Experiment_v2.png)
Now that the teacher and experimenter were in their places, the teacher was instructed by the experimenter to test the learner by saying a list of word pairs and having the learner repeat them. For every incorrect answer, the teacher must shock the learner as a form of punishment. The voltages went from 15 to 450. 15 Volts is considered to be a slight shock while 450 Volts is almost a deadly amount. Milgram's learner intentionally answered incorrectly, which meant that the participant had to shock the learner. The shocks were slight at first, but they increased as more incorrect answers were given. The experimenter had four sentences that he would use to ensure that the participant continued to go along with shocking the learner. This continued until the learner stopped answering or Milgram concluded that the experiment was over.
IRB Context
Much like the Stanford Prison Experiment, IRBs had not been established before Milgram's study which allowed him (and other researchers) to conduct studies that would be controversial these days. With regards to IRB approval, there are requirements aside from the ethical treatment of participants. Examples include using informed consent so that the participants are aware of the experiment and are not involved in any form of unethical treatment. There are some exceptions, but you must justify to the IRB that there is a significant benefit in leaving the participant unaware of the full extent of the experiment for a greater cause.
The Ethical Problems and Implications of Milgram's study
Based on his first trial run, 65% of participants reached the 450-volt shock while the rest of the participants reached 300 volts. With such a high rate, headlines were made about obedience and how authority can create such destructive decisions. However, the entire study was created to be deceptive. Participants were not aware of the shocking procedure and they were not aware that the shocks were simulated. The learner was a 47 year old accountant who did not suffer any harm during the experiment. In some variations, the learner would go silent as to create distress and stimulate death. In the video below you can see an example of how the experiment was conducted.
![milgram experiment procedure summary milgram experiment procedure summary](https://i3.ytimg.com/vi/Kzd6Ew3TraA/hqdefault.jpg)
Furthermore, the experimenter, a 31-year-old biology high school teacher had four sentences that were scripted in the event that the participant refused to participate:
- "Please continue."
- "The experiment requires you to continue."
- "It is absolutely essential that you continue."
- "You have no other choice but to continue."
These kinds of phrases would not be allowed in modern studies. In a research setting, the participant has the choice to discontinue the study with no questions asked. In the case of Milgram's study, they were forced to stay. However, in, further studies there were participants who fought the authority. This leads us to the implications and limitations of his first study.
His participants were all male, which meant that there was no investigation into female reaction to authority. The location of the study was at Yale University inside of a lab which created a sense of officiality and superiority for the participants.They also paid participants $4.50 to show up and particpate. These factors could've impacted the study because this was enough to convince any ordinary person to follow instructions even if it meant killing the learner.
However, Milgram conducted 18 variations of his study with 636 participants in which he would change the setting, but not the procedure. When Milgram changed the location from Yale to a run down office, obedience dropped to 47.5% (Mcleod, 2023). In one variation, Milgram allowed the participant to instruct an assistant (actor as well) to do the electric shocks, obedience increased to 92.5%. When the participant was forced to move the hands of the learner onto a shock plate, obedience dropped to 30% when they reached 150 volts. One variation removed the experimenter and this dropped obedience down to 20.5%. Participants would give smaller shocks or avoid the higher voltage shocks which furthered the idea that authority can create obedience.
Milgram's Experiment in a Modern Psychological Context
As mentioned earlier, this experiment would be difficult to replicate exactly. However, we can learn multiple points in the context of research.
The original 65% was one of the bigger numbers that were presented to the public, but the limitations were not shown. This was done to only men and at an Ivy League school.
Should you have the opportunity to conduct a research study in the future, it's crucial that your participants are well-informed about the study, treated fairly, and allowed to discontinue the study at any point without any questions. It's also important to note what kind of variables are a part of the study. From the location to even subtle things such as room temperature. As important as Milgram's study is, we can learn about creating improved studies with what he missed out on.
Teacher Connection
Milgram's study has been crucial to the psychology community in understanding authority and obedience. Even if his results varied from study to study, we can still use what we learned in his research article and apply it into our teaching career.
As teachers, we will have authority over the children whom we teach. It is our job to ensure that our authority is not misused. If adults were deceived into doing evil actions, this also means that children can fall into the an obedience trap. It also teaches us that people aren't naturally evil, but we can create these evil scenarios based on obedience alone. Your children in your classrooms will not be naturally psychopathic or evil, therefore you should consider how to set a proper example and teach morality in meaningful ways.
As a final note for future teachers, we invite you to consider the long-lasting effects that you may have on your students. If students are usually obedient, how can you create an environment for learning and morality?
Practize Quiz
What was Milgram studying?
Obedience and Authority
Electric Pain
Electroshock Therapy
Milgram's first run yielded a 65% obedience rate. When Milgram changed the location from Yale to a run-down office, what was the obedience rate?
What was one of the sentences used by the experimenter to enforce a practice of the study on the participant?
"Do not stop the shocks"
"Please do not stop the experiment"
"These electric shocks won't kill the learner"
"You have no other choice but to continue"
- Authority - "the capacity to influence others. Formal authority enables an individual to exert influence as a result of either high, legally recognized office ( legitimate authority ) or high rank in a long-established but not legally codified hierarchy ( traditional authority ). Informal authority is based on the individual having either attributes that facilitate the achievement of a group’s goals ( rational or expert authority ) or an attractive and authoritative personality serving to enhance his or her credibility ( charismatic authority )."
- Controlled Experiment - "This is when a hypothesis is scientifically tested. In a controlled experiment, an independent variable (the cause) is systematically manipulated, and the dependent variable (the effect) is measured; any extraneous variables are controlled."
- Obedience - "behavior in compliance with a direct command, often one issued by a person in a position of authority. Examples include a child who cleans his or her room when told to do so by a parent and a soldier who follows the orders of a superior officer. Obedience has the potential to be highly destructive and ethically questionable."
Definitions used were taken from the APA Dictionary of Psychology and Psychology Today
- Inspired by the Nuremberg Trials and WWII
- Shocks were induced only when the learner failed to repeat a list of word correctly
- When the participants refused to comply, an experimenter encouraged them to continue and used authority to keep it going as far as they could
- First study yieled a 65% obedience rate
- Factors such as location, personnel, and situation were changed
- The obedience rate increased or decreased based on the situation
- We learn that his experiment raised questions about the ethics in research.
