stanley milgram experiment obedience

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).

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.

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.

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.

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).

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?

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

A brief Milgram experiment summary is as follows: 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.

Detailed Milgram’s Experiment Summary

In the most well-known version of the Milgram 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 Milgram experiment, 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

The Milgram 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 harmed: in interviews conducted after the Milgram experiment, 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 to give the learner the highest level of shock.

Another version of the Milgram experiment 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 Milgram experiment, 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.

The Legacy of the Milgram Experiment

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 Was the Robbers Cave Experiment in Psychology?
• What Is Behaviorism 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

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Author Interviews

Taking a closer look at milgram's shocking obedience study.

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."

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

Shocking TV Experiment Sparks Ethical Concerns

How stanley milgram 'shocked the world', research news, scientists debate 'six degrees of separation'.

• Teaching Resources
• Upcoming Events
• On-demand Events

A Matter of Obedience?

Available in.

• The Holocaust
• facebook sharing
• email sharing

Obedience: The Milgram Experiment

Three decades before Christopher Browning completed his study of Police Battalion 101 (see reading, Reserve Police Battalion 101 ), a psychologist at Yale University named Stanley Milgram also tried to better understand why so many individuals participated in the brutality and mass murder of the Holocaust. 

In the 1960s, Milgram conducted an experiment designed “to see how far a person will proceed in a concrete and measurable situation in which he is ordered to inflict increasing pain on a protesting victim.” 1 Joseph Dimow was one of the people who unknowingly took part in that experiment. In 2004, he described the experience:

Like many others in the New Haven area, I answered an ad seeking subjects for the experiment and offering five dollars, paid in advance, for travel and time. At the Yale facility, I met a man . . . in a white coat and horn-rimmed glasses. He led me into a room filled with an impressive display of electrical equipment. A second man was introduced to me as another subject for the experiment, and together we were told that the experiment was to test the widely held belief that people learn by punishment. In this case, one of us would be a “learner” and the other a “teacher.” The teacher would read a list of paired words . . . and then repeat the first word of the pair. If the learner did not respond with the correct second word, the teacher would deliver a “mild” electric shock to the learner as punishment. . . . The “professor” said we would draw straws to see which of us would be the learner. He offered the straws to the other man [and] then [the man] announced that he had drawn the short straw and would be the learner . . . The learner, said the professor, would be in an adjoining room, out of my sight, and strapped to a chair so that his arms could not move—this so that the learner could not jump around and damage the equipment or do harm to himself. I was to be seated in front of a console marked with lettering colored yellow for “Slight Shock” (15 volts) up to purple for “Danger: Severe Shock” (450 volts). The shocks would increase by 15-volt increments with each incorrect answer. 2

In fact, the “learner” was an actor hired by Milgram. Dimow, the “teacher,” was the person Milgram and his team were studying. Social scientists Nestar Russell and Robert Gregory explain how the experiment was set up:

Once the experiment has started, the participant [the “teacher”] is soon required to deliver shocks of increasing intensity. In fact, no shocks at all are being administered, though the participant does not know this. As the “shocks” increase in intensity, the ostensible pain being experienced by the learner also becomes increasingly apparent by way of shouts and protests (actually via a tape recording) emanating from behind a partition that visually separates the teacher from the learner. For example, at 120 volts the learner is heard to say “Ugh! Hey, this really hurts!” Typically, the participants express their concern over the learner’s well-being. Yet the experimenter continues to insist “The experiment requires that you continue,” “You have no other choice, you must go on.” Such commands were designed to generate feelings of tension—what Milgram called strain—within the participant. If the participant continued to obey these strain-producing commands to the 270-volt level, the learner, in obvious agony, was heard to scream, “Let me out of here. Let me out of here. Let me out of here. Let me out. Do you hear? Let me out of here!” At the 300-volt level, the learner refuses to answer and instead responds with agonized screams. The experimenter commands the participant to treat further unanswered questions as incorrect and accordingly to inflict the next level of shock. After a 330-volt shock has been administered, the learner suddenly falls silent. The participant is again ordered to treat any further unanswered questions as incorrect and to continue administering shocks of increasing voltage. Once the participant has administered three successive shocks of 450 volts, the experimenter stops the process. 3

After a session of the experiment was complete, Milgram’s team revealed to the participant that he or she had been deceived, and they brought the “learner” into the room so that the participant could see that he had not been harmed. Regardless, this deception, in which the subject of an experiment is tricked into believing that he or she is harming another individual, is widely considered to be unethical today. At the time, when Milgram described this experiment to a group of 39 psychiatrists, the psychiatrists predicted that one participant in 1,000 would continue until he or she delivered the most severe shock, 450 volts. In reality, 62.5% of participants did. 

By varying the setup of his experiment, Milgram observed a relationship between the distance separating the teacher and learner and the willingness of the teacher to generate more severe shocks. When the teacher was required to touch the learner by forcing the learner’s hand onto the plate from which the shock was delivered, 30% of the teachers proceeded to the most severe shock. When the teacher did not touch the learner but remained in the same room, obedience to go all the way increased to 40%. When the teachers were placed in a separate room from which they could hear the voice of the learner but not see him, obedience increased to 62.5%. When the learner did not speak but only banged on the wall to indicate distress, obedience increased to 65%. When the teacher could neither see nor hear the learner at all, obedience reached almost 100%. 4 Milgram tested other variations in which the distance between the experimenter and the teacher changed. He found that the farther the distance between experimenter and teacher, the less likely the teacher was to obey. Milgram concluded that the experiment forced the teacher to decide between two stressful situations: inflicting pain on another person and disobeying authority. The closeness of the learner and the experimenter to the teacher affected the teacher’s choice: “In obeying, the participants were mainly concerned about alleviating their own, rather than the learner’s, stressful situation.” 5

In interpreting the implications of Milgram’s research, many, including Milgram himself, focused on the effect of physical closeness between perpetrator and victim on the willingness of one person to harm another. Sociologist Zygmunt Bauman writes: 

It is difficult to harm a person we touch. It is somewhat easier to afflict pain upon a person we only see at a distance. It is still easier in the case of a person we only hear. It is quite easy to be cruel towards a person we neither see nor hear. 6

But others who study Milgram’s work argue that focusing primarily on physical distance leaves out other important factors suggested by the experiment. Russell and Gregory argue that “emotional distance” is an equally important factor. In their analysis of the Milgram experiments, they write:

Although the . . . learner was deliberately chosen as a likable, middle-aged man, and although many participants expressed strong concern about his apparent plight—and were relieved to be reconciled with him at the end of the experiment—he was a stranger to them. Milgram speculated that obedience rates may have been even higher had the learner been presented as “a brutal criminal or a pervert”; but obedience rates may also have been much lower overall had the learner been a loved member of the participant’s family, a friend, or even an acquaintance. So Milgram confirmed what most people instinctively know—that it is far easier to maltreat others if they are personal strangers, even easier to do so if they are cultural strangers, and especially if we engage in rationalization processes of self-deception that serve to dehumanize them. 7

Russell and Gregory also believe that the way the harm is inflicted would affect the willingness of individuals to do it. In their analysis of the Milgram experiments, they point out that the shock generator was a technological and indirect way for the teacher to inflict pain; in most variations, teachers flicked a switch rather than using “direct physical force.” Russell and Gregory ask: “How far would Milgram’s participants have gone if they had been required personally to beat, bludgeon, or whip the learner, ultimately to the point of unconsciousness or beyond?” 8

Milgram’s experiments provide insights that help us understand the choices and motivations of many who participated in the Nazi programs of persecution and mass murder. But many historians and social scientists who have studied the Holocaust say that Milgram’s work does not fully explain the behavior of perpetrators in the Holocaust. While many acted in response to orders from authority figures, some perpetrators chose to go beyond the orders they were given. Others chose to act out of their own hatred or for their own material gain without being asked to do so. Even within the German government and military, leaders and bureaucrats took initiative and devised creative methods to achieve larger goals, not in response to orders but in an effort to “work toward the Führer” (see reading, Working Toward the Führer in Chapter 5). 

• 1 Stanley Milgram, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View (New York: Harper & Row, 1974), 3–4.
• 2 Joseph Dimow, “ Resisting Authority: A Personal Account of the Milgram Obedience Experiments ,” Jewish Currents (January 2004), accessed June 18, 2016.
• 3 Nestar Russell and Robert Gregory, “Making the Undoable Doable: Milgram, the Holocaust, and Modern Government,” American Review of Public Administration 35, no. 4 (December 4, 2005), 328–329.
• 4 Nestar Russell and Robert Gregory, “Making the Undoable Doable: Milgram, the Holocaust, and Modern Government,” American Review of Public Administration 35, no. 4 (December 4, 2005), 330.
• 5 Nestar Russell and Robert Gregory, “Making the Undoable Doable: Milgram, the Holocaust, and Modern Government,” American Review of Public Administration 35, no. 4 (December 4, 2005), 331.
• 6 Zygmunt Bauman, Modernity and the Holocaust (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2013), 155.
• 7 Nestar Russell and Robert Gregory, “Making the Undoable Doable: Milgram, the Holocaust, and Modern Government,” American Review of Public Administration 35, no. 4 (December 4, 2005), 332.
• 8 Nestar Russell and Robert Gregory, “Making the Undoable Doable: Milgram, the Holocaust, and Modern Government,” American Review of Public Administration 35, no. 4 (December 4, 2005), 333–34.

Connection Questions

• What encourages obedience? What factors do the Milgram experiments suggest? What factors do these experiments leave out?
• How do the Milgram experiments explain aspects of perpetrators' actions in the Holocaust? What do the experiments fail to explain?
• What situation caused “feelings of tension” in participants in the Milgram experiments? What role did the distance between “teacher” and “learner” play in creating these feelings? What role did the distance between “teacher” and “experimenter” play? 
• What is the difference between physical distance and “emotional” distance? According to Russell and Gregory, what difference might the emotional distance between “teacher” and “learner” make in the willingness of the “teacher” to harm the “learner”? What might have created emotional distance between perpetrators and victims during the Holocaust?
• Sociologist Zygmunt Bauman writes: “The most frightening news brought about by the Holocaust and by what we learned of its perpetrators was not the likelihood that ‘this’ could be done to us, but the idea that we could do it.” 1  Do you agree that everyone has the potential to become a perpetrator? What do the Milgram experiments suggest about the aspects of human behavior that could make it possible for us to willingly inflict pain on others?
• Some who played a role in mass murder during the Holocaust later tried to explain their actions by saying that they were simply obeying the orders of authority figures. Historian Daniel Goldhagen warns that this sort of “blind obedience” is not a sufficient explanation, because it leaves out the extreme form of antisemitism that he believes motivated the German killers. He writes that individuals will only obey orders that are consistent with the values and morals they already hold. 2  What does he mean? What is he suggesting about the moral values and beliefs of perpetrators, such as the members of Police Battalion 101? Based on what you have learned so far, do you agree or disagree with Goldhagen? 
• 1 Zygmunt Bauman, Modernity and the Holocaust (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2013), 152.
• 2 Daniel Goldhagen, Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust (London: Knopf, 1996), 383.

Get the Handout

• document A Matter of Obedience? – PDF
• document A Matter of Obedience? – Doc

How to Cite This Reading

Facing History & Ourselves, “ A Matter of Obedience? ”, last updated August 2, 2016.

You might also be interested in…

Dismantling democracy, world war: choices and consequences, do you take the oath, european jewish life before world war ii, exploring identity, the weimar republic: the fragility of democracy, the holocaust: bearing witness, how should we remember, introducing the unit, the holocaust: the range of responses, the national socialist revolution, kristallnacht, inspiration, insights, & ways to get involved.

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'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 .

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.

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.

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'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'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.

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.

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 .

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.

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 .

