milgram experiment grund

Science, Tech, Math ›
Social Sciences ›
Psychology ›

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

General Categories
Mental Health
IQ and Intelligence
Bipolar Disorder

Milgram’s Obedience Experiment: A Landmark Study in Social Psychology

A simple command, a series of electric shocks, and a chilling insight into the depths of human obedience: Stanley Milgram’s groundbreaking experiment forever changed our understanding of the power of authority. This landmark study, conducted in the early 1960s, sent shockwaves through the scientific community and continues to provoke intense debate and reflection to this day.

Picture yourself in a dimly lit laboratory, faced with a stern-looking experimenter in a white coat. You’re instructed to administer increasingly powerful electric shocks to a stranger in another room. Would you comply? How far would you go? These are the questions that Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiments sought to answer, redefining our understanding of human behavior in the process.

Milgram, a Yale University psychologist, was haunted by the atrocities of World War II. How could ordinary people commit such horrific acts? Was there something uniquely evil about German culture, or did the capacity for cruelty lurk within us all? These burning questions led him to devise one of the most controversial and influential studies in the history of psychology.

The historical context of Milgram’s work cannot be overstated. The echoes of the Holocaust still reverberated through society, and the world grappled with the chilling realization that seemingly ordinary individuals could become instruments of unspeakable evil. Milgram’s experiment aimed to shed light on the mechanisms of obedience that could lead people to act against their own moral compass.

The Milgram Experiment: Unraveling the Mystery of Obedience

So, how did Milgram set about exploring the dark corners of human compliance? The setup was deceptively simple, yet fiendishly clever. Participants were told they were taking part in a study on memory and learning. They were assigned the role of “teacher” and instructed to administer electric shocks to a “learner” (actually an actor) whenever they gave incorrect answers to a series of questions.

The twist? The shocks were fake, but the participants didn’t know that. As the experiment progressed, the supposed voltage of the shocks increased, accompanied by pre-recorded cries of pain from the unseen “learner.” The experimenter, an authority figure in a lab coat, urged the participants to continue despite any reservations they might have.

It’s worth noting that Milgram’s study employed a hefty dose of deception. Participants were led to believe they were actually causing pain to another person, a fact that would later spark heated ethical debates. But Milgram argued that this level of deception was necessary to create a realistic scenario and elicit genuine responses.

The roles in the experiment were carefully crafted. The experimenter represented unquestionable authority, while the unseen “learner” embodied the voice of conscience and empathy. Caught between these two forces, the participant-as-teacher faced a moral dilemma that would push the boundaries of their obedience.

Milgram didn’t stop at just one version of the experiment. He conducted numerous variations, tweaking factors like the proximity of the learner, the presence of rebellious confederates, and the setting of the study. These variations would prove crucial in understanding the nuances of obedience and the factors that influence our willingness to comply with authority.

Shocking Results: The Dark Side of Human Nature Revealed

The results of Milgram’s experiment sent shockwaves through the scientific community and beyond. Contrary to the predictions of experts, who believed only a small fraction of participants would fully obey, a staggering 65% of subjects in the original study continued to the highest level of shocks, despite the apparent distress of the learner.

This revelation was nothing short of earth-shattering. It suggested that obedience to authority was far more ingrained in human behavior than previously thought. The study painted a sobering picture of how easily ordinary individuals could be led to commit acts they would normally consider unethical or harmful.

But what factors influenced these high rates of obedience? Milgram identified several key elements:

1. The gradual nature of the task: Participants were eased into the process with small shocks, making it harder to refuse as the intensity increased. 2. The presence of an authority figure: The experimenter’s calm insistence and air of expertise made it difficult for participants to disobey. 3. The division of responsibility: Participants could rationalize their actions by believing the experimenter was ultimately responsible. 4. The absence of previous disobedience models: With no examples of resistance, participants found it harder to break the pattern of compliance.

The emotional toll on participants was palpable. Many exhibited signs of extreme stress, including trembling, sweating, and nervous laughter. Some even experienced full-blown anxiety attacks. Yet, despite their obvious discomfort, the majority continued to obey.

