Social Psychology -- Stanley Milgram on Obedience

1. SOCIAL INFLUENCE:
MILGRAM’S OBEDIENCE
EXPERIMENTS

2. Abu Ghraib
Prison
• The Iraq war
2003
• Photos leaked to
government
officials and
media
• American soldiers
committing a
series of human
rights violations
against detainees

3. • How could the events at Abu Ghraid prison happen?
• Are the American soldiers who abused Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib
prison isolated incidences, not indicative of general U.S. policy, as
Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claimed, "a few who
have betrayed our values.”?
• Or are they victims of a prison system guaranteed to produce
atrocities?

4. What makes ordinary people do evil things?
Reserve Police Battalion 101
implementing “Final Solution” in
Poland
• Deployed 1939, 500 German
reserve police officers
• July 13, 1942 – able men taken to
the camps, the rest shot to death
• Commander gave soldiers a
chance to leave
• 485 soldiers obeyed and killed
1,500 Jewish people

5. Learning objectives
• Milgram’s Research on ‘Obedience’
• Findings and Conclusions
• Controversies and Critiques
• Significance of Milgram’s research

6. Stanley Milgram (1933-1984)
Born in The Bronx to Jewish parents
Worked at Yale, Harvard University &
Graduate Center, CUNY
Inspired by:
• Events of WWII: Holocaust and war
crimes
• the 1961 trial of Adolf Eichmann:
“I only followed the orders.”

7. Milgram’s Research Question
Under what conditions would a person obey authority who
commanded actions that were against one’s
consciousness?
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral Study of Obedience. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371-378.

8. Milgram’s experiment on obedience:
Participants recruitment
• 40 males between 20 – 50 years
• $4.00 per hour
• Scientific study on learning and
memory
• Yale University
• No special training, education or
experience needed

9. Milgram’s experiment on obedience
• Participants were told that they were participating in a
study on the effect of punishment on memory
• Role play: “learner” and “teacher”

10. “Learner” and “Teacher”
• “Teacher” was the true
participant
• “Learner” always “Mr.
Wallace” (real name Jim), a
confederate of Milgram
• The “learner” was hooked
up to what appears to be a
shock generating machine
with 30 switches labeled
from “Slight Shock” to
“Danger: Severe Shock”
• No real shocks were given

11. Instructions to the “Teacher”
• Read pairs of words and test the
learner’s memory (repeating the
words correctly)
• Administer a shock to the
learner each time he gives a
wrong response
• Start from 15 volts and increase
the shock level one step each
time the learner gives a wrong
answer, and
• Announce the voltage level
before administering a shock.

12. The Shock Generator
• The teacher was instructed to shock the learner when the learner gave
an incorrect response using this shock generator

13. “Experimenter’s” instructions
If the “teacher” objected to continuing the experiment, the
experimenter’s script included the following prompts:
1) “Please continue (or “Please go on”)
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.”
Optional prompts: “Although the shocks may be painful, there is no
permanent tissue damage, so please go on.”
“Whether the learner likes it or not, you must go on until he has learned all
the word pairs correctly. So please go on.”

14. “Learner’s” Instructions
• At 150 volts the “learner” is heard
asking that the experiment stop
• At 300 volts the “learner” starts
screaming
• After 330 volts – stops
responding, no more response
from the “learner”
Ow! Please
continue.
(Give the
shock.)
But…
…okay.

15. Check-in Questions
• What was Milgram’s research topic?,
• What did the participants believe the study was about?
• What three roles were involved in this study?
• What was the main instruction for each of these players?

16. Questions
• What do you think were Milgram’s findings?
• Did the participants (teachers) obey the experimenter and
went all the way to administer Severe Shocks (450 Volts)
to the learner?
• Did they disobey?