- At Yale University
- Sample biases
- Obedience can create kindness and charity, or destruction
References:
Department of Psychology. (n.d.). Stanley Milgram. https://psychology.fas.harvard.edu/people/stanley-milgram
Mcleod, S. (2023, June 16). Stanley Milgram Shock Experiment: Summary, results, & ethics . Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 67, 371-378.
This content is provided to you freely by BYU-I Books.
Access it online or download it at https://books.byui.edu/development_motivati/milgram_shock_experiment .
How The Milgram Experiment Showed That Anyone Could Be A Monster
The milgram experiment tested its subjects' willingness to harm other people for the sake of obeying authority — and it ended with truly shocking results..
![milgram experiment procedure summary Milgram Experiment](https://allthatsinteresting.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/milgram-experiment-man.jpg)
Yale University Manuscripts and Archives Participants in one of Stanley Milgram’s experiments that examined obedience to authority.
In April 1961, former Nazi official and SS Colonel Adolf Eichmann went on trial for crimes against humanity in an Israeli courtroom.
Throughout his trial, which ended with a conviction and death sentence, Eichmann had tried to defend himself on the grounds that he was “only following orders.” He asserted that he was not a “responsible actor,” but merely a servant of those who were, and so he should be held morally blameless for just doing his duties, even if they included organizing the logistics of shipping people to the Nazi camps during the war.
This defense didn’t work in court and he was convicted on all counts. However, the idea of an unwilling-but-obedient participant in mass murder captured the interest of Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram, who wanted to know how easily morally normal people could be convinced to commit heinous crimes after an authority figure ordered them to do so.
To examine the matter, Milgram polled dozens of people for their opinions. Without exception, every group he asked for predictions thought it would be difficult to get people to commit serious crimes just by ordering them to.
Only three percent of the Yale students Milgram polled said that they thought an average person would willingly kill a stranger just because an authority figure pressured them into it. A poll of colleagues on the staff of a medical school showed similar results, with only around four percent of faculty psychologists guessing test subjects would knowingly kill a person if they were coerced into it by someone who looked like they were in charge.
In July 1961, Milgram set out to discover the truth for himself by devising an experiment, the results of which are still controversial to this day.
What Was The Milgram Experiment?
![milgram experiment procedure summary Ad For Milgram Experiment](https://allthatsinteresting.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/ad-for-milgram-experiment.png)
Wikimedia Commons An advertisement to participate in the Milgram experiment in 1961.
The experiment Milgram set up required three people. One person, the test subject, would be told he was participating in a memorization experiment, and that his role would be to administer a series of electric shocks to a stranger whenever he failed to correctly answer a question.
In front of the subject was a longboard with 30 switches labeled with increasing voltage levels, up to 450 volts. The last three switches had high-voltage warnings pasted on them and appeared to be very dangerous.
The second participant was an actor and confederate, who would chat with the test subject before moving to an adjacent room and connecting a tape recorder to the electrical switches so that they could play recorded shouts and screams — which sounded like their reaction to getting “shocked.”
The third participant was a man in a white lab coat, who sat behind the test subject and pretended to administer the test to the actor in the next room.
What Happened When The “Test-Takers” Failed Their Tests?
![milgram experiment procedure summary Milgram Experiment Setup](https://allthatsinteresting.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/milgram-explain.jpg)
Wikimedia Commons Illustration of the setup of the Milgram experiment. The experimenter (E) convinces the subject (“Teacher” T) to give what he believes are painful electric shocks to another subject, who is actually an actor (“Learner” L).
At the beginning of the experiment, the test subject would be given a quick shock from the apparatus on its lowest power level. Milgram included this to ensure that the subject knew how painful the shocks were and to make the pain of the shocks “real” to the subject before proceeding.
As the experiment got underway, the administrator would give the unseen confederate a series of memorization problems requiring an answer. When the actor gave the wrong answer, the administrator would instruct the subject to flip the next switch in the sequence so that they were seemingly delivering progressively higher-voltage shocks to the confederate.
When the switch was thrown, the tape recorder would play a yelp or a scream, and at higher levels, the confederate would start pounding on the wall and demanding to be set free. The actor was also given scripted lines about having a heart condition to make the situation seem very urgent.
After the seventh shock, he would go completely silent to give the impression that he had either passed out or died. When this happened, the administrator would continue on with his questions.
Getting no response from the “unconscious” confederate, the administrator told the subject to apply higher and higher shocks, up to the last, 450-volt switch, which was colored red and labeled as potentially lethal.
The Results Of The Milgram Experiment
![milgram experiment procedure summary Obedience Experiment](https://allthatsinteresting.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/students-milgram.jpg)
Yale University Manuscripts and Archives Participants in the Milgram experiment.
The groups that Milgram polled before the experiments began had predicted that just three or four percent of test subjects could be convinced to deliver a potentially fatal electric shock to an unwilling participant.
But results showed that 26 of the 40 subjects — 65 percent — went all the way up to 450 volts during the experiment. Furthermore, all of them had been willing to deliver 300 volts to a screaming and protesting subject.
All of the subjects had raised some kind of objection during the test. However, Milgram was astounded to find out that, apparently, almost two-thirds of normal people would be willing to kill a person with electricity if a man in a lab coat told them, “It is imperative that you continue.”
Accordingly, after the initial experiment was over, Milgram organized more tests with some variables controlled to see what importance different factors had in affecting people’s resistance to authority.
He found that people are vastly more likely to carry out atrocious acts if they feel like they have permission from some recognized authority (such as a scientist in a lab coat or a senior officer in the SS) and that participants’ willingness to shock increases as they are made to feel that the authority has taken moral responsibility for the actions they commit.
![milgram experiment procedure summary Experiment Equipment](https://allthatsinteresting.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/milgram-experiment-setup.jpg)
Yale University Manuscripts and Archives Most participants in the Milgram experiment apparently believed they were delivering electric shocks to strangers.
Here are some other findings from the Milgram experiment:
- When instructions to shock are given by phone, rather than having the authority figure physically present in the room, compliance dropped to 20.5 percent, and many “compliant” subjects were actually cheating; they would skip shocks and pretend to have thrown the switch when they hadn’t.
- When the subjects were made to press the victim’s hand down onto a shock plate, thus eliminating the distance of throwing an impersonal switch, compliance dropped to 30 percent.
- When the subjects were put in the position of ordering other people — confederates who were part of the experiment staff — to throw the switches, compliance increased to 95 percent. Putting one person between the subject and the victim made it so that 9.5 out of 10 people went all the way up to the presumed-fatal shock.
