Table of ContentsView AllTable of ContentsHistoryFactors That Influence ObedienceEthical ConcernsReplicationsCriticismsImpact
Table of ContentsView All
View All
Table of Contents
History
Factors That Influence Obedience
Ethical Concerns
Replications
Criticisms
Impact
Close
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.
At a GlanceMilgram’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.
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 hisexperimentsin 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.
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:
Results of the Milgram Experiment
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.
In a 2012 essay published inPLoS 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:
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:
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:
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 seriousethical questionsabout the use of human subjects inpsychology 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 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 inan articleforDiscover 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
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 haddeduced what Milgram’s intent wasand 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.
RecapA 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.
Recap
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 ofwhat she callsa “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.
RegramRecent findings undermine the scientificvalidityof 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.
Regram
Recent findings undermine the scientificvalidityof 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.
Takeaways
Milgram’s experiment has become aclassic 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.
Controversial and Unethical Psychology Experiments
15 Sources
Verywell Mind uses only high-quality sources, including peer-reviewed studies, to support the facts within our articles. Read oureditorial processto learn more about how we fact-check and keep our content accurate, reliable, and trustworthy.
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
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
Meet Our Review Board
Share Feedback
Was this page helpful?Thanks for your feedback!What is your feedback?HelpfulReport an ErrorOtherSubmit
Was this page helpful?
Thanks for your feedback!
What is your feedback?HelpfulReport an ErrorOtherSubmit
What is your feedback?
