Stanley Milgram | Tony Ryan's Web Site

If you wish to get your own copy of the study, you will need the reference it it:

"Behavioural Study of Obedience", Stanley Milgram, 1963, Vol. 67, No. 4, pages 371-378

Stanley Milgram was a professor of psychology at Yale University. His parents were Jewish and had emigrated to America from Eastern Europe during World War I. Milgram was appalled at what he saw happening in Europe with the persecution and murder of millions of Jews. He joined together with other psychologists, such as Solomon Asch, and Gordon Allport to study what happened in the Holocaust with the view to trying to prevent it's recurrence.

This study into obedience is probably one of the most famous psychology studies - ever! It has been reported on TV and Derren Brown has used this study in some of his TV shows. He actually found someone in his show that also knew the study, but could not help but continue to obey, even though he knew that it was a set-up.

Stanley Milgram sitting in front of his shock machine

Introduction:

Obedience is a basic element in the structure of our social life. Some system of authority is a requirement of all communal living, and it is only the person living in isolation that is not forced to respond, through defiance or submission to the commands of others. Obedience, as a determinant of behaviour is of particular interest to our time. It has been reliably established that from 1933-45 millions of innocent persons were systematically slaughtered on command. Gas chamber were built, death camps were guarded, daily quotas of corpses were produced with the same efficiency as the manufacture of appliances. These inhumane policies may have originated in the mind of a single person, but they could only be carried out on a massive scale if a very large number of people obeyed orders.

Obedience is the psychological mechanism that links individual action to political purpose. It is the dispositional cement that binds men to systems of authority. Facts of recent history and observation in daily life suggest that for many persons obedience may be: deeply ingrained behaviour tendency, indeed a prepotent impulse overriding training in ethics, sympathy, and moral conduct. C.P. Snow points to its importance when he writes:

"When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion. If you doubt that, read William Shirer's "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich". The German Officer Corps were brought up in the most rigorous code of obedience......in the name of obedience they were party to, and assisted in, the most large scale actions in the history of the world."

While the particular form of obedience dealt with in this study has its antecedents in these episodes, it must not be thought that all obedience entails acts of aggression against others. Obedience serves numerous productive functions. Indeed, the very life of society is predicated on its existence. Obedience may be enabling and educative and refers to acts of charity and kindness, as well as destruction.

Method:

The method that Milgram used in this study was a Controlled Observation. Milgram went on to carry out the same procedure in different environments, different participants, and sometimes varied the procedure. When the findings of this study are compared to the variations, that will then be an experiment. See my METHODS page for an explanation.

Sample:

The participants were 40 males between the ages of 20 and 50, drawn from New Haven and the surrounding communities. Participants were obtained by a newspaper advert and direct mail-shots. Those who responded to the appeal believed they were to participate in a study of memory and learning at Yale University. A wide variety of professions was evident, from those who had a doctorate to someone that had not finished elementary school. They were paid $4.50 for their participation in the study. However, the participants were told that payment was simply for coming to the laboratory, and the the money was theirs no matter what happened when they arrived.

DISTRIBUTION OF AGE AND OCCUPATION TYPES IN THE STUDY

Occupations 20-29 30-39 40-50 Percentage of total

years years years (observations)

Workers, skilled 4 5 6 37.5

and unskilled

Sales, business 3 6 7 40.0

and white collar

Professional 1 5 3 22.5

Percentage of total 20 40 40

(Age)

To the right, you can see a copy of the advert that was placed in the newspaper to advertise for participants to take part in the study.

There were other people involved in the study. The experimenter was a 31 year old high school biology teacher. His manner was impassive, and his appearance somewhat stern throughout the study. He was dressed in a grey technician's coat. The victim was played by a 47 year old accountant, trained for the role, he was of Irish-American stock, whom most observers found mild-mannered and likable.

