In this post, Keegan (a therapist) breaks down the infamous Milgram Obedience Experiment. In the 1960s, Stanley Milgram had ordinary people administer a severe, seemingly fatal electric shock to an innocent person simply because an authority figure ordered them to. Although the shocks weren’t real, a study like this would likely not happen today. We explore the dark reality of human obedience, how factors like uniforms and proximity twist our moral compass, and the massive ethical controversies that followed.
In the 1960s, Milgram put out an ad at Yale University asking for people to help with an experiment about learning. When participants arrived, them and another participant were “randomly” assigned to the role of the learner or the teacher. But, it wasn’t actually random. The participant was always assigned to be the teacher. In the learner role, they secretly had an actor. The learner was a man in his fifties who was described as “pleasant looking”.
The participant in the teacher role was unaware that this wasn’t random. They watched as the learner was put into an electric chair and had electrodes attached to them. Then, the teacher was led to another room where they were positioned at a machine that would generate a shock. The machine had a dial that allowed the level of the shock to be changed. The charge ranged from 15 volts, labeled a “slight shock”, to 450 volts, labeled “Danger: severe shock”. Again, though, the teacher was not aware the the participant was not actually going to be shocked.
Once set up, the experimenters told the teacher to shock the learner every time the learner makes a mistake. With each mistake, the shock should also be increased by 15 volts. As the shock increased, the learner—again, who is secretly an actor—moans in pain. At 100 volts, the actor complains that he has a heart condition. When the teachers objected to continuing or voiced concern, they were told to continue and that the experiment must go on. Eventually, the learner falls silent.
In the experiment, the teachers would voice how they were worried they would kill the learner and would protest against shocking the learner. They showed signs of distress, like sweating, shaking, stuttering, and biting their lips. However, when they were told to continue by the experimenters, most of the participants would go on.
Stanley Milgram, who led this experiment, had not predicted this would happen. In fact, many psychologists were surprised. Before the experiment, Milgram asked a group of psychologists what they thought would happen. They believed only one percent of participants would obey. Instead, 65 percent did!
Some believed that this experiment might be a one-off. But, that doesn’t seem to be the case. His results have been replicated in follow up studies. Not only that, but additional factors have been uncovered. When the experiment was done with groups other than college students, the results have continued to show that people are obedient to authority figures. The experiment has been moved off campus out of fears that the college campus setting might influence the results. In one case, an off-campus building that was more run-down looking was used. In that situation, the participants were slightly less willing to continue, but it was a relatively minor difference.
It has also been found that people are less likely to obey when given instructions over the phone. But, when the experimenter is in the room giving orders, this increases the chances people will obey. When the authority figure is wearing a uniform of some sort, this also increases the chances that people will obey the orders.
So what do these experiments mean? Well, Milgram’s experiments show us that people tend to obey orders from authority figures. As I mentioned, when the person in the position of authority is in the room, this increases the amount people will obey. When there is more distance, such as the authority figure being on the phone, people may be less likely to follow orders. We also see that something like a uniform can increase obedience.
Researchers believe there might be more that we can take from these experiments as well. Specifically, they believe that this tendency to follow orders might be the reason good and normal people can end up doing horrible things. This extends to situations, such as war, when people commit acts that are unethical in the name of sticking to their orders.
Milgram’s experiments have been criticized though. One of the most prominent criticisms is that his experiment is unethical. This is because of the psychological harm that may have been done to the participants when they were being led to believe they were harming another person. Even when participants were showing signs of distress, the experiment continued. Nowadays, when a participant asks to stop, the study should be stopped. But, in Milgram’s experiment, they continued. Not only that, but after the experiment was over, Milgram has been criticized for not properly debriefing participants.
A second criticism is that some believe Milgram may have biased participants before the study began, and therefore may have skewed the results. In fact, there are claims that only half of the participants actually believed the experiment was real.
Third, Milgram has been criticized for not considering alternative explanations and that the implications may be overstated. Some believe that his claims that the tendency people have to obey orders explains larger scale events are not accurate.
Finally, there are also claims that Milgram manipulated the results of his experiments. That said, many point out how his findings have been replicated by other researchers and in a variety of settings.
Milgram’s Defense
Milgram has defended himself against many of these criticisms, specifically those related to the study being unethical and harmful to participants. He has published results of follow-up surveys to participants. From these, 92% of participants responded. The majority (84% to be exact) said they were either “glad” or “very glad” to have participated, and 15% said they were more neutral about their participation.
Milgram has also shared a letter he received from a participant six years later, during the time of the Vietnam war. The participant said:
“While I was a subject in 1964, though I believed that I was hurting someone, I was totally unaware of why I was doing so. Few people ever realize when they are acting according to their own beliefs and when they are meekly submitting to authority … To permit myself to be drafted with the understanding that I am submitting to authority’s demand to do something very wrong would make me frightened of myself … I am fully prepared to go to jail if I am not granted Conscientious Objector status. Indeed, it is the only course I could take to be faithful to what I believe. My only hope is that members of my board act equally according to their conscience…”
We should be mindful though that this is the opinion of one participant. That said, he was clearly moved by his participation, and found it continued to influence his thoughts and behaviors years later.
If you or someone you know are needing immediate mental health assistance, please call or text 988, contact a local emergency telephone number, or go to the nearest emergency room.
By interacting with this website and channel, this does not constitute a therapist/client relationship. This content is intended for the purposes of entertainment and mental health education.
View additional disclaimers and notices on our Disclaimers page.