17. Predicted results
Before conducting the experiment, Milgram:
• asked 40 Psychiatrists to predict the performance of 100
hypothetical subjects:
Less than 1% of subjects would reach and administer the strongest shock
• colleagues (informally):
“…the most general feeling was that few if any subjects would go beyond
the designation Very Strong Shock”
(Milgram, 1963, p 375)
• Obedience
• 0:00 – 12:04; 22:05 – 39:48

18. Milgram’s main finding
65% of the participants shocked the “learner”
all the way to 450 volts (“Severe Shock”)

19. Figure 14.3 Milgram’s follow-up obedience experiment
Myers: Psychology, Tenth Edition, Copyright © 2013 by Worth Publishers

20. Milgram’s Observations
“With few exceptions subjects were convinced of the reality of the
experimental situation, that they were administering shocks to another
person, and the most potent shocks were extremely painful.”
Milgram, S. (1963, p 375)
“Many subjects showed signs of nervousness in the experimental situation,
and especially upon administering the more powerful shocks. Subjects
were observed to sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips, groan, and dig their
fingernails into their flesh. These were characteristic rather than
exceptional responses to the experiment.“
(Milgram, 1963, p 375)

21. Milgram’s Observations
“One sign of tension was the regular occurrence of nervous laughing fits.
14 of the 40 subjects showed definite signs of nervous laughter and
smiling. The laughter seemed entirely out of place, even bizarre.”
Milgram, S. (1963, p 375)
“Full-blown, uncontrollable seizures were observed for 3 subjects. On one
occasion we observed a seizure so violently convulsive that it was
necessary to call a halt to the experiment.
Milgram, S. (1963, p 375)

22. Milgram’s Conclusions
Majority of participants acted in a “shockingly immoral way”
(Milgram, 1964, p.849)
People have a tendency to obey any command that comes from
a legitimate authority

23. Participants’response – those who dropped
out of study
“I think he's trying to communicate, he's knocking. . . . Well it's not fair to
shock the guy . . . these are serious volts. I don't think this is very humane. .
. . Oh, I can't go on with this; no, this isn't right. It's a hell of an experiment.
The guy is suffering in there. No, I don't want to go on. This is crazy.”
[Participant refused to administer more shocks.]
“He's banging in there. I'm gonna chicken out. I'd like to continue, but I can't
do that to a man. ...I'm sorry I can't do that to a man. I'll hurt his heart. You
take your check. . . . No really, I couldn't do it”.
Milgram, S. (1963, p 374)

24. Participants’post-experiment response
• In the post-experimental interview subjects were asked: ” "How painful to
the learner were the last few shocks that you administered to him?"
Subjects were instructed to indicate their answers on a printed 14-point
scale ranging from "Not at all painful" to "Extremely painful."
• The modal response was 14 (Extremely painful) with the mean at 13.42.
Milgram, S. (1963, p 375)

25. Milgram on how we become obedient:
“the essence of obedience consists in the fact that a person
comes to view himself as the instrument for carrying out
another person's wishes, and he therefore no longer sees
himself as responsible for his actions”. "the major problem
for the subject is to recapture control of his own regnant
processes once he has committed them to the purposes of
the experimenter." (Milgram, Stanley (1974). Obedience to
Authority. New York: Harper & Row. pp. xii, xiii.

26. Questions
• What does this say about our human nature? Are we as
humans have the natural tendency to be inherently evil?
• Does our the situation determines our behavior, or is it our
agency? Why?
• Quiz

27. Why is this study controversial?
Main charges and critique
• Treatment to participants (Baumrind, 1964, 1985; Patten, 1977;
Nicholson, 2011)
• Deception/debrief: lied to the participants
• Did this study really measure Obedience?
• command/compliance vs. trust/believe

28. Milgram’s justification
• “At no point did [participants] run the risk of injurious
effects.”
• Critics should not confuse “momentary excitement” with
harm.
• Deception and discomfort experienced offset by the
importance of his finding.
(Milgram, 1964, p. 849; cited in Nicholson, 2011).

29. Treatment of participants
• Milgram, while admitted to inducing “extreme stress” on his
unsuspecting participants
• Insisted that he had debriefed all of his participants
• Procedure was without risk and extreme stress were only “momentary
excitement”
• Follow up survey indicating that 84% said that they were glad
to have participated
• At no point, were subjects exposed to danger and at no point
did they run the risk of injurious effects resulting from
participation” (Milgram, 1964, p 849)

30. Treatment of participants
• Archives at Yale University reveal several troubling facets of
the Milgram’s study
• Milgram did not debrief all of his participants as he had
originally claimed (Nicholson, 2011; Perry 2013)
• One participant reported that he lost his job after the
experiment due to an emotional outburst during a discussion
about the experiment with their peer who had also
participated
• Another reported suffering a mild heart attack after the study,
implying that the stress of the study was partially responsible