Procedure:

One naïve participant and one victim (an accomplice) took part in each trial of the study. A pretext had to be devised that would justify the administration of electric shock by the naïve participant. This was effectively accomplished by the cover story. After a general introduction on the presumed relation between punishment and learning, the participants were told:

"But actually we know very little about the effect of punishment on learning, because almost no truly scientific studies have been made of it in human beings

For instance we don't know how much punishment is best for learning - and we don't know how much difference it makes as to who is giving the punishment, whether an adult learns better than an older or younger person than himself - or many things of that sort.

So in this study we are bringing together a number of adults of different occupations and ages. And we're asking tsome of them to be teachers and some of them to be learners.

We want to find out just what effect different people have on each other as teachers and learners and also what effect punishment will have on learning in this situation.

Therefore, I am going to ask one of you to be the teacher here tonight and the other one to be the learner.

Do either of you have a preference?

Subjects then drew slips of paper from a hat to determine who would be teacher and who would be learner in the study. The draw was rigged so that the naïve participant was always the teacher, and the accomplice was always the teacher (Both slips of paper contained the word "Teacher"). Immediately after the draw, the teacher and the learner were taken to an adjacent room and the learner was strapped into an "electric chair" apparatus.

The experimenter explained that the straps were to prevent excessive movement while the learner was being shocked. The effect was to make it impossible for him to leave the situation. An electrode was attached to the learner's wrist, and electrode paste was applied "to avoid blisters and burns". Participants were told that the electrode was attached to the shock generator in the adjoining room.

In order to improve credibility the experimenter declared in response to a question by the learner: "Although the shocks can be extremely painful, they cause no permanent damage".

THE LEARNING TASK

The lesson administered by the teacher was a paired-associate learning task. The teacher read out a series of word pairs to the learner, and then read the first word of the pair along with four terms, including the correct term. The learner was to indicate which of the four terms had originally been paired with the first word. The learner communicated his answer by pressing one of four switches in front of him, which in turn lit up one of the four numbered quadrants in an answer box located on top of the shock generator.

THE SHOCK GENERATOR

The instrument panel consists of 30 lever switches set in a horizontal line. Each switch is clearly labelled with a voltage designation that ranges from 15 to 450 Volts. There is a 15-volt increment from one switch to the next, going from left to right. In addition, the following verbal designations are clearly indicated for groups of four switches going from left to right: Sight Shock, Moderate Shock, Strong Shock, Very Strong Shock, Intense Shock, Extreme Intensity Shock, Danger Severe Shock. The two last switches after this are simply marked with XXX.

Upon depressing a switch, a pilot light corresponding to each switch is illuminated in bright red, an electric blue light labelled "Voltage Energiser" flashes, the dial on the voltage meter swings to the right, various relay clicks are heard.

The upper left corner of the generator is labelled Shock Generator, Type ZLB, Dyson Instrument Company, Waltham, Mass. Output 15 Volts-450 Volts.

Details of the instrument were carefully handled to ensure the appearance of authenticity. The panel was engraved by professional industrial engravers, and all of the components were of high quality. No participant in the study suspected that the instrument was merely a fake.

SAMPLE SHOCK

Each naïve participant (teacher) is given a sample shock on the shock generator, prior to beginning his run as teacher. This shock is always 45 Volts, and is applied by pressing the third switch of the generator. The shock is applied to the wrist of the naïve participant, and has as its source a 45 Volt battery wired into the generator. This further convinces the teacher of the authenticity of the generator.

SHOCK INSTRUCTIONS

The teacher is instructed to administer a shock to the learner each time he gives an incorrect response. Moreover, and this is the key command, the teacher is instructed to "move one level higher on the shock generator each time the learner flashes the incorrect answer". He is also instructed to announce the voltage level before administering a shock. This serves to remind the teacher of the increasing intensity of shocks administer to the learner.

PRELIMINARY AND REGULAR RUN

Pre-tests revealed that the procedure of reading words and administering shocks requires some practice before it can be handled smoothly. Therefore, immediately preceding the regular run, the teacher is given a preliminary list of 10 word pairs to read to the learner. There are 3 neutral words in the practice series (i.e. words that the learner answers correctly), so that shocks are administered for 7 of the words, with the maximum shock at 105 Volts (moderate shock). Almost all of the participants master the procedure by the time the preliminary run is over.