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.

Download your resource

Thanks for taking the time to complete this form, submit the form to get the tool.

The Obedience Experiments at 50

• Personality/Social
• Social Behavior
• Social Influences
• Social Interaction

This year is the 50 th anniversary of the start of Stanley Milgram’s groundbreaking experiments on obedience to destructive orders — the most famous, controversial and, arguably, most important psychological research of our times. To commemorate this milestone, in this article I present the key elements comprising the legacy of those experiments.

Milgram was a 28-year-old junior faculty member at Yale University when he began his program of research on obedience, supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF), which lasted from August 7, 1961 through May 27, 1962.

As we know, in his obedience experiments Milgram made the startling discovery that a majority of his subjects — average and, presumably, normal community residents — were willing to give a series of what they believed were increasingly painful and, perhaps, harmful electric shocks to a vehemently protesting victim simply because they were commanded to do so by an authority (although no shock was actually given). They did this despite the fact that the experimenter had no coercive powers to enforce his commands and the person they were shocking was an innocent victim who did nothing to merit such punishment. Although Milgram conducted over 20 variations of his basic procedure, his central finding obtained in several standard, or baseline, conditions was that about two-thirds of the subjects fully obeyed the experimenter, progressing step-by-step up to the maximum shock of 450 volts.

First and foremost, the obedience experiments taught us that we have a powerful propensity to obey authority. Did we need Milgram to tell us this? Of course, not. What he did teach us is just how strong this tendency is — so strong, in fact, that it can make us act in ways contrary to our moral principles.

Milgram’s findings provided a powerful affirmation of one of the main guiding principles of contemporary social psychology: That often it is not the kind of person we are that determines how we act, but rather the kind of situation we find ourselves in. To perceive behavior as flowing from within — from our character or personality — is to paint an incomplete picture of the determinants of our behavior. Milgram showed that external pressures coming from a legitimate authority can make us behave in ways we would not even consider when acting on our own.

Foreshadowing the widespread attention the obedience experiments were to receive  was an early article appearing in the New York Times , titled “Sixty-five Percent in Test Blindly Obey to Inflict Pain,” right after the publication of Milgram’s first journal report. Although Milgram had just begun his academic career and he would go on to do other innovative research studies — such as “The small-world problem” and “The lost letter technique” — they would always be overshadowed by the obedience work. Of the 140 or so talks he gave during his lifetime, more than a third dealt with obedience. His book Obedience to authority: An experimental view has been translated into 11 languages.

I believe that one of the most important aspects of Milgram’s legacy is that, in demonstrating our extreme readiness to obey authorities, he has identified one of the universals, or constants, of human behavior, straddling time and place. I have done two analyses to support this contention. In one, I correlated the results of Milgram’s standard obedience experiments and the replications conducted by others with their date of publication. The results: There was absolutely no relationship between when a study was conducted and the amount of obedience it yielded. In a second analysis, I compared the outcomes of obedience experiments conducted in the United States with those conducted in other countries. Remarkably, the average obedience rates were very similar: In the U.S. studies, some 61 percent of the subjects were fully obedient, while elsewhere the obedience rate was 66 percent.

A more recent, modified replication of one of Milgram’s conditions (Exp.#5, “A new base-line condition”) conducted by Jerry Burger, a social psychologist at the Santa Clara University supports the universality argument. Burger’s replication added safeguards not contained in Milgram’s original experiment. Although carried out 45 years after Milgram conducted the original Exp. #5, Burger’s findings did not differ significantly from Milgram’s.

From the beginning, the obedience studies have been embroiled in controversy about its ethics. They were vilified by some and praised by others. A well-known ethicist commented rhetorically: “Is this perhaps going too far in what one asks a subject to do and how one deceives him?” A Welsh playwright expressed his disdain by arguing that many people “may feel that in order to demonstrate that subjects may behave like so many Eichmanns, the experimenter had to act the part, to some extent, of a Himmler.” On the other hand, Milgram received supportive letters from fellow social psychologists such as Elliot Aronson and Philip Zimbardo. And in 1964, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) awarded him its annual social psychology award for his most complete report on the experiments up to that time, “Some Conditions of Obedience and Disobedience to Authority.”

The furor stirred up by the obedience experiments, together with a few other ethically problematic studies, has resulted in a greater sensitivity to the well-being of the human research participant today. More concretely, the obedience experiments are generally considered one of the handful of controversial studies that led Congress to enact the National Research Act in 1974, which mandated the creation of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). Harold Takooshian, one of Milgram’s outstanding students at CUNY, recalls him saying that “IRBs are an impressive solution to a non-problem.”

A distinctive aspect of the legacy of the obedience experiments is that they can be applied to real life in a number of ways. They provide a reference point for certain phenomena that, on the face of it, strain our understanding — thereby, making them more plausible. For example, Milgram’s findings can help us fathom how it was possible for managers of fast-food restaurants throughout the United States to fall for a bizarre hoax over a nine-year period between 1995 and 2004. In a typical case, the manager of an eatery received a phone call from a man claiming to be a police officer, who ordered him to strip-search a female employee who supposedly stole a pocketbook. In over 70 instances, the manager obeyed the unknown caller.

The implications of Milgram’s research have been greatest for understanding the Holocaust. In his book “Ordinary Men,” Christopher Browning, a historian, describing the behavior of a Nazi mobile unit roaming the Polish countryside that killed 38,000 Jews in cold blood at the bidding of their commander, concluded that “many of Milgram’s insights find graphic confirmation in the behavior and testimony of the men of Reserve Police Battalion 101.”

Legal scholarship and practice has made wide use of the obedience studies. Several Supreme Court briefs, as well as over 350 law reviews have referenced them. The U.S. Army also has taken the lessons of Milgram’s research to heart. In response to a letter-writer’s question in December 1985, the head of the Department of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership at West Point wrote: “All cadets…are required to take two psychology courses…. Both of these courses discuss Milgram’s work and the implications of his findings.”

There is typically a gray cloud of gloom hovering over any discussions of Milgram’s research. This is not surprising since Milgram himself repeatedly and almost exclusively drew troubling implications. So let me end on a more positive note.

Milgram recognized that obedience is a necessary element of civilized society. As he once wrote: “We cannot have society without some structure of authority, and every society must inculcate a habit of obedience in its citizens.” So, once he felt that he had probed the destructive side of obedience in sufficient detail, he was ready to turn his attention to its positive aspects.

Milgram submitted a continuation grant proposal to NSF in early 1962, after he had completed almost all of the experimental conditions dealing with destructive obedience. One of the proposed experiments he listed in that grant proposal was titled “Constructive Obedience.” The grant proposal was only approved in modified form with reduced funding, so Milgram never did carry out such an experiment. But, nonetheless, the fact that he planned such an experiment is informative, because it implied that Milgram apparently thought that the unexpected strength of the obedient tendencies he had discovered so far was just one part of a more general, full-spectrum predisposition.

In this APS article on “the obedience experiments at 50,” Milgram’s perspicuous biographer Thomas Blass once again gives us reason to admire this assistant professor’s brilliant work that has resonanated throughout society since the 1960s. What one other psychology experiment has had greater impact on society–to the point that it even revolutionized our ethical codes regulating research. This experiment is now an anomaly “frozen in time:” it can no longer be precisely replicated in the USA, yet any introductory psychology textbook today would be considered simply incomplete without citing its unique insights into human behavior. Those who studied with Milgram know what a highly ethical man he was from the start, going far beyond the ethical standards of 1960 to safeguard the welfare of his participants–with debriefing and follow-ups. Do Milgram’s critics in 2011 resemble those who seek to remove George Washington’s name from monuments because Mount Vernon had slaves in 1776–judging yesterday’s hero by today’s standards? (If so, let’s hope our grandchildren do not hate us in 2060 for eating carcasses we call hamburgers and driving fossil-fuel vehicles.) In my lectures at Russian universities in 2010, I was pleased to find Milgram today was revered as a hero whose work was indispensible to understanding three decades of Stalinism. Similarly, U.S. psychology would do well not to vilify this brilliant yet short-lived scientist who, more than anyone, helped shaped the ethiocal standards we have today.

APS regularly opens certain online articles for discussion on our website. Effective February 2021, you must be a logged-in APS member to post comments. By posting a comment, you agree to our Community Guidelines and the display of your profile information, including your name and affiliation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations present in article comments are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views of APS or the article’s author. For more information, please see our Community Guidelines .

Please login with your APS account to comment.

About the Author

Thomas Blass, a professor of psychology at the University of Maryland Baltimore County, is the author of Milgram’s biography, The man who shocked the world: The life and legacy of Stanley Milgram (Basic Books, 2004, 2009). He also edited the third, expanded edition of Milgram’s anthology, The individual in a social world: Essays and Experiments (Pinter and Martin, 2010), the most complete collection of Milgram’s writings. In addition, Blass maintains a website about Milgram, www.stanleymilgram.com . He can be reached at [email protected] .

Careers Up Close: Katie Ehrlich on Studying Intergenerational Health Disparities, Finding Your Footing, and Helping Others Succeed

An associate professor at the University of Georgia, Katie Ehrlich researches how social experiences as a child can shape mental and physical health across the lifespan.

Behavioral Insights in the Global South

Seven authors provide case studies that illustrate both the potential of behavioral science to improve people’s lives and some of the unique challenges of applying it in Global South settings.

Feelings of Belonging May Indicate Students’ Risk of Depression

Depression may be more closely related to how we perceive our relationships and position within a community than to whether or not we are socializing with others.

Privacy Overview

• 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 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: 14 September 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [185.66.14.133]
• 185.66.14.133

Character limit 500 /500

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Milgram's Obedience to Authority experiments: origins and early evolution

Affiliation.

• 1 Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. [email protected]
• PMID: 21366616
• DOI: 10.1348/014466610X492205

Stanley Milgram's Obedience to Authority experiments remain one of the most inspired contributions in the field of social psychology. Although Milgram undertook more than 20 experimental variations, his most (in)famous result was the first official trial run - the remote condition and its 65% completion rate. Drawing on many unpublished documents from Milgram's personal archive at Yale University, this article traces the historical origins and early evolution of the obedience experiments. Part 1 presents the previous experiences that led to Milgram's conception of his rudimentary research idea and then details the role of his intuition in its refinement. Part 2 traces the conversion of Milgram's evolving idea into a reality, paying particular attention to his application of the exploratory method of discovery during several pilot studies. Both parts illuminate Milgram's ad hoc introduction of various manipulative techniques and subtle tension-resolving refinements. The procedural adjustments continued until Milgram was confident that the first official experiment would produce a high completion rate, a result contrary to expectations of people's behaviour. Showing how Milgram conceived of, then arrived at, this first official result is important because the insights gained may help others to determine theoretically why so many participants completed this experiment.

©2010 The British Psychological Society.

