Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University, conducted a study focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience.
The results of the study were made known in Milgram's (1974).
So-called "teachers" (who were actually the unknowing subjects of the experiment) were recruited by Milgram in response to a newspaper ad offering $4.00 for one hour's work.
(The purchasing power of $4.50 at that time amounted to some 14 loaves of bread or 22 beers).
The text to the top left of Milgram's Shock Box reads:-
OUTPUT 15 VOLTS -- 450 VOLTS.
Slight Shock
15, 30, 45, 60 volts
Moderate Shock
75, 90. 105, 120 volts
Strong Shock
135, 150, 165, 180 volts
Very Strong Shock
195, 210, 225, 240 volts
Note the change from black to red text as the console display moves from :- to
255, 270, 285, 300 volts
315, 330, 345, 360 volts
375, 390, 405, 420 volts
and finally -
435, 450 volts
"Before the experiments, I sought predictions about the outcome from various kinds of people -- psychiatrists, college sophomores, middle-class adults, graduate students and faculty in the behavioral sciences. With remarkable similarity, they predicted that virtually all the subjects would refuse to obey the experimenter. The psychiatrist, specifically, predicted that most subjects would not go beyond 150 volts, when the victim makes his first explicit demand to be freed. They expected that only 4 percent would reach 300 volts, and that only a pathological fringe of about one in a thousand would administer the highest shock on the board".
"The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous import, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation."
The Milgram Obedience Experiment French reality TV show - The Game of Death
Human Psychology
Human Nature - Tripartite Soul page
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
November 1, 2012
What Milgram’s Shock Experiments Really Mean
Replicating Milgram's shock experiments reveals not blind obedience but deep moral conflict
By Michael Shermer
In 2010 I worked on a Dateline NBC television special replicating classic psychology experiments, one of which was Stanley Milgram's famous shock experiments from the 1960s. We followed Milgram's protocols precisely: subjects read a list of paired words to a “learner” (an actor named Tyler), then presented the first word of each pair again. Each time Tyler gave an incorrect matched word, our subjects were instructed by an authority figure (an actor named Jeremy) to deliver an electric shock from a box with toggle switches that ranged in 15-volt increments up to 450 volts (no shocks were actually delivered). In Milgram's original experiments, 65 percent of subjects went all the way to the end. We had only two days to film this segment of the show (you can see all our experiments at http://tinyurl.com/3yg2v29 ), so there was time for just six subjects, who thought they were auditioning for a new reality show called What a Pain!
Contrary to Milgram's conclusion that people blindly obey authorities to the point of committing evil deeds because we are so susceptible to environmental conditions, I saw in our subjects a great behavioral reluctance and moral disquietude every step of the way. Our first subject, Emily, quit the moment she was told the protocol. “This isn't really my thing,” she said with a nervous laugh. When our second subject, Julie, got to 75 volts and heard Tyler groan, she protested: “I don't think I want to keep doing this.” Jeremy insisted: “You really have no other choice. I need you to continue until the end of the test.” Despite our actor's stone-cold authoritative commands, Julie held her moral ground: “No. I'm sorry. I can just see where this is going, and I just—I don't—I think I'm good. I think I'm good to go.” When the show's host Chris Hansen asked what was going through her mind, Julie offered this moral insight on the resistance to authority: “I didn't want to hurt Tyler. And then I just wanted to get out. And I'm mad that I let it even go five [wrong answers]. I'm sorry, Tyler.”
Our third subject, Lateefah, became visibly upset at 120 volts and squirmed uncomfortably to 180 volts. When Tyler screamed, “Ah! Ah! Get me out of here! I refuse to go on! Let me out!” Lateefah made this moral plea to Jeremy: “I know I'm not the one feeling the pain, but I hear him screaming and asking to get out, and it's almost like my instinct and gut is like, ‘Stop,’ because you're hurting somebody and you don't even know why you're hurting them outside of the fact that it's for a TV show.” Jeremy icily commanded her to “please continue.” As she moved into the 300-volt range, Lateefah was noticeably shaken, so Hansen stepped in to stop the experiment, asking, “What was it about Jeremy that convinced you that you should keep going here?” Lateefah gave us this glance into the psychology of obedience: “I didn't know what was going to happen to me if I stopped. He just—he had no emotion. I was afraid of him.”
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
Our fourth subject, a man named Aranit, unflinchingly cruised through the first set of toggle switches, pausing at 180 volts to apologize to Tyler—“I'm going to hurt you, and I'm really sorry”—then later cajoling him, “Come on. You can do this…. We are almost through.” After completing the experiment, Hansen asked him: “Did it bother you to shock him?” Aranit admitted, “Oh, yeah, it did. Actually it did. And especially when he wasn't answering anymore.” When asked what was going through his mind, Aranit turned to our authority, explicating the psychological principle of diffusion of responsibility: “I had Jeremy here telling me to keep going. I was like, ‘Well, should be everything's all right….’ So let's say that I left all the responsibilities up to him and not to me.”
Human moral nature includes a propensity to be empathetic, kind and good to our fellow kin and group members, plus an inclination to be xenophobic, cruel and evil to tribal others. The shock experiments reveal not blind obedience but conflicting moral tendencies that lie deep within.
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN ONLINE Comment on this article at ScientificAmerican.com/nov2012
The Stanley Milgram Experiment: Understanding Obedience
May 3, 2023
Discover the intriguing Stanley Milgram Experiment, exploring obedience to authority & human nature. Uncover shocking results & timeless insights.
Main, P (2023, May 03). The Stanley Milgram Experiment: Understanding Obedience. Retrieved from https://www.structural-learning.com/post/stanley-milgram-experiment
What was the Stanley Milgram experiment?
The Stanley Milgram experiment is one of the most famous and controversial studies in the history of psychology. The study was conducted in the early 1960s, and it examined people's willingness to obey an authority figure , even when that obedience caused harm to others. In this article, we'll take a closer look at the Milgram experiment, its significance, and its impact on psychology.
The Milgram experiment was designed to test people's willingness to obey authority, even when that obedience caused harm to others. The study involved three participants: the experimenter, the learner, and the teacher. The learner was actually a confederate of the experimenter, and the teacher was the real participant.
The teacher was instructed to administer electric shocks to the learner whenever the learner gave a wrong answer to a question. The shocks started at a low level and increased in intensity with each wrong answer. The learner was not actually receiving shocks, but they pretended to be in pain and begged the teacher to stop. Despite this, the experimenter instructed the teacher to continue shocking the learner.
The results of the Milgram experiment were shocking. Despite the learner's protests, the majority of participants continued to administer shocks to the maximum level, even when they believed that the shocks were causing serious harm.
The Milgram experiment is perhaps one of the most well-known experiments on obedience in psychology . Milgram's original study involved 40 participants who were instructed to deliver electric shocks to a confederate, who pretended to be receiving shocks.
