In the early 1960s, a deceptively simple question was taking shape inside a laboratory at Yale University: How far would an ordinary person go if instructed by an authority figure to harm someone else? The answer, presented by psychologist Stanley Milgram, would become one of the most cited and most disputed findings in modern psychology.Milgram’s obedience experiments, conducted between 1961 and 1962, did not begin as abstract investigations. These were shaped by the aftermath of the Holocaust and, in particular, by the trial of Adolf Eichmann, who defended his role in organizing the mass deportation of Jews to ghettos and extermination camps, a central part of the Nazi program of systematic mass murder, by claiming that he was “just following orders.”Stanley Milgram poses the question directly in his 1974 book Obedience to Authority: “Could it be that Eichmann and millions of his comrades in the Holocaust were just following orders? Can we call them all collaborators?”
How the experiment was designed
Milgram recruited participants through newspaper advertisements and presented the study as research on learning and memory. In the most widely cited version, 40 men participated, each paid $4.50. Participants were assigned the role of “teacher.” Another person, who was introduced as a fellow participant but was actually an actor working with the researchers, played the role of the “learner”. The learner was placed in a separate room and connected to a device that delivered electric shocks. The teacher sat in front of a shock generator, ranging from 15 volts to 450 volts, increasing in 15-volt increments. The switches were labeled in ascending order: “Slight Shock,” “Moderate Shock,” and “Danger: Severe Shock,” with the last switch marked simply as “XXX.” The work was structured but repetitive. The teacher read the word pairs and tested the learner’s memory. Each wrong answer required a shock, increasing the voltage each time. The shocks were not real. The participants were not aware of this. As the session progressed, learners’ responses were transcribed. At lower levels they expressed mild discomfort. As the voltage increased, his reactions became more urgent, he complained of heart disease, demanded release and began banging on the wall at 300 volts. After this he became silent. The experimenter instructed that silence should be considered an incorrect response. When participants felt hesitant, they were given a standardized sequence of prompts: “Please continue.” “The experiment requires that you continue.” “It is absolutely essential that you continue.” “You have no other choice; you have to move on.”
What did Milgram report?
In the most famous version of the experiment, the results were surprising: 65% of participants – 26 out of 40 – continued to the maximum 450-volt level. Many showed obvious distress. Some protested, some laughed nervously, some questioned the process. A number asked if they should stay. But under instruction, most continued. Milgram concluded that people are highly sensitive to authority, even when obedience conflicts with their personal values. He argued that situational factors, not individual dispositions alone, shape behavior. Many of those factors were consistent across variations. The physical presence of authority increased compliance. The association with Yale provided credibility and trust. The gradual increase in voltage made each stage feel incremental rather than extreme. Participants shifted responsibility onto the experimenter, seeing themselves as carrying out instructions rather than making independent decisions. When these conditions changed, obedience changed. When the authority figure was absent or instructions were given from a distance, compliance fell. When other participants refused to continue, obedience declined rapidly, in one condition, 36 out of 40 participants stopped early.
What the experiment suggested, and what later research found
Milgram’s work suggested that obedience is a matter of context, not just personality. Under certain conditions, individuals may follow instructions that they would otherwise refuse. Later research complicated that picture. Studies and analyzes have suggested that obedience depends not only on authority but also on identification, how much participants agree with the targets of authority and how strongly they identify with them. When people see authority as legitimate and consistent with their values, they are more likely to follow instructions.
Stanley Milgram American social psychologist Stanley Milgram with the “shock generator” used in his famous experiment at Yale University in the 1960s / Image: Britannica
Other analyzes identified several variables influencing obedience, including proximity to the victim, perceived legitimacy of authority, and the presence of disagreeing peers. These findings indicate that obedience is not automatic or uniform, but is shaped by specific social circumstances.
Ethical concerns and criticism
From the beginning, the experiments raised serious ethical questions. Participants were deceived about the nature of the study and were led to believe that they were incurring real harm. Many experienced significant psychological distress, including anxiety, stress, and guilt. The experimenter’s insistence, particularly the instruction “You have no other choice; you must proceed,” has been criticized as undermining the participant’s right to withdraw. Milgram said that the participants were later informed about the true nature of the experiment. However, subsequent investigations have challenged how consistently and thoroughly this was done.Psychologist Gina Perry, an Australian researcher who examined archived recordings and documents, has written Behind the Shock Machine: The Untold Story of the Notorious Milgram Psychology Experiments after retracing Milgram’s steps and interviewing participants decades later. He argued that the reality of the experiment was more complex than the published description, noting that what appeared to be obedience could also resemble coercion: “The slavish obedience to authority that we have come to associate with Milgram’s experiments sounds like bullying and coercion when you listen to these recordings,” Perry suggested in an article for Discover Magazine. Perry’s research also raised questions about debriefing, suggesting that many participants were not fully informed about the deception, sometimes for months or years.
Questions about validity and replication
Further criticism focuses on how the results have been interpreted. Widely cited figure. 65% of obedience came from a specific variation. In other versions of the experiment, obedience rates were significantly lower, and in some cases no participants received the maximum shock. There is also evidence that some participants were suspicious of the setup. Subsequent analysis showed that those who believed that the shocks were genuine were less likely to continue, while those who doubted that the learner was not actually being harmed were more willing to continue. Replications of the study have yielded mixed results. Ethical constraints require modification, for example, limiting the maximum shock level or examining participants more carefully. Some of these studies have found similar patterns of obedience, while others have argued that differences in design make direct comparisons difficult. The key issue remains unresolved: the original experiment cannot be fully replicated under modern ethical standards, which limits the ability to verify its findings in the same form.
Why does the experiment still matter?
Despite its problems, the Milgram experiment holds a central place in psychology. It is often taught not only because of what it claims to show about obedience, but also because of what it reveals about the limitations of experimental design.Its impact comes partly from how simple the setup was, a clear, controlled situation that produced results that many people found both disturbing and familiar. It gives people a way to think about rights, responsibility, and moral choices, while also stimulating ongoing debate about how the experiment was conducted.As Gina Perry has argued, the study persists as an enduring narrative rather than a definitive answer. Reflecting on its legacy, he said: “I think it leaves social psychology in a difficult position. … It’s such an iconic experiment. And I think it really leads to the question of why it is that we continue to refer to Milgram’s results and believe in them. I think the reason Milgram’s experiment is so famous today is because in a way it’s like a powerful parable. It is so widely known and so frequently cited that it has taken on a life of its own. …This experiment and this story about us play some role for us 50 years later.