Participants are then presented with a second list, and are told that the procedure is the same as for the first list, the experimenter adds, however:

"When you get to the bottom of the list, repeat it over again, and continue giving shocks, until the learner has learned all the pairs correctly".

The experimenter instructs the participant (teacher) to,

"start from 15 Volts and increase the shock level on step each time the learner gives a wrong answer".

FEEDBACK FROM THE LEARNER (VICTIM)

In all conditions the learner gives a predetermined set of responses to the word pair list, based on a schedule of approximately three wrong answers to one correct answer. In the present study no vocal response or sign of protest is heard from the learner until Shock Level 300 Volts is reached. When the 300 Volt shock has been administered the learner pounds on the wall of the room in which he is bound to the electric chair. The pounding can be heard by the teacher. From this point on, the learners answers do not appear on the four way panel.

At this point, participants ordinarily turn to the experimenter for guidance. The experimenter instructs the teacher to treat the absence of an answer as a wrong answer, and to shock the learner accordingly to the usual schedule. He advises the teacher to all 5-10 seconds before considering no response as a wrong answer, and to increase the shock level one step each time the learner fails to respond correctly. The learner's pounding is heard again after the 315 Volt shock is administered, after this he is not heard from again, nor do his answers appear on the four way signal box.

EXPERIMENTER FEEDBACK

At various points during the procedure the teacher would indicate that he was unwilling to continue, the experimenter would respond with a series of "prods" using as many as required to get the teacher to continue.

Prod 1: "Please continue" or "Please go on"

Prod 2: "The experiment require that you continue".

Prod 3: "It is absolutely essential that you continue".

Prod 4: "You have no other choice, you must go on".

The prods were always made in sequence: Only if Prod 1 had been unsuccessful, could Prod 2 be used. If the subject refused to obey the experimenter after Prod 4, the study was terminated. The experimenter's tone of voice was at all times firm. but no impolite. The sequence was begun anew on each occasion the the teacher showed reluctance to carry on.

SPECIAL PRODS

If the teacher asked if the learner was liable to suffer permanent physical injury, the experimenter would say:

"Although the shocks may be painful there is no permanent tissue damage so please do on." (Followed by Prods 2,3,and 4 if necessary.

I the teacher said that the learner did not want to go on, the experimenter replied:

"Whether the learner likes it or not, you must go on until he has learned all the word pairs correctly. So please go on". (Followed by Prod 2, 3 and 4 if necessary)

DEPENDENT MEASURES

The primary dependent measure for any participant is the maximum shock he administers before he refuses to go any further. In principle, this may vary from 0 volts (for a participant who refuses to administer even the first shock) to 450 Volts (for a participant who administers the highest shock on the generator). A participant who breaks off the experiment at any point prior to administering the thirtieth shock level is termed a defiant participant. One who complies with the commands of the experimenter fully, and proceeds to administer all shock levels commanded, is termed an obedient participant.

Further records

With few exceptions, experimental sessions were recorded on magnetic tape, Occasional photographs were taken through a one-way mirrors. Notes were kept on any unusual behaviour occurring during the course of the study. On occasion, additional observers were directed to write objective descriptions of the participant's behaviour. The latency and duration of the shocks were recorded by accurate timing devices.

Interview and de-hoax

Following the study the participants were interviewed; open-ended questions, protective measures, and attitude scales were employed. After the interview, procedures were taken to assure that the participant would leave the laboratory in a state of well-being. A friendly reconciliation was arranged between the participant (teacher) and the victim (learner), and an effort was made to reduce any tensions that arose from the result of the study.