The shocks were delivered via a "shock machine" and ranged in severity from slight shocks to severe shocks. Despite the confederate's cries of pain and protest, the majority of participants continued to administer shocks up to the maximum level, demonstrating high rates of obedience to authority figures.
Milgram's experiments on obedience generated a great deal of interest and controversy in the scientific community. The results of his study challenged commonly held beliefs about human behavior and the limits of individual autonomy . The study also raised important ethical concerns and spurred a renewed focus on informed consent and debriefing in behavioral research.
In subsequent variations of the experiment, Milgram sought to explore the factors that influenced obedience rates, such as the presence of peers or the proximity of the authority figure. These variations provided further insight into the complex nature of obedience and social influence .
The Milgram experiment remains a significant and influential study in the field of social psychology, providing valuable insights into the power of authority and the limits of individual autonomy. Despite its ethical concerns, Milgram's study continues to be discussed and debated by scholars and students alike, highlighting the enduring impact of this groundbreaking behavioral study.
Who was Stanley Milgram?
Stanley Milgram was a renowned American social psychologist who was born in New York City in 1933. He received his PhD in Social Psychology from Harvard University in 1960 and went on to teach at Yale University, where he conducted his famous obedience experiments. Milgram's research focused on the areas of personality and social psychology, and he is best known for his studies on obedience to authority figures.
Milgram's obedience experiments were controversial and sparked a great deal of debate in the field of psychology. His research showed that ordinary people were capable of inflicting harm on others when instructed to do so by an authority figure. Milgram's work had a profound impact on the field of social psychology and influenced other researchers, such as Philip Zimbardo , to study similar topics.
Milgram's contributions to the field of social psychology were significant, and his obedience experiments remain some of the most well-known and widely discussed studies in the history of psychology. Despite the controversy surrounding his work, Milgram's research continues to be taught in psychology courses around the world and has had a lasting impact on our understanding of obedience, authority, and human behavior.
Milgram's Independent Variables
As we have seen, in Stanley Milgram's famous experiment conducted at Yale University in the 1960s, he sought to investigate the extent to which ordinary people would obey the commands of an authority figure, even if it meant administering severe electric shocks to another person.
The study of obedience to authority figures was a fundamental aspect of Milgram's research in social psychology. To explore this phenomenon, Milgram manipulated several independent variables in his experiment. One key independent variable was the level of shock administered by the participants, ranging from slight shocks to increasingly severe shocks, labeled with corresponding shock levels.
Another independent variable was the proximity of the authority figure, with variations of physical proximity or remote instruction via telephone.
Additionally, the presence or absence of social pressure from others and the authority figure's attire, varying between a lab coat and everyday clothing, were also manipulated.
Through these carefully controlled independent variables, Milgram examined the obedience rates and the level of obedience demonstrated by the participants in response to the concrete situation created in his experiment.
Change of Location
One significant factor that influenced the results of the Milgram experiment was the change of location. Originally conducted at Yale University, the experiment was later moved to a set of run-down offices in Bridgeport, Connecticut. This change had a profound impact on the rates of obedience observed in the study.
In the original experiment at Yale University, the obedience rates were shockingly high, with approximately 65% of participants following the instructions of the authority figure to administer what they believed to be increasingly severe electric shocks to another person. However, when the experiment was relocated to the less prestigious and less authoritative setting of run-down offices, the obedience rates dropped significantly to 47.5%.
This change in location created a shift in the dynamic of the experiment . Participants were less likely to view the authority figure as credible or legitimate in the less prestigious environment. The environment in run-down offices appeared less official and therefore may have weakened the perceived authority of the experimenter. This resulted in a lower level of obedience observed among the participants.
The change in location in the Milgram experiment demonstrated the influence of contextual factors on obedience rates. It highlighted how obedience to authority figures can be influenced by the specific setting in which individuals find themselves. The study serves as a reminder that obedience is not solely determined by individual characteristics but is also shaped by situational factors such as the environment and perceived authority.
In conclusion, the change of location from Yale University to run-down offices had a significant impact on the obedience rates in the Milgram experiment. The move resulted in a drop in obedience, suggesting that the context in which the experiment took place influenced participants' responses to authority .
One important aspect of Stanley Milgram's obedience experiment was the role of the experimenter's uniform, specifically the lab coat. The uniform or attire worn by the authority figure in the experiment played a significant role in influencing obedience levels among the participants.
The lab coat served as a symbol of authority and expertise, creating a sense of credibility and legitimacy for the experimenter. By wearing the lab coat, the authority figure appeared more knowledgeable and trustworthy, which influenced participants to follow their instructions more readily.
The uniform also helped establish a clear power dynamic between the authority figure and the participants. The experimenter's attire reinforced the perception of being in a formal and professional setting, where obedience to authority was expected.
Milgram's experiment included variations to the uniform to examine its impact on obedience levels. In some versions of the experiment, the experimenter wore regular clothing instead of the lab coat. This modification significantly reduced the perceived authority of the experimenter, leading to lower levels of obedience among the participants.
By manipulating the presence or absence of the lab coat, Milgram demonstrated how even a simple change in attire could influence obedience levels . This emphasized the role of external factors, such as the uniform, in shaping human behavior in a social context.
Touch Proximity Condition
In the Touch Proximity Condition of the Milgram experiment, participants were subjected to a unique and intense situation that aimed to test the limits of their obedience to authority. In this particular condition, when the learner refused to participate after reaching 150 volts, the participants were required to physically force the learner's hand onto a shock plate. This manipulation was intended to eliminate the psychological buffer that existed between the participants and the consequences of their actions.
The introduction of touch proximity significantly altered the dynamics of the experiment. The physical act of forcing the learner's hand onto the shock plate made the participants more directly responsible for the pain and discomfort experienced by the learner. This direct physical connection to the consequences of their actions created a profound impact on the participants, leading to a notable decrease in obedience levels.
In the Touch Proximity Condition, obedience rates dropped to just 30%, highlighting the significant influence of the removal of the buffer between the participants and the consequences of their actions. The participants were confronted with the immediate and tangible effects of their obedience, which made it much more difficult to justify their continued compliance.
Overall, the Touch Proximity Condition revealed the critical role that the removal of psychological distance plays in obedience to authority. By eliminating the buffer between the participants and the consequences of their actions, Milgram's experiment demonstrated the tremendous impact that immediate physical proximity can have on individuals' behavior in a difficult and morally challenging situation.
Two Teacher Condition
In Milgram's Two Teacher Condition, participants were given the opportunity to instruct an assistant, who was actually a confederate, to press the switches administering electric shocks to the learner. This variation aimed to investigate the impact of participants assuming a more indirect role in the act of shocking the learner.
Surprisingly, the results showed that in this condition, a staggering 92.5% of participants instructed the assistant to deliver the maximum voltage shock. This high rate of obedience indicated that participants were willing to exert their authority over the assistant to carry out the harmful actions.