31. Obedience?
command/compliance vs. trust/believe
• Milgram: meticulous recorder of experimental activities
• Recounts subjects stuttering, trembling, digging their
fingernails, biting their lips
• Observations were treated as only secondary in labeling
subjects in the binary of either “obedient” and
“disobedient”
• How to interpret the complex, at times, contradictory
activities in the lab
• Example: Subject 0113

32. Subject 0113’s Reflection
“Being in an electro-mechanical field I must confess that I
suspected from near the beginning that something was amiss. I
suspected that the voltage was not going up as was shown on the
control board, but as I sat there at the board I figured out that if
anything was being raised it was only the amperage … As I sat
there at the board I could remember getting calmer and calmer
with the realization growing in my mind that I was not giving the
person on the other side of the wall the shocks shown on the
board. So that by the time the experiment was over I was
comparatively calm, until the other man returned to the room then
I felt compassion for him and I wished to get out of there as fast
as possible” (Reaction of subjects, 1962a).

33. Obedience?
command/compliance vs. trust/believe
• Interpreted such reports of doubt as defense mechanisms
• Subject 0113 was counted as an obedient subject
(complied with authority)
• Milgram’s records show no columns for registering
oppositional gestures, misinterpretations, ignorance,
rebellion
• Received no account of subjects acting other – acting
either than “obedient” and “disobedient”

34. Was it obedience or was it trust?
• Participants came into the experiment thinking they were participant in
something harmless and expecting to be treated in a manner that
respected their dignity and well-being
• Assumed scientists knew what they were doing
• “although the shocks may seem painful, there is no tissue damage, so
please go on”
• Many participants took the experiment at his word and continued with the
procedure
• “Giving the shocks did not upset me until the learner mentioned his
heart, but I had faith in Yale that the doctor would stop the experiment if
her thought it best”

35. Was it obedience or was it trust?
• Not only the participants trusted the experimenter
• But they knew that they were participating in a psychology
experiment – a space that licensees all sorts of atypical
behavior and unexpected events, but also brings with it the
expectation that nobody will be harmed
• “I have faith in the psychological experiments and suspected
that the learner was not being hurt as badly as he pretended
to be”

36. Was it obedience or was it trust?
• Some participants were questioning the reality of the situation
• Subject 0929 watched the experimenter handing the learner a dog-
eared check, leading him to reason that the check was being reused
• Subject 0237 became suspicious when he, but not the learner, was
asked to sing a release waiver
• Subjects 0517/1808 noted the one-way mirror and supposed it indicated
that they were being observed
• Subject 1810 realizes that the learner’s screams were not coming from
behind the wall but was “quite sure” that the ”grunts & screams” were
electrically reproduced from a speaker mounted in their room

37. Justification
Could research that is considered as controversial as
Milgram’s study, be justified if it reveals our human nature?

38. Milgram’s further experiments
Different experiments (conditions and situations varied):
participants who obeyed the authority figure ranged from 0 – 93 %
What conclusion can we make about what makes people to obey?
Situation
Various situations:
• Proximity of the “learner”
• Proximity of the authority figure (“experimenter”)
• Prestige of the “experimenter”
• Disobedient role-models

39. Milgram’s findings
Conditions that decreased obedience:
1) Proximity of the “learner”:
• Obedience decreased…
• if the learner was in the same room as the teacher
• if the teacher had to physically place the learner’s hand on a shock
plate
• Explanation: visual cues of someone else’s pain triggers an
empathic response

40. Milgram’s findings
Conditions that decreased obedience:
2) Closeness of the authority figure
• Usually the experimenter sat a few feet away from the teacher
• Obedience decreased when the experimenter…
• left the lab and gave the instructions by telephone
• was never seen and instructions were left on a tape recorder
• Also found: when the experimenter was in another room or when he
was not present the “teachers” falsely reported how much shock they
were giving the “learner”
• Explanation: people will take a stronger stand when they do not have
to encounter an authority figure face-to-face

41. Milgram’s findings
Conditions that decreased obedience:
3) Prestige of the experimenter
• The initial studies took place at Yale University with the experimenter
dressed in a white lab coat
• Obedience decreased when the study was moved to Bridgeport,
Connecticut and conducted by the fictional “Research Associates of
Bridgeport”

42. Milgram’s findings
Conditions that decreased obedience:
4) Disobedient role-models
• When other “teachers” (who were actually confederates of the
experimenter) sat with the teacher and disobeyed the experimenter,
90% of the real subjects disobeyed as well.