- When subjects were given “role models” to set an example of resistance, in this case, confederates who raised objections and refused to participate, compliance plunged to only 10 percent. It’s as if the subjects really wanted to stop, but needed leadership to grant moral permission to disobey an authority figure.
- When the administrator participated without the lab coat, that is, without a uniform indicating authority, compliance fell to 20 percent.
- Experiments held at locations separate from the prestigious Yale campus yielded less compliance, only 47.5 percent as if the perceived status of the surroundings had some conforming influence on the subjects.
The Legacy Of The Milgram Experiment
![milgram experiment procedure summary Stanley Milgram](https://allthatsinteresting.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/stanley-milgram.jpg)
Yale University Manuscripts and Archives Some believed that Stanley Milgram’s experiment was unethical, and others thought that his results said more about the types of people who participated in psychology experiments at Yale than people in general.
They say nothing in the social sciences is ever proven, and the disturbing results of Milgram’s experiment are no exception. Milgram’s work with his subjects faced criticism from other experts in the psychology community almost as soon as his results were published.
One of the more serious charges leveled against Milgram’s paper was the original sin of social science research: sample bias.
It was convincingly argued that even though the 40 local men Milgram had recruited for his research varied in backgrounds and professions, they represented a special case and that such a small group of white males may not be the most representative sample of humanity. Therefore, Milgram’s work had limited value in understanding human psychology.
In fact, critics argued, Milgram may have discovered something alarming about the kind of person who participates in psychology experiments at Yale, but such people would be expected to be more conformist and eager to please authority figures than a truly representative sample of the populace.
This critique was lent some weight when later researchers had trouble reproducing Milgram’s findings. Other investigators, using less-biased samples drawn from other groups in the population, found significantly less compliance with the administrators’ requests. Many reported meeting stiff resistance from non-college-educated and working-class people.
![milgram experiment procedure summary Shock Experiment](https://allthatsinteresting.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/milgram-students.jpg)
Yale University Manuscripts and Archives The Milgram experiment is still considered one of history’s most controversial psychology experiments.
The results seemed to plot a curve of compliant behavior, from the very top of society (wealthy, white, upper-class overachievers) to the lowest (unemployed, racially diverse school dropouts).
Those who had risen the highest seemed more eager to shock strangers to death when a man in a lab coat asked them to. It was theorized that others who may have had negative experiences with authorities were generally willing to argue and quit the experiment before things went too far.
Though some continue to muse about the results of the Milgram experiment and others have performed different versions of it in recent years, it’s unlikely anyone will ever completely replicate it again in its original form.
The intense psychic stress that test subjects have to be put through, as they are led to believe they’re committing what amounts to murder, violates many of the ethical restrictions now in place for human research. Another problem is the notoriety of the experiment — too many people know about the experiment now to ensure honest performance from the test group.
Whatever the Milgram experiment’s faults, and however hard it might be in the future to make sense of its findings, the fact that so many seemingly normal men felt compelled to violate their own conscience to obey authority is enough to send chills up the spines of many people even today.
After learning about the Milgram experiment, read about Unit 731 , Japan’s sickening human experiments program during World War II. Then, learn about the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment .
![milgram experiment procedure summary Share to Flipboard](https://cdn.flipboard.com/badges/flipboard_srsw.png)
PO Box 24091 Brooklyn, NY 11202-4091
Reference Library
Collections
- See what's new
- All Resources
- Student Resources
- Assessment Resources
- Teaching Resources
- CPD Courses
- Livestreams
Study notes, videos, interactive activities and more!
Psychology news, insights and enrichment
Currated collections of free resources
Browse resources by topic
- All Psychology Resources
Resource Selections
Currated lists of resources
Study Notes
Explanations for Obedience - Milgram (1963)
Last updated 22 Mar 2021
- Share on Facebook
- Share on Twitter
- Share by Email
Milgram (1963) conducted one of the most famous and influential psychological investigations of obedience. He wanted to find out if ordinary American citizens would obey an unjust order from an authority figure and inflict pain on another person because they were instructed to.
Milgram’s sample consisted of 40 male participants from a range of occupations and backgrounds. The participants were all volunteers who had responded to an advert in a local paper, which offered $4.50 to take part in an experiment on ‘punishment and learning’.
The 40 participants were all invited to a laboratory at Yale University and upon arrival they met with the experimenter and another participant, Mr Wallace, who were both confederates.
The experimenter explained that one person would be randomly assigned the role of teacher and the other, a learner. However, the real participant was always assigned the role of teacher. The experimenter explained that the teacher, the real participant, would read the learner a series of word pairs and then test their recall. The learner, who was positioned in an adjacent room, would indicate his choice using a system of lights. The teacher was instructed to administer an electric shock ever time the learner made a mistake and to increase the voltage after each mistake.
The teacher watched the learner being strapped to the electric chair and was given a sample electric shock to convince them that the procedure was real. The learner wasn’t actually strapped to the chair and gave predetermined answers to the test. As the electric shocks increased the learner’s screams, which were recorded, became louder and more dramatic. At 180 volts the learner complained of a weak heart. At 300 volts he banged on the wall and demanded to leave and at 315 volts he became silent, to give the illusions that was unconscious, or even dead.
The experiment continued until the teacher refused to continue, or 450 volts was reached. If the teacher tried to stop the experiment, the experimenter would respond with a series of prods, for example: ‘The experiment requires that you continue.’ Following the experiment the participants were debriefed.
Milgram found that all of the real participants went to at least 300 volts and 65% continued until the full 450 volts. He concluded that under the right circumstances ordinary people will obey unjust orders.
Milgram’s study has been heavily criticised for breaking numerous ethical guidelines, including: deception , right to withdraw and protection from harm.
Milgram deceived his participants as he said the experiment was on ‘punishment and learning’, when in fact he was measuring obedience, and he pretended the learner was receiving electric shocks. In addition, it was very difficult for participants with withdraw from the experiment, as the experimenter prompted the participants to continue. Finally, many of the participants reported feeling exceptionally stressed and anxious while taking part in the experiment and therefore they were not protect from psychological harm. This is an issue, as Milgram didn’t respect his participants, some of whom felt very guilt following the experiment, knowing that they could have harmed another person. However, it must be noted that it was essential for Milgram to deceive his participants and remove their right to withdraw to test obedience and produce valid results. Furthermore, he did debrief his participants following the experiment and 83.7% of participants said that they were happy to have taken part in the experiment and contribute to scientific research.
