Stanley Milgram’s Shock Experiment: Authority & Obedience

A Comprehensive Guide to Stanley Milgram’s Obedience Studies

In 1961, a young psychologist at Yale University conducted an experiment that revealed disturbing and shocking truths about human nature. Stanley Milgram discovered that ordinary people would inflict apparent harm on others simply because an authority figure told them to do so. His findings continue to explain behaviour in corporations, institutions, and governments worldwide.

The study proved both groundbreaking and controversial. Participants believed they administered potentially lethal electric shocks to strangers, with 65% continuing to maximum voltage despite hearing screams of pain. The experiments changed research ethics forever and sparked decades of debate about human nature under authority.

Three key findings remain relevant today:

• Ordinary people readily obey destructive orders from legitimate authorities
• Situational forces overpower individual personality in determining behaviour
• Distance from consequences increases harmful compliance

Recent revelations from archived materials add fresh significance to Milgram’s work. Previously unpublished data and recordings show even more complex dynamics between authority and obedience than originally reported. These insights prove especially valuable as organisations worldwide grapple with questions of ethical compliance and moral responsibility.

This comprehensive guide examines Milgram’s experiments, their theoretical foundations, and practical applications in modern settings. Whether you study psychology, teach social science, or work in organisational leadership, understanding these findings helps prevent harmful obedience while maintaining necessary authority structures.

The article covers:

• Detailed experimental methodology and variations
• Theoretical frameworks explaining obedience
• Critical analysis of methods and ethics
• Practical applications in education and business
• Modern relevance and continuing influence

Through archival evidence, contemporary research, and practical examples, this guide reveals why Milgram’s work remains essential reading for anyone interested in human behaviour under authority. The insights you gain will change how you view institutional compliance, leadership responsibility, and moral courage in challenging situations.

Download this Article as a PDF

Download this article as a PDF so you can revisit it whenever you want. We’ll email you a download link.

You’ll also get notification of our FREE Early Years TV videos each week.

Get your PDF Download and FREE Early Years TV Updates

Introduction and Background

Stanley Milgram stands as one of social psychology’s most influential researchers. Born in 1933 to Jewish parents in New York City, Milgram witnessed the aftermath of World War II and the Holocaust, experiences that profoundly shaped his academic interests. His most famous work examined how ordinary people could be led to commit acts of cruelty under the direction of authority figures.

After completing his undergraduate studies at Queens College, Milgram earned his PhD from Harvard University in 1960 under the mentorship of Gordon Allport. He subsequently joined Yale University’s faculty, where he conducted his landmark obedience experiments between 1961 and 1962 (Blass, 2004).

Historical Context

The timing of Milgram’s research proved significant. His experiments began in July 1961, just three months after the start of Adolf Eichmann’s trial in Jerusalem. Eichmann, a Nazi bureaucrat, claimed he was “just following orders” when coordinating the deportation of millions to death camps. This defence prompted Milgram to investigate whether such claims of blind obedience warranted scientific scrutiny.

The broader societal context included growing concerns about conformity and authority in post-war America. Social psychologists actively examined how social pressures influenced individual behaviour, as evidenced by Solomon Asch’s conformity experiments and subsequent research into group dynamics (Russell, 2014).

Academic Foundations

Milgram’s approach combined rigorous experimental methodology with profound ethical questions. At Yale, he developed innovative techniques for studying social behaviour in laboratory settings. His experimental paradigm introduced methods that allowed researchers to examine destructive obedience under controlled conditions.

The academic environment of the early 1960s supported this type of research. Yale’s psychology department emphasised empirical studies of social behaviour, and funding was available for controversial research that might illuminate aspects of human nature (Perry, 2013).

Early Career and Research Focus

Before the obedience studies, Milgram conducted research on nationality and conformity in Norway and France. These cross-cultural experiences informed his later work by highlighting how social and cultural contexts influence behaviour. His early career demonstrated a consistent interest in how individuals navigate conflicts between personal conscience and external pressures.