PubMed Disclaimer

• After shock? Towards a social identity explanation of the Milgram 'obedience' studies. Reicher S, Haslam SA. Reicher S, et al. Br J Soc Psychol. 2011 Mar;50(Pt 1):163-9. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02015.x. Br J Soc Psychol. 2011. PMID: 21366617

Similar articles

• 'Happy to have been of service': the Yale archive as a window into the engaged followership of participants in Milgram's 'obedience' experiments. Haslam SA, Reicher SD, Millard K, McDonald R. Haslam SA, et al. Br J Soc Psychol. 2015 Mar;54(1):55-83. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12074. Epub 2014 Sep 5. Br J Soc Psychol. 2015. PMID: 25196821
• From New Haven to Santa Clara: A historical perspective on the Milgram obedience experiments. Blass T. Blass T. Am Psychol. 2009 Jan;64(1):37-45. doi: 10.1037/a0014434. Am Psychol. 2009. PMID: 19209963
• "Shocking" masculinity: Stanley Milgram, "obedience to authority," and the "crisis of manhood" in Cold War America. Nicholson I. Nicholson I. Isis. 2011 Jun;102(2):238-68. doi: 10.1086/660129. Isis. 2011. PMID: 21874687
• The power of the situation: The impact of Milgram's obedience studies on personality and social psychology. Benjamin LT Jr, Simpson JA. Benjamin LT Jr, et al. Am Psychol. 2009 Jan;64(1):12-9. doi: 10.1037/a0014077. Am Psychol. 2009. PMID: 19209959 Review.
• Obedience lite. Elms AC. Elms AC. Am Psychol. 2009 Jan;64(1):32-6. doi: 10.1037/a0014473. Am Psychol. 2009. PMID: 19209962 Review.
• Shock treatment: using immersive digital realism to restage and re-examine milgram's 'obedience to authority' research. Haslam SA, Reicher SD, Millard K. Haslam SA, et al. PLoS One. 2015 Mar 2;10(3):e109015. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0109015. eCollection 2015. PLoS One. 2015. PMID: 25730318 Free PMC article.
• Meta-Milgram: an empirical synthesis of the obedience experiments. Haslam N, Loughnan S, Perry G. Haslam N, et al. PLoS One. 2014 Apr 4;9(4):e93927. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0093927. eCollection 2014. PLoS One. 2014. PMID: 24705407 Free PMC article.
• Contesting the "Nature" Of Conformity: what Milgram and Zimbardo's studies really show. Haslam SA, Reicher SD. Haslam SA, et al. PLoS Biol. 2012;10(11):e1001426. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001426. Epub 2012 Nov 20. PLoS Biol. 2012. PMID: 23185132 Free PMC article.

Publication types

• Search in MeSH

Personal name as subject

Linkout - more resources, full text sources.

• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

A Virtual Reprise of the Stanley Milgram Obedience Experiments

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations Department of Computer Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom, Institució Catalana de la Recerca i Estudis Avançats ‐ Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Virtual Reality Centre of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain

Affiliation Department of Computer Science, University College London, London, United Kingdom

Affiliation Guger Technologies OEG, Schiedlberg, Austria

Affiliation SubDepartment of Clinical Health Psychology, University College London, London, United Kingdom

Affiliation Instituto de Neurociencias de Alicante, Universidad Miguel Hernandez - Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Campus de San Juan, San Juan de Alicante, Spain

• Mel Slater, 
• Angus Antley, 
• Adam Davison, 
• David Swapp, 
• Christoph Guger, 
• Chris Barker, 
• Nancy Pistrang, 
• Maria V. Sanchez-Vives

• Published: December 20, 2006
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000039
• Reader Comments

Stanley Milgram's 1960s experimental findings that people would administer apparently lethal electric shocks to a stranger at the behest of an authority figure remain critical for understanding obedience. Yet, due to the ethical controversy that his experiments ignited, it is nowadays impossible to carry out direct experimental studies in this area. In the study reported in this paper, we have used a similar paradigm to the one used by Milgram within an immersive virtual environment. Our objective has not been the study of obedience in itself, but of the extent to which participants would respond to such an extreme social situation as if it were real in spite of their knowledge that no real events were taking place.

Methodology

Following the style of the original experiments, the participants were invited to administer a series of word association memory tests to the (female) virtual human representing the stranger. When she gave an incorrect answer, the participants were instructed to administer an ‘electric shock’ to her, increasing the voltage each time. She responded with increasing discomfort and protests, eventually demanding termination of the experiment. Of the 34 participants, 23 saw and heard the virtual human, and 11 communicated with her only through a text interface.

Conclusions

Our results show that in spite of the fact that all participants knew for sure that neither the stranger nor the shocks were real, the participants who saw and heard her tended to respond to the situation at the subjective, behavioural and physiological levels as if it were real. This result reopens the door to direct empirical studies of obedience and related extreme social situations, an area of research that is otherwise not open to experimental study for ethical reasons, through the employment of virtual environments.

Citation: Slater M, Antley A, Davison A, Swapp D, Guger C, Barker C, et al. (2006) A Virtual Reprise of the Stanley Milgram Obedience Experiments. PLoS ONE 1(1): e39. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000039

Academic Editor: Aldo Rustichini, University of Minnesota, United States of America

Received: September 6, 2006; Accepted: October 10, 2006; Published: December 20, 2006

Copyright: © 2006 Slater et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: The work described in this paper was funded under the European Union IST FET research grant PRESENCIA IST-2001-37927. The funding agency was not involved at all in the study, nor in any aspect of analysis or writing up of the results, nor in the preparation of the paper.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

In an attempt to understand events in which people carry out horrific acts against their fellows Stanley Milgram carried out a series of experiments in the 1960s at Yale University that directly attempted to investigate whether ordinary people might obey the orders of an authority figure to cause pain to a stranger. He showed that in a social structure with recognised lines of authority, ordinary people could be relatively easily persuaded to give what seemed to be even lethal electric shocks to another randomly chosen person [1] , [2] . His results are often cited today, for example, recently in helping to explain how people become embroiled in organised prisoner abuse [3] and even suicide bombings [4] . However, his study also ignited a far-reaching debate about the ethics of deception and of putting subjects in a highly distressing situation in the course of research [5] , [6] , and as a result this line of research is no longer amenable to direct experimental studies.

Milgram's paradigm was an experiment that subjects were led to believe was a study of the effects of punishment on learning. The subjects, referred to as Teachers, were asked to administer electric shocks of increasing voltages to another subject (the Learner) whenever he gave a wrong answer in a word-memory experiment. A lottery to choose who would be ‘Teacher’ and who ‘Learner’ was carried out at the start of the experiment. In fact, the whole situation was contrived: there were no actual shocks, the lottery was fixed, and the Learner was a confederate of the experimenter. Contrary to expectations, a high proportion of subjects (65% in one condition, n = 40) continued to give ‘shocks’ to the maximum 450 volts, in spite of screams of protest from the Learner. Almost all subjects exhibited signs of distress and many expressed their fears regarding the well-being of the Learner, nevertheless continuing to give shocks to the end.

We have carried out a replication of Milgram's experiment, but in an immersive virtual environment, where participants were required to give ‘electric shocks’ – to a virtual human. Our main objective has not been to study obedience but human responses to interaction with a virtual character in the type of extreme social situation exemplified by the conflict created within Milgram's paradigm.

An immersive virtual environment is formed by a computer-generated surrounding real-time (stereoscopic) display of virtual sensory data from a viewpoint determined by the tracked position and orientation of the participant's head [7] . This delivers a life-sized virtual reality within which a person can experience events and interact with representations of objects and virtual humans. Our experiment took place in a projection based virtual reality system of the generic type that is called a ‘Cave’ [8] – specifically a Trimension ReaCTor - that has three back-projected vertical screens (3 m×2.2 m) and a floor screen (from a ceiling mounted projector) (3 m×3 m) controlled by a Silicon Graphics Onyx 2. This system and how stereo projection and head-tracking is achieved was described in an earlier paper [9] (and see Materials and Methods ).

Previous work has shown that people tend to respond realistically to events within such environments and even to virtual humans in spite of their relatively low fidelity compared to reality [10] . For example, virtual environments have been used in studies of social anxiety and behavioural problems [11] , [12] , and individuals with paranoid tendencies have been shown to experience paranoid thoughts in the company of virtual characters [13] – [15] . These provide specific examples of ‘presence’ – the tendency of participants to respond to virtual events and situations as if they were real [9] , [16] – [18] . However, such previous studies involving virtual humans have been limited to situations where participants only react to rather than initiate significant interaction with them (for example, see the review in [19] ). In our study the human participants were required to carry out actions that would cause ‘pain’ to a virtual character. In this situation the behaviour of the participants had consequences for the condition of the virtual human that would be dangerous were it a real person.

The study of presence forms the wider background to our work and in this experiment we specifically wished to investigate whether participants would reach such a high level of presence that they would withdraw from the experiment, or exhibit signs of stress or behaviours that indicated that the virtual person was being treated as if real, in spite of their certain knowledge that no one real was protesting or being hurt by electric shocks. Another way to consider the situation is that the experiment established a dilemma for the participants: they had agreed to take part in it, and would be paid for their trouble, yet there was a virtual person (the Learner) who eventually strongly objected to its continuation. Of course, participants had been told in advance as part of the normal ethical procedures that they could withdraw at any time without giving reasons. However, the objections to continuation were not from anyone real, so why stop?

The aim of the study was therefore to investigate how people would respond to such a dilemma within a virtual environment, the broader aim being to assess whether such powerful social-psychological studies could be usefully carried out within virtual environments. From our previous experience with virtual environments that depict social settings we expected that participants would exhibit stress in response to the behaviour of the virtual Learner. A specific hypothesis was that the stress would be greater in a situation where the Learner could be seen and heard in comparison to one where she would only communicate with the participant through text.

The results suggest that the participants were stressed by the situation, and certainly more so when they interacted directly with a visible Learner rather than only through a text interface with a hidden Learner. This is demonstrated with an analysis of their subjective, behavioural and physiological responses. On the whole the results at least for some of the participants were stronger than we expected prior to the experiment. Our study was subject to full ethical scrutiny with no deception, informed consent, and ensured that any distress to participants was transitory.

Participants interacted with a female virtual character, referred to as the Learner, seen seated behind a transparent partition (Figure1a). Their task was to read out five words addressed to the Learner, the first of which was a cue word and the others one of four possible words associated with the cue word that the Learner was supposed to have memorised beforehand. There were 32 sets of these 5 words (including some repetitions). On 20 out of the 32 trials the Learner gave the wrong answer, the later trials more likely to result in a wrong answer than the earlier ones ( Table S1, Supporting Information ). On the desk in front of the participant was an ‘electric shock machine’ with a shock button, voltage indicators and a knob for turning up the voltage level ( Figure 1b ). The participant was instructed that each time the Learner gave an incorrect answer he or she should turn up the voltage by one unit and press the shock button which would give a shock to the Learner. Each shock was accompanied by an ‘electric’ buzz sound.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

a, The participant in the Cave is seated behind a desk that contains the electric shock machine.

The experimenter is seated to the participant's right.

The virtual character (Learner) appears to be on the other side of a partition and seen through a window.

The cue word and four possible associated words are displayed with the correct associated word shown in capitals.

After the participant reads out the five words the Learner answers with one of the four possible answers.

If the answer is incorrect the participant turns up a voltage dial on the shock machine b, and then presses a button to administer the shock.

For the HC condition the window area where the Learner is displayed is covered, and the Learner's answer appears in text underneath the cue word and possible answers.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000039.g001

This was a between-groups experiment with two conditions. In one condition (‘Visible’, n = 23) the Learner was seen and heard throughout and she responded to the shocks with increasing signs of discomfort, eventually protesting that she had ‘never agreed to this’ and wanted to stop. At the penultimate shock her head slumped forward and she made no further responses. In the second condition (‘Hidden’, n = 11) the Learner was not seen or heard apart from a few seconds of introductions at the start of the experiment, her answers were communicated only through text, and there were no protests. Both conditions were otherwise identical, and carried out in the same setting. Each experimental session was divided into three periods with the participants seated by the shock machine and wearing the virtual reality and physiological recording equipment. There was a baseline period of 5 minutes, the learning period of about 10 minutes, and a final relaxation period of 5 minutes followed by an interview (see Materials and Methods ).