Milgram’s study has been criticised for lacking ecological validity. Milgram tested obedience in a laboratory, which is very different to real-life situations of obedience, where people are often asked to follow more subtle instructions, rather than administering electric shocks. As a result we are unable to generalise his findings to real life situations of obedience and cannot conclude that people would obey less severe instructions in the same way.
Finally, Milgram’s research lacked population validity. Milgram used a bias sample of 40 male volunteers, which means we are unable to generalise the results to other populations, in particular females, and cannot conclude if female participants would respond in a similar way.
- Ethical Issues
- Right to withdraw
- Protection from harm
You might also like
![milgram experiment procedure summary milgram experiment procedure summary](https://tutor2u-net.imgix.net/user-photos/host-jimriley.png?auto=compress%2Cformat&crop=focalpoint&fit=crop&fp-x=0.5&fp-y=0.5&h=100&q=80&w=100)
Great lesson starter for obedience!
16th February 2016
Conformity - Asch (1951)
Conformity to social roles as investigated by zimbardo, dispositional explanation for obedience: authoritarian personality, dispositional explanation for obedience: the authoritarian personality.
Quizzes & Activities
Resistance to Social Change
Video: the authority hoax - you don't know what you would do.
1st November 2016
Lights, Camera, Action! A Shocking Rendition of Milgram
28th January 2017
Our subjects
- › Criminology
- › Economics
- › Geography
- › Health & Social Care
- › Psychology
- › Sociology
- › Teaching & learning resources
- › Student revision workshops
- › Online student courses
- › CPD for teachers
- › Livestreams
- › Teaching jobs
Boston House, 214 High Street, Boston Spa, West Yorkshire, LS23 6AD Tel: 01937 848885
- › Contact us
- › Terms of use
- › Privacy & cookies
© 2002-2024 Tutor2u Limited. Company Reg no: 04489574. VAT reg no 816865400.
![milgram experiment procedure summary Behavioral Scientist](https://behavioralscientist.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/bs-logo-300x106.png)
How Would People Behave in Milgram’s Experiment Today?
![milgram experiment procedure summary](https://behavioralscientist.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Greenwood_MilgramRevisited_0718.png)
Photo from the Milgram Experiment.
More than fifty years ago, then Yale psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted the famous—or infamous—experiments on destructive obedience that have come to be known as “Milgram’s shocking experiments” (pun usually intended). Milgram began his experiments in July 1961, the same month that the trial of Adolf Eichmann—the German bureaucrat responsible for transporting Jews to the extermination camps during the Holocaust—concluded in Jerusalem. The trial was made famous by the philosopher Hannah Arendt’s reports, later published in book form as Eichmann in Jerusalem . Arendt claimed that Eichmann was a colorless bureaucrat who blandly followed orders without much thought for the consequences, and whose obedient behavior demonstrated the “banality of evil.”
Milgram himself was Jewish, and his original question was whether nations other than Germany would differ in their degrees of conformity to authority. He assumed that the citizens of America, home of rugged individualism and apple pie, would display much lower levels of conformity when commanded by authorities to engage in behavior that might harm others. His Yale experiments were designed to set a national baseline.
Half of a century after Milgram probed the nature of destructive obedience to authority, we are faced with the unsettling question: What would citizens do today?
The Original Experiment
In Milgram’s original experiment, participants took part in what they thought was a “learning task.” This task was designed to investigate how punishment—in this case in the form of electric shocks—affected learning. Volunteers thought they were participating in pairs, but their partner was in fact a confederate of the experimenter. A draw to determine who would be the “teacher” and who would be the “learner” was rigged; the true volunteer always ended up as the teacher and the confederate as learner.
The pairs were moved into separate rooms, connected by a microphone. The teacher read aloud a series of word pairs, such as “red–hammer,” which the learner was instructed to memorize. The teacher then read the target word (red), and the learner was to select the original paired word from four alternatives (ocean, fan, hammer, glue).
Did Milgram’s experiment demonstrate that humans have a universal propensity to destructive obedience or that they are merely products of their cultural moment?
If the learner erred, the teacher was instructed to deliver an electric shock as punishment, increasing the shock by 15-volt increments with each successive error. Although the teacher could not see the learner in the adjacent room, he could hear his responses to the shocks as well as to the questions. According to a prearranged script, at 75 volts, the learner started to scream; from 150 volts to 330 volts, he protested with increasing intensity, complaining that his heart was bothering him; at 330 volts, he absolutely refused to go on. After that the teacher’s questions were met by silence. Whenever the teacher hesitated, the experimenter pressed the teacher to continue, insisting that the “the experiment requires that you continue” and reminding him that “although the shocks may be painful, they cause no permanent tissue damage.”
Milgram was horrified by the results of the experiment . In the “remote condition” version of the experiment described above, 65 percent of the subjects (26 out of 40) continued to inflict shocks right up to the 450-volt level, despite the learner’s screams, protests, and, at the 330-volt level, disturbing silence. Moreover, once participants had reached 450 volts, they obeyed the experimenter’s instruction to deliver 450-volt shocks when the subject continued to fail to respond.
Putting Milgram’s Work in Context
Milgram’s experiment became the subject of a host of moral and methodological critiques in the 1960s. These became somewhat moot with the publication of the American Psychological Association’s ethical principles of research with human subjects in 1973 and the restrictions on the use of human subjects included in the National Research Act of 1974, which effectively precluded psychologists from conducting experiments that, like Milgram’s, were likely to cause serious distress to subjects. This was undoubtedly a good thing for experimental subjects, but it also blocked attempts to answer a question that many were asking: Did Milgram’s experiment demonstrate that humans have a universal propensity to destructive obedience or that they are merely products of their cultural moment?
Cross-cultural studies at the time provided a partial answer. The U.S. mean obedience rate of 60.94 percent was not significantly different from the foreign mean obedience rate of 65.94 percent, although there was wide variation in the results (rates ranged from 31 to 91 percent in the U.S. and from 28 to 87.5 percent in foreign studies) and design of the studies. However, a historical question remained: Would subjects today still display the same levels of destructive obedience as the subjects of fifty years ago?
There are grounds to believe they would not. In the 1950s, psychologists and the general public were shocked by the results of Solomon Asch’s experiments on conformity . In a series of line-judgement studies, subjects were asked to decide which of three comparison lines matched a target line. Crucially, these judgements were made in a social context, among other participants. Only one of the subjects in the experiment was a naive subject, while the other six were confederates of the experimenter instructed to give incorrect answers. When they gave answers that were incorrect, and seemed plainly incorrect to the naive subjects, about one-third of the naive subjects gave answers that conformed with the majority. In other words, people were happy to ignore the evidence before their eyes in order to conform to the group consensus.