By 1961, Milgram had established himself as a promising young researcher. His academic preparation combined methodological rigour with a deep interest in pressing social questions. This combination would prove crucial in designing and executing the obedience experiments that defined his career and transformed our understanding of human behaviour under authority.

The significance of Milgram’s background extends beyond mere biography. His Jewish heritage, exposure to post-war debates about obedience and responsibility, and thorough academic training converged to create research that continues to provoke discussion about human nature and moral responsibility (Haslam & Reicher, 2018).

The Obedience Experiments

Original Experimental Design

Milgram’s foundational study employed a deceptively simple setup at Yale University in 1961. The experiment presented participants with a stark moral choice: continue administering what they believed were painful electric shocks to another person, or defy the experimenter’s authority.

The study recruited 40 male participants aged 20-50 through newspaper advertisements, offering $4.50 for participation. Participants represented diverse occupational backgrounds, from postal clerks to teachers. Each participant believed they were joining a study about memory and learning (Milgram, 1963).

Methodology

The experimental procedure followed precise protocols:

• Participants were assigned the role of “teacher” through a rigged drawing
• A confederate (Mr Wallace) played the role of “learner”
• An authority figure (Mr Williams) supervised the proceedings
• A shock generator displayed voltage levels from 15 to 450 volts
• Teachers administered increasing shocks for each wrong answer

The shock generator represented a masterpiece of theatrical design. It featured 30 switches in 15-volt increments, with labels ranging from “Slight Shock” to “Danger: Severe Shock”. The final switches bore only ominous “XXX” markings (Milgram, 1974).

Standard Procedure

The learner, strapped to a chair in another room, followed a predetermined script of responses. After reaching 300 volts, the learner pounded on the wall and ceased responding. The experimenter used four standardised prods when participants hesitated:

1. “Please continue”
2. “The experiment requires that you continue”
3. “It is absolutely essential that you continue”
4. “You have no other choice; you must go on”

Key Findings

The original study produced striking results. 65% of participants administered the maximum 450-volt shock. All participants continued to at least 300 volts. These findings contradicted predictions by psychiatrists and laypeople, who expected minimal compliance with such extreme demands (Milgram, 1963).

Experimental Variations

Milgram conducted 18 variations between 1961 and 1962. Key variations tested different conditions:

• Distance between teacher and learner
• Location (Yale versus an office building)
• Presence of rebellious peers
• Authority figure’s proximity
• Multiple teachers working together

The variations demonstrated how situational factors significantly influenced obedience rates. When the experiment moved to a shabby office in Bridgeport, compliance dropped to 47.5%. When peers refused to comply, only 10% of participants continued to maximum voltage (Perry, 2013).

Participant Reactions

Most participants exhibited signs of severe stress:

• Sweating and trembling
• Nervous laughter
• Stuttering and confusion
• Physical discomfort
• Visible anxiety

Recent archival research by Perry (2013) revealed that participant distress often exceeded what Milgram reported in his published works. Audio recordings demonstrate intense emotional conflict as participants struggled with their choices.

This groundbreaking series of experiments established a new paradigm for studying authority and moral behaviour. The findings continue to provoke discussion about human nature and the power of situational forces over individual conscience.

Theoretical Framework

Agency Theory

Milgram developed Agency Theory to explain the psychological mechanisms behind obedience. The theory proposes that individuals operate in two distinct states: the autonomous state and the agentic state (Milgram, 1974).

In the Autonomous state, people:

• Take responsibility for their actions
• Make decisions based on conscience
• Consider the moral implications of their behaviour

In the Agentic state, people:

• View themselves as agents of external authority
• Transfer responsibility to authority figures
• Focus on following orders effectively

The shift between these states occurs through what Milgram termed the ‘Agentic Shift‘. This transition happens when two crucial conditions exist:

1. The authority figure appears legitimate and qualified
2. The person believes the authority will accept responsibility for outcomes

Proximity and Obedience

Milgram identified three types of proximity that affect obedience rates:

Physical proximity – When participants had to physically touch the learner to deliver shocks, obedience dropped to 30%. Distance created emotional buffering that made harm easier to inflict.