Statistically speaking, the results were robust. Across various replications and variations of the experiment, obedience rates remained surprisingly high, typically ranging from 50% to 65%. These consistent findings lent credibility to Milgram’s conclusions and underscored the universality of the obedience phenomenon.

Ethical Quandaries: The Controversy Surrounding Milgram’s Work

As groundbreaking as Milgram’s findings were, they came at a cost. The experiment raised serious ethical concerns that continue to be debated to this day. Critics argued that the psychological distress inflicted on participants was unjustifiable, even in the pursuit of scientific knowledge.

Imagine being in the shoes of a participant. You’ve just been led to believe that you’ve potentially caused serious harm to another person. The guilt, anxiety, and self-doubt that followed were very real, even after the deception was revealed. Some participants reported lasting emotional effects, questioning their own moral character and capacity for cruelty.

The issue of informed consent also came under scrutiny. While participants were told they could leave at any time, the pressure to continue from the authority figure made this theoretical right difficult to exercise in practice. This raised questions about the true voluntariness of participation in such psychologically intense experiments.

Methodological criticisms were also leveled at Milgram’s work. Some argued that the artificial laboratory setting limited the generalizability of the results to real-world situations. Others questioned whether the participants truly believed they were administering real shocks, suggesting that some might have seen through the deception.

Despite these criticisms, many researchers defended the value of Milgram’s work, arguing that the insights gained outweighed the temporary discomfort experienced by participants. This debate continues to shape discussions around research ethics and the boundaries of acceptable scientific inquiry.

Beyond the Lab: Real-World Implications of Milgram’s Findings

The implications of Milgram’s work extend far beyond the confines of the psychology laboratory. His findings have profound relevance to our understanding of obedience psychology and its role in society at large.

One of the most chilling applications of Milgram’s work is in understanding how ordinary people can become complicit in atrocities. From war crimes to corporate scandals, the experiment sheds light on the psychological mechanisms that allow individuals to rationalize harmful actions when ordered by an authority figure.

In the realm of organizational psychology, Milgram’s findings have influenced approaches to leadership and management. Understanding the power of authority can help create more ethical workplace cultures and prevent the abuse of power within hierarchical structures.

Military and law enforcement training programs have also been shaped by Milgram’s insights. Recognizing the potential for blind obedience, many organizations now incorporate ethical decision-making training to help personnel navigate complex moral situations.

The ripple effects of the obedience experiments can be seen in countless subsequent studies in social psychology. Researchers have explored variations on Milgram’s themes, investigating factors like group dynamics, diffusion of responsibility, and the role of dissent in challenging authority.

Modern Perspectives: Milgram’s Legacy in the 21st Century

In the decades since Milgram’s original study, researchers have continued to explore the phenomenon of obedience in new and innovative ways. Recent replications have sought to address ethical concerns while still capturing the essence of the original experiment.

One fascinating development has been the exploration of cross-cultural perspectives on obedience. Studies conducted in various countries have revealed both similarities and differences in how people respond to authority, shedding light on the interplay between cultural norms and individual behavior.

The advent of virtual reality has opened up new avenues for obedience research. VR simulations allow researchers to create immersive scenarios that mimic real-world situations without the ethical concerns of causing actual harm. These studies have largely corroborated Milgram’s findings, suggesting that the tendency towards obedience remains strong even in digital environments.

It’s worth noting that the landscape of human subject research has changed dramatically since Milgram’s time. Modern ethical guidelines place much stricter limits on the use of deception and the potential for psychological harm in experiments. While this protects participants, it also presents challenges for researchers seeking to study obedience in realistic settings.

The Lasting Impact: Lessons from Milgram’s Obedience Studies

As we reflect on Milgram’s experiment and its enduring legacy, several key lessons emerge:

1. The power of situational factors: Milgram’s work demonstrated that behavior is often more influenced by immediate situational pressures than by individual personality traits or values.

2. The importance of questioning authority: The experiments underscore the need for critical thinking and the courage to challenge unjust orders, even when they come from seemingly legitimate sources.

3. The complexity of human nature: Milgram’s findings reveal the dual capacity for both obedience and resistance within each of us, highlighting the nuanced nature of human behavior.

4. The ethical responsibilities of researchers: The controversy surrounding the experiments has led to more rigorous ethical standards in psychological research, emphasizing the importance of balancing scientific inquiry with participant well-being.