For some observers, these results threatened America’s image as the land of individualism and autonomy. Yet in the 1980s, replications of Asch’s experiment failed to detect even minimal levels of conformity, suggesting that Asch’s results were a child of 1950s, the age of “other-directed” people made famous by David Reisman in his 1950 work The Lonely Crowd . Might the same failure to replicate be true today if people faced Milgram’s experiment anew?
Understanding Milgram’s Work Today
Although full replications of Milgram’s experiment are precluded in the United States because of ethical and legal constraints on experimenters, there have been replications attempted in other countries, and attempts by U.S. experimenters to sidestep these constraints.
A replication conducted by Dariusz Dolinski and colleagues in 2015 generated levels of obedience higher than the original Milgram experiment , although the study may be criticized because it employed lower levels of shock.
More intriguing was the 2009 replication by Jerry Burger, who found an ingenious way of navigating the ethical concerns about Milgram’s original experiment . Burger noted that in the original experiment 79 percent of subjects who continued after the 150 volts—after the learner’s first screams—continued all the way to the end of the scale, at 450 volts. Assuming that the same would be true of subjects today, Burger determined how many were willing to deliver shocks beyond the 150-volt level, at which point the experiment was discontinued.
Given social support, most subjects refused to continue to administer shocks, suggesting that social solidarity serves as a kind of a defense against destructive obedience to authority.
About 70 percent were willing to continue the experiment at this point, suggesting that subjects remain just as compliant in the 21st century. Nonetheless, Burger’s study was based upon a questionable assumption, namely that 150-volt compliance has remained a reliable predictor of 450-volt compliance. Subjects today might be willing to go a bit beyond 150 volts, but perhaps not to the far end of the scale (after learners demand that the experiment be discontinued etc.). In fact, this assumption begs the critical question at issue.
However, French television came to the rescue. One game show replicated Milgram’s experiment , with the game show host as the authority and the “questioner” as the subject. In a study reported in the 2012 European Review of Applied Psychology , J.-L. Beauvois and colleagues replicated Milgram’s voice feedback condition , with identical props, instructions, and scripted learner responses and host prods. One might question whether a game show host has as much authority as a scientific experimenter, but whatever authority they had managed to elicit levels of obedience equivalent to Milgram’s original experiment (in fact somewhat higher, 81 percent as opposed to the original 65 percent). It would seem that at least French nationals are as compliant today as Milgram’s original subjects in the 1960s.
In fact, the replication suggests a darker picture. One of the optimistic findings of the original Milgram experiment was his condition 7, in which there were three teachers, two of whom (both confederates of the experimenter) defied the experimenter. Given this social support, most subjects refused to continue to administer shocks, suggesting that social solidarity serves as a kind of a defense against destructive obedience to authority. Unfortunately, this did not occur in the French replication, in which the production assistant protested about the immorality of the procedure with virtually no effect on levels of obedience. And unfortunately, not in the Burger study either: Burger found that the intervention of an accomplice who refused to continue had no effect on the levels of obedience. So it may be that we are in fact more compliant today than Milgram’s original subjects, unmoved by social support. A dark thought for our dark times.
![milgram experiment procedure summary](https://behavioralscientist.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/back-cover-modal-transparent-2-1024x819.png)
What Does Boredom Teach Us About How We Engage with History?
![milgram experiment procedure summary](https://behavioralscientist.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/2-2023-08_Franklin_History-of-Creativity-v2-450x325.png)
The Surprising Origins of Our Obsession with Creativity
![milgram experiment procedure summary](https://behavioralscientist.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Ran_Abramitzky-QA_Nesterak-450x325.jpg)
A New Look at the History of U.S. Immigration: A Conversation with Ran Abramitzky
The Milgram Experiment: Method, Results, Replicas
He Milgram experiment Were a series of tests that served to study obedience to authority.
The precursor of this series of experiments was the social psychologist Stanley Milgram (New York, 1933-1984) that belonged to Yale University and made them around the 60s, after the massive crimes that characterized the Nazi holocaust of World War II.
![The Milgram Experiment: Method, Results, Replicas The Milgram Experiment: Method, Results, Replicas](https://cdn.lifepersona.com/the-milgram-experiment-method-results-replicas/the-milgram-experiment-method-results-replicas.jpg)
Specifically, in 1961 Milgram wondered if all the participants in these crimes acted motu proprio or, they did it because they were following orders. All these matters came to Milgram following the sentence of Adolf Eichmamn (Nazi lieutenant colonel) sentenced to death for crimes against humanity.
Milgram intended to evaluate whether people are willing to obey orders simply because they were imposed by a boss or superior. What is really controversial about these experiments is that these orders meant doing harm to the other person and even putting the life of the other into play.
Finally, Milgram published in 1963 a study in the magazine Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology Under the title 'Obedience Behavior Study' and a decade later, in 1974 he summarized and published all of these experiments in his book 'Obedience to Authority'. An experimental point of view.
Next, we will know the details of the experiment, as well as the results obtained and the conclusions they found after further research and analysis.
You may also like This list of experiments in the history of psychology .
Milgram Method
The work team of Professor Milgram, through newspaper ads New Haven , Requested volunteers. This announcement was really a hoax because, really, they were invited to participate in a study of memory and learning that supposedly was being done from their department.
The sample consisted of 40 men between 20 and 50 years of different social groups and with different levels of education. These included people who had just finished primary school and others had obtained their doctorate. All of them received four dollars (this corresponds to about $ 28 today) plus travel and subsistence expenses.
These participants were explained that within the research there were three roles: the researcher (Milgram himself or one of his colleagues, dressed in a white coat and acting with certain airs of superiority), the teacher and the student.
Participants were received in pairs, one volunteer and the other part of the Milgram team. Upon receiving them, they were explained that the department was studying the relationship between memory and learning.
![The Milgram Experiment: Method, Results, Replicas 1 The Milgram Experiment: Method, Results, Replicas 1](https://cdn.lifepersona.com/the-milgram-experiment-method-results-replicas/the-milgram-experiment-method-results-replicas-1.jpg)
Then, through a series of trick drawings, all the volunteer participants were given the role of teacher, since the student roles were played by Milgram's collaborators, they pretended that they had taken that place in the draw.
Then they would come in pairs in the laboratory. That is, a teacher and a student. The room was divided by a glass module and each of them sat on one side. The student sat in a chair that resembled the electric chair and, in addition, was tied in order to prevent it from moving too much.