Psychological proximity – Familiarity between teacher and learner reduced obedience. When participants knew the learner, compliance rates decreased significantly.

Authority proximity – The physical presence of the authority figure proved crucial. When instructions came by telephone, obedience fell to 20.5% (Milgram, 1965).

Social and Situational Factors

Research identified several key situational elements that enhanced obedience:

• Institutional context – Yale’s prestigious setting legitimised the experiments
• Gradual progression – Small incremental increases in shock levels made compliance easier
• Limited time for reflection – Rapid pace prevented careful moral consideration
• Diffusion of responsibility – The presence of the experimenter allowed participants to shift blame

Psychological Mechanisms

The experiments revealed several psychological processes that facilitate obedience:

Binding factors keep people in the situation:

• Initial commitment to participate
• Awkwardness of withdrawal
• Desire to keep promises

Strain-reducing mechanisms help people continue:

• Denial of responsibility
• Focus on technical aspects
• Avoidance of emotional engagement

Recent research by Haslam et al. (2018) suggests additional factors:

• Engaged followership – People actively identify with the experimenter’s goals
• Scientific understanding – Belief in the experiment’s importance
• Trust in institutional safeguards

Contemporary Understanding

Modern interpretations emphasise the interaction between individual and situational factors. Gibson’s (2013) analysis of archived audio recordings reveals more complex dynamics than originally reported:

• Participants often questioned procedures
• Many expressed moral concerns
• Some attempted to subvert the experiment quietly

This theoretical framework helps explain how ordinary people can commit harmful acts under authority. It demonstrates that obedience emerges from an interplay of psychological, social, and situational factors rather than simple submission to commands.

Critical Analysis

Methodological Issues

Recent archival research has revealed significant concerns about Milgram’s methodology. Perry (2013) discovered several key problems:

• Experimenter behaviour varied significantly from published protocols
• The standardised “prods” were often abandoned for more forceful persuasion
• Many participants suspected the shocks weren’t real
• Data selection appeared selective, with some results remaining unpublished

The experiment’s ecological validity faces particular scrutiny. Critics argue laboratory conditions poorly reflect real-world obedience scenarios. Orne and Holland (1968) questioned whether participants truly believed they administered dangerous shocks.

Sampling Limitations

The original study’s sample presents several constraints:

• All participants were male
• Recruitment used self-selecting methods
• Geographical limitation to New Haven area
• Limited age range (20-50 years)

These limitations restrict the generalisability of findings across gender, culture, and demographic groups (Blass, 1999).

Ethical Concerns

Baumrind’s (1964) influential critique highlighted serious ethical issues:

• Inadequate informed consent
• Potential psychological harm
• Deception about experiment’s true nature
• Limited right to withdraw
• Insufficient debriefing

Recent evidence suggests ethical problems exceeded initial concerns. Perry’s (2013) investigation found:

• Many participants never received proper debriefing
• Long-term distress went unrecorded
• Some participants experienced lasting trauma
• Follow-up surveys may have understated negative impacts

Validity Questions

Several factors challenge the study’s validity:

Internal Validity:

• Experimenter bias potentially influenced results
• Inconsistent application of protocols
• Variable participant belief in the scenario

External Validity:

• Artificial laboratory setting
• Limited real-world application
• Historical specificity of findings

Data Analysis Issues

Gibson’s (2013) examination of original recordings revealed:

• Selective reporting of results
• Omission of significant participant resistance
• Incomplete documentation of experimental variations
• Inconsistent coding of participant responses

These findings suggest Milgram’s published results may have overstated obedience levels.

Recent Revelations

Modern scholarship continues uncovering new perspectives:

• Haslam and Reicher (2018) argue participants showed “engaged followership” rather than blind obedience
• Russell (2014) discovered unpublished conditions showing lower obedience rates
• Archival evidence suggests more participant skepticism than originally reported

These discoveries prompt reconsideration of the experiments’ core conclusions.