Early Withdrawal

A clear behavioural difference between the two groups was the different levels of early withdrawal from the experiment. All participants in the Hidden Condition (HC) administered all 20 shocks. However, in the Visible Condition (VC) 17 gave all 20 shocks, 3 gave 19 shocks, and 18, 16 and 9 shocks were given by one person each. At the end of the final relaxation period they were asked: ‘Did it ever occur to you before the end of the experiment that you wanted to stop?’ requiring a yes/no answer. (If the participant had actually stopped before giving all shocks then the answer was recorded as ‘yes’). 12/23 in the VC and 1/11 in the HC answered ‘yes’, and all who wanted to stop said that this was because of their negative feelings about what was happening. For those 12 in the VC who wanted to stop before the end, 5 claimed to be well-acquainted with the original Milgram study, and therefore we cannot rule out the possibility that this influenced their behaviour. However, if we treat ‘wanting to stop’ as a binary response variable in order to test for differences between the proportions (using binary logistic regression) then the VC was significantly different from the HC (χ 2  = 6.691 on 1 d.f., P = 0.0097) whereas knowledge of Milgram did not have a significant impact (χ 2  = 1.525 on 1 d.f., P = 0.22) and there was no interaction effect between group and knowledge of Milgram.

Subjective self-assessment of physiological responses

The Autonomic Perceptions Questionnaire (APQ) is a 24-item visual-analogue scale that was used to assess self-awareness of various physiological indicators (e.g., ‘trembling or shaking’, ‘face becoming hot’, ‘perspiration’). High scores indicate greater subjective awareness of somatic state, and have been found to correlate positively with anxiety, heart rate, skin conductance responses, respiration, face temperature, and blood volume [20] . It was administered to participants in both groups before the experiment, reporting on how they were feeling ‘right now’ (Before-score), and then after the experiment reporting on ‘how you were feeling during the experience’ (After-score). For the VC the median Before-score was 7.6 (range 0.38 to 39.4) and the median After-score was 14.8 (range 0.00 to 52.7), showing increased perception of somatic responses during the study (medians significantly different using a Wilcoxon paired sign rank, P = 0.013). For the HC the Before-score median was 12.1 (range 4.9–29.2) and the After-score median was 17.4 (range of 5.7–31.0) (no significant difference, P = 0.28).

Skin Conductance Level

The first physiological response we consider is electrodermal activity (EDA) [21] , [22] of which two aspects are considered: Skin conductance level (SCL) and Skin Conductance Response (SCR). SCL reflects the overall level of sympathetic arousal whereas SCR reflect transient sympathetic arousal, either spontaneous or in response to events [23] , [24] . Each individual's raw SCL is used without smoothing or detrending, and was sampled at 32 Hz (see Materials and Methods ). We took into account the natural variation of SCL between individuals by subtracting the mean SCL for each participant obtained from the baseline period from their SCL waveform during the learning period. The mean of the SCL time series over all intervals of ±10 s around each shock was found over all participants in the VC and also over all in the HC (these are sometimes referred to as the ‘event-triggered averages’). These resulting mean SCL waveforms were significantly different to what would be expected by chance for both the VC ( Figure 2a ) and HC ( Figure S1, Supporting Information ), and also the mean SCL waveform was significantly higher for the VC than the HC ( Figure S2, Supporting Information ).

a, Event triggered average of 20 s segments of skin conductance waveform, the events being the times when the button that gave an electric shock to the virtual character was pressed.

The grand mean was calculated over each shock and each person and the result for the VC is shown here (n = 439*).

Each waveform was adjusted by subtracting the corresponding individual's mean SCL during the baseline period.

For each participant a number of pseudo random shock times distributed over the learning period, equal to the actual number for that person, were generated – also with the adjustment for the individual's mean baseline SCL.

An average curve was formed like this 500 times, and these are shown as the many overlapping thinner curves.

A histogram of the values of these pseudo random curves at the 0 time point is shown inset.

b, shows the event triggered means of skin conductance waveforms for the VC (black line) and the HC (grey line), but where each segment is translated to start at zero, so that both mean curves start at the same point for comparison purposes.

The additional curves shown are 95% normal (non-simultaneous) confidence intervals.

* The time of one administered shock was lost.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000039.g002

If we entirely eliminate any possible differences between the VC and HC groups by translating each 20 s segment to start at height 0, then although each group has a similarly shaped waveform, there is a highly significant difference between them over regions of the curve, as shown by the 95% confidence intervals ( Figure 2b ). For example, if we consider time zero and use the non-parametric rank sum test to test the hypothesis that the two samples of SCL values at this point (when the shock is administered) could have come from the same population, the hypothesis is rejected (P = 10.1×10 −4 ). This also eliminates the possibility that the results are solely due to movement artefacts – since both groups carried out the same physical movements in order to press the shock button. The difference between the two conditions is therefore most likely due to the visible presence of the Learner. The peak in the curves after the shock point is probably due to the sound of the shock.

For the earlier shocks where the Learner displays little distress in the VC we would expect the VC and HC responses to be similar. However, as the shocks continue we would expect to see some evidence of a differential response between these two groups. At the time that each shock is given (time 0 in Figure 2a ) we have the individual SCL value for each participant in the VC and the HC. A Wilcoxon rank sum test can be used to test the null hypothesis, for each shock, that the two sets of values could have come from the same population. Figure 3 represents the significance levels for this null hypothesis, revealing that for the earlier shocks the null hypothesis is not rejected, but that it would be rejected for later shocks in favour of the alternative hypothesis that the SCL for the VC is generally higher than those for the HC.

Skin Conductance Responses

We restrict attention to SCRs in an 8 s neighbourhood of the shocks (−6 s to +2 s) and let N i be the number of such SCRs observed for the i th participant, and A i be the mean of the corresponding SCR amplitudes ( i  = 1,…,23 for the VC and i  = 24,…,33 for the HC). The period (−6 s to +2 s) was chosen on the basis of Figure 2 , as likely to include the time just after the Learner gave an answer up to the time of administration of the shock (but not including the response to the sound of the shock itself). To validly test for significant differences between VC and HC we need to control for confounding variables, in particular the spontaneous SCR rate of individuals as available from the baseline recordings, and other factors such as their psychological profile. These variables were included in a standard log-linear Poisson regression which showed that N is significantly higher for VC than for HC (P = 0.0123) and that the same is the case for A (P = 0.025). Full details of the regression are provided in Supporting Information Tables S2 and S3.

Heart Rate and Heart Rate Variability

Electrodermal activity indicates that there is greater overall arousal in the VC participants than in the HC (SCL) and greater specific orienting responses around the time of the shocks (SCR). However, to obtain some idea of the associated valence we turn to heart rate and heart rate variability. The mean heart rates (beats per minute) were analysed for the VC and HC over (i) the first 256 s in the baseline, (ii) the first 256 s of the learning session, and (iii) the last 256 s of the learning session. For the VC these were: (i) 70.2±12.4 bpm, (ii) 74.4±14.2 bpm and (iii) 78.0±14.6 bpm. Using a paired non-parametric sign test the difference between (i) and (ii) is significant with P<0.01 and between (ii) and (iii) with P<0.05. For the HC the equivalent values are: (i) 77.7±12.7 bpm, (ii) 82.0±15.0 bpm and (iii) 78.7±11.4. In this case the difference between (i) and (ii) is significant with P<0.01 but the difference between (ii) and (iii) is not significant at 5%. Hence, heart rates increase significantly from the baseline to the start of the learning session for both groups, but only for the VC does the heart rate show a significant increase by the end of the learning session. We also analysed the event-related heart rate (HR) and heart rate variability (HRV) around the time of the shocks. Overall for the VC the mean HR increases and HRV decreases significantly, which is an indicator of stress [25] . There are no significant changes for the HC. (The values for each individual together with further information can be found in Supporting Tables S4 to S7). HR and HRV can be influenced by many factors such as respiration, movement, stress and so on. However, the two conditions required exactly the same physical tasks so that these differences cannot be due, for example, to the movements of the participants in pressing the shock button, nor to the sounds of the shocks, but must be caused by the protesting behaviour of the Learner in the VC.

Waiting Time After No Answer

Our simulation of a version of Milgram's experiment shows that in spite of their knowledge that the situation was artificial, participants were aroused (skin conductance analysis), this was associated with stress (ECG analysis), and the intensity was greater for those who saw and heard the virtual character during the learning period compared with those who did not. Nevertheless, the same types of response might be generated by someone watching a distressing or violent film – so what was special about this depiction within virtual reality? The answer can be found in the behaviours that many participants directed back towards the virtual Learner. Participants in the VC made unscripted comments to her and two even emphasised the correct answers while reading out the words, as they later admitted, in an attempt to help her. Such behaviour was not observed in the HC participants. This type of evidence, though convincing for the experimenters who witnessed it, is nevertheless anecdotal. However, there was behaviour that is easily quantifiable and that illustrates the extent of engagement by many of the participants in the VC.

As part of the briefing before the experiment started, participants were given an information sheet that said that if the Learner replies with any answer other than the correct one, “ or if she does not answer in a short time, you will say ‘Incorrect’” (italics in the original sheet given to participants). “You will then administer a shock to her using the machine in front of you. You then call out the correct answer.” The Learner gave no answer to the 11 th question in both VC and HC. In the VC condition she shouted “Stop the experiment!” just after the question (see Supporting Information, Movie S2 ). In order to remind the participants of the rule and emphasise it once again, the experimenter said at that moment (to participants in both groups): “If she doesn't answer remember that it is incorrect,” and in the VC case the Learner then responded angrily “Don't listen to him, I don't want to continue!” After this the participants invariably and immediately said “Incorrect” and administered the (6 th ) shock.

Similarly the Learner did not respond to the 28 th and 29 th questions (in both conditions) – unknown to the participants these were the final two questions. In response to the 28 th question the Learner simply ‘stared’ at the participant saying nothing (VC). After the shock she seemed to fall unconscious and made no further responses, and then 3 of the VC participants withdrew failing to give the next shock ( Supporting Information, Movie S3 ).

We recorded the times between the completion of the participants reading out the five words and the moment that they said “Incorrect” signifying that they would now give the shock. Those in the VC waited very much longer before giving the shock than those in the HC, especially at the 28 th question – as shown in Figure 4 . Moreover, 8 of the VC participants repeated the question (i.e., read out the five words again) at least once after receiving no answer to question 28, and 6 repeated the question after no response to question 29. None of those in the HC repeated the question. From the point of view of the reality of the situation there was no rational need for the participants in the VC to wait so much longer than those in the HC, let alone repeat the question. Why did participants wait and repeat the question? This must be because this was not experienced as like watching a movie. Although individuals watching a horror movie may sometimes scream, or when watching a sports game on television may shout at the players, they do not expect that their actions can have any effect on the outcome of the movie or the game. Here, however, the situation was quite different. The actions of the participants actually mattered, and they behaved accordingly – they needed to wait, or withdraw altogether, in order to stave off or avoid the act of administering the shock and the unpleasant consequences that would follow from this.

For each shock the SCL (adjusted by subtracting the mean baseline value) at the time that the shock is administered is found for each of the n = 23 in the VC and n = 11 in the HC.

A rank sum test is used to test the hypothesis that these are drawn from the same population.

The vertical axis shows the significance level for rejection of the null hypothesis.

By examination of the medians of the samples in each case it is clear that for the later shocks the null hypothesis would be rejected in favour of the alternative that the SCL is higher for the VC.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000039.g003

The vertical axis is the time between the participant finishing reading out the 5 words forming the question and saying “Incorrect” after the Learner did not respond, at questions 28 and 29 (the last two).

The horizontal axis labels refer to the question number and the condition VC or HC.

The plots are standard box plots, where the box shows the median and interquartile range, and the whiskers extend to 1.5 times the interquartile range.

Values outside the whiskers are outliers, the single outlier shown as a cross.

At the 28 th question the time difference ranged from 8 s to 78 s with a median of 23 s for the VC (n = 19) and from 4 s to 13 s with a median of 7 s for those in the HC (n = 11).

