Experiments

Milgram obedience 1963

In a staged shock procedure at Yale, most participants in the main condition continued to the highest level when an experimenter told them to.

Social psychologyDemonstration

Stanley Milgram

Main paper: Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040525

The question

How far will ordinary adults go in following an authority's instructions to harm another person?

Design: demonstration

A single case or single condition that shows a phenomenon can occur. It has no comparison that rules out other explanations.

The 1963 report describes one main condition with no comparison. Milgram's later program varied conditions, but this profile covers the 1963 paper.

Milgram's 1963 main condition

Teacher

  1. Asked to give a shock for each wrong answer
  2. Levels rise from 15 to 450 volts

Result reportedContinue or stop

Experimenter

  1. Gives standard prompts to continue

Result reportedApplies pressure

Learner

  1. Confederate who receives no real shocks

Result reportedPart of the staged procedure

Original diagram drawn for this site from the descriptions in the sources. It is a simplified summary, not a figure from the paper.

Procedure

Adult men recruited by advertisement came to a Yale laboratory believing they were helping a study of memory and punishment. One participant was set as the teacher and a confederate as the learner. The teacher was told to give the learner a shock for each wrong answer, rising across a panel of 30 switches from 15 to 450 volts. The learner received no actual shocks.

When participants hesitated, the experimenter gave standard prompts to continue.

Findings

Of 40 participants, 26 continued to the highest level on the panel and 14 stopped earlier. Milgram's own later retrospective and the textbook account both give these counts.

The paper reports one main condition, so it does not show which features of the setting produced the result.

Interpretation

Milgram argued that situational features, such as the experimenter's legitimacy and the step-by-step escalation, can lead people to continue even when they are distressed. He did not claim the participants were cruel people.

Limits on what it shows

  • One main condition in the 1963 report, so it cannot show which features of the setting produced the result.
  • The participants were volunteers from one area and were all men, so the proportion does not describe people in general.
  • Whether participants believed the shocks were real bears on how the result should be read.

Ethics

Participants were told the shocks were real and were deceived about the learner's role. The procedure placed them in a conflict between continuing and stopping, which is why it is a central case in discussions of deception, harm and debriefing.

Replication and reassessment

Burger (2009) ran a partial replication with 70 participants in total across conditions. It stopped at the 150-volt level, so it cannot say how many people would have reached the highest level. Read it as a test of the early part of the procedure only.

Think it through. An original practice question written for this site.

Why is a majority figure from one lab setting a weak basis for saying that most people would obey a harmful order at work?

Show a way to reason about it

The sample was a particular group of volunteers in one staged setting, and the result may depend on features such as the institution's prestige and belief in the setup. Generalizing needs different samples, settings and comparison conditions.

Nothing you think or select here is recorded.

Textbook connection

Covered in this sectionOpenStax Psychology 2e, 12.4 Conformity, Compliance, and Obedience

Section covers Milgram's obedience experiments.

Sources and access scope

Each label says how much of the source was opened while preparing this profile. An unopened source is listed so the claim can be checked, not because it was read.

  1. Burger, J. M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? The American Psychologist, 64(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0010932Consulted sourceReassessment or critiqueAbstract inspected

    Abstract gives 70 participants in total and a partial replication that stopped at 150 volts.

  2. Milgram (1981), author’s retrospective on the obedience paper (citation classic). (n.d.). https://garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1981/A1981LC33300001.pdfOriginal researchAuthor retrospective inspected

    One-page commentary by the author. It states that 26 of 40 participants reached the maximum level. It is not the original 1963 paper.

  3. Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040525Original researchNot inspected; citation only

    DOI for the original article, which has not been inspected for this profile. Details here rest on the author retrospective and the textbook section.

  4. Spielman, R. M., Jenkins, W. J., & Lovett, M. D. (2020). Psychology 2e. OpenStax. https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/12-4-conformity-compliance-and-obedienceTextbook contextSelected textbook passages inspected

    Textbook context. The section describes Milgram's experiments and the 65 percent figure.