The Two Teacher Condition aligns with Milgram's Agency Theory, which suggests that people tend to obey authority figures when they perceive themselves as agents carrying out instructions rather than personally responsible. In this variation, participants may have seen themselves as simply giving orders rather than directly causing harm, which diminished their sense of personal responsibility and increased their obedience.
This condition demonstrates how the dynamic of obedience can change when individuals are given the opportunity to delegate harmful actions to others. It sheds light on the complex interplay between authority figures, personal responsibility, and obedience to explain the unexpected and alarming levels of compliance observed in the Milgram experiment.
Social Support Condition
In the Social Support Condition of Stanley Milgram's experiment, participants were not alone in their decision-making process. They were joined by two additional individuals who acted as confederates. The purpose of this condition was to assess the impact of social support on obedience.
The presence of these confederates who refused to obey the authority figure had a significant effect on the level of obedience observed. When one or both confederates refused to carry out the harmful actions, participants became more likely to question the legitimacy of the authority figure's commands and were less willing to comply.
The specific actions taken by the two confederates involved expressing their refusal to deliver the electric shocks. They openly dissented and voiced their concerns regarding the ethical implications of the experiment. These actions served as powerful examples of disobedience and created an atmosphere of social support for the participants.
As a result, the level of obedience decreased in the presence of these defiant confederates. Seeing others defy the authority figure empowered participants to assert their own autonomy and resist carrying out the harmful actions. The social support provided by the confederates challenged the participants' perception of the experiment as a concrete situation and encouraged them to question the legitimacy of the authority figure's instructions.
Overall, the Social Support Condition demonstrated that the presence of individuals who refused to obey had a profound influence on the level of obedience observed. This highlights the importance of social support in challenging authority and promoting ethical decision-making.
Absent Experimenter Condition
In Stanley Milgram's famous obedience experiment, the proximity of authority figures played a crucial role in determining the level of obedience observed. One particular condition, known as the Absent Experimenter Condition, shed light on the impact of physical proximity on obedience.
In this condition, the experimenter instructed the teacher, who administered the electric shocks, by telephone from another room. The results were striking. Obedience plummeted to a mere 20.5%, indicating that when the authority figure was not physically present, participants were much less inclined to obey.
Without the immediate presence of the experimenter, many participants displayed disobedience or cheated by administering lesser shocks than instructed. This deviation from the experimenter's orders suggests that the absence of the authority figure weakened the participants' sense of obligation and decreased their willingness to comply.
The findings of the Absent Experimenter Condition highlight the significant influence of proximity on obedience. When the authority figure was physically present, participants were more likely to obey, even when faced with morally challenging actions. However, when the authority figure was not in close proximity, obedience rates dramatically decreased. This emphasizes the impact of physical distance on individuals' inclination to follow orders, indicating that proximity plays a crucial role in shaping obedience behavior.
Milgram's Absent Experimenter Condition underscored the importance of physical proximity with authority figures in determining obedience levels. When the experimenter instructed the teacher by telephone from another room, obedience fell to 20.5%, revealing the diminished compliance when the authority figure was not physically present.
Milgram's Legacy and Influence on Modern Psychology
The Milgram experiment was significant for a number of reasons. Firstly, it highlighted the power of obedience to authority, even in situations where that obedience causes harm to others. This has important implications for understanding real-world situations, such as the Holocaust, where ordinary people were able to commit atrocities under the authority of a fascist regime.
Secondly, the experiment sparked a debate about the ethics of psychological research . Some critics argued that the study was unethical because it caused psychological distress to the participants. Others argued that the study's findings were too important to ignore, and that the benefits of the research outweighed the harm caused.
Stanley Milgram's study of obedience is widely recognized as one of the most influential experiments in the history of psychology. Although Milgram faced significant criticism for the ethical implications of his work, the study has had a lasting impact on our understanding of the power of authority and social influence.
Milgram's legacy can be seen in a variety of ways within the field of personality and social psychology. For example, his research has inspired a multitude of studies on the impact of social norms and conformity on behavior, as well as the importance of individual autonomy and free will in decision-making processes.
In addition, Milgram's influence can be seen in modern psychological research that utilizes variations of his study to explore new questions related to social influence and obedience. One such example is the Milgram Re-enactment, which sought to replicate the original study in a more ethical and controlled manner. This variation of the study found that individuals were still willing to administer shocks to the confederate, albeit at lower levels than in Milgram's original study.
Milgram's work has also had a significant impact on the way that researchers approach the treatment of participants in psychological experiments. The ethical concerns raised by Milgram's study led to a renewed focus on informed consent and debriefing procedures, ensuring that participants are aware of the potential risks and benefits of their involvement in research studies.
Milgram's legacy is one of both controversy and innovation. His study of obedience has contributed greatly to our understanding of human behavior and has served as a catalyst for important ethical discussions within the scientific community . While his work may continue to generate debate, there is no doubt that Milgram's contributions to the field of psychology have had a profound and lasting impact.
Milgram's Relationship with Other Prominent Psychologists
Stanley Milgram was a highly influential figure in the field of social psychology, and his work has been cited by a number of other prominent psychologists throughout the years. One of his contemporaries, Albert Bandura, was also interested in the power of social influence and developed the theory of social learning , which explored the ways in which people learn from one another and their environments.
Gordon Allport was another important figure in the field of social psychology, known for his work on personality and prejudice. Allport's research was highly influential in shaping Milgram's own understanding of social influence and obedience.
Milgram's infamous obedience studies demonstrated how individuals could be led to obey authority figures and commit acts that violated their own moral codes. Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment similarly showed how individuals could adopt new identities and exhibit aggressive and abusive behavior when placed in positions of power. Both studies highlight the importance of social context in shaping behavior and have had a significant impact on our understanding of the role of situational factors in human behavior.
Jerome Bruner, another influential psychologist , was known for his work on cognitive psychology and the importance of active learning in education. Although Bruner's work was not directly related to Milgram's study of obedience, his emphasis on the importance of individual autonomy and active learning aligns with some of the key themes in Milgram's work.
Roger Brown, a psychologist known for his research on language and cognitive developmen t, also shared some common ground with Milgram in terms of their interest in human behavior and social influence. Finally, Solomon Asch , another prominent psychologist, conducted important research on conformity that helped to lay the groundwork for Milgram's own study of obedience.
Milgram's work was highly influential and contributed significantly to the field of social psychology. His relationship with other prominent psychologists reflects the collaborative and interdisciplinary nature of psychological research and highlights the ways in which researchers build upon one another's work over time.
Criticisms of the Milgram Experiment
Despite its significance, the Milgram experiment has been heavily criticized by some psychologists. One of the main criticisms is that the study lacked ecological validity - that is, it didn't accurately reflect real-world situations. Critics argue that participants in the study knew that they were taking part in an experiment, and that this affected their behavior.