As we look to the future, the questions raised by Milgram’s work remain as relevant as ever. In an age of increasing polarization and the rise of authoritarian tendencies in various parts of the world, understanding the mechanisms of obedience and resistance is crucial.

The digital age presents new challenges and opportunities for obedience research. How do online authority figures influence behavior? Can virtual interactions lead to real-world compliance? These questions represent the next frontier in our ongoing exploration of human obedience.

In conclusion, Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiments stand as a testament to the power of psychological research to illuminate the darkest corners of human nature. While controversial, these studies have profoundly shaped our understanding of authority, ethics, and the complex dynamics of human behavior. As we continue to grapple with issues of power and compliance in our societies, the lessons from Milgram’s work serve as both a warning and a call to action, reminding us of our capacity for both blind obedience and courageous resistance.

The legacy of Milgram’s work intertwines with other landmark studies in social psychology, such as the Stanford Prison Experiment , which further explored the dark side of human behavior under the influence of authority and role-playing. Together, these studies form a crucial part of our understanding of social dynamics and the potential for both good and evil within the human psyche.

It’s important to note that Milgram’s experiments, along with several others from that era, are now considered part of a group of unethical psychological experiments due to the potential harm inflicted on participants. However, the valuable insights gained from these studies have led to significant advancements in research ethics and our understanding of human behavior.

The phrase “I was just following orders” has taken on new meaning in light of Milgram’s work, challenging us to consider the complex interplay between individual responsibility and the influence of authority. This understanding has implications not only for psychology but for fields ranging from law and politics to education and business.

As we continue to unravel the mysteries of human behavior, Stanley Milgram’s contributions to psychology remain foundational. His work serves as a springboard for ongoing research and a constant reminder of the need for ethical vigilance in scientific inquiry.

While Milgram’s experiments are often grouped with other disturbing psychological experiments , their impact on our understanding of human nature is undeniable. They continue to provoke thought, debate, and further research, ensuring that the questions Milgram raised over half a century ago remain relevant in our quest to understand the complexities of human behavior and the power of authority in shaping our actions.

References:

1. Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371-378.

2. Blass, T. (2009). The Man Who Shocked the World: The Life and Legacy of Stanley Milgram. Basic Books.

3. Burger, J. M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64(1), 1-11.

4. Haslam, S. A., & Reicher, S. D. (2012). Contesting the “Nature” Of Conformity: What Milgram and Zimbardo’s Studies Really Show. PLoS Biology, 10(11), e1001426.

5. Zimbardo, P. G. (2007). The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. Random House.

6. Perry, G. (2012). Behind the Shock Machine: The Untold Story of the Notorious Milgram Psychology Experiments. Scribe Publications.

7. Slater, M., Antley, A., Davison, A., Swapp, D., Guger, C., Barker, C., … & Sanchez-Vives, M. V. (2006). A virtual reprise of the Stanley Milgram obedience experiments. PloS one, 1(1), e39.

8. Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2009). The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement. Free Press.

9. Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and Practice (5th ed.). Pearson Education.

10. Bandura, A. (2016). Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm and Live with Themselves. Worth Publishers.

Related Resources

Natural Experiments in Psychology: Unveiling Real-World Insights

Dichotic Listening in Psychology: Unraveling Auditory Processing

Psychological Illusions: Exploring the Tricks Our Minds Play

Moderators in Psychology: Key Factors Influencing Relationships Between Variables

Nova Psychology: Exploring the Frontiers of Human Behavior and Mental…

Game Theory in Psychology: Unraveling Human Decision-Making

Greebles in Psychology: Exploring Visual Object Recognition and Expertise

Hypothesis in Psychology: Definition, Types, and Applications

Naturalistic Observation in Psychology: Definition, Examples, and Applications

Induction Psychology: Exploring the Power of Inductive Reasoning in Cognitive…

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
Guided Meditations
Verywell Mind Insights
2024 Verywell Mind 25
Mental Health in the Classroom
Editorial Process
Meet Our Review Board
Crisis Support

Understanding the Milgram Experiment in Psychology

A closer look at Milgram's controversial studies of obedience

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

Emily is a board-certified science editor who has worked with top digital publishing brands like Voices for Biodiversity, Study.com, GoodTherapy, Vox, and Verywell.