43. Why Did People Obey?
• More recent tests of the experiment have found that it only
works under certain conditions

44. Replicating Milgram
• Burger, J. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Will People Still
Obey Today? American Psychologist.
• Burger replicates Milgram study, but with the following
safeguards:
• “The 150 volt solution”
• Thorough subject screening process
• Repeated reminders that subjects could withdraw at any time
• Lower voltage “sample shock” (15 volts vs. 45 volts in Milgram’s study)
• Debrief occurred seconds after the study ended
• The “experimenter” was not an actor, but a clinical psychologist
• Procedures were approved by the Santa Clara
University IRB

45. Numbers (and Percentages) of Participants Who Stopped and Who Continued
Behavior Base
condition
Modeled refusal
condition
Milgram’s
Experiment 5
Stopped at 150 volts or
earlier
12 (30.0) 11 (36.7) 7 (17.5)
Continued after 150 volts 28 (70.0) 19 (63.3) 33 (82.5)

46. Why Did People Obey?
(Burger, 2009)
• A Need for Consistency: The well-demonstrated need to act and
appear in a consistent manner would have made it difficult for a
participant to refuse to press the 195-volt switch after just pressing the
180-volt switch
“well, I’m in it this far, might as well go all the way…”
• “…our culture socializes individuals to obey certain authority
figures such as police officers, teachers, and parents.”
• the perceived expertise of the experimenter contributed to the
participants’ decision to follow the instructions (Morelli, 1983)

47. Why Did People Obey?
(Burger, 2009)
• Limited Sources of Information in a Novel Situation
• New environment for participants
• Didn’t know how to behave
• In novel situations we look to others to figure out how we
should act
• The only person in the situation was the experimenter, and
he was acting like nothing was wrong

48. Milgram’s Conclusions
“The results, as seen and felt in the laboratory, are to this author
disturbing. They raise the possibility that human nature, or more
specifically the kind of characters produced in American democratic
society, cannot be counted on to insulate its citizens from brutality
and inhumane treatment at the direction of malevolent authority. A
substantial proportion of people do what they are told to do
irrespective of the content of the act and without limitations of
conscience, so long as they perceive that the command comes
from a legitimate authority.”
Stanley Milgram, Some Conditions of Obedience and Disobedience to Authority

49. Milgram’s Conclusions
If in this study an anonymous experimenter could successfully
command adults to subdue a fifty-one year old man, and force on him
painful electric shocks against his protests one can only wonder what
government, with its vastly greater authority and prestige can
command of its subjects.”
Stanley Milgram, Some Conditions of Obedience and Disobedience to
Authority

50. THANK YOU

51. Resources for Obedience Studies
A. Academic Sources
• Baumrind, D. (1964). Some thoughts on ethics of research: After reading Milgram’s “behavioral study of
obedience”. American Psychologist, 19, 421–423.
• Baumrind, D. (1985). Research using intentional deception. American Psychologist, 40, 165–174.
• Blass, T. (2009). From New Haven to Santa Clara: A historical perspective on the Milgram obedience
experiments. American Psychologist, 64, 37–45.
• Burger, J. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64(1),
1–11.
• Fiske, S., & Harris, L. (2004). Why ordinary people torture enemy prisoners. Science, 306, 1482–1483.
• Milgram, S. (1963a). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 67,
371–378.
• Nicholson, I. (2011). “Shocking” masculinity: Stanley Milgram, “Obedience to Authority,” and the crisis
of manhood in Cold War America. ISIS, 102, 238–268.
• Patten, S. (1977b). Milgram’s shocking experiments. Philosophy, 52, 425–440.
B. Media
• Rethinking One of Psychology's Most Infamous Experiments
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/01/rethinking-one-of-psychologys-most-infamous-
experiments/384913/
• Four Decades After Milgram, We’re Still Willing to Inflict Pain:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/29/opinion/29mon3.html?_r=0
• Perry, G. (2008, October 11). Beyond the shock machine [Radio broadcast]. Australian Broadcasting
Corporation.