Results:

PRELIMINARY NOTIONS

Before the study was carried out, Fourteen Yale senior students, all psychology majors, were provided with a detailed description of the study. They were asked to reflect carefully on it and to predict the behaviour of 100 hypothetical participants. Mor specifically, they were instructed to plot the distribution of obedience of "100 Americans of divers occupations, ranging in age from 20 to 50 years" who would be participants in this study.

There was considerable agreement. All of the students predicted that only an insignificant minority would go to the end of the shock series (Estimates range from 0 to 3%. The most "pessimistic" student predicted that of 100 persons, only 3 would continue to the most potent shock available on the shock generator - 450 Volts). The class average was 1.2% fully obedient persons. The same question was also posed informally to colleagues of the author, and the most general feeling was that few, if any participants, would go beyond the designation Very Strong Shock (195-240 Volts).

PARTICIPANTS ACCEPT THE SITUATION

With very few exceptions the participants were convinced of the reality of the situation, that they were administering shocks to another person, and the most potent shocks were extremely painful. In the debrief interview the participants were asked:

"How painful to the learner were the last few shocks that you administered to him?"

Participants were instructed to give their answer on a 14-point scale ranging from "Not at all painful" (0) to "Extremely painful" (14). The most popular answer was 14 (Extremely painful), with the mean at 13.42.

SIGNS OF EXTREME TENSION

Many participants showed signs of nervous ness during the study, and especially upon administering the more powerful shocks. In a large number of cases the degree of tension reached extremes that are rarely seen in sociopsychological laboratory studies. Participants were observed to sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips, groan, and dig their finger-nails into their flesh. These were the most common behaviours seen, rather than exceptions.

One sign of tension was the regular occurrence of nervous laughing fits. Fourteen of the 40 participants showed definite signs of nervous laughter and smiling. The laughter seemed entirely out of place, even bizarre. (However, at this point, I should say that it is common for soldiers going into battle to sometimes have laughing fits.) Full-blown uncontrollable seizures were observed for 3 participants. On one occasion we observed a seizure so violently convulsive that it was necessary to call a halt to the study. The participant was a 46-year-old encyclopaedia salesman, was seriously embarrassed by his untoward and uncontrollable behaviour. In the debrief interview participants took pains to point out that they were not sadistic types, and that laughter did not mean that they enjoyed shocking the victim.

DISTRIBUTION OF SCORES

The distribution of maximum shocks for this study are shown in the table below:

DISTRIBUTION OF BREAKOFF POINTS

Verbal designation and Number of participants for whom

Voltage indication this was their maximum shock

To save space etc. No-one stopped giving shocks until the

300 Volt level, which is were I will start.

Intense Shock

300 volts 5

Extreme Intense Shock

315 Volts 4

330 Volts 2

345 Volts 1

360 Volts 1

Danger: Severe Shock

375 Volts 1

390 Volts 0

405 Volts 0

420 Volts 0

XXX

435 Volts 0

450 Volts 26

It had been conjectured that persons would not, in general, agree to administer shocks beyond the level designated as Very Strong Shock. The obtained distribution of scores deviated radically from that prediction.

Upon the command of the experimenter, each of the 40 participants went beyond the expected breakoff point. No participants stopped prior to administering Shock Level 20. At this level - 300 Volts the victim pounds on the wall and no longer provides answers to the teacher's multiple choice questions.

Of the 40 participants, 5 refused to obey the commands to continue beyond the 300 Volt level. Four more participants administered one more shock, and then refused to continue. Two broke off at the 330 Volt level, and one each at 345, 360, and 375 Volts, a total of 14 defiant participants.

It is important to look at remarks made at the point of refusal:

"I think he's trying to communicate, he's knocking. Well, it's not fair to shock the guy... these are terrific volts. I don't think this is very humane...Oh, I can't go on with this no this isn't right, Tt's a hell of an experiment. The guy is suffering in there. No, I don't want to go on"

(Participant refused to administer more shocks)

These participants were often in a highly agitated and even angered state. Sometimes, verbal protest was at a minimum, and the participant simply got up from his chair in front of the shock generator, and indicated that he wanted to leave the laboratory.