Replication Challenges

Modern ethical guidelines prevent exact replication, but partial replications reveal:

• Similar obedience rates in modified conditions
• Consistent gender effects across studies
• Persistent situational influences on behaviour
• Enduring relevance of core findings

Despite these criticisms, Milgram’s work remains influential in understanding authority relationships and moral behaviour. The methodological and ethical issues identified enhance rather than diminish its significance as a cautionary tale about research ethics and human behaviour.

Legacy and Impact

Influence on Research Ethics

Milgram’s experiments triggered fundamental changes in psychological research standards. The study’s controversial methods led directly to stricter ethical guidelines:

• Mandatory informed consent requirements
• Enhanced participant protection protocols
• Stricter deception limitations
• Comprehensive debriefing standards

The American Psychological Association revised its ethical guidelines partly in response to these experiments. Similar changes occurred in British psychology through the British Psychological Society’s code of ethics (Blass, 2004).

Contemporary Relevance

Modern applications of Milgram’s findings appear in multiple contexts:

Organisational Behaviour:

• Corporate compliance structures
• Whistleblowing protocols
• Leadership training programmes
• Ethical decision-making frameworks

Social Issues:

• Understanding institutional abuse
• Analysing corporate misconduct
• Explaining political obedience
• Preventing harmful compliance

Modern Replications

Recent studies adapt Milgram’s paradigm within ethical constraints:

Burger (2009) conducted a partial replication showing:

• Similar obedience rates to original study
• Consistent gender responses
• Enduring situational effects

Virtual reality versions demonstrate comparable findings:

• Participants respond physiologically to virtual victims
• Obedience patterns mirror original study
• Ethical concerns reduce while maintaining research value

Academic Impact

Milgram’s work continues influencing multiple disciplines:

• Social Psychology
• Organisational Behaviour
• Political Science
• Military Studies
• Medical Ethics

Citation analysis shows increasing rather than decreasing reference to these studies (Haslam & Reicher, 2018).

Cultural Influence

The experiments have shaped popular understanding of authority:

• Multiple documentary films
• Theatrical productions
• Television programmes
• Educational materials
• Popular literature

The phrase “just following orders” now carries specific cultural meaning directly linked to these studies.

Educational Applications

Psychology education regularly features Milgram’s work:

• Standard curriculum content
• Ethics discussion catalyst
• Research methods example
• Theory development model

The experiments provide crucial teaching material about:

• Research ethics
• Scientific methodology
• Human behaviour
• Moral responsibility

Ongoing Relevance

Contemporary events continue demonstrating the studies’ significance:

• Corporate scandals
• Political compliance
• Institutional misconduct
• Professional ethics dilemmas

Recent scholarship emphasises the experiments’ enduring lessons about authority, responsibility, and moral courage (Perry, 2013).

Practical Applications

Educational Settings

Modern educators apply Milgram’s insights to create more balanced learning environments. Schools and universities now actively encourage questioning of authority while maintaining necessary structure. Teachers develop strategies that promote both compliance and critical thinking, recognising these goals need not conflict.

In classroom management, teachers establish clear authority boundaries while encouraging appropriate challenges to instructions. This approach helps students develop moral reasoning skills alongside respect for legitimate authority. Research shows students in such environments demonstrate better ethical decision-making capabilities (Gibson, 2019).

Professional development programmes now routinely include training on authority dynamics. Teachers learn to recognise when their authority might inadvertently suppress student voice or creativity. These programmes emphasise three core principles:

• Transparent decision-making
• Balanced power relationships
• Encouraged appropriate questioning

Organisational Implementation

Companies increasingly recognise the importance of preventing harmful obedience in corporate settings. Modern organisations implement structures that allow employees to question decisions without fear of reprisal. This approach has proved particularly valuable in preventing corporate misconduct and improving safety standards.