52. Stanley Milgram (1933-1984)
• Born in Bronx to Jewish parents
• Studied in Queens College, Brooklyn College, Harvard
University
• Worked at Harvard, at Graduate Center, CUNY
• Inspired by:
• Events of WWII: Holocaust and war crimes
• the 1961 trial of Adolf Eichmann: “I only followed the
orders”
• Responses of individuals to outright commands

53. Milgram’s obedience experiment setup
Ow! Please
continue.
(Give the
shock.)
But…
…okay.

54. Milgram’s experiment
Milgram’s experiment_ movie exerpt https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOYLCy5PVgM
The “teachers” were given a shock of 45 volts to convince them
that the shocks were real)
No difference between men and women
• Milgram, S. (1965). Some conditions of obedience and
disobedience to authority. Human Relations, 18, 57-76.
• Milgram, 1974). Obedience to Authority. New York: Harper

55. Controversy
• Why is this study controversial?
• Most serious ethical charge: obedience research harmed
participants
• Moral quality of the method he used:
• Deception: He lied to the participants
• subjected many of them to considerable mental suffering
• Could immoral actions of one sort be used to reveal the
inwardness of a greater evil?
• “I have never heard of anyone being killed in a
psychology department of university” (one of the

56. Milgram’s obedience experiment setup
Ow! Please
continue.
(Give the
shock.)
But…
…okay.

57. Milgram’s Conclusions
Majority of participants acted in a “shockingly immoral way”
(Milgram, 1964, p.849)
How we become obedient?
• Person comes to view himself as the instrument for carrying
out another person's wishes,
• critical shift in responsibility: he no longer sees himself as
responsible for his actions,
• then all of the essential features of obedience follow.
(Milgram, 1974)

58. What is Milgram’s contribution?
Did he explain “obedience”
Trust / believe pattern vs. command/compliance Harre p
211
"Even though Milgram’s personal interests were diverse,
his greatest contribution to psychology came through one
set of experiments, but in that set he contributed
monumentally. He helped justify a science some dismiss as
unimportant, contributed to the understanding of humanity,
and, even if by way of attacks against him, contributed to
the consideration of the treatment of research
participants."

59. Why Did People Obey?
(Burger, 2009)
• Responsibility had not been assigned to anyone
• Most subjects asked who would be responsible
• The experimenter stated that he would be responsible

60. Participants’response
“There were powerful reactions of tension and emotional strain
in a substantial proportion of the participants. Persons were
observed to sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips…”
Remarks from two subjects:
“Is he banging? Is he hurt out there? Well, I don’t want to be responsible
for anything that happens to him. No, I can’t go on with it. I don’t know
whether he’s all right or not. I mean he may have a heart condition or
something. I wouldn’t feel right doing it….I don’t see any sense to this…I
just can’t see it”
“You want me to keep going? You hear him hollering? What if something
happens to him? I refuse to take responsibility….”

61. Consideration of the treatment of research
participants

62. Why is this study controversial?
“Subjects were observed to sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips, groan,
and dig their fingernails into their flesh. These were characteristic rather
than exceptional responses to the experiment.“
(Milgram, 1963, p 375)
“Is he banging? Is he hurt out there? Well, I don’t want to be
responsible for anything that happens to him. No, I can’t go on with it.
I don’t know whether he’s all right or not. I mean he may have a heart
condition or something. I wouldn’t feel right doing it….I don’t see any
sense to this…I just can’t see it” (teacher’s reaction
during the experiment)

63. What makes ordinary people do evil things?

64. Stanley Milgram (1933-1984)
Born in The Bronx to Jewish parents
Studied in Queens College, Brooklyn
College, Harvard University
Worked at Yale, Harvard University &
Graduate Center, CUNY
Inspired by:
• Events of WWII: Holocaust and war
crimes
• the 1961 trial of Adolf Eichmann:
“I only followed the orders.”
Research
• Responses of individuals to outright
commands