Of the 40 participants, 26 obeyed the orders of the experimenter to the end, proceeding to punish the victim until they reached the most potent shock available on the shock generator. At that point, the experimenter called a halt to the session. Although obedient subjects continue to administer shocks, they often did so under extreme duress. Some expressed reluctance to administer shocks beyond the 300 Volt level and displayed fears similar to those who defied the experimenter, yet they obeyed.

After the maximum shock had been delivered and the experimenter called a halt to the proceedings, many obedient participants heaved a sigh of relief, mopped their brow, rubbed their fingers over their eyes, nervously fumbled cigarettes. Some participants had remained calm throughout the study and displayed only minimal signs of tension from beginning to end.

Discussion:

This results of the study gave us two findings that were surprising. The first thing was the level of obedience that was found in the study. Participants would have learned, from a young age, that it is a fundamental breach of moral conduct to hurt somebody else against their will. Yet, 26 participants seemed to have abandoned this tenet in following the instructions of an authority who have no special powers to enforce his commands. To disobey would bring no material loss to the participant, no punishment would ensue. It is clear from the the remarks and the outward behaviour of many participants that in punishing the victim they are often acting against their own values. Participants often expressed deep disapproval of shocking a man in the face of his objections and others denounced it as stupid and senseless. Yet the majority complied with the orders of the experimenter. This outcome was surprising from two perspectives: first, from the standpoint of predictions made in the questionnaire carried out by the psychology students from Yale. It is possible that the remoteness of the responders from the actual situation, and the difficulty of conveying to them the concrete details of the experiment, could account for the serious underestimation of obedience.

But the results were also unexpected to persons who observed the experiment in progress, through one-way mirrors. Observers often uttered expressions of disbelief upon seeing a participant administer more powerful shocks to the victim. These persons had a full acquaintance with the details of the situation, and yet systematically underestimated the amount of obedience that participants would display.

The second unanticipated effect was the extraordinary tension generated by the procedures. One might suppose that a participant would simply break off or continue as his conscience dictated. Yet, this is very far from what happened. There were striking reactions of tensions and emotional strain. One observer related:

"I observed a mature and initially poised businessman enter the laboratory smiling and confident. Within 20 minutes he was reduced to a twitching, stuttering wreck, who was rapidly approaching a point of nervous collapse. He constantly pulled on his earlobe, and twisted his hands. At one point he pushed his fist into his forehead and muttered: "Oh God, let's stop it." And yet he continued to respond to every word of the experimenter, and obeyed to the end."

Any understanding of the phenomenon of obedience must rest on an analysis of the particular conditions in which it occurs. The following feature of the study go some distance in explaining the high amount of obedience observed in this situation.

1. The study was sponsored by and takes place in the grounds of an institution o unimpeachable reputation, Yale University. It may be reasonably presumed that the personnel are competent and reputable. The importance of this background authority is now being studied by conducting a series of studies outside of New Haven, and without any visible ties to the University.

2. The study is, on the face of it, designed to attain a worthy purpose - advancement of knowledge about learning and memory. Obedience occurs not as an end in itself, but as an instrumental element in a situation the the participant construes as significant and meaningful. He has may not be able to see its full significance, but he may properly assume that the experimenter does.

3. The participant perceive that the victim has voluntarily submitted to the authority system of the experimenter. He is not (at first) and unwilling captive impressed for involuntary service. He has taken the trouble to come to the laboratory presumably to aid in the research. That he later becomes and involuntary participant does not alter the fact that, initially, he consented to participate without qualification. Thus he has in some degree incurred an obligation toward the experimenter

4. The participant too, has enter the situation voluntarily, and he perceives himself under an obligation to aid the experimenter. He has made a commitment, and to disrupt the study is a repudiation of this initial promise of aid.

5. Certain features of the procedure strengthen the participant's sense of obligation to the experimenter. For one, he has been paid for coming to the laboratory. In part, this is cancelled out by the experimenter's comment that:

"Of course, as in all experiments, the money is yours simply for coming to the laboratory. From this point on, no matter what happens, the money is yours."