Isabelle Adam (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) via Flickr

Factors That Influence Obedience

Ethical Concerns
Replications

How far do you think people would go to obey an authority figure? Would they refuse to obey if the order went against their values or social expectations? Those questions were at the heart of an infamous and controversial study known as the Milgram obedience experiments.

Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted these experiments during the 1960s. They explored the effects of authority on obedience. In the experiments, an authority figure ordered participants to deliver what they believed were dangerous electrical shocks to another person. These results suggested that people are highly influenced by authority and highly obedient . More recent investigations cast doubt on some of the implications of Milgram's findings and even the results and procedures themselves. Despite its problems, the study has, without question, made a significant impact on psychology .

At a Glance

Milgram's experiments posed the question: Would people obey orders, even if they believed doing so would harm another person? Milgram's findings suggested the answer was yes, they would. The experiments have long been controversial, both because of the startling findings and the ethical problems with the research. More recently, experts have re-examined the studies, suggesting that participants were often coerced into obeying and that at least some participants recognized that the other person was just pretending to be shocked. Such findings call into question the study's validity and authenticity, but some replications suggest that people are surprisingly prone to obeying authority.

History of the Milgram Experiments

Milgram started his experiments in 1961, shortly after the trial of the World War II criminal Adolf Eichmann had begun. Eichmann’s defense that he was merely following instructions when he ordered the deaths of millions of Jews roused Milgram’s interest.

In his 1974 book "Obedience to Authority," Milgram posed the question, "Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?"

Procedure in the Milgram Experiment

The participants in the most famous variation of the Milgram experiment were 40 men recruited using newspaper ads. In exchange for their participation, each person was paid $4.50.

Milgram developed an intimidating shock generator, with shock levels starting at 15 volts and increasing in 15-volt increments all the way up to 450 volts. The many switches were labeled with terms including "slight shock," "moderate shock," and "danger: severe shock." The final three switches were labeled simply with an ominous "XXX."

Each participant took the role of a "teacher" who would then deliver a shock to the "student" in a neighboring room whenever an incorrect answer was given. While participants believed that they were delivering real shocks to the student, the “student” was a confederate in the experiment who was only pretending to be shocked.

As the experiment progressed, the participant would hear the learner plead to be released or even complain about a heart condition. Once they reached the 300-volt level, the learner would bang on the wall and demand to be released.

Beyond this point, the learner became completely silent and refused to answer any more questions. The experimenter then instructed the participant to treat this silence as an incorrect response and deliver a further shock.

Most participants asked the experimenter whether they should continue. The experimenter then responded with a series of commands to prod the participant along:

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

Results of the Milgram Experiment

In the Milgram experiment, obedience was measured by the level of shock that the participant was willing to deliver. While many of the subjects became extremely agitated, distraught, and angry at the experimenter, they nevertheless continued to follow orders all the way to the end.

Milgram's results showed that 65% of the participants in the study delivered the maximum shocks. Of the 40 participants in the study, 26 delivered the maximum shocks, while 14 stopped before reaching the highest levels.

Why did so many of the participants in this experiment perform a seemingly brutal act when instructed by an authority figure? According to Milgram, there are some situational factors that can explain such high levels of obedience:

The physical presence of an authority figure dramatically increased compliance .
The fact that Yale (a trusted and authoritative academic institution) sponsored the study led many participants to believe that the experiment must be safe.
The selection of teacher and learner status seemed random.
Participants assumed that the experimenter was a competent expert.
The shocks were said to be painful, not dangerous.

Later experiments conducted by Milgram indicated that the presence of rebellious peers dramatically reduced obedience levels. When other people refused to go along with the experimenter's orders, 36 out of 40 participants refused to deliver the maximum shocks.

More recent work by researchers suggests that while people do tend to obey authority figures, the process is not necessarily as cut-and-dried as Milgram depicted it.

In a 2012 essay published in PLoS Biology , researchers suggested that the degree to which people are willing to obey the questionable orders of an authority figure depends largely on two key factors:

How much the individual agrees with the orders
How much they identify with the person giving the orders

While it is clear that people are often far more susceptible to influence, persuasion , and obedience than they would often like to be, they are far from mindless machines just taking orders.