Leadership training now routinely incorporates lessons from Milgram’s research. Managers learn to exercise authority responsibly while remaining open to challenge. They develop skills in creating environments where team members feel safe raising concerns about potentially harmful directives.

Healthcare Applications

The healthcare sector demonstrates particularly effective practical applications of Milgram’s findings. Hospitals have developed specific protocols that encourage junior staff to question potentially dangerous instructions from seniors. These changes have led to measurable improvements in patient safety and care quality.

Medical teams now operate with ‘challenge protocols’ that make questioning authority not just permissible but expected. When someone spots a potential error, they have both the right and responsibility to speak up. This system has proved especially valuable in operating theatres and emergency departments where hierarchical structures traditionally discouraged questioning.

Implementation Strategies

Successful implementation of these principles requires systematic approaches. Organisations typically begin by assessing their current authority structures and identifying potential problem areas. They then develop targeted interventions that promote healthy authority relationships while maintaining necessary hierarchies.

Regular monitoring proves essential for success. Organisations track key indicators such as reported incidents, staff satisfaction, and challenge rates. These metrics help identify areas needing attention before serious problems develop.

The most effective programmes create comprehensive systems that address authority dynamics at all organisational levels. They combine clear policies, regular training, and practical support mechanisms. This integrated approach helps ensure lasting positive change rather than temporary compliance.

Experience shows these applications work best when leadership actively supports them. When senior figures model appropriate questioning and respond positively to challenges, others feel safer following their example. This cultural shift often proves more powerful than formal policies alone.

Comparisons and Context

Relationship to Other Social Psychology Theories

Milgram’s work connects closely with several influential social psychology theories. Asch’s conformity experiments demonstrated how social pressure influences individual judgement. While Asch examined peer pressure, Milgram revealed how institutional authority creates even stronger compliance pressures (Blass, 1999).

Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment complements Milgram’s findings. Both studies show how situations shape behaviour more powerfully than personality traits. However, where Zimbardo examined how people adopt authoritarian roles, Milgram focused on responses to established authority. Read more about Zimbardo here.

Contemporary Perspectives

Modern social psychologists have expanded Milgram’s theoretical framework. Haslam and Reicher (2018) propose that participants often showed “engaged followership” rather than mere obedience. Their research suggests people actively identify with authority figures’ goals rather than mindlessly obeying.

Contemporary research emphasises three key factors that influence authority relationships:

• Institutional context
• Social identity
• Moral disengagement

Cultural Variations

Cross-cultural studies reveal both similarities and differences in authority responses. Research across various countries shows consistent basic obedience patterns but varying intensity levels. Japanese studies, for example, found higher compliance rates than American replications (Smith & Bond, 1998).

European researchers have examined how cultural factors influence authority relationships. They found that societies with recent authoritarian histories often show more complex responses to authority figures. This suggests historical context shapes how people interpret and respond to authority.

Theoretical Developments

Modern theorists have built upon Milgram’s foundational work. They examine how digital age factors influence authority relationships. Social media, remote working, and online interactions create new authority dynamics requiring fresh analysis.

Organisational psychologists apply these insights to changing workplace structures. They study how virtual teams respond to authority and how traditional command chains function in digital environments. This work extends Milgram’s findings into contemporary contexts.

Integration with Other Fields

Milgram’s work influences disciplines beyond psychology. Sociology uses his insights to examine institutional power structures. Political scientists apply his findings to understand political obedience patterns. Management theorists incorporate his ideas into leadership models.

Neuroscience now provides biological perspectives on authority responses. Brain imaging studies show how authority figures activate specific neural pathways. This research adds physiological evidence to Milgram’s behavioural observations.

Similar Studies and Findings

Sheridan and King replicated aspects of Milgram’s work using a different approach. Their participants administered apparent shocks to a puppy rather than a human confederate. The results showed similar obedience rates, suggesting the underlying mechanisms transcend specific targets.

Recent virtual reality studies provide new insights. While maintaining ethical standards, these experiments demonstrate how technology can help examine authority dynamics. Participants show physiological stress responses even when they know the situation isn’t real.