(It is mentioned at this point that Milgram completed a similar study with 43 Yale undergraduates, and did not pay them. He found similar results with the paid participants.)

6. From the participant's standpoint, the fact that he is teacher and the other man is learner is purely a chance consequence (it is determined by drawing lots) and he, the participant, ran the same risk as the other man in being assigned the role of learner. Since the assignment of positions in the study was achieved by fair means, the learner is deprived of any basis of complaint on this count. (A similar situation happens in Army units, in which, in the absence of volunteers, a particularly dangerous mission may be assigned by drawing lots, and the unlucky soldiers are expected to bear this misfortune with sportsmanship.

7. There is, at best, ambiguity with regard to the prerogatives of a psychologist and the corresponding rights of a participant. There is a vagueness of expectation concerning what the psychologist may require of his participant, and when he is overstepping acceptable limits. Moreover, the study occurs in a closed setting, and thus provides no opportunity for the participant to remove these ambiguities by discussing with others. There are few standards that seem directly applicable to the situation, which is a novel one for most participants.

8. The participants are assured that the shocks administered to the learner are "painful but not dangerous". Thus they assume that the discomfort caused is momentary, while the scientific gains resulting from the study are enduring.

9. Through to Shock Level 20 (300 Volts) the victim continues to provide answers on the signal box. The teacher may construe this as a sign that the victim is still willing to "play the game". It is only after Shock Level 20 that the victim repudiates the rules and refusing to answer further.

The features described above help to explain the high amount of obedience obtained in this study. Many of the arguments raised need not remain matters of speculation, but can be reduced to testable propositions to be confirmed or disproved by further study.

The following features of the study concern the nature of the conflict which the participant faces.

10. The participant is placed in a position in which he must respond to the competing demands of two persons: the experimenter and the victim. The conflict must be resolved by meeting the demands of one or the other; satisfaction of the victim and the experimenter are mutually exclusive. Moreover, the resolution must take the form of a highly visible action, that of continuing to shock the victim or breaking off the study. Thus the participant is forced into a public conflict that does not permit any completely satisfactory solution.

11. While the demands of the experimenter carry the weight of scientific authority, the demands of the victim spring from his personal experience of pain and suffering. The two claims need not be regarded as equally pressing and legitimate. The experimenter seeks and abstract datum, the victim cries out for relief from physical suffering caused by the participant's actions.

12. The study gives the participant little time for reflection. The conflict comes on rapidly. It is only minutes after the participant has been seated before the shock generator that the victim begins his protests. Moreover, the participant perceives that he has gone through but two-thirds of the shock levels at the time the victims first protests are heard. Thus he understands that the conflict will have a persistent aspect to it, and may well become more intense as increasingly more powerful shocks are required. The rapidity with which the conflict descends on the subject, and his realization that it is predictably recurrent may well be sources of tension to him.

13. At a more general level, the conflict stems from the opposition of two deeply ingrained dispositions: first, the disposition not to harm another, and secondly, the tendency to obey those whom we perceive to be legitimate authorities.

Personal Reflections:

Often, when I have taught this study to students I ask them for ideas to evaluate the study. Very often it is suggested that the sample is not representative of the general population. I agree with that suggestion. However, the question that I ask next is, "Who's behaviour was Milgram interested in, given that he was from a Jewish background." At this point some with say "German Soldiers" Then I say: "What are the characteristics of German Soldiers? " by now, someone will have twigged what I have getting at and will say: "Males, of a variety of occupations, aged 20-50." In terms of the sample, I think Milgram got it absolutely right. However, he did go on to study all sorts of samples in all sorts of situations. He did a study on women and found the same things. He set up a situation where the teacher had to force the victim's hand onto a copper plate so that he could be shocked, not realising what might happen. In one of these situations the teacher was heard to say "You had better co-operate so that we can get out of here." (Nuff said!)