Also, electrodes were placed all over his body through which he would receive the discharges and was anointed with cream so that he would not suffer burns. Also, he was informed that the discharges could cause a deep pain, but that would not leave lasting sequels, nor irreversible damages.
All this was explained to the student, the teacher in front and listening to all this information.
After these explanations, the teacher took a seat in a chair that had a control panel in which appeared the different loads that could send to the student's chair. To begin with, as a test, both received a real discharge of 45 volts. In this way, the researchers ensured that teachers would know what students would feel when receiving a download.
The experiment was about the teacher asking the student a series of questions. If it failed, the teacher should press a discharge and increase the intensity of the same as the student increased the number of failures.
![The Milgram Experiment: Method, Results, Replicas 2 The Milgram Experiment: Method, Results, Replicas 2](https://cdn.lifepersona.com/the-milgram-experiment-method-results-replicas/the-milgram-experiment-method-results-replicas-2.jpg)
The machine that controlled the discharges had 30 keys ordered from minor to major discharge. It started with 15 volts and, summing 15 at 15 volts, ended up with the maximum voltage: 450 volts. In addition, each of them had a label in which appeared the intensity of the discharge. For example, in the first one put"light discharge"and the one of greater intensity (450 volts) appeared"danger: severe discharge".
When the investigator finished explaining to the teacher the whole mechanism and functioning of the test, it offered him a list with pairs of words that the teacher should ask the student.
The teacher then read the question to the student and then listed four possible answers. The student had to press one of the four buttons within his reach. If the answer was correct, the teacher had to move on to the next one. Otherwise, you should manage a download that would increase in intensity based on the number of incorrect answers.
What really happened is that the teacher thought that he was administering downloads to the student when in fact, the pain reaction of this one was totally simulated, for that they had been chosen the collaborators of Milgram.
As the teacher increased the charge of volts, the student began to scream and complain, even shouting that they were people suffering from heart disease and asked to end the experiment. When the 270 volts were reached, they screamed in agony and if they reached the 300 volt charge, the pupils pretended to be in a state before the coma. Actually, all these screams were not happening, they were recordings.
When they reached the 75-volt button, teachers began to be nervous about their students' complaints and showed a strong interest in completing the experiment, although the researcher showed himself to be authoritarian and forced them to continue with the test.
When they reached 135 volts, it was common for teachers to stop and question the researcher the actual purpose of the experiment. Some of them wanted to stop the test and even insisted that they were willing to give back the money they had been offered to participate.
If the teacher wanted to end the test, the investigator orders it to continue. The answers that they had to give by order were the following:
- "Go on, please!"
- "The experiment needs to continue!"
- "It is absolutely essential that you continue!"
- "You have no choice! It must continue!"
If after the latter, the teacher refused to continue the test, the experiment was over.
In other cases, teachers continued to assert that they were not held responsible for the consequences that discharges might have on their students. There were even some responses of nervous laughter to the screams of pain and suffering of the students caused by the high load of the discharge.
The experiment could also end if the master had managed to handle the maximum load and pressed the button up to three times.
![The Milgram Experiment: Method, Results, Replicas 3 The Milgram Experiment: Method, Results, Replicas 3](https://cdn.lifepersona.com/the-milgram-experiment-method-results-replicas/the-milgram-experiment-method-results-replicas-3.jpg)
Prior to the completion of the experiments, Milgram dared to expose the results that he and his team would obtain. They estimated that the average voltage of downloads would be about 130 volts and that the teacher's obedience to the investigator would be 0%. Also, they contemplated the possibility that among the volunteer participants there was some sadist who was able to apply the button of greater voltage.
The surprise that took Milgram and all his equipment was to verify that 65% of the teachers got to apply up to 450 volts to their students, although some of them did not seem to feel comfortable doing it.
Also, it was curious the fact that none of them stopped before the 300 volts since, at this moment, the student showed that it began to lose his life.
Apparently, the behavior of the volunteer participants did not reveal that they were sadistic people since in the administration of the voltage loads they showed concern for what they were doing and, in addition, they were nervous (they were removed, they nailed the flesh , etc).
At the end of the experiment, the teachers were informed that, in fact, the students were actors and that they had not suffered any damage. The researchers said that the teachers were relieved when they told him. They were also asked if they were aware of the pain they had caused in students and on a scale of 1 to 14, with 14 being the highest level of pain, the mean was at level 13.
The studies that were carried out later and the exhaustive analysis of the different profiles of all participants showed that the teachers whose students were of a similar social context stopped the experiment.
Replicas of the experiment
In order to know if the results obtained would be replicated, Milgram and his team decided to repeat the experiment in other countries and with different people.
On this occasion, another of the variables they studied was the distance between the teacher and the student. The results showed that the more distant the pupil of the teacher was, the higher the researcher's obedience index.
In other cases, the administration of the discharge was through the teacher taking the student's hand and approaching a plate.
In these cases, 30% of participants reached the final level of the discharge, compared to 40% who did so under other circumstances. Although the percentage is lower, this data is equally surprising since in this situation is added the variable that the teacher must have physical contact with the student so that the student receives the discharge.
Under other circumstances studied, the participant would receive support from a partner who would refuse to continue the experiment. There was a 10% decrease in obedience.
When that partner, instead of refusing, showed support to the researcher, a percentage of 93% of teachers who got to use the 450 volts were reached.
Other variables that were studied in the replicates of the experiment were on the presence of two experimenters and when they gave opposite orders. In these cases, obedience was nil. In the event that the principal investigator left the room and left a colleague, there was also a 20% decrease in the level of teacher obedience.
The gender variable was also considered and, when comparing the levels of obedience between men and women, it was established that there were no significant differences.
Subsequent reactions
Milgram himself and his team were totally surprised by the results. At that time, ethics were questioned in scientific experimentation due to the high levels of emotional tension experienced by the participants, although the team argued that it was they who decided to continue.
Today, such an experiment would be almost impossible to carry out and would be considered immoral because they made participants believe that the lives of people were at stake, in addition to giving false slogans to the participants.
Indeed, after this series of experiments, the scientific community put a series of norms and ethical criteria to avoid that this type of research could be reopened.
In the multiple questionnaires that were administered to the participants, at the end, they were asked about their level of satisfaction for having participated in the experiment. In fact, 84% of them said they were very happy after participating. In addition, many of them showed their gratitude to the own Milgram.
After the experiments, Milgram created a documentary film in which he demonstrated the experiment and the results obtained. Today it is almost impossible to find one of these copies.