Related Study: The Hofling Hospital Experiment

The Hofling Hospital Experiment (1966) provides a crucial real-world complement to Milgram’s laboratory findings. This field study examined obedience in working nurses who were unaware they participated in an experiment, offering unique insights into authentic workplace compliance.

The Study Design

Hofling created a situation testing real-world medical obedience. An unknown “doctor” phoned 22 nurses, ordering them to administer double the maximum dosage of a fictional drug. This instruction violated three hospital rules:

• No telephone medication orders
• Never exceed stated maximum doses
• Only use authorized medications

The experimental setup carried significant advantages over Milgram’s laboratory conditions. Nurses operated in their natural work environment, dealing with what they believed was a genuine medical situation. This design eliminated the artificial nature of laboratory experiments (Hofling et al., 1966).

Striking Results

The findings proved remarkable. 21 out of 22 nurses (95%) prepared to administer the potentially dangerous dose. Only one nurse questioned the doctor’s identity. This compliance rate exceeded even Milgram’s famous 65% obedience level.

Particularly telling, when researchers asked a control group of 33 nurses what they would do in this situation, 31 said they would refuse the order. This stark difference between predicted and actual behaviour mirrors Milgram’s finding that people poorly predict their own compliance with authority.

Professional Context

Post-experiment interviews revealed crucial workplace dynamics. Nurses reported that doctors routinely gave telephone orders and reacted negatively to questioning. The professional hierarchy created powerful pressures that overcame both training and formal rules (Hofling et al., 1966).

Modern Significance

The study maintains particular relevance for modern healthcare:

• Highlights ongoing authority dynamics in medical settings
• Demonstrates how workplace hierarchies influence decision-making
• Shows the gap between intended and actual behaviour under pressure

A later attempted replication by Rank and Jacobson (1977) using a real drug produced different results, suggesting that specific knowledge about medications might empower resistance to questionable orders. This finding offers practical insights for professional training and authority relationships.

The Hofling study complements Milgram’s work by demonstrating how authority dynamics operate in real professional contexts. It shows that workplace hierarchies and professional relationships can create compliance pressures potentially more powerful than those found in laboratory settings. Read more about Hofling’s Hospital study here.

Conclusion

Enduring Significance

Sixty years after Milgram’s original experiments, their implications continue to provoke debate and inform practice. The studies reveal fundamental truths about human behaviour under authority that remain relevant across changing social contexts. Recent events in corporate, political, and institutional settings regularly demonstrate the findings’ ongoing relevance.

Modern scholarship enriches rather than diminishes these insights. Perry’s (2013) archival discoveries highlight methodological issues while reinforcing the experiments’ core message about authority’s power. Even critics acknowledge the studies’ crucial role in understanding human behaviour under institutional pressures.

Contemporary Understanding

Current interpretations emphasise the complexity of obedience dynamics. Rather than viewing participants as passive subjects, researchers now recognise their active engagement with authority situations. Three key factors shape modern understanding:

1. Individual agency within institutional constraints
2. Social identity’s role in authority relationships
3. Situational forces’ interaction with personal values

Practical Implications

Experience shows how organisations can apply these insights constructively. Successful programmes create environments where appropriate questioning of authority becomes normal practice. Healthcare provides particularly clear examples, with challenge protocols now standard in many medical settings.

The lessons extend beyond formal institutions. Parents and teachers use these insights to develop more balanced authority relationships. Political analysts apply them to understand public compliance with government directives. Social movements draw on them to promote responsible resistance to harmful authority.

Future Directions

Research continues exploring new aspects of authority relationships. Current areas of investigation include:

• Digital authority dynamics
• Cross-cultural authority patterns
• Authority in remote working environments
• Social media’s impact on traditional authority structures

Ethical Considerations

Modern researchers face challenges balancing scientific inquiry with ethical constraints. While exact replications remain impossible, creative methodologies provide new insights. Virtual reality and simulation studies offer particular promise for ethical investigation of authority dynamics.