Another study that analyzed Milgram's results concluded that eight factors influenced the likelihood that people would progress up to the 450-volt shock:

The experimenter's directiveness
Legitimacy and consistency
Group pressure to disobey
Indirectness of proximity
Intimacy of the relation between the teacher and learner
Distance between the teacher and learner

Ethical Concerns in the Milgram Experiment

Milgram's experiments have long been the source of considerable criticism and controversy. From the get-go, the ethics of his experiments were highly dubious. Participants were subjected to significant psychological and emotional distress.

Some of the major ethical issues in the experiment were related to:

The use of deception
The lack of protection for the participants who were involved
Pressure from the experimenter to continue even after asking to stop, interfering with participants' right to withdraw

Due to concerns about the amount of anxiety experienced by many of the participants, everyone was supposedly debriefed at the end of the experiment. The researchers reported that they explained the procedures and the use of deception.

Critics of the study have argued that many of the participants were still confused about the exact nature of the experiment, and recent findings suggest that many participants were not debriefed at all.

Replications of the Milgram Experiment

While Milgram’s research raised serious ethical questions about the use of human subjects in psychology experiments , his results have also been consistently replicated in further experiments. One review further research on obedience and found that Milgram’s findings hold true in other experiments. In one study, researchers conducted a study designed to replicate Milgram's classic obedience experiment. The researchers made several alterations to Milgram's experiment.

The maximum shock level was 150 volts as opposed to the original 450 volts.
Participants were also carefully screened to eliminate those who might experience adverse reactions to the experiment.

The results of the new experiment revealed that participants obeyed at roughly the same rate that they did when Milgram conducted his original study more than 40 years ago.

Some psychologists suggested that in spite of the changes made in the replication, the study still had merit and could be used to further explore some of the situational factors that also influenced the results of Milgram's study. But other psychologists suggested that the replication was too dissimilar to Milgram's original study to draw any meaningful comparisons.

One study examined people's beliefs about how they would do compared to the participants in Milgram's experiments. They found that most people believed they would stop sooner than the average participants. These findings applied to both those who had never heard of Milgram's experiments and those who were familiar with them. In fact, those who knew about Milgram's experiments actually believed that they would stop even sooner than other people.

Another novel replication involved recruiting participants in pairs and having them take turns acting as either an 'agent' or 'victim.' Agents then received orders to shock the victim. The results suggest that only around 3.3% disobeyed the experimenter's orders.

Recent Criticisms and New Findings

Psychologist Gina Perry suggests that much of what we think we know about Milgram's famous experiments is only part of the story. While researching an article on the topic, she stumbled across hundreds of audiotapes found in Yale archives that documented numerous variations of Milgram's shock experiments.

Participants Were Often Coerced

While Milgram's reports of his process report methodical and uniform procedures, the audiotapes reveal something different. During the experimental sessions, the experimenters often went off-script and coerced the subjects into continuing the shocks.

"The slavish obedience to authority we have come to associate with Milgram’s experiments comes to sound much more like bullying and coercion when you listen to these recordings," Perry suggested in an article for Discover Magazine .

Few Participants Were Really Debriefed

Milgram suggested that the subjects were "de-hoaxed" after the experiments. He claimed he later surveyed the participants and found that 84% were glad to have participated, while only 1% regretted their involvement.

However, Perry's findings revealed that of the 700 or so people who took part in different variations of his studies between 1961 and 1962, very few were truly debriefed.

A true debriefing would have involved explaining that the shocks weren't real and that the other person was not injured. Instead, Milgram's sessions were mainly focused on calming the subjects down before sending them on their way.

Many participants left the experiment in a state of considerable distress. While the truth was revealed to some months or even years later, many were simply never told a thing.

Variations Led to Differing Results

Another problem is that the version of the study presented by Milgram and the one that's most often retold does not tell the whole story. The statistic that 65% of people obeyed orders applied only to one variation of the experiment, in which 26 out of 40 subjects obeyed.

In other variations, far fewer people were willing to follow the experimenters' orders, and in some versions of the study, not a single participant obeyed.