Another criticism is that the experiment caused psychological distress to the participants. Some argue that the experimenter put too much pressure on the participants to continue administering shocks, and that this caused lasting psychological harm.
The Impact of Milgram's Research on Social Psychology
The Milgram experiment, conducted at Yale University in 1961, shocked the world with its findings on obedience to authority. Despite its groundbreaking contribution to the field of personality and social psychology, the study has also faced significant criticism for its treatment of participants.
Critics have raised concerns about the potential psychological harm inflicted on participants, who were led to believe that they were administering painful electric shocks to a real victim. Nevertheless, the Milgram experiment remains a critical turning point in the history of experiments with people.
It has had a profound impact on psychology, inspiring numerous studies that continue to shed light on obedience, conformity, and group dynamics. It has also sparked important debates about the ethics of psychological research and raised awareness of the importance of protecting the rights and well-being of research participants .
Real-Life Examples of Obedience Leading to Human Catastrophe
Stanley Milgram's obedience experiments have had profound implications for understanding human behavior, especially in contexts where obedience to authority might have contributed to catastrophic outcomes. Here are seven historical examples that resonate with Milgram's findings:
Nazi Germany : The obedience to authority during the Holocaust, where individuals followed orders to commit atrocities, can be understood through Milgram's experiments. The willingness to administer "lethal shocks" to human subjects reflects how ordinary people can commit heinous acts under authoritative pressure.
My Lai Massacre : American soldiers massacred hundreds of Vietnamese civilians during the Vietnam War. Milgram's work helps explain how soldiers obeyed orders despite the moral implications, emphasizing the power of authority in a difficult situation.
Rwandan Genocide : The obedience to ethnic propaganda and authority figures led to the mass killings in Rwanda. Milgram's experiments shed light on how obedience can override personal judgment, leading to an unexpected outcome.
Jonestown Massacre : Followers of Jim Jones obeyed his orders to commit mass suicide. Milgram's findings on obedience help explain how charismatic leaders can exert control over their followers, even to the point of death.
Chernobyl Disaster : The obedience to flawed protocols and disregard for safety by the plant operators contributed to the catastrophe. Milgram's work illustrates how obedience to procedures and hierarchy can lead to disaster.
Iraq War - Abu Ghraib Prison Abuse : The abuse of prisoners by U.S. military personnel can be linked to obedience to authority, a phenomenon explored in Milgram's experiments. The willingness to inflict harm under orders reflects the human participants' compliance in his studies.
Financial Crisis of 2008 : Blind obedience to corporate culture and regulatory authorities contributed to unethical practices leading to the global financial meltdown. Milgram's insights into obedience help explain how organizational pressures can lead to widespread harm.
These examples demonstrate the pervasive influence of obedience in various historical and contemporary contexts. Milgram's experiments, documented in various Stanley Milgram Papers and the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , continue to be a critical reference in understanding human behavior.
The documentary film "Shocking Obedience" further explores these themes, emphasizing the universal relevance of Milgram's work. His experiments remind us of the human capacity for obedience , even in the face of morally reprehensible orders, and continue to provoke reflection on our own susceptibilities.
Key Takeaways
The Milgram experiment was a famous and controversial study in psychology that examined people's willingness to obey authority.
Participants in the study were instructed to administer electric shocks to a learner, even when that obedience caused harm to the learner.
The results of the study showed that the majority of participants continued to administer shocks to the maximum level, even when they believed that the shocks were causing serious harm.
The study has been heavily criticized for lacking ecological validity and causing psychological distress to participants.
Despite the criticisms, the Milgram experiment has had a lasting impact on psychology and has inspired numerous other studies on obedience and authority.
In conclusion, the Milgram experiment remains an important and controversial study in the field of psychology. Its findings continue to influence our understanding of obedience to authority.
Further Reading on the Milgram Experiment
These papers offer a comprehensive view of Milgram's experiment and its implications, highlighting the profound effects of authority on human behaviour.
1. Stanley Milgram and the Obedience Experiment by C. Helm, M. Morelli (1979)
This paper delves into Milgram's experimen t, revealing the significant control the state has over individuals, as evidenced by their willingness to administer painful shocks to an innocent victim.
2. Credibility and Incredulity in Milgram’s Obedience Experiments: A Reanalysis of an Unpublished Test by G. Perry, A. Brannigan, R. Wanner, H. Stam (2019)
This study reanalyzes an unpublished test from Milgram's experiment , suggesting that participants' belief in the pain being inflicted influenced their level of obedience.
3. The Man Who Shocked the World: The Life and Legacy of Stanley Milgram by R. Persaud (2005)
Persaud's paper discusses the profound impact of Milgram's experiments on our understanding of human behavior , particularly the willingness of people to follow scientific authority.
4. Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? by J. Burger (2009)
Burger's study replicates Milgram's Experiment 5 , finding slightly lower obedience rates than 45 years earlier, with gender showing no significant influence on obedience.
5. Personality predicts obedience in a Milgram paradigm. by L. Bègue, J. Beauvois, D. Courbet, Dominique Oberlé, J. Lepage, Aaron A. Duke (2015)
This research explores how personality traits like conscientiousness and agreeableness, along with political orientation and social activism, can predict obedience in Milgram-like experiments.
These papers offer a comprehensive view of Milgram's experiment and its implications, highlighting the profound effects of authority on human behavior .
Enhance Learner Outcomes Across Your School
Download an Overview of our Support and Resources
We'll send it over now.
Please fill in the details so we can send over the resources.
What type of school are you?
We'll get you the right resource
Is your school involved in any staff development projects?
Are your colleagues running any research projects or courses?
Do you have any immediate school priorities?
Please check the ones that apply.
Download your resource
Thanks for taking the time to complete this form, submit the form to get the tool.
Milgram Experiment: Explaining Obedience to Authority
The Milgram experiment is a classic social psychology study revealing the dangers of obedience to authority and how the situation affects behaviour.
The Milgram experiment, led by the well-known psychologist Stanley Milgram in the 1960s, aimed to test people’s obedience to authority.
The results of the Milgram experiment, sometimes known as the Milgram obedience study, continue to be both thought-provoking and controversial.
The experimental procedure left some people sweating and trembling, leaving 10 percent extremely upset, while others broke into unexplained hysterical laughter.
What finding could be so powerful that it sent many psychologists into frenzied rebuttals?
This study has come in for considerable criticism with some saying its claims are wildly overblown.
Obedience to authority
Stanley Milgram’s now famous experiments were designed to test obedience to authority ( Milgram, 1963 ).
What Milgram wanted to know was how far humans will go when an authority figure orders them to hurt another human being.
Many wondered after the horrors of WWII, and not for the first time, how people could be motivated to commit acts of such brutality towards each other.
Not just those in the armed forces, but ordinary people were coerced into carrying out the most cruel and gruesome acts.
But Milgram didn’t investigate the extreme situation of war, he wanted to see how people would react under relatively ‘ordinary’ conditions in the lab.