Educational Value

The experiments’ educational impact extends beyond psychology. They provide valuable teaching material across disciplines, from business ethics to political science. Their power lies in combining scientific rigour with profound moral implications.

Professional training programmes regularly use these studies to explore authority dynamics. They help future leaders understand both the power and responsibilities of authority positions. Medical schools, business programmes, and military academies all draw on these insights.

Lasting Legacy

Milgram’s work fundamentally changed how we understand authority relationships. Beyond specific findings, it demonstrated the importance of empirical research into moral behaviour. The studies show how scientific methods can illuminate complex ethical issues.

The experiments’ lasting influence appears in continuing citations, practical applications, and public discourse. They provide an essential framework for understanding both individual and institutional behaviour under authority pressures. Their lessons remain crucial for addressing contemporary challenges in organisational and social settings.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the Milgram experiment study?

The Milgram experiment studied obedience to authority. It examined how ordinary people followed orders to administer apparently harmful electric shocks to another person when instructed by an authority figure. The study revealed that 65% of participants administered the maximum voltage despite hearing protests from the recipient.

What is Milgram’s theory?

Milgram’s Agency Theory proposes that people operate in two distinct states: autonomous (taking personal responsibility) and agentic (viewing themselves as agents of authority’s will). In the agentic state, people transfer responsibility to authority figures and focus on following orders rather than considering moral implications.

Why was Milgram’s experiment very controversial?

The experiment proved controversial for several reasons: it involved significant deception, caused participants severe emotional distress, provided limited right to withdraw, and raised serious ethical concerns about psychological harm. Recent research reveals many participants never received proper debriefing about their experience.

How many participants were in Milgram’s study?

The original study included 40 male participants aged 20-50. However, Milgram conducted 18 variations involving 636 participants between 1961 and 1962.

Was Milgram’s experiment ethical?

By modern standards, the experiment would not receive ethical approval. It violated current principles of informed consent, right to withdraw, and protection from harm. However, it led to significant improvements in research ethics guidelines.

Did Milgram’s experiment use real electric shocks?

No, the shocks were simulated. The “learner” was an actor who pretended to receive shocks. However, the participants believed the shocks were real, which was crucial for studying their behaviour.

What voltage levels were used in the experiment?

The shock generator displayed 30 switches ranging from 15 to 450 volts, increasing in 15-volt increments. Labels ranged from “Slight Shock” to “Danger: Severe Shock”, with the final switches marked “XXX”.

What were the four prods used by the experimenter?

The experimenter used four standardised instructions in sequence: “Please continue,” “The experiment requires that you continue,” “It is absolutely essential that you continue,” and “You have no other choice; you must go on.”

How does Milgram’s work relate to real-world situations?

The findings help explain institutional obedience in various contexts, from corporate misconduct to military actions. The research provides insights into why people follow harmful orders in organisational settings.

Can Milgram’s experiment be replicated today?

Exact replication isn’t possible due to ethical constraints. However, researchers conduct modified versions using virtual reality or reduced shock levels. Burger’s 2009 partial replication showed similar obedience rates to Milgram’s original study.

How do Milgram’s findings apply to modern workplaces?

Organisations use these insights to develop better authority structures, including clear reporting channels, challenge protocols, whistleblower protection, and ethical decision-making frameworks. These applications help prevent harmful compliance while maintaining necessary authority structures.

What has recent research revealed about the experiments?

Recent archival research by Perry (2013) discovered variations in experimenter behaviour, selective reporting of results, inadequate participant debriefing, and higher levels of participant distress than originally reported. These findings have enhanced rather than diminished the study’s significance for understanding authority dynamics.

References and Further Reading

Academic Papers and Books

Baumrind, D. (1964). Some thoughts on ethics of research: After reading Milgram’s “Behavioral Study of Obedience.” American Psychologist, 19(6), 421-423.

Blass, T. (1999). The Milgram paradigm after 35 years: Some things we now know about obedience to authority. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(5), 955-978.