Participants Guessed the Learner Was Faking

Perry even tracked down some of the people who took part in the experiments, as well as Milgram's research assistants. What she discovered is that many of his subjects had deduced what Milgram's intent was and knew that the "learner" was merely pretending.

Such findings cast Milgram's results in a new light. It suggests that not only did Milgram intentionally engage in some hefty misdirection to obtain the results he wanted but that many of his participants were simply playing along.

An analysis of an unpublished study by Milgram's assistant, Taketo Murata, found that participants who believed they were really delivering a shock were less likely to obey, while those who did not believe they were actually inflicting pain were more willing to obey. In other words, the perception of pain increased defiance, while skepticism of pain increased obedience.

A review of Milgram's research materials suggests that the experiments exerted more pressure to obey than the original results suggested. Other variations of the experiment revealed much lower rates of obedience, and many of the participants actually altered their behavior when they guessed the true nature of the experiment.

Impact of the Milgram Experiment

Since there is no way to truly replicate the experiment due to its serious ethical and moral problems, determining whether Milgram's experiment really tells us anything about the power of obedience is impossible to determine.

So why does Milgram's experiment maintain such a powerful hold on our imaginations, even decades after the fact? Perry believes that despite all its ethical issues and the problem of never truly being able to replicate Milgram's procedures, the study has taken on the role of what she calls a "powerful parable."

Milgram's work might not hold the answers to what makes people obey or even the degree to which they truly obey. It has, however, inspired other researchers to explore what makes people follow orders and, perhaps more importantly, what leads them to question authority.

Recent findings undermine the scientific validity of the study. Milgram's work is also not truly replicable due to its ethical problems. However, the study has led to additional research on how situational factors can affect obedience to authority.

Milgram’s experiment has become a classic in psychology , demonstrating the dangers of obedience. The research suggests that situational variables have a stronger sway than personality factors in determining whether people will obey an authority figure. However, other psychologists argue that both external and internal factors heavily influence obedience, such as personal beliefs and overall temperament.

Milgram S. Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. Harper & Row.

Russell N, Gregory R. The Milgram-Holocaust linkage: challenging the present consensus . State Crim J. 2015;4(2):128-153.

Russell NJC. Milgram's obedience to authority experiments: origins and early evolution . Br J Soc Psychol . 2011;50:140-162. doi:10.1348/014466610X492205

Haslam SA, Reicher SD. Contesting the "nature" of conformity: What Milgram and Zimbardo's studies really show . PLoS Biol. 2012;10(11):e1001426. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001426

Milgram S. Liberating effects of group pressure . J Person Soc Psychol. 1965;1(2):127-234. doi:10.1037/h0021650

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

Perry G. Deception and illusion in Milgram's accounts of the obedience experiments . Theory Appl Ethics . 2013;2(2):79-92.

Blass T. The Milgram paradigm after 35 years: some things we now know about obedience to authority . J Appl Soc Psychol. 1999;29(5):955-978. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00134.x

Burger J. Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? . Am Psychol . 2009;64(1):1-11. doi:10.1037/a0010932

Elms AC. Obedience lite . American Psychologist . 2009;64(1):32-36. doi:10.1037/a0014473

Miller AG. Reflections on “replicating Milgram” (Burger, 2009) . American Psychologist . 2009;64(1):20-27. doi:10.1037/a0014407

Grzyb T, Dolinski D. Beliefs about obedience levels in studies conducted within the Milgram paradigm: Better than average effect and comparisons of typical behaviors by residents of various nations . Front Psychol . 2017;8:1632. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01632

Caspar EA. A novel experimental approach to study disobedience to authority . Sci Rep . 2021;11(1):22927. doi:10.1038/s41598-021-02334-8

Haslam SA, Reicher SD, Millard K, McDonald R. ‘Happy to have been of service’: The Yale archive as a window into the engaged followership of participants in Milgram’s ‘obedience’ experiments . Br J Soc Psychol . 2015;54:55-83. doi:10.1111/bjso.12074

Perry G, Brannigan A, Wanner RA, Stam H. Credibility and incredulity in Milgram’s obedience experiments: A reanalysis of an unpublished test . Soc Psychol Q . 2020;83(1):88-106. doi:10.1177/0190272519861952

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