Explanations
Milgram's own explanation of the astonishing results obtained from his studies is that the subjects entered a state that he called the"agent state."
This state was characterized by the fact that individuals (in this case, teachers) perceived themselves as agents of an authority which they themselves had attributed as legitimate.
People are typically considered autonomous and proactive in many situations and contexts, but when they enter a hierarchical structure, they tend to change their perception of themselves. Among other things, they can discharge responsibility for their actions on people with a higher rank.
Although these subjects had agreed to participate voluntarily, they had easy to identify which was the legitimate authority: the investigators. These, besides being authoritarian, wore a white coat. All these characteristics can trigger obedience to authority.
In addition, there are other factors that help explain the results. One was the orders the researchers told the teachers when they refused to continue the experiment. These seemed to indicate to the teachers that the correct thing at that moment was to continue with the experiment in spite of the pain that could be provoking.
Also, all these participants (like most individuals) had social norms Who talk about not being hurt others. Also, that they should be helped when they need it. When under the situation of the experiment, they felt a great dilemma on whether to continue, or not, with the anxiety that brought them.
Another mechanism that intervenes is to come to think if the alleged victim, the student, deserves the downloads he is receiving.
If a person comes to think that the victim deserves such pain, it will help alleviate the suffering caused by the discharge.
There may also be a tendency to blame the victim and this will contribute to the person feeling more protected.
- [Links] The dangers of obedience. The Milgram experiment. Psicopedia.org. Website: psicopedia.org.
- The Milgram Experiment: Obedience to Authority. Explorable. Website: explorable.com.
- Encyclopedia Free in Spanish. The Milgram experiment. Website: encyclopedia.us.es.
- Milgram, Stanley. (1963). "Behavioral Study of Obedience". Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 67, 371-378.
Recent Posts
- Subscriber Services
- For Authors
- Publications
- Archaeology
- Art & Architecture
- Bilingual dictionaries
- Classical studies
- Encyclopedias
- English Dictionaries and Thesauri
- Language reference
- Linguistics
- Media studies
- Medicine and health
- Names studies
- Performing arts
- Science and technology
- Social sciences
- Society and culture
- Overview Pages
- Subject Reference
- English Dictionaries
- Bilingual Dictionaries
Recently viewed (0)
- Save Search
- Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter
Related Content
Related overviews, more like this.
Show all results sharing these subjects:
- Warfare and Defence
Milgram Experiment
Quick reference.
A famous experimental procedure introduced in 1963 by the US psychologist Stanley Milgram (1933–84) to study obedience to authority. See obedience.
From: Milgram experiment in A Dictionary of Psychology »
Subjects: Social sciences — Warfare and Defence
Related content in Oxford Reference
Reference entries, milgram experiment n..
View all related items in Oxford Reference »
Search for: 'Milgram Experiment' in Oxford Reference »
- Oxford University Press
PRINTED FROM OXFORD REFERENCE (www.oxfordreference.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2023. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single entry from a reference work in OR for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice ).
date: 05 August 2024
- Cookie Policy
- Privacy Policy
- Legal Notice
- Accessibility
- [185.80.151.41]
- 185.80.151.41
Character limit 500 /500
psychologyrocks
One contemporary study: burger, (2009).
You need to know the APFC of Burger in detail so that you can describe it, evaluate it and potentially compare it with other studies. You will also need to be able to use it to evaluate Milgram’s agency theory and also to demonstrate how obedience studies can be conducted with greater regard for modern ethical guidelines. It is also excellent for answering questions on the effect of personality and situation on obedience, what a ripping study!
Burger (2009) conducted a partial replication of Milgram’s experiment on obedience; however he made some critical alterations to the procedure in order to meet ethical guidelines. He concluded that Milgram’s findings were not era-bound and that people are as obedient today as they were in the 1960s. He also noted unlike previous replications, that women were slightly more obedient than men but the finding was not significant, and that the personality trait ‘empathic concern’ is not related to obedience, although there was some evidence that ‘desire for control’ was related to obedience but only in the baseline condition and not in the modelled refusal condition . Finally, he concluded that witnessing an act of defiance at 90V had very little effect on Pps’ own behaviour as 63% of Pps still continued shocking the learner up to 450V.
Here is my PowerPoint and accompanying handout: burger-revision-notes and one-contemporary-study-from-social-psychology
However, it is also useful for you to read from the original paper: burger-original
![milgram experiment procedure summary stars](https://psychologyrocks.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/stars.jpg?w=142&h=150)
You need to learn the procedural details (AO1) with great care. You might like to try this True and False quiz to gauge how much you know! burger-procedure-t-or-f
Once you have done this you will be able to create some “cheeky” chains of reason, and some “cracking” competing arguments (OOhhhh) with your accurate (AAAAAHHH) and thorough knowledge of the study! Time to get GRAVEing.
So you think you can evaluate Burger, let’s see how Dre got on! burger-dont-be-dre
Here is a model essay evaluating Burger’s study, super long as ever but as you know you don’t havr to write anywhere near this much for full marks you just need to follow my simply ATCHOO(BC) top tips for >8markers . Click here for model essay.
Practice Questions:
- Describe the…
- procedure (4)
- findings (4)
- conclusions (2)
of one contemporary study you have learned about as part of social psychology.
2. Describe one contemporary study you have learned about as part of social psychology (5)
3. Explain one strength and one weakness of the contemporary study you described above (2+2)
3. Evaluate one contemporary study you have learned about as part of social psychology (8)
4. This study used an independent measures design with random allocation of participants to the two conditions. Explain why this is a strength of the study (2)
5. Burger told his Pps that he might be videotaping the study and then he actually did tape everything using two hidden cameras. State the correct name for this technique and explain why the strengths of these design decisions (3)
6. Give one strength of Burger’s study relating to reliability (2)
Share this:
![milgram experiment procedure summary ' src=](https://s2.wp.com/i/logo/wpcom-gray-white.png)
- Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
- Subscribe Subscribed
- Copy shortlink
- Report this content
- View post in Reader
- Manage subscriptions
- Collapse this bar
![](http://ortec.site/777/templates/cheerup1/res/banner1.gif)
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Milgram Experiment Variations. The Milgram experiment was carried out many times whereby Milgram (1965) varied the basic procedure (changed the IV). By doing this Milgram could identify which factors affected obedience (the DV). Obedience was measured by how many participants shocked to the maximum 450 volts (65% in the original study).