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

Gibson, S. (2019). Arguing, obeying and defying: A rhetorical perspective on Stanley Milgram’s obedience experiments. Cambridge University Press.

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(2), 292-300.

Hofling, C. K., Brotzman, E., Dalrymple, S., Graves, N. & Bierce, C. (1966). An experimental study of nurse-physician relations. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 143, 171-180.

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

Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. Harper & Row.

Perry, G. (2013). Behind the shock machine: The untold story of the notorious Milgram psychology experiments. The New Press.

Primary Sources (Milgram’s Original Works)

Milgram, S. (1961). Dynamics of obedience. Washington: National Science Foundation. [Original grant report]

Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 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. Harper & Row.

Contemporary Critical Analyses

Baumrind, D. (1964). Some thoughts on ethics of research: After reading Milgram’s behavioral study of obedience. American Psychologist, 19(6), 421-423.

Blass, T. (1999). The Milgram paradigm after 35 years: Some things we now know about obedience to authority. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(5), 955-978.

Blass, T. (2004). The man who shocked the world: The life and legacy of Stanley Milgram. Basic Books.

Gibson, S. (2013). Milgram’s obedience experiments: A rhetorical analysis. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52, 290-309.

Perry, G. (2013). Behind the shock machine: The untold story of the notorious Milgram psychology experiments. The New Press.

Modern Replications and Extensions

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

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. 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. Current Opinion in Psychology, 11, 6-9.

Theoretical Developments

Orne, M. T., & Holland, C. H. (1968). On the ecological validity of laboratory deceptions. International Journal of Psychiatry, 6(4), 282-293.

Russell, N. J. C. (2014). Stanley Milgram’s obedience to authority “relationship” condition: Some methodological and theoretical implications. Social Sciences, 3, 194-214.

Smith, P. B., & Bond, M. H. (1998). Social psychology across cultures (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall.

Historical Context and Impact Studies

Shanab, M. E., & Yahya, K. A. (1978). A cross-cultural study of obedience. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 11, 267-269.

Snow, C. P. (1961). Either-or. Progressive, 24. [Contemporary commentary on authority]

Recent Reviews and Meta-Analyses

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.

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.

Recommended Reading for Students

Core Texts:

• Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority – remains the definitive account from Milgram himself
• Perry, G. (2013). Behind the Shock Machine – provides crucial modern perspective and new revelations
• Gibson, S. (2019). Arguing, Obeying and Defying – offers contemporary analysis of the experiments

For Further Study:

• The Man Who Shocked the World: The Life and Legacy of Stanley Milgram by Thomas Blass
• Understanding Genocide: The Social Psychology of the Holocaust by Leonard S. Newman
• The Social Psychology of Good and Evil edited by Arthur G. Miller

Online Resources

The Yale University Milgram Archives: Contains original materials, including audio recordings and experimental documentation. https://archives.yale.edu/repositories/12/resources/4865

Britannica Website: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Stanley-Milgram

Video Resources

Obedience (1965): Milgram’s original documentary about the experiments.

Experimenter (2015): Feature film exploring Milgram’s life and work.

Teaching Resources

British Psychological Society teaching materials on the Milgram experiments.

American Psychological Association ethics case studies based on Milgram’s work.

Download this Article as a PDF

Download this article as a PDF so you can revisit it whenever you want. We’ll email you a download link.

You’ll also get notification of our FREE Early Years TV videos each week.

Get your PDF Download and FREE Early Years TV Updates

To cite this article use:

Early Years TV Stanley Milgram’s Shock Experiment: Authority & Obedience. Available at: https://www.earlyyears.tv/stanley-milgrams-shock-experiment-authority-amp-obedience (Accessed: 11 December 2024).

Kathy Brodie

Kathy Brodie is an Early Years Professional, Trainer and Author of multiple books on Early Years Education and Child Development. She is the founder of Early Years TV and the Early Years Summit.

Kathy’s Author Profile