The Wilcoxon rank sum test rejects the hypothesis that the two samples are from the same population with P = 4.4×10 −4 .

At the time of the 29 th (and last) question the equivalent results are: 5–43 s with a median of 13 s for the VC (n = 16), and 5–14 s with a median of 8 s for the HC (n = 11).

Here the difference is significant with P = 0.0175.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000039.g004

General Participant Behaviour

The participants in the VC often behaved in a way that only made sense if they were responding to the virtual character as if she were real. For example, when she asked participants to speak louder, they invariably did so. The voices of some participants showed increasing frustration at her wrong answers. At times when the Learner vigorously objected, many turned to the experimenter sitting nearby and asked what they should do. The experimenter would say: ‘Although you can stop whenever you want, it is best for the experiment that you continue, but you can stop whenever you want.’ As we have seen some did stop before the end. Some giggled at the Learner's protests, as was observed by Milgram in the original experiments. When the Learner failed to answer at the 28 th and 29 th questions, one participant repeatedly called out to her ‘Hello? Hello? …’ in a concerned manner, then turned to the experimenter, and seemingly worried said: ‘She's not answering …’ In the debriefing interviews many said that they were surprised by their own responses, and all said that it had produced negative feelings – for some this was a direct feeling, in others it was mediated through a ‘what if it were real?’ feeling. Others said that they continually had to reassure themselves that nothing was really happening, and it was only on that basis that they could continue giving the shocks.

The main conclusion of our study is that humans tend to respond realistically at subjective, physiological, and behavioural levels in interaction with virtual characters notwithstanding their cognitive certainty that they are not real. The specific conclusion of this study is that within the context of the particular experimental conditions described participants became stressed as a result of giving ‘electric shocks’ to the virtual Learner. It could even be said that many showed care for the well-being of the virtual Learner – demonstrated, for example, by their delay in administering the shocks after her failure to answer towards the end of the experiment. To some extent based on previous evidence this was to be expected. In fact, it has even been taken for granted that virtual humans can substitute for real humans when studying the responses of people to a social situation. For example, this was the strategy used in the fMRI study described in [19] , where participants passively observed virtual characters gazing at the participants themselves or at other virtual characters. However, no previous experiments have studied what might happen when participants have to actively engage in behaviours that would have consequences for the virtual humans. The evidence of our experiments suggests that presence is maintained and that people do tend to respond to the situation as if it were real. We review the evidence for this in subsequent paragraphs.

First, several participants withdrew from the experiment before termination. We have been conducting experimental studies with virtual environments since the early 1990s, with altogether hundreds of participants. Ethical rules require us to inform the participants that they may withdraw from the experiment at any time without giving reasons. Nevertheless, withdrawal is extremely rare, and has only previously occurred due to simulator sickness with no more than about 5 participants out of all the hundreds. Second, there were physiological responses that indicated stress (the SCL, SCR and ECG analysis). There were differential responses within groups (comparing the baseline to the learning session) and between groups (comparing those in the VC with those in the HC). Third, subjectively reported physiological symptoms also differed between groups. Finally, there were clear behavioural differences between the HC and the VC regarding responses to a failure of the Learner to reply to the questions. All these factors, together with the non-quantifiable participant behaviour observed by the experimenters, show a pattern of responses similar to those found in the original Milgram studies, although at lesser intensity.

In the original studies by Milgram it was found that the smaller the ‘distance’ between the Learner and the Teacher the more likely that the Teacher would refuse to give the higher level of shocks. For example, at one extreme the Learner was hidden as in the case of our HC, although unlike in our condition he protested by banging on the wall. At another extreme the subjects had to force the Learner's hand onto the shock machine in order to administer the shock. A similar result regarding ‘distance’ was found here, comparing the responses of the HC with the VC. However, it must also be said that the objections of the virtual Learner were much less extreme and violent than those of Milgram's actor. The virtual Learner complained and even screamed, but there was none of the banging and shouting and protestations of a heart condition expressed by the original actor. One of our participants, for example, reported that although he was affected by the protestations of the virtual Learner, he wasn't too upset, because she didn't protest enough, did not for example scream at and insult him nor writhe in agony in the chair.

Our study leaves open many avenues of further research. We carried out this experiment using two conditions that are far apart. However, we do not know what would have happened if the virtual Learner in the HC had issued protests through text. Neither do we know whether simply the voice of the virtual Learner would have been sufficient to provoke the responses, nor what would have happened if the protests of the Learner had been extremely violent. During our pilot studies we did try a condition with three participants where the Learner was seen but did not show any signs of discomfort and did not protest. One of those participants claimed to see signs of discomfort in the behaviour of the Learner (even though none had been programmed), and said that he felt uncomfortable continuing with the experiment. It is possible that very minimal cues are sufficient to provoke the stress responses in some people.

This issue of minimal cues is important in another sense. Our virtual Learner could never be confused with a real human. Her visual representation was not realistic, and her behaviours were as realistic as could be programmed with the resources available to us (see, for example, Movie S1 ). Nevertheless, there were evidently strong responses to her. How is this possible? It has been pointed out before that the phenomenon of presence in virtual environments is an important a research question in its own right, closely related to the question of consciousness [9] . People tend to respond to virtual environments as if the objects and events depicted are real, in spite of low fidelity representations and certain knowledge that the events taking place are within a virtual reality. However, the perceptual and neural mechanisms that underlie this are largely unexplored.

The line of research opened up by Milgram stopped forty years ago due to ethical concerns, despite the tremendous importance of this work in the understanding of human behaviour. It has been argued before that immersive virtual environments can provide a useful tool for social psychology [26] . Our results reinforce this argument and show that virtual environments can provide an alternative methodology for pursuing laboratory-based experimental research even in this type of extreme social situation. For example, in future experiments within the Milgram obedience paradigm we plan to make the experimenter a virtual character, thus allowing manipulations of the type of person that the experimenter represents (for example, personality type, clothing, and so on) and also supporting a greater degree of conflict between the demands of the experimenter and the protests of the Learner than is possible when the experimenter is a real person.

The argument regarding the utility of virtual environments applies not simply to obedience research but to all social and psychological research where, for ethical or safety reasons, it is not possible to immerse experimental participants into the actual phenomena to be studied. For example, one of the motivations for our Milgram study was a longer term goal to explore ‘bystander behaviour’ in street violence. There is a well-known result in social psychology that counter-intuitively predicts, amongst other things, that the greater the size of a crowd that is watching street violence, the less likely it is that anyone will attempt to intervene to stop it. This is a vital area of current social-psychological research given the current level of perceived crime in urban areas – yet in order to study this researchers are forced at best to use videos that require people to judge likely responses to such situations [27] , and the same techniques have been used in the Milgram obedience paradigm [28] . Milgram's own results clearly show that taking people's opinions about their own or others' behaviours in such circumstances at face value is far from reliable. We suggest that immersive virtual environments provide an alternative way forward in this area of research.

Speculations on Obedience in Virtual Reality

Although as stated in the opening paragraphs we did not set out to study obedience in this experiment, it is nevertheless interesting to speculate to what extent the results throw light on this issue. The first point to note is that the problem of major deception that arose in the original experiments by Milgram was avoided here – since every participant knew for sure that the Learner was a virtual character, and therefore no one could believe that they were inflicting pain on anyone else. We refer to this as the explicit knowledge of the participants that they were not harming anyone [29] .

Consider the actual experience of the participants, however. They arrived at the laboratory and were asked to complete various questionnaires. The experimenters were very serious, one introduced as a Professor. The instructions were given to them in written form and again read out loud by the experimenter. For example, they were told: “Thank you for taking part in this experiment. As part of our research program a virtual character has learned a set of word-pair associations. The learning is sometimes not exact, but we are testing a reinforcement learning procedure, to see if the infliction of discomfort motivates her, the virtual character, to remember the word-pair associations better.” The Learner had a quite realistic face, with eye movements and facial expressions; she visibly breathed, spoke, and appeared to respond with pain to the ‘electric shocks’. Not only that but she seemed to be aware of the presence of the participant by gazing at him or her, and also of the experimenter - even answering him back at one point (“I don't want to continue – don't listen to him!”). Finally, of course, the electric shocks and resulting expressions of discomfort were clearly caused by the actions of the participants.

The participants were therefore put into a situation where everything conspired to give the impression that this was a serious matter. In keeping with this, not a single participant queried the statement about the ‘infliction of discomfort’ motivating the virtual character to ‘remember the word-pair associations better’ even though this is not rational.

Therefore we would argue that in spite of their explicit knowledge that they were not actually causing pain to any real person, the situation established for the participants an implicit knowledge that their actions were causing distress to an animated entity (and one that resembled a human being). For most participants this caused increasing discomfort as witnessed by their physiological responses and later comments during the post-experimental interviews, and this discomfort was higher for those who saw and heard the Learner (VC) compared with those who only interacted with her through text (HC).

The majority of all participants followed the experimental instructions to the end, though a number of those in the VC withdrew without completing all the shocks. Can this compliance be construed as ‘obedience’? It could be argued that rather than obedience this was a matter of participants being willing to put up with their own discomfort for the sake of honouring their agreement to be a participant in the experiment. Similar arguments have been made in relation to the original experiments by Milgram – for example, that his subjects were not necessarily being obedient, but were deferring to the expert scientific authority; in other words, since the behaviour of the experimenter indicated that nothing out of the ordinary was happening, this signalled to the subjects that everything must be going according to plan [30] .

We argue that whether participants complied because of ‘obedience to authority’ or politeness, or respect for expertise does not really matter. The fact is that they continued to carry out a task that they found to be unpleasant, when there was no reason for them to do so. Unlike the situation in, for example, the military, there were no real negative consequences that would follow from withdrawal – indeed participants had been advised that they were free to withdraw at any time without giving reasons. Hence, our experiment shows that it is possible to set up a situation in virtual reality where people will comply with requests to follow instructions that appear to cause pain to another entity thus causing discomfort to themselves. Explicitly they know that there is no pain, but it may be that the totality of their perceptions in that situation results in an implicit knowledge that indeed their actions are causing another entity to suffer. This idea fits with the evidence that participants in the VC tended to wait a relatively long time before giving the shocks after the Learner had stopped responding. From the point of view of their explicit knowledge waiting made no sense, but it did make sense at the implicit level.

Although this particular experiment did not address Milgram's hypothesis about destructive obedience, in particular there were many variations on the basic experiment that Milgram carried out that were not addressed here, our conclusion is that virtual reality could be successfully used for this purpose. However, it is important to bear in mind the limitations inherent in the distinction between the explicit knowledge that the situation is fake, and the implicit knowledge that is embedded in the virtual reality portrayal. As one of our participants noted – she had to keep reminding herself that this was a virtual reality and that no one real was being hurt. The actual conditions of Milgram's experiments can, of course, never be exactly replicated in virtual reality since the participants will always know that the situation is unreal - and if eventually virtual reality became so indistinguishable from reality that the participants could not readily discriminate between the two, then the ethics issue would arise again.

Materials and Methods

Recruitment.

Participants were recruited by posters and email on the campus at University College London to all levels of staff and students, with finally 23 in the VC and 11 in the HC. The experiment was approved by the UCL Research Ethics Committee. The mean age was 29±8 years with no significant difference between the HC and VC groups. 7 in the VC were females, and 3 in the HC.

Full data had been collected on 26 participants assigned to the VC and 12 participants assigned to the HC, and the assignment to the conditions was arbitrary. From the VC one participant was eliminated because of strong knowledge of the original Milgram experiment, and who also admitted that she had already decided to exit early from the experiment based on her knowledge of the original experiment before she had experienced anything. A second participant was eliminated from the results due to over-reporting his age, and a third was eliminated who had stopped after only 5 shocks. From the HC one participant was eliminated because of a failure to understand the requirements of the experiment.

Display and Sensing

The participants wore 3D stereo glasses (Crystal Eyes, Stereographics) which are shutter glasses in synch with the screen displays that are refreshed at 45 Hz each eye. The fusion of left and right images creates a stereo view. The participants also wore a head-tracker (Intersense 900), that tracks the position and orientation of the head so that the computer refreshes the displays according to head orientation and position, thus allowing the creation of head-movement parallax.

The participants were fitted with a ProComp Infiniti (Thought Technology) physiological recording device that recorded the ECG (256 Hz) and skin conductance (32 Hz). Electrodes were placed on the palmar areas of the index and middle fingers of the left hand in order to record electrodermal activity. Electrodes were placed on the left and right collar bones and the lowest left rib in order to record ECG. The experiment was conducted over several days during July and August 2005 in the Virtual Reality Laboratory at University College London. The temperature of the VR Laboratory is maintained at a constant level by air conditioning.

The virtual environment displayed in the ReaCTor (Cave) was referred to as the ‘training room’ ( Figure 1 ). The time spent in the ReaCTor was divided into a number of segments. For the first 5 minutes (baseline) participants were asked to relax, while the system displayed the training room, but with the virtual partition shut so that the Learner could not be seen. Then the experimenter sat down on the chair to the right and slightly behind the participant, the partition opened and the virtual Learner could be seen seated. She was represented as a Caucasian woman aged about 30. The experimenter said “Are you ready to start?” and the Learner replied “I'm ready to start”, and usually the participant responded likewise. In the case of the HC the partition through which the Learner was seen then closed, and from that point onwards the Learner communicated answers only through text displayed on the projection screen. In the case of the VC the Learner remained visible and her voice could be heard throughout. Her answers were pre-recorded from an actor. The question and answer session (learning period) lasted approximately 10 minutes. In response to the participant reading out the 5 words in the VC, the Learner would sometimes answer immediately, and sometimes pause and look around as if thinking before answering. Sometimes the Learner would protest and on three occasions not answer the question. At the end of this learning session the partition was closed again, and there was a final relaxation period of 5 minutes. During the baseline and final relaxation period the experimenter left the Cave area. After the final relaxation period he returned to sit by the participant and carried out a debriefing interview while he or she was still wearing the virtual reality equipment. Finally, the virtual curtain opened again, and the virtual Learner was seen to be live and well, and said “Nothing happened, I'm fine.” The participant finally left the laboratory area, and was further debriefed and told the purpose of the experiment, given information about the original Milgram studies, and checked for any ill-effects.

Skin Conductance Level Waveforms

In order to test the significance of the wave form in Figure 2a we generated 500 similar curves but with shock times that were for each individual (pseudo) uniformly randomly distributed over the learning period. The simulations in Figure 2a suggest that the mean SCL in a randomly chosen 20 s interval has a slight positive linear slope, whereas when the mean is around the true shock times there is the shape like a skin conductance response. The accompanying histogram shows the distribution of all 500 values of the simulated curve at time = 0. According to a two-tailed Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, the null hypothesis that this is a normal distribution (mean 2.9, standard deviation 0.06) is not rejected (P = 0.46). The actual value on the true curve at time 0 is 3.2 (z = 4.52, P = 3.1×10 −6 ), therefore we would reject the hypothesis, at least at time 0, that the true curve could belong to the distribution of random curves. It is a similar situation throughout the length of the curves, and a similar result for the HC ( Supporting Information, Figure S1 ).

Skin conductance responses (SCR) were defined to be local maxima that had an amplitude of at least 0.1 µS and in a period not exceeding 5 s in the individual skin conductance time series. The amplitude refers to the maximum level reached compared to the start of the SCR. Of interest are both the number and amplitude of SCRs, and we also refer to the SCR rate as the number of SCRs per 10 s. There is no significant difference in the SCR rates between those in the VC and HC (Wilcoxon rank sum test, P = 0.26) in the baseline period. The SCR rate is significantly higher for the learning period compared to baseline for both the VC (P = 2.7e −5 ) and HC (P = 0.002) (using Wilcoxon paired sign rank test). This pattern of results is identical for mean amplitude.

SCRs in the Neighbourhood of the Shocks

To test for differences between the VC and HC we need to control for confounding factors, in particular the spontaneous SCR rate of individuals as available from the baseline, and other factors that may influence their responses such as personality traits, and also their knowledge of computing and extent to which they play video games. N i denotes the number of SCRs for participant i in the periods of −6 s to +2 s around the times that the shocks were administered. For the VC i  = 1,…,23, and for the HC i  = 24,…,34. Under the null hypothesis that these SCR events should be randomly distributed in these time periods, the probability distribution for N i should follow a Poisson distribution with mean appropriate for the i th individual. We carried out a standard Poisson log-linear regression (an instance of generalised linear models) [31] of N i on Condition (0 for VC, 1 for HC), and the baseline SCR rate, and the number of shocks administered. Personality traits were assessed using the NEO-FFI [32] , an extensively used 60-item standardised questionnaire measuring the ‘big five’ personality factors: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. We also included the extent to which participants play computer games, and their knowledge of computer programming. (Data on other variables such as age were also available, but were not significant in the regression). The results are given in Supporting Information Table S2 . A similar analysis using standard normal regression was carried out for mean amplitude A i , with results in Supporting Information Table S3 .

Skin Conductance Level Baseline

In order to compare the VC and HC groups we needed to check that the tonal skin conductance levels were not different between the two groups in the baseline period. In order to do this we took the mid-point of this baseline period, and compared the tonal SCL values between the two groups. For the VC the median level at this time was 1.81 µS with range 0.53 to 7.39 µS (n = 23). For the HC the corresponding values are 1.21 µS and 0.52 to 3.73 µS (n = 11). Using a non-parametric Wilcoxon rank sum test, we do not reject the hypothesis that the two samples are from the same population (P = 0.24) (a two-tailed t-test similarly does not reject the hypothesis of equal means, P = 0.16).

Supporting Information

Supporting information combined..

All supporting figures and tables, and movie descriptions.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000039.s001

(0.27 MB DOC)

Skin conductance waveform average around the shock times for the Hidden Condition. Event triggered average of 20 s segments of skin conductance waveform, the events being the times when buttons that gave an electric shock to the virtual character were pressed. The mean was calculated over each shock and each person in the HC (n = 220). Each waveform was first adjusted by subtracting the corresponding individual's mean SCL during the baseline period. For each participant a number of pseudo random shock times equal to the actual number for that person were generated. An average curve was formed like this 500 times, and these are shown as the many overlapping thinner curves.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000039.s002

(0.04 MB DOC)

Comparison of skin conductance waveform averages for the VC (continuous curves) and HC (dashed curves). The mean waveforms are constructed as in Fig. 2 and Figure S1 . All individuals have had their mean baseline SCL subtracted as before. 95% Normal (non-simultaneous) confidence intervals are shown. If we take any point in time then the individual values that went into making up the means at that point can be used to directly test the null hypothesis that the two samples could have come from the same population. For example, at time 0 (when the shock was given) the Wilcoxon rank sum test would reject the null hypothesis with P = 2.3×10 −20 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000039.s003

(0.03 MB DOC)

Virtual Learner Responses and Shocks

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000039.s004

(0.07 MB DOC)

Log-Linear Regression of Number of SCRs Around the Shocks on a Number of Independent and Explanatory Variables

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000039.s005

Normal Regression of Mean Amplitude of SCRs Around the Shocks on a Number of Independent and Explanatory Variables

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000039.s006

(0.02 MB DOC)

Event Related Heart-rate in bpm for (a) VC and (b) HC in intervals Prior-shock and Reaction. N  = 15 RR intervals were used for each segment

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000039.s007

(0.06 MB DOC)

Event Related Heart-Rate Variability from N  = 8 beats for (a) VC and (b) HC in intervals Prior-shock and Reaction

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000039.s008

Significance levels (P) for sign tests for differences between event related heart rates before and after the shocks for a range of RR Intervals N

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000039.s009

(0.05 MB DOC)

Significance levels (P) for sign tests for differences between event related heart rate variability before and after the shocks over a range of different numbers of beats, N

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000039.s010

The video sequences show extracts from the experiment in the Visible Condition. Due to ethical constraints we are unable to supply the original video material of the participants in the actual experiments. These therefore show one of the authors in his first exposure to the experiment. They are for illustrative purposes only. Movie S1 shows the events leading up to the 9th shock, and also shows how the shock is administered with the machine.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000039.s011

(4.43 MB MPG)

This shows the events leading up to the 6th shock, the one where the Learner refuses to answer for the first time.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000039.s012

(4.77 MB MPG)

This includes events leading to the final two questions.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000039.s013

(10.26 MB MPG)

This includes the events at the final two questions.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0000039.s014

(8.62 MB MPG)

Acknowledgments

We thank Denis Timm for constructing the electric shock machine, Sailesh Varsani for help in administration of the experiments, Andreas Brogni for help in preparation of the physiological data, and Zuzanna Wojciechowska for supplying the voice recordings that were used for the Learner. We would like to thank Hugo Critchley, Susana Martinez-Conde, Stephen Macknik, Mark Levine and Peter Fonagy for commenting on an earlier draft of the paper. We thank the referees for their helpful and thought-provoking comments.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: MS. Performed the experiments: MS AA. Analyzed the data: MS CG. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: MS-V CG CB. Wrote the paper: MS MS-V. Other: Helped in the design of the experiment: MS-V NP CB. Provided system support, critical comments, and prepared multi-media materials for the paper: DS. Programmed the virtual environment: AD AA.

• View Article
• Google Scholar
• 2. Milgram S (1974) Obedience to Authority:. McGraw-Hill.
• 8. Cruz-Neira C, Sandin DJ, DeFanti TA (1993) Surround-screen projection-based virtual reality: the design and implementation of the CAVE. pp. 135–142. Proceedings of the 20th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques: ACM Press.
• 21. Boucsein W (1992) Electrodermal Activity. New York: Plenum Press.
• 31. McCullagh P, Nelder JA (1989) Generalized linear models. London; New York: Chapman and Hall.
• 32. Costa PT Jr, McCrae RR (1992) Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

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

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.

• Utility Menu

Department of Psychology

• https://twitter.com/PsychHarvard
• https://www.facebook.com/HarvardPsychology/
• https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFBv7eBJIQWCrdxPRhYft9Q
• Participate

Stanley Milgram

In 1954 Harvard’s Department of Social Relations took the unusual step of admitting a bright young student who had not taken a single psychology course.  Fortunately Stanley Milgram was soon up to speed in social psychology, and in the course of his doctoral work at Harvard he conducted an innovative cross-cultural comparison of conformity in Norway and France under the guidance of Gordon Allport. 

Obtaining his Ph.D. in 1960, Milgram was ready to expand his work on conformity with a series of experiments on obedience to authority that he conducted as an assistant professor at Yale from 1960 to 1963. Inspired by Hannah Arendt’s report on the trial of Adolph Eichmann in Jerusalem, Milgram wondered whether her claims about “the banality of evil” – that evil acts can come from ordinary people following orders as they do their jobs – could be demonstrated in the lab. Milgram staged meticulously designed sham experiments in which subjects were ordered to administer dangerous shocks to fellow volunteers (in reality, the other volunteers were confederates and the shocks were fake). Contradicting the predictions of every expert he polled , Milgram found that more than seventy percent of the subjects administered what they thought might be fatal shocks to an innocent stranger. Collectively known as The Milgram Experiment, this groundbreaking work demonstrated the human tendency to obey commands issued by an authority figure, and more generally, the tendency for behavior to be controlled more by the demands of the situation than by idiosyncratic traits of the person.

The Milgram Experiment is one of the best-known social psychology studies of the 20th century. With this remarkable accomplishment under his belt, young Dr. Milgram returned to Harvard in 1963 to take a position as Assistant Professor of Social Psychology.

During this time at Harvard, Milgram undertook a new, equally innovative line of research, known as the Small World Experiment.  Milgram asked a sample of people to trace out a chain of personal connections to a designated stranger living thousands of miles away. His finding that most people could do this successfully with a chain of six or fewer links yielded the familiar expression “Six Degrees of Separation,” which later became the name of a play and a movie,  a source for the game “Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon,” and a major theme of Malcolm Gladwell’s 2000 bestseller,  The Tipping Point . The internet has made it easier to study social networks, and several decades after its discovery, the phenomenon has become a subject of intense new research.

Stanley Milgram left Harvard in 1967 to return to his hometown, New York City, accepting a position as head of the social psychology program at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York.  Tragically, he died of a heart attack at the age of 51. Milgram is listed as number 46 on the American Psychological Association’s list of the 100 most eminent psychologists of the 20th century.

Blass, T. (2002).  The man who shocked the world.  Psychology Today, Mar/Apr2002, 35(2), p. 68.

Eminent psychologists of the 20th century.  (July/August, 2002). Monitor on Psychology, 33(7), p.29.

Milgram, S. (1977).  The individual in a social world.  Reading, MA:  Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.

Role/Affiliation

Filter: role.

• Faculty (26)
• Affiliated Faculty (5)
• Non-Ladder Faculty (19)
• Visiting Scholars (4)
• Fellows and Associates (71)
• Graduate Students (82)
• Historical Faculty (24)
• Postdocs and Research Associates (60)
• Professors Emeriti (4)

Filter: Research Program

• Clinical Science (6)
• Cognition, Brain, & Behavior (17)
• Developmental Psychology (7)
• Social Psychology (12)

Filter by alphabetical grouping of Last Name

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 18 February 2016

Modern Milgram experiment sheds light on power of authority

• Alison Abbott  

Nature volume  530 ,  pages 394–395 ( 2016 ) Cite this article

11k Accesses

2 Citations

418 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Neuroscience

People obeying commands feel less responsibility for their actions.

More than 50 years after a controversial psychologist shocked the world with studies that revealed people’s willingness to harm others on order, a team of cognitive scientists has carried out an updated version of the iconic ‘Milgram experiments’.

Their findings may offer some explanation for Stanley Milgram's uncomfortable revelations: when following commands, they say, people genuinely feel less responsibility for their actions — whether they are told to do something evil or benign.

“If others can replicate this, then it is giving us a big message,” says neuroethicist Walter Sinnot-Armstrong of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, who was not involved in the work. “It may be the beginning of an insight into why people can harm others if coerced: they don’t see it as their own action.”

The study may feed into a long-running legal debate about the balance of personal responsibility between someone acting under instruction and their instructor, says Patrick Haggard, a cognitive neuroscientist at University College London, who led the work, published on 18 February in Current Biology 1 .

Milgram’s original experiments were motivated by the trial of Nazi Adolf Eichmann, who famously argued that he was ‘just following orders’ when he sent Jews to their deaths. The new findings don’t legitimize harmful actions, Haggard emphasizes, but they do suggest that the ‘only obeying orders’ excuse betrays a deeper truth about how a person feels when acting under command.

Ordered to shock

In a series of experiments at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, in the 1960s, Milgram told his participants that a man was being trained to learn word pairs in a neighbouring room. The participants had to press a button to deliver an electric shock of escalating strength to the learner when he made an error; when they did so, they heard his cries of pain. In reality, the learner was an actor, and no shock was ever delivered. Milgram’s aim was to see how far people would go when they were ordered to step up the voltage.

Routinely, an alarming two-thirds of participants continued to step up shocks, even after the learner was apparently rendered unconscious. But Milgram did not assess his participants’ subjective feelings as they were coerced into doing something unpleasant. And his experiments have been criticized for the deception that they involved — not just because participants may have been traumatized, but also because some may have guessed that the pain wasn’t real.

Modern teams have conducted partial and less ethically complicated replications of Milgram’s work. But Haggard and his colleagues wanted to find out what participants were feeling. They designed a study in which volunteers knowingly inflicted real pain on each other, and were completely aware of the experiment’s aims.

Because Milgram’s experiments were so controversial, Haggard says that he took “quite a deep breath before deciding to do the study”. But he says that the question of who bears personal responsibility is so important to the rule of law that he thought it was “worth trying to do some good experiments to get to the heart of the matter.”

Sense of agency

In his experiments, the volunteers (all were female, as were the experimenters, to avoid gender effects) were given £20 (US$29). In pairs, they sat facing each other across a table, with a keyboard between them. A participant designated the ‘agent’ could press one of two keys; one did nothing. But for some pairs, the other key would transfer 5p to the agent from the other participant, designated the ‘victim’; for others, the key would also deliver a painful but bearable electric shock to the victim’s arm. (Because people have different tolerances to pain, the level of the electric shock was determined for each individual before the experiment began.) In one experiment, an experimenter stood next to the agent and told her which key to press. In another, the experimenter looked away and gave the agent a free choice about which key to press.

To examine the participants’ ‘sense of agency’ — the unconscious feeling that they were in control of their own actions — Haggard and his colleagues designed the experiment so that pressing either key caused a tone to sound after a few hundred milliseconds, and both volunteers were asked to judge the length of this interval. Psychologists have established that people perceive the interval between an action and its outcome as shorter when they carry out an intentional action of their own free will, such as moving their arm, than when the action is passive, such as having their arm moved by someone else.

When they were ordered to press a key, the participants seemed to judge their action as more passive than when they had free choice — they perceived the time to the tone as longer.

In a separate experiment, volunteers followed similar protocols while electrodes on their heads recorded their neural activity through EEG (electroencephalography). When ordered to press a key, their EEG recordings were quieter — suggesting, says Haggard, that their brains were not processing the outcome of their action. Some participants later reported feeling reduced responsibility for their action.

Unexpectedly, giving the order to press the key was enough to cause the effects, even when the keystroke led to no physical or financial harm. “It seems like your sense of responsibility is reduced whenever someone orders you to do something — whatever it is they are telling you to do,” says Haggard.

The study might inform legal debate, but it also has wider relevance to other domains of society, says Sinnot-Armstrong. For example, companies that want to create — or avoid — a feeling of personal responsibility among their employees could take its lessons on board.

Caspar, E. A., Christensen, J. F., Cleeremans, A. & Haggard, P. Curr. Biol. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.12.067 (2016).

Download references

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Additional information

Tweet Facebook LinkedIn Weibo

Related links

Related links in nature research.

Experimental psychology: The anatomy of obedience 2015-Jul-22

Virtual reality shocker 2006-Dec-22

Related external links

UCL Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Abbott, A. Modern Milgram experiment sheds light on power of authority. Nature 530 , 394–395 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.19408

Download citation

Published : 18 February 2016

Issue Date : 25 February 2016

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.19408

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

• 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
• Introduction

Education and national conformity studies

Obedience experiments.

• Later experiments and publications

Stanley Milgram

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Academia - Stanley Milgram: the Obedience Studies in Social-Societal Context
• American Scientist - Milgram's Progress
• Harvard University - Department of Psychology - Biogra[hy of Stanley Milgram
• GoodTherapy - Biography of Stanley Milgram
• The New York Times - Dr. Stanley MilGram,51, is Daed - Studied Obidience to Authority
• Table Of Contents

Stanley Milgram (born August 15, 1933, New York City , New York , U.S.—died December 20, 1984, New York City) was an American social psychologist known for his controversial and groundbreaking experiments on obedience to authority. Milgram’s obedience experiments, in addition to other studies that he carried out during his career, generally are considered to have provided important insight into human social behaviour, particularly conformity and social pressure. See also Milgram experiment .

Milgram was born and raised in the Bronx, the second of three children in a working-class Jewish family. As a youth, he was an exceptional student, with interests in science and the arts. At Queens College (later part of the City University of New York [CUNY]), he studied political science , in addition to taking courses in art, literature, and music. In 1953, following his third year at the college, he toured Europe and became increasingly interested in international relations . He was accepted into the graduate program in international affairs at Columbia University . However, in 1954, after completing a bachelor’s degree in political science at Queens College, Milgram instead began graduate studies in the social relations department at Harvard University .

At Harvard, Milgram took classes with leading social psychologists of the day, including Gordon Allport , Jerome Bruner , Roger Brown, and Solomon Asch , all of whom greatly influenced the direction of Milgram’s academic career. Of particular interest to Milgram were Asch’s conformity experiments, which showed that individual behaviour can be influenced by group behaviour , with individuals conforming to group perspectives, even when choices made by the group are obviously incorrect. Milgram set out to apply Asch’s group technique, with several variations, to the study of conformity on a national level, seeking to explore national stereotypes . He focused initially on the United States and Norway and later added France, using his connections at Harvard to travel to Oslo and Paris to establish study groups there. He used an auditory task to measure conformity, with participants in closed booths asked to distinguish between the lengths of two tones. Participants also heard the responses of other members of the study group, who supposedly occupied closed booths next to the participant (the group responses were recorded, and the other booths were empty). Milgram’s findings suggested that Americans and Norwegians differed little in conformity rates and that, of the three groups, the French were the least conforming.

In 1960, after earning a Ph.D. from Harvard, Milgram accepted a position as assistant professor at Yale University . There he narrowed his research to obedience. Having been acutely aware from his youth of his Jewish heritage and the tragedies suffered by Jews in Europe during the Holocaust , he was interested in understanding the factors that led people to inflict harm on others. He designed an unprecedented experiment—later known as the Milgram experiment —whereby study subjects, who believed that they were participating in a learning experiment about punishment and memory , were instructed by an authority figure (the experimenter) to inflict seemingly painful shocks to a helpless victim (the learner). Both the experimenter and the learner were actors hired by Milgram, and the shocks were simulated via an authentic-appearing shock generator that was equipped with 30 voltage levels, increasing from 15 to 450 volts. Subjects were instructed by the experimenter to deliver a shock to the learner whenever the latter gave an incorrect answer to a question. With each incorrect response, shock intensity increased. At predetermined voltage levels, the learner (usually in a separate room) either banged on the adjoining wall, cried out in pain and pleaded with the participant to stop, or complained about a fictitious heart condition.

Prior to carrying out the experiments, Milgram and Yale psychology students whom he polled about possible outcomes of such a study predicted that only a very small percentage (from 0 to 3 percent) of people would inflict the most-extreme-intensity shock. Hence, Milgram was surprised with the results of early pilot studies, in which most participants continued through to the extreme 450-volt limit. The first official experiments carried out by Milgram in 1961 yielded similar results—26 out of 40 men recruited for the study proved to be fully obedient to the experimenter, delivering shocks through 450 volts. Variations in the experimental design showed that obedience was highest when the learner was in a separate room, as opposed to being in close proximity to the subject (e.g., in the same room or near enough to touch). Subjects persisted in their obedience despite verbally expressing their disapproval of continuing with the shocks.

Milgram suspected that subjects struggled to disengage from the experiment because of its incremental (“slippery slope”) progression—small demands, seemingly benign , became increasingly adverse. Subjects also may have been readily conforming, seeing themselves as inferior to the experimenter in their knowledge of learning, or they may have viewed themselves as being free of responsibility, simply carrying out the experimenter’s commands.

Although thought-provoking, the experiments and their findings were highly controversial. The situation placed extreme stress on the subjects, some of whom experienced nervous laughter that culminated in seizures. In debriefing , Milgram did not reveal the full truth about the experiments to his subjects, leaving some to think that they really had shocked another person; it was not until many months later that subjects learned the true nature of the experiments. The validity of the findings also was later drawn into question by reports claiming that some participants suspected that they were the subjects being studied, with the aim of the study being to see how far they would obey the experimenter.

• Milgram Experiment: Explaining Obedience to Authority

The Milgram experiment is a classic social psychology study revealing the dangers of obedience to authority and how the situation affects behaviour.

The Milgram experiment, led by the well-known psychologist Stanley Milgram in the 1960s, aimed to test people’s obedience to authority.

The results of the Milgram experiment, sometimes known as the Milgram obedience study, continue to be both thought-provoking and controversial.

The experimental procedure left some people sweating and trembling, leaving 10 percent extremely upset, while others broke into unexplained hysterical laughter.

What finding could be so powerful that it sent many psychologists into frenzied rebuttals?

This study has come in for considerable criticism with some saying its claims are wildly overblown.

Obedience to authority

Stanley Milgram’s now famous experiments were designed to test obedience to authority ( Milgram, 1963 ).

What Milgram wanted to know was how far humans will go when an authority figure orders them to hurt another human being.

Many wondered after the horrors of WWII, and not for the first time, how people could be motivated to commit acts of such brutality towards each other.

Not just those in the armed forces, but ordinary people were coerced into carrying out the most cruel and gruesome acts.

But Milgram didn’t investigate the extreme situation of war, he wanted to see how people would react under relatively ‘ordinary’ conditions in the lab.

How would people behave when told to give an electrical shock to another person?

To what extent would people obey the dictates of the situation and ignore their own misgivings about what they were doing?

The Milgram experiment procedure

The experimental situation into which people were put was initially straightforward.

Participants in the Milgram experiment were told they were involved in a learning experiment, that they were to administer electrical shocks and that they should continue to the end of the experiment.

Told they would be the ‘teacher and another person the ‘learner’, they sat in front of a machine with a number of dials labelled with steadily increasing voltages.

This was the famous ‘shock machine’ in the Milgram experiment.

The third switch from the top was labelled: “Danger: Severe Shock”, the last two simply: “XXX”.

During the course of the Milgram experiment, each time the ‘learner’ made a mistake the participant was ordered to administer ever-increasing electrical shocks.

Of course the learner kept making mistakes so the teacher (the poor participant) had to keep giving higher and higher electrical shocks, and hearing the resultant screams of pain until finally the learner went quiet.

Participants were not in fact delivering electrical shocks, the learner in the Milgram experiment was actually an actor following a rehearsed script.

The learner was kept out of sight of the participants so they came to their own assumptions about the pain they were causing.

They were, however, left in little doubt that towards the end of the experiment the shocks were extremely painful and the learner might well have been rendered unconscious.

When the participant baulked at giving the electrical shocks, the experimenter – an authority figure dressed in a white lab coat – ordered them to continue.

Results of the Milgram shock experiments

Before I explain the results, try to imagine yourself as the participant in the Milgram experiment.

How far would you go giving what you thought were electrical shocks to another human being simply for a study about memory?

What would you think when the learner went quiet after you apparently administered a shock labelled on the board “Danger: Severe Shock”?

How far would you go?

How ever far you think, you’re probably underestimating as that’s what most people do.

Like the Milgram experiment itself, the results shocked.

The Milgram experiment discovered people are much more obedient than you might imagine.

Fully 63 percent of the participants continued right until the end – they administered all the shocks even with the learner screaming in agony, begging to stop and eventually falling silent.

These weren’t specially selected sadists, these were ordinary people like you and me who had volunteered for the Milgram experiment.

Explanation of the Milgram experiment

At the time the Milgram experiment was big news.

Milgram explained his results by the power of the situation.

This was a social psychology experiment which appeared to show, beautifully in fact, how much social situations can influence people’s behaviour.

The Milgram experiment set off a small industry of follow-up studies carried out in labs all around the world.

Were the findings of the Milgram experiment still true in different cultures, in slightly varying situations and in different genders (only men were in the original study)?

By and large the answers were that even when manipulating many different experimental variables, people were still remarkably obedient.

One exception was that one study found Australian women were much less obedient.

Make of that what you will.

Criticism of the Milgram experiment

Now think again.

Sure, the experiment relies on the situation to influence people’s behaviour, but how real is the situation?

If it was you, surely you would understand on some level that this wasn’t real, that you weren’t really electrocuting someone, that knocking someone unconscious would not be allowed in a university study like this Milgram experiment?

Also, people pick up considerable nonverbal cues from each other.

How good would the actors have to be in the Milgram experiment in order to avoid giving away the fact they were actors?

People are adept at playing along even with those situations they know in their heart-of-hearts to be fake.

The more we find out about human psychology, the more we discover about the power of unconscious processes, both emotional and cognitive.

These can have massive influences on our behaviour without our awareness.

Alternative explanation of the Milgram experiment

Assuming people were not utterly convinced on an unconscious level that the experiment was for real, an alternative explanation is in order.

Perhaps the Milgram experiment really demonstrates the power of conformity .

The pull we all feel to please the experimenter, to fit in with the situation, to do what is expected of us.

While this is still a powerful interpretation from a brilliant experiment, it isn’t what Milgram was really looking for.

The influence of the Milgram experiment

Whether you believe the experiment shows what it purports to or not, there is no doubting that the Milgram experiment was some of the most influential and impressive carried out in psychology.

It is also an experiment very unlikely to be repeated nowadays (outside of virtual reality ) because of modern ethical standards.

Certainly when I first came across it, my view of human nature was changed irrevocably.

Now, thinking critically, I’m not so sure.

Milgram experiment repeated

The Milgram experiment has since been repeated by Doliński et al. (2017) , with the same weird result .

Of the 80 people in the study, fully 90% went all the way to the maximum level of electrocution after being ‘ordered’ to by the experimenter.

Dr Tomasz Grzyb, a study author, said:

“…half a century after Milgram’s original research into obedience to authority, a striking majority of subjects are still willing to electrocute a helpless individual.”

→ This post is part of a series on the best social psychology experiments :

• Halo Effect : Definition And How It Affects Our Perception
• Cognitive Dissonance : How and Why We Lie to Ourselves
• Robbers Cave Experiment : How Group Conflicts Develop
• Stanford Prison Experiment : Zimbardo’s Famous Social Psychology Study
• False Consensus Effect : What It Is And Why It Happens
• Social Identity Theory And The Minimal Group Paradigm
• Negotiation : 2 Psychological Strategies That Matter Most
• Bystander Effect And The Diffusion Of Responsibility
• Asch Conformity Experiment : The Power Of Social Pressure

Author: Dr Jeremy Dean

Psychologist, Jeremy Dean, PhD is the founder and author of PsyBlog. He holds a doctorate in psychology from University College London and two other advanced degrees in psychology. He has been writing about scientific research on PsyBlog since 2004. View all posts by Dr Jeremy Dean

Join the free PsyBlog mailing list. No spam, ever.

• Bipolar Disorder
• Therapy Center
• When To See a Therapist
• Types of Therapy
• Best Online Therapy
• Best Couples 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

Stanley Milgram Psychologist Biography

Isabelle Adam/Flickr/CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

Stanley Milgram was a social psychologist best-remembered for his now infamous obedience experiments. His research demonstrated how far people will go to obey authority. His experiments are also remembered for their ethical issues, which contributed to changes in regulation for experiments performed today. Learn more about his life, legacy, and influence on psychology in this brief biography.

Best Known For

• The Milgram Obedience Experiment  
• Familiar Stranger  
• The Small World Experiment  

Stanley Milgram was born on August 15, 1933, to a family of Jewish immigrants in New York City. Milgram attended James Monroe High School where quickly earned a reputation as a hard worker and a strong leader. He completed high school in just three years. One of his classmates was future social psychologist Philip Zimbardo .

He earned his bachelor's in political science from Queens College in 1954. After graduation, his interests shifted to psychology, but he had not taken a single psychology class throughout his undergraduate years. Because of this, he was initially rejected from Harvard University's graduate program in social relations, but was eventually able to gain admission. He earned his Ph.D. in social psychology in 1960 under the instruction of psychologist Gordon Allport .

Career and Famous Obedience Experiments

During his graduate studies, Milgram spent a year working as a research assistant to Solomon Asch who was studied conformity in social groups. Asch's famous conformity experiment involved having participants judge the length of a line amidst actors who would all give the same incorrect answer. Milgram was inspired by the study and went on to perform a similar experiment that would make him famous.

Milgram began working at Yale in 1960 and started conducting his obedience experiments in 1961. In these experiments, participants were ordered by an authority figure to deliver increasingly strong electrical shocks to another person. In reality, the other person was a confederate in the experiment and was simply pretending to be shocked. Surprisingly, 65% of the participants were willing to deliver the maximum voltage shocks under orders from the experimenter.

In 1963, Milgram returned to teach at Harvard for a few years but was not offered tenure largely due to the controversy swirling around him thanks to his infamous obedience experiments. City University of New York (CUNY) asked him to head up their newly formed social psychology program, and in 1974 he published his book Obedience to Authority . Milgram remained at CUNY until his death on December 20, 1984, from a heart attack.

Contributions to Psychology

The 19 different experiments that Milgram conducted on obedience demonstrated that people were willing to obey an authority figure even if the actions went against their morals. The experiments are well-known today, mentioned in virtually every introductory psychology textbook. While Milgram himself was known for his concern for the well-being of his participants, his work was often harshly criticized for the possible negative emotional impact it had on subjects.  

Part of the reason why the American Psychological Association established standards for working with human subjects and why Institutional Review Boards exist today is because of Milgram's work.

In his 2004 biography, author Thomas Blass noted that social psychology is often dismissed as something that simply proves so-called "common sense." Through his surprising results, Milgram was able to demonstrate that the things we think we know about ourselves and our behavior in social groups may not necessarily be true. In essence, Milgram was able to shine a light on a subtopic of psychology that some may view as unimportant, but in reality reveals important truths about human behavior.

"A substantial proportion of people do what they are told to do, irrespective of the content of the act, and without pangs of conscience, so long as they perceive that the command comes from a legitimate authority," Milgram explained of his work.

Milgram's research on obedience shocked people back during the 1960s, but his findings are just as relevant and stunning to this day. While recent findings have suggested that there may have been problems with his experimental procedures, replications of his work have found that people are surprisingly willing to obey authority figures - even when they know the orders they are following are wrong.  

Milgram S. Behavioral Study of obedience . Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology . 1963;67(4):371–378. doi:10.1037/h0040525

Milgram S. The Individual in a Social World: Essays and Experiments (3rd expanded ed.). London: Pinter & Martin; 1977.

Travers J, Milgram S. An experimental study of the small world problem . Sociometry . 1969;32(4):425-443. doi:10.2307/2786545

Blass, T. The Man Who Shocked the World: The Life and Legacy of Stanley Milgram. New York: Basic Books; 2004.

Blass T. From New Haven to Santa Clara: A historical perspective on the Milgram obedience experiments .  Am Psychol . 2009;64(1):37–45. doi:10.1037/a0014434

Russell NJ. Milgram's Obedience to Authority experiments: Origins and early evolution .  British Journal of Health Psychology. 2011;50(1):140–162. doi:10.1348/014466610X492205

Milgram, S. Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. New York: Harper & Row; 1974.

Herrera CD. Ethics, deceptions and ‘those Milgram experiments’ . J Appl Philos . 2001;18:245-256. doi:10.1111/1468-5930.00192  

Haslam N, Loughnan S, Perry G. Meta-Milgram: An empirical synthesis of the obedience experiments . PLoS ONE . 2014;9(4):e93927. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0093927

Harvard University. Stanley Milgram (1933-1984) .

Rogers K. Stanley Milgram . Encyclopaedia Britannica. Updated December 16, 2019.

By Kendra Cherry, MSEd Kendra Cherry, MS, is a psychosocial rehabilitation specialist, psychology educator, and author of the "Everything Psychology Book."