The goal of the Milgram experiment was to test the extent of humans' willingness to obey orders from an authority figure. Participants were told by an experimenter to administer increasingly powerful electric shocks to another individual. Unbeknownst to the participants, shocks were fake and the individual being shocked was an actor.
Milgram experiment, controversial series of experiments examining obedience to authority conducted by social psychologist Stanley Milgram.In the experiment, an authority figure, the conductor of the experiment, would instruct a volunteer participant, labeled the "teacher," to administer painful, even dangerous, electric shocks to the "learner," who was actually an actor.
The Milgram experiment was a famous and controversial study that explored the effects of authority on obedience. During the 1960s, Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted a series of obedience experiments that led to some surprising results. In the study, an authority figure ordered participants to deliver what they believed were ...
The original and classic Milgram experiment was described by Stanley Milgram in an academic paper he wrote sixty years ago. Milgram was a young, Harvard-trained social psychologist working at Yale University when he initiated the first in a series of very similar experiments. ... Additionally, Milgram's debriefing procedures were not as ...
History of the Milgram Shock Study. This study is most commonly known as the Milgram Shock Study or the Milgram Experiment. Its name comes from Stanley Milgram, the psychologist behind the study. Milgram was born in the 1930s in New York City to Jewish immigrant parents. As he grew up, he witnessed the atrocities of the Holocaust from thousands ...
The Milgram experiment on obedience to authority figures was a series of notable experiments in social psychology experiments conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram, which measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience.
Stanley Milgram's Experiment. Stanley Milgram was one of the most influential social psychologists of the twentieth century. Born in 1933 in New York, he obtained a BA from Queen's College, and went on to receive a PhD in psychology from Harvard. Subsequently, Milgram held faculty positions in psychology at Yale University and the City ...
The results of Milgram's experiment made news and contributed a dismaying piece of wisdom to the public at large: It was reported that almost two-thirds of the subjects were capable of delivering ...
Summary. Stanley Milgram's experiments on obedience to authority are among the most influential and controversial social scientific studies ever conducted. They remain staples of introductory psychology courses and textbooks, yet their influence reaches far beyond psychology, with myriad other disciplines finding lessons in them.
The control of variables through set prods, a unified setting, and procedure means that it's more likely that the results of Milgram's experiment produced internally valid results. This is a strength of laboratory experiments in general; because of the controlled environment, it is more likely that the researcher can measure what they set ...
The Milgram Experiment Setup: The experimenter (E) orders the teacher (T), the subject of the experiment, to give what the latter believes are painful electric shocks to a learner (L), who is actually an actor and confederate. The subject believes that for each wrong answer, the learner was receiving actual electric shocks, though in reality ...
Milgram experiment on obedience. The Milgram studies tested how far people would go to obey authority, even when it meant hurting others. The researchers deceived participants into thinking they were shocking learners for giving wrong answers. Most participants continued to shock, despite the learners' screams and pleas.
The Stanley Milgram experiment is one of the most famous and controversial studies in the history of psychology. The study was conducted in the early 1960s, and it examined people's willingness to obey an authority figure, even when that obedience caused harm to others.In this article, we'll take a closer look at the Milgram experiment, its significance, and its impact on psychology.
The Milgram Experiment. By Saul McLeod 2008. In 1963, Stanley Milgram conducted a study on obedience. Using a series of social psychology experiments, Milgram measured participants' willingness to comply with an authority figure. As you read the text, identify the factors that influenced the behavior of the participants in the study.
The Method Section: The Milgram Experiment - Timestamps 00:00 - Intro 03:08 - The experiment 06:54 - The results 11:21 - Alternate hypotheses' 13:02 - How this relates to the Holocaust 14:16 - Problems with the experiment design 15:30 - Ethical problems 18:07 - Takeaways and conclusion 18:56 - Outro
Therefore, Milgram viewed obedience from the perspective that obedience could enable acts of charity and kindness, or enable destructive actions. Milgram controlled experiment was presented to his 40 male participants as a learning investigation. Two members of Milgram's team partook in the experiment but were mostly actors portraying a role as ...
Updated March 22, 2024. The Milgram experiment tested its subjects' willingness to harm other people for the sake of obeying authority — and it ended with truly shocking results. Yale University Manuscripts and Archives Participants in one of Stanley Milgram's experiments that examined obedience to authority. In April 1961, former Nazi ...
Deception. Ethical Issues. Right to withdraw. Protection from harm. Milgram (1963) conducted one of the most famous and influential psychological investigations of obedience. He wanted to find out if ordinary American citizens would obey an unjust order from an authority figure and inflict pain on another person because they were instructed to.
Milgram's (1963) operational definitions of defiance was any subject who stopped the experiment at any point before the 30th shock level, and obedience, as one who complied with all commands and administers all shocks. Following the experiment, Milgram (1974) interviewed each subject and debriefed them on the true purpose of
Milgram found that, after hearing the learner's first cries of pain at 150 volts, 82.5 percent of participants continued administering shocks; of those, 79 percent continued to the shock generator's end, at 450 volts. In Burger's replication, 70 percent of the participants had to be stopped as they continued past 150 volts—a difference that ...
In the "remote condition" version of the experiment described above, 65 percent of the subjects (26 out of 40) continued to inflict shocks right up to the 450-volt level, despite the learner's screams, protests, and, at the 330-volt level, disturbing silence. Moreover, once participants had reached 450 volts, they obeyed the experimenter ...
Milgram watched everything through a one-way mirror. The role of the " Experimenter " was taken by a stern biology teacher in a lab coat called " Mr Williams ". Milgram employed a confederate (or " stooge ") to help. " Mr Wallace ", a man in his 40s, pretended to be another participant. After a faked coin-toss, Mr Wallace became ...
He Milgram experiment Were a series of tests that served to study obedience to authority. The precursor of this series of experiments was the social psychologist Stanley Milgram (New York, 1933-1984) that belonged to Yale University and made them around the 60s, after the massive crimes that characterized the Nazi holocaust of World War II.
Quick Reference. A famous experimental procedure introduced in 1963 by the US psychologist Stanley Milgram (1933-84) to study obedience to authority. See obedience. From: Milgram experiment in A Dictionary of Psychology ». Subjects: Social sciences — Warfare and Defence.
Milgram's original research assistant, Alan Elms, gives his thoughts on Burger's study. This could be helpful for evaluating Burger: elms-comment-on-burger . You need to learn the procedural details (AO1) with great care. You might like to try this True and False quiz to gauge how much you know! burger-procedure-t-or-f