How would people behave when told to give an electrical shock to another person?
To what extent would people obey the dictates of the situation and ignore their own misgivings about what they were doing?
The Milgram experiment procedure
The experimental situation into which people were put was initially straightforward.
Participants in the Milgram experiment were told they were involved in a learning experiment, that they were to administer electrical shocks and that they should continue to the end of the experiment.
Told they would be the ‘teacher and another person the ‘learner’, they sat in front of a machine with a number of dials labelled with steadily increasing voltages.
This was the famous ‘shock machine’ in the Milgram experiment.
The third switch from the top was labelled: “Danger: Severe Shock”, the last two simply: “XXX”.
During the course of the Milgram experiment, each time the ‘learner’ made a mistake the participant was ordered to administer ever-increasing electrical shocks.
Of course the learner kept making mistakes so the teacher (the poor participant) had to keep giving higher and higher electrical shocks, and hearing the resultant screams of pain until finally the learner went quiet.
Participants were not in fact delivering electrical shocks, the learner in the Milgram experiment was actually an actor following a rehearsed script.
The learner was kept out of sight of the participants so they came to their own assumptions about the pain they were causing.
They were, however, left in little doubt that towards the end of the experiment the shocks were extremely painful and the learner might well have been rendered unconscious.
When the participant baulked at giving the electrical shocks, the experimenter – an authority figure dressed in a white lab coat – ordered them to continue.
Results of the Milgram shock experiments
Before I explain the results, try to imagine yourself as the participant in the Milgram experiment.
How far would you go giving what you thought were electrical shocks to another human being simply for a study about memory?
What would you think when the learner went quiet after you apparently administered a shock labelled on the board “Danger: Severe Shock”?
How far would you go?
How ever far you think, you’re probably underestimating as that’s what most people do.
Like the Milgram experiment itself, the results shocked.
The Milgram experiment discovered people are much more obedient than you might imagine.
Fully 63 percent of the participants continued right until the end – they administered all the shocks even with the learner screaming in agony, begging to stop and eventually falling silent.
These weren’t specially selected sadists, these were ordinary people like you and me who had volunteered for the Milgram experiment.
Explanation of the Milgram experiment
At the time the Milgram experiment was big news.
Milgram explained his results by the power of the situation.
This was a social psychology experiment which appeared to show, beautifully in fact, how much social situations can influence people’s behaviour.
The Milgram experiment set off a small industry of follow-up studies carried out in labs all around the world.
Were the findings of the Milgram experiment still true in different cultures, in slightly varying situations and in different genders (only men were in the original study)?
By and large the answers were that even when manipulating many different experimental variables, people were still remarkably obedient.
One exception was that one study found Australian women were much less obedient.
Make of that what you will.
Criticism of the Milgram experiment
Now think again.
Sure, the experiment relies on the situation to influence people’s behaviour, but how real is the situation?
If it was you, surely you would understand on some level that this wasn’t real, that you weren’t really electrocuting someone, that knocking someone unconscious would not be allowed in a university study like this Milgram experiment?
Also, people pick up considerable nonverbal cues from each other.
How good would the actors have to be in the Milgram experiment in order to avoid giving away the fact they were actors?
People are adept at playing along even with those situations they know in their heart-of-hearts to be fake.
The more we find out about human psychology, the more we discover about the power of unconscious processes, both emotional and cognitive.
These can have massive influences on our behaviour without our awareness.
Alternative explanation of the Milgram experiment
Assuming people were not utterly convinced on an unconscious level that the experiment was for real, an alternative explanation is in order.
Perhaps the Milgram experiment really demonstrates the power of conformity .
The pull we all feel to please the experimenter, to fit in with the situation, to do what is expected of us.
While this is still a powerful interpretation from a brilliant experiment, it isn’t what Milgram was really looking for.
The influence of the Milgram experiment
Whether you believe the experiment shows what it purports to or not, there is no doubting that the Milgram experiment was some of the most influential and impressive carried out in psychology.
It is also an experiment very unlikely to be repeated nowadays (outside of virtual reality ) because of modern ethical standards.
Certainly when I first came across it, my view of human nature was changed irrevocably.
Now, thinking critically, I’m not so sure.
Milgram experiment repeated
The Milgram experiment has since been repeated by Doliński et al. (2017) , with the same weird result .
Of the 80 people in the study, fully 90% went all the way to the maximum level of electrocution after being ‘ordered’ to by the experimenter.
Dr Tomasz Grzyb, a study author, said:
“…half a century after Milgram’s original research into obedience to authority, a striking majority of subjects are still willing to electrocute a helpless individual.”
→ This post is part of a series on the best social psychology experiments :
Halo Effect : Definition And How It Affects Our Perception
Cognitive Dissonance : How and Why We Lie to Ourselves
Robbers Cave Experiment : How Group Conflicts Develop
Stanford Prison Experiment : Zimbardo’s Famous Social Psychology Study
False Consensus Effect : What It Is And Why It Happens
Social Identity Theory And The Minimal Group Paradigm
Negotiation : 2 Psychological Strategies That Matter Most
Bystander Effect And The Diffusion Of Responsibility
Asch Conformity Experiment : The Power Of Social Pressure
Author: Dr Jeremy Dean
Psychologist, Jeremy Dean, PhD is the founder and author of PsyBlog. He holds a doctorate in psychology from University College London and two other advanced degrees in psychology. He has been writing about scientific research on PsyBlog since 2004. View all posts by Dr Jeremy Dean
Join the free PsyBlog mailing list. No spam, ever.
Main navigation
Our Articles
Dr. Joe's Books
Media and Press
Our History
Public Lectures
Past Newsletters
Photo Gallery: The McGill OSS Separates 25 Years of Separating Sense from Nonsense
Subscribe to the OSS Weekly Newsletter!
Would you punish someone with electric shocks if told to do so.
Add to calendar
Tweet Widget
The banality of evil.
They were just following orders.
People absolve themselves of any responsibility when there is someone in charge.
These ideas have permeated our thinking, in part because of the defense many Nazi officers gave during the Nuremberg trials, and in part because of Stanley Milgram’s infamous experiments into obedience to authority. Even when the victim begged from the other room not to be shocked, so many of Milgram’s subjects kept increasing the voltage all the way to the “severe shock” setting because a man in a lab coat told them it was OK.
The Milgram experiments are probably the most famous and influential studies in all of psychology. They have been discussed in the context of the law, business ethics, and Holocaust studies. They have also whipped up a frenzy of criticism and backlash over the decades since their first partial publication in 1963 , leading researchers to argue about the ethics of deception and of causing distress to research participants—including nervous laughter, sweating and uncontrollable seizures—in the name of conducting high-impact studies into big ideas.
To this day, alternative explanations to the “just following orders” theory continue to be proposed. The fact that Milgram’s seminal explorations are still being cast in a new light over half a century after they began is an important reminder that scientific data on its own is not enough.
It needs to be interpreted.
From 0% to 93% fully obeyed the experimenter
We have all heard a version of the story of Milgram and the electric shocks. In the 1960s, participants (then known by the clinical and dehumanizing moniker “subjects”) were told by an experimenter to administer progressively higher electrical shocks to another human being when presented with wrong answers, and against expectations, most of these participants—two thirds, in fact—went all the way to the point where the victim stopped complaining and was presumed dead. Except that the participants had been deceived and no electrical shocks were actually delivered. The experimenter and victim were actors.
The reality is much more complicated. There was no one study. Milgram actually conducted over twenty of them in an exploratory process, changing variables as the results came in, to test different ways in which obedience might be curbed or encouraged, after having refined his approach through a series of pilot experiments . The notion that two thirds of participants delivered maximum shocks was the result of the first official study Milgram published on this topic, but the rest of the experiments, written about in his 1974 book Obedience to Authority , showed a wide range of complete obedience, from 0% of participants to 93% depending on the specific experimental conditions Milgram was testing.
There seems to have been two main reasons for Stanley Milgram, who had just received his doctorate in psychology and was accepted into Yale as an assistant professor, to study obedience to authority. He had worked with Solomon Asch, who had investigated conformity and shown that, when embedded in a team of actors in cahoots with the researcher, a naïve study participant would go along with the group a third of the time even though the group’s answer was clearly wrong. The problem with Asch’s research is that it focused on eyeballing the length of lines drawn on cards. Milgram was looking for something more relevant to the real world, having to do with destructive acts.
Stanley Milgram was also Jewish, and that provided an added incentive for him to research how people responded to authority. He was born in New York City in 1933, the year the Nazi Party came into power in Germany. Relatives of Milgram’s immediate family who had survived the concentration camps came to stay with his parents in 1946. And as a symbolic historical echo, the televised trial of Adolf Eichmann, the architect of the Holocaust, began a few months before Milgram’s first research participants came to the Yale University campus to be tested. Eichmann was hanged five days after the end of Milgram’s first study.
Many members of the Nazi leadership explained away their actions as having simply followed orders, an excuse that became known as the Nuremberg defense. Milgram’s experiments certainly look at first glance as confirming the banality of evil, that the capacity to commit atrocities resides in all of us and simply awaits the right circumstances to be made manifest. The fact that Milgram’s results have been replicated time and time again, by different researchers all over the world, using both men and women, lends credence to the idea.
However, all that these replications show is that the results Milgram got were real, not that the banality of evil is necessarily true. So many of Milgram’s participants—ordinary adults from the community around Yale University—were willing to shock a stranger because he had made a mistake in a memory exercise. They were told by a man in a lab coat to please go on; that the experiment required them to continue; that it was absolutely essential to continue; that they had no other choice and had to go on. Thus, they kept flipping the switches, despite the pounding on the wall, the screams, the demands to be let out. This much is true.
But why did they do it?
A noble goal
I was recently asked by a journalist if I thought that the open data movement, which calls for the free and transparent availability of scientific data to everyone, would help solve the problem of people disbelieving scientific facts and embracing fake science and conspiracy theories. I don’t think so because a lack of data is not the main issue here. It’s how to interpret it.
Milgram wrote a whole book about his experiments, and Yale University holds an archive of the 720 individual experiments he conducted between August 1961 and May 1962, including audiotapes, questionnaires and notes . We have the data. Yet here we are, sixty years later, and psychologists still do not agree on exactly why so many of Milgram’s participants acted the way they did. There are theories, of course, but no consensus.
Milgram himself began by suspecting that his obedient subjects had chosen to cooperate with the experimenter, that “every man must be responsible for his own actions,” as he wrote, and that these experiments would help people make better choices under duress. He subsequently came to embrace a different explanation: submission. The participants willing to shock despite the feedback they were receiving from the victim had relinquished their agency, he proposed. They were, essentially, just following orders.
There is something troubling about this explanation, especially since Milgram’s experiments are often used to help make sense of how the Nazis went about killing 6 million Jews , up to a quarter of million people with disabilities, hundreds and thousands of queer people, and more. Secret tape recordings of senior German officers captured by the British provide evidence that the Nuremberg defense of “just following orders” was actually a conspiracy. It had been discussed and adopted prior to the trial as their official excuse. In truth, there were many examples of Nazi leaders reminding their people of the nobility of their cause. As a team of researchers reinterpreting Milgram’s data put it, “they did it because they believed that what they were doing was right.”
Likewise, there are valid arguments to be made that the data Milgram collected can be interpreted in a similar light, that his participants did not simply absolve themselves of all responsibility because someone else was in charge, but that they wanted to actively contribute to an important research project. Milgram, in fact, made sure that his participants saw his experiments as being worthy and noble. It can be argued that the participants wanted to help the experimenter answer important scientific questions and were willing to keep pushing because the experimenter told them it was in pursuit of this crucial goal and that the shocks would not result in permanent tissue damage. A later analysis of the data showed that one of the major points where participants decided to stop administering the shocks was when they reached 150 volts . This was the moment in the research script when the victim would first demand to be released. If the participant felt he was helping the experimenter with an important scientific goal, this is the point where this bond would be challenged. At least, that’s the hypothesis, one of many.
And while there may be a similarity between Milgram’s participants and the Nazis in that both believed they were doing the right thing, there are also many points of divergence. In Milgram’s experiments, the victim was not seen as subhuman and the shocks were said not to cause permanent harm. The Nazis had a long-term goal but Milgram’s participants didn’t, beyond carrying out the instructions of the experimenter. The Holocaust unfolded over years, while each research participant spent maybe an hour in the laboratory. Importantly, Nazi leaders were in authority while Milgram’s experimenter was seen as an authority because of the scientific context. Obedience to the man in the lab coat drastically declined when he was not in the room, whereas the Nazi’s political authority had to work at a distance.
Figuring out what is really going on in Milgram-type experiments will prove challenging, however. Research ethics in the 1960s were a lot looser than they are now. Because of abuses in medical research, such as the radiation studies of the Manhattan project and the Tuskegee syphilis experiment, American guidelines on studies using human participants came about in 1966 and were extended to the social and behavioural sciences in 1971 . In 2009, psychology researcher Jerry Burger wrote that “no study using procedures similar to Milgram’s has been published in more than three decades.” He followed this up by detailing his own partial replication of Milgram’s work on obedience to authority.
How did he do it in an ethical landscape much more concerned with the well-being of research participants? He used an extensive procedure to screen out anyone who might react negatively during the experiment; repeatedly told his participants they could withdraw during the study and still get paid; stopped the experiment at 150 volts, since those who chose to administer this voltage in the past tended to go all the way to the end anyway; gave his participants a thorough debriefing right after the experiment was done; and ended an experiment if any sign of excessive stress was perceived. The specific Milgram study he was attempting to replicate had demonstrated an 82.5% obedience rate; Burger’s was not statistically different at 70%.
Burger opened the door to continuing to investigate obedience to authority in a more humane context, but his methodology was criticized by others. The subtitle to his paper was “Would people still obey today?,” and while he provided data that indicated that not much had changed since the 1960s (and, by implication, the 1930s and 40s), one of Milgram’s original research assistants disagreed . Given how widely known Milgram’s experiments are, we can wonder if this knowledge has made people more empathetic and less willing to blindly obey authority. Burger, however, specifically screened out anyone who had taken more than two psychology classes to avoid people who might suspect what was going on. He also screened out anyone who might become genuinely stressed out by the protocol. All of this means that the number of people who would disobey today might have been undercounted.
Over the course of half a century, Stanley Milgram’s seminal explorations of authority and obedience have been scrutinized, denounced, criticized, and replicated. The fake box his participants used to deliver fake shocks can now be seen at the University of Akron’s Archives of the History of American Psychology . Audio recordings of the experimental sessions have been listened to and commented on. And yet, we still do not know precisely why so many ordinary people thought they were punishing a fellow human being for a mistake they had made and kept going… or why so many refused to participate past a certain point. It’s probably not just a question of the situation they were in, nor only because of who they were as people, but rather an interaction between both situation and personality.
Psychology is often referred to as a “squishy science,” because human behaviour is so much more fluid and harder to predict than the behaviour of a single atom. That doesn’t mean psychology is useless. It means the data we accumulate on it requires careful interpretation. Knowing what happens is only part of the answer. We must know why it happens.
Take-home message: - Stanley Milgram oversaw more than 20 different sets of experiments into obedience to authority in the 1960s, where participants thought they were administering electric shocks to a victim, and depending on the study design, from 0% to 93% of participants fully obeyed to the end - There is still no consensus on why so many participants were obedient, though theories having to do with choice, submission, and the nobility of the scientific research have been put forward - Because of stricter ethical rules protecting research participants, it is now impossible to fully replicate what Milgram did in the 1960s, although full replications were done decades ago and partial replications have been done recently
@CrackedScience
What to read next
The chemistry of inks: old and new 7 jun 2024.
Are Electric or Manual Toothbrushes Better? 7 Jun 2024
Spikeopathy Speculative Fiction Contaminates the Blood Supply 8 Jun 2024
The Canadian Connection to the American Greenback 4 Jun 2024
Media Has an Expiration Date 31 May 2024
So, You Want To Grow Hair? 29 May 2024
Department and University Information
Office for science and society.
Share full article
Advertisement
Supported by
Editorial Observer
Four Decades After Milgram, We’re Still Willing to Inflict Pain
By Adam Cohen
Dec. 28, 2008
In 1963, Stanley Milgram, an assistant professor of psychology at Yale, published his infamous experiment on obedience to authority. Its conclusion was that most ordinary people were willing to administer what they believed to be painful, even dangerous, electric shocks to innocent people if a man in a white lab coat told them to.
For the first time in four decades, a researcher has repeated the Milgram experiment to find out whether, after all we have learned in the last 45 years, Americans are still as willing to inflict pain out of blind obedience.
The Milgram experiment was carried out in the shadow of the Holocaust. The trial of Adolf Eichmann had the world wondering how the Nazis were able to persuade so many ordinary Germans to participate in the murder of innocents. Professor Milgram devised a clever way of testing, in a laboratory setting, man’s (and woman’s) willingness to do evil.
The participants ordinary residents of New Haven were told they were participating in a study of the effect of punishment on learning. A “learner” was strapped in a chair in an adjacent room, and electrodes were attached to the learner’s arm. The participant was told to read test questions, and to administer a shock when the learner gave the wrong answer.
The shocks were not real. But the participants were told they were and instructed to increase the voltage with every wrong answer. At 150 volts, the participant could hear the learner cry in protest, complain of heart pain, and ask to be released from the study. After 330 volts, the learner made no noise at all, suggesting he was no longer capable of responding. Through it all, the scientist in the room kept telling the participant to ignore the protests or the unsettling silence and administer an increasingly large shock for each wrong answer or non-answer.
The Milgram experiment’s startling result as anyone who has taken a college psychology course knows was that ordinary people were willing to administer a lot of pain to innocent strangers if an authority figure instructed them to do so. More than 80 percent of participants continued after administering the 150-volt shock, and 65 percent went all the way up to 450 volts.
Jerry Burger of Santa Clara University replicated the experiment and has now published his findings in American Psychologist. He made one slight change in the protocol, in deference to ethical standards developed since 1963. He stopped when a participant believed he had administered a 150-volt shock. (He also screened out people familiar with the original experiment.)
Professor Burger’s results were nearly identical to Professor Milgram’s. Seventy percent of his participants administered the 150-volt shock and had to be stopped. That is less than in the original experiment, but not enough to be significant.
Much has changed since 1963. The civil rights and antiwar movements taught Americans to question authority. Institutions that were once accorded great deference including the government and the military are now eyed warily. Yet it appears that ordinary Americans are about as willing to blindly follow orders to inflict pain on an innocent stranger as they were four decades ago.
Professor Burger was not surprised. He believes that the mindset of the individual participant including cultural influences is less important than the “situational features” that Professor Milgram shrewdly built into his experiment. These include having the authority figure take responsibility for the decision to administer the shock, and having the participant increase the voltage gradually. It is hard to say no to administering a 195-volt shock when you have just given a 180-volt shock.
The results of both experiments pose a challenge. If this is how most people behave, how do we prevent more Holocausts, Abu Ghraibs and other examples of wanton cruelty? Part of the answer, Professor Burger argues, is teaching people about the experiment so they will know to be on guard against these tendencies, in themselves and others.
An instructor at West Point contacted Professor Burger to say that she was teaching her students about his findings. She had the right idea and the right audience. The findings of these two experiments should be part of the basic training for soldiers, police officers, jailers and anyone else whose position gives them the power to inflict abuse on others.
An official website of the United States government
The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
Publications
Account settings
Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .
Advanced Search
Journal List
v.331(7512); 2005 Aug 6
This article has been retracted.
The man who shocked the world: the life and legacy of stanley milgram.
T he late Stanley Milgram fairly lays claim to be one of the greatest behavioural scientists of the 20th century. He derives his renown from of a series of experiments on obedience to authority, which he conducted at Yale University in 1961-2. Milgram found, surprisingly, that 65% of his subjects, ordinary residents of New Haven, were willing to give apparently harmful electric shocks—up to 450 volts—to a pitifully protesting victim, simply because a scientific, lab coated authority commanded them to, and despite the fact that the victim did nothing to deserve such punishment. The victim was, in reality, a good actor who did not actually receive shocks, a fact that was revealed to the subjects at the end of the experiment. experiment.
Thomas Blass
Basic Books, £15.50/$26/$C40, pp 360 ISBN 0 7382 0399 8 Due for publication in paperback next month
Rating: ★★★★
Milgram's interest in the study of obedience partly emerged out of a deep concern with the suffering of fellow Jews at the hands of the Nazis and an attempt to fathom how the Holocaust could have happened. His researches, like Freud's, led to profound revisions in some of the fundamental assumptions about human nature.
Milgram's experiments suggested that it was not necessary to invoke “evil” as a concept to explain why so many ordinary people do terrible things. Instead his work, and that of other social psychologists, suggested that much of what we do, we do automatically. Evil often occurs simply because we do not question our acts enough; instead our rationale arises from our trust in authority figures who are in “charge.”
The subjects in Milgram's original series of tests believed that they were part of an experiment dealing with the relation between punishment and learning. An experimenter—who used no coercive powers beyond a stern aura of mechanical and vacant eyed efficiency—instructed participants to shock a learner by pressing a lever on a machine each time the learner made a mistake on a word matching task. Each subsequent error led to an increase in the intensity of the shock in 15 volt increments, from 15 to 450 volts.
Actually the shock box was a well crafted prop and the learner an actor who did not receive shocks. Most of the subjects continued to obey to the end—believing that they were delivering life threatening 450 volt shocks—simply because the experimenter commanded them to. Although subjects were told about the deception afterward, the experience was a real and powerful one for them during the laboratory hour itself. itself.
Milgram: groundshaking experiments
These groundbreaking and controversial experiments had—and continue to have—longlasting significance. The media have been obsessed with them since, repeatedly “re-discovering” them and re-reporting them as if they were amazing news.
Milgram's study demonstrated with brutal clarity that ordinary individuals could be induced to act destructively, even in the absence of physical coercion, and humans need not be innately evil or aberrant to act in ways that are reprehensible and inhumane. While we would like to believe that when confronted with a moral dilemma we will act as our conscience dictates, Milgram's obedience experiments teach us that, in a concrete situation with powerful social constraints, our moral sense can all too easily be overwhelmed.
The research was also conducted with amazing verve and subtlety—for example, Milgram ensured that the “experimenter” wear a grey lab coat rather than a white one, precisely because he did not want subjects to think that the “experimenter” was a medical doctor and thereby limit the implications of his findings to the power of physician authority.
The nuance of Milgram's conclusions has often been obscured by the superficial reporting of his work, which Blass, a US psychology professor, goes to some lengths in this important book to rectify. Milgram believed the true explanation of evil such as the Holocaust was linked to his experiments by their demonstration of “a propensity for people to accept definitions of action provided by legitimate authority. That is, although the subject performs the action, he allows authority to define its meaning.”
We did not need Milgram to tell us that we have a tendency to obey orders. But what we did not know before Milgram's experiments was just how powerful this tendency is. And having been enlightened about our extreme readiness to obey authorities, we can try to take steps to guard against unwelcome or reprehensible commands.
Many professions have taken heed of Milgram's work. The US army, for example, now incorporates his findings into its education of officers in order to illuminate the issue of following unethical orders. However, it is not clear that medicine has truly understood the implications of Milgram's work. How often are doctors or medical students in the position of having to obey “orders” or implicit expectations in hospitals or clinics, when they are uneasy about the ethics of doing so?
What is perhaps most intriguing about this book is not so much the dramatic implications of Milgram's work, but instead the insight that Blass gives us into the kind of unconventional mind required to devise groundshaking experiments that will continue to echo through the corridors of history long after much more mundane work currently dominating learned journals is forgotten.
Items reviewed are rated on a 4 star scale (4=excellent)
Milgram’s Experiment Alive and Well
A famous experiment, repeated, produces the same result. What next, the Zimbardo Experiment? In today’s New York Times, the following editorial column by Adam Cohen appeared: Four Decades after Milgram, We’re Still Willing to Inflict Pain .
In 1963, Stanley Milgram, an assistant professor of psychology at Yale, published his infamous experiment on obedience to authority. Its conclusion was that most ordinary people were willing to administer what they believed to be painful, even dangerous, electric shocks to innocent people if a man in a white lab coat told them to. For the first time in four decades, a researcher has repeated the Milgram experiment to find out whether, after all we have learned in the last 45 years, Americans are still as willing to inflict pain out of blind obedience. The Milgram experiment was carried out in the shadow of the Holocaust. The trial of Adolf Eichmann had the world wondering how the Nazis were able to persuade so many ordinary Germans to participate in the murder of innocents. Professor Milgram devised a clever way of testing, in a laboratory setting, man’s (and woman’s) willingness to do evil. The participants — ordinary residents of New Haven — were told they were participating in a study of the effect of punishment on learning. A “learner” was strapped in a chair in an adjacent room, and electrodes were attached to the learner’s arm. The participant was told to read test questions, and to administer a shock when the learner gave the wrong answer. The shocks were not real. But the participants were told they were — and instructed to increase the voltage with every wrong answer. At 150 volts, the participant could hear the learner cry in protest, complain of heart pain, and ask to be released from the study. After 330 volts, the learner made no noise at all, suggesting he was no longer capable of responding. Through it all, the scientist in the room kept telling the participant to ignore the protests — or the unsettling silence — and administer an increasingly large shock for each wrong answer or non-answer. The Milgram experiment’s startling result — as anyone who has taken a college psychology course knows — was that ordinary people were willing to administer a lot of pain to innocent strangers if an authority figure instructed them to do so. More than 80 percent of participants continued after administering the 150-volt shock, and 65 percent went all the way up to 450 volts. Jerry Burger of Santa Clara University replicated the experiment and has now published his findings in American Psychologist. He made one slight change in the protocol, in deference to ethical standards developed since 1963. He stopped when a participant believed he had administered a 150-volt shock. (He also screened out people familiar with the original experiment.) Professor Burger’s results were nearly identical to Professor Milgram’s. Seventy percent of his participants administered the 150-volt shock and had to be stopped. That is less than in the original experiment, but not enough to be significant. Much has changed since 1963. The civil rights and antiwar movements taught Americans to question authority. Institutions that were once accorded great deference — including the government and the military — are now eyed warily. Yet it appears that ordinary Americans are about as willing to blindly follow orders to inflict pain on an innocent stranger as they were four decades ago. Professor Burger was not surprised. He believes that the mindset of the individual participant — including cultural influences — is less important than the “situational features” that Professor Milgram shrewdly built into his experiment. These include having the authority figure take responsibility for the decision to administer the shock, and having the participant increase the voltage gradually. It is hard to say no to administering a 195-volt shock when you have just given a 180-volt shock. The results of both experiments pose a challenge. If this is how most people behave, how do we prevent more Holocausts, Abu Ghraibs and other examples of wanton cruelty? Part of the answer, Professor Burger argues, is teaching people about the experiment so they will know to be on guard against these tendencies, in themselves and others