Milgram Obedience Experiments: Following Orders

Milgram Obedience Experiment - Authority and Moral Responsibility

Stanley Milgram's obedience experiments (1961-1963) are among the most famous and disturbing studies in social psychology. They revealed that ordinary people, when instructed by an authority figure, would administer what they believed to be painful and dangerous electric shocks to an innocent person. The study was designed to understand the psychology of the Holocaust and how such atrocities could occur. This study is related to the Stanford prison experiment and authority.

Table of Contents

  1. The Experiment Design
  2. The Shocking Results
  3. Why Do People Obey?
  4. Variations of the Study
  5. Ethical Controversies
  6. Real-World Implications
  7. Key Takeaways

The Experiment Design

The Setup

Participants:

  • 40 men aged 20-50 from New Haven, Connecticut
  • Diverse occupations and education levels
  • Recruited through newspaper ads for a "memory study"
  • Paid $4.50 for participation (regardless of completion)

The Cover Story:

  • Study about "the effects of punishment on learning"
  • Participants assigned as "teachers"
  • Confederate played the "learner"
  • Experimenter in lab coat gave orders

The Procedure:

  1. Teacher and learner introduced
  2. Learner strapped into electric chair (in adjacent room)
  3. Teacher given sample shock (45V) to "experience" it
  4. Memory task: Teacher reads word pairs, learner recalls
  5. Wrong answers = electric shocks, increasing by 15V each time

The Shock Generator

The Apparatus:

  • Impressive-looking machine with 30 switches
  • Labels: "Slight Shock" to "Danger: Severe Shock"
  • Final switches labeled "XXX"
  • Voltage range: 15V to 450V
  • No actual shocks delivered to learner

Learner's Responses (Pre-recorded):

  • 75V: Ugh!
  • 120V: Ugh! Hey, this really hurts!
  • 150V: Ugh! Experimenter! Get me out of here!
  • 270V: (Agonized scream)
  • 300V: (Refuses to answer)
  • 330V and above: (Intense screaming, then silence)

The Shocking Results

Obedience Rates

The Baseline Study:

  • 65% of participants administered the maximum 450V shock
  • 100% went to at least 300V
  • Only 35% defied the experimenter at some point
  • Most participants showed signs of extreme stress

Participant Reactions

Signs of Distress:

  • Sweating, trembling, stuttering
  • Nervous laughter, biting lips
  • Digging fingernails into flesh
  • At least one participant had a seizure
  • Many protested but continued when told to

Common Protests:

  • "He's yelling in there!"
  • "I don't think I should go on"
  • "He's got a heart condition"
  • "I don't want to be responsible"

Experimenter's Responses:

  • "Please continue"
  • "The experiment requires that you continue"
  • "It is absolutely essential that you continue"
  • "You have no other choice, you must go on"

Why Do People Obey?

The Agentic State

Transfer of Responsibility:

  • People see themselves as agents of authority
  • Responsibility shifts to the authority figure
  • "I was just following orders"
  • Moral responsibility is abdicated

Gradual Commitment

The Foot-in-the-Door Effect:

  • Small shocks at first seem harmless
  • Each increase is only 15V
  • By the time shocks are severe, already committed
  • Hard to stop after starting

Situational Factors

The Power of the Setting:

  • Yale University (prestigious institution)
  • Scientific purpose (legitimate goal)
  • Experimenter's authority (lab coat, confident demeanor)
  • Gradual escalation (hard to find stopping point)

Psychological Mechanisms

1. Authority Bias:

  • We are socialized to obey authority
  • Parents, teachers, police, government
  • Authority figures relieve us of decision-making

2. Conformity Pressure:

  • Desire to be a good participant
  • Not wanting to ruin the experiment
  • Social pressure to comply

3. Cognitive Dissonance:

  • Must justify continued participation
  • Dehumanize the victim ("He was so stupid")
  • Believe the experimenter knows best

Variations of the Study

Proximity to Victim

Same Room:

  • Obedience dropped to 40%
  • Seeing victim reduced compliance

Touch-Proximity:

  • Teacher forced learner's hand on shock plate
  • Obedience dropped to 30%
  • Physical contact increased resistance

Proximity to Authority

Experimenter in Different Room:

  • Obedience dropped to 20.5%
  • Telephone instructions less effective
  • Easier to defy when authority not present

Ordinary Person Gives Orders:

  • Another participant (confederate) gives orders
  • Obedience dropped to 20%
  • Legitimate authority matters

Institutional Context

Relocated to Office Building:

  • Not at Yale University
  • Obedience dropped to 47.5%
  • Prestige of institution matters

Group Pressure

Two Teachers (One Real, One Confederate):

  • Confederate refuses to continue
  • Obedience dropped to 10%
  • Social support enables defiance

Ethical Controversies

Psychological Harm

Participant Distress:

  • Extreme stress and anxiety
  • Potential long-term psychological effects
  • Guilt and shame after debriefing
  • Follow-up surveys found most participants were glad to have taken part; a psychiatrist later reported no evidence of lasting harm in the follow-up sample

Deception

The Cover Story:

  • Participants deceived about true purpose
  • Believed they were harming another person
  • Deception necessary for validity but ethically questionable

Informed Consent

Limited Information:

  • Participants couldn't give fully informed consent
  • Didn't know they could experience severe stress
  • Right to withdraw was technically available but discouraged

Debriefing

After the Experiment:

  • Participants reunited with unharmed learner
  • True purpose explained
  • Most reported positive experience
  • But some remained traumatized

Real-World Implications

Understanding Atrocities

Historical Events:

  • Holocaust and Nazi Germany
  • My Lai Massacre (Vietnam War)
  • Abu Ghraib prison abuses
  • Corporate misconduct

The Banality of Evil:

  • Ordinary people can commit evil acts
  • Situation matters more than personality
  • Authority and social pressure are powerful forces

Applications

Military Training:

  • Understanding how to resist unlawful orders
  • Training in ethical decision-making
  • Creating systems that question authority

Medical Ethics:

  • Patient advocacy
  • Resisting inappropriate physician orders
  • Whistleblower protection

Corporate Compliance:

  • Understanding why employees follow unethical orders
  • Creating ethical organizational cultures
  • Empowering employees to speak up

Key Takeaways

  • Disturbing Results: 65% of ordinary people would harm others when ordered
  • Authority is Powerful: Legitimate authority can override moral judgment
  • Situation Matters: Context and gradual escalation enable evil
  • Agency Transfer: People abdicate responsibility to authority figures
  • Ethical Lessons: Study raised important questions about research ethics
  • Real-World Relevance: Helps understand historical and contemporary atrocities

Try It Yourself

How would you respond when an authority figure tells you to continue? Step through an interactive simulation based on the original study design:

Try the Milgram Obedience Experiment →

References

  • Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371-378.

Last updated: 2026-10-20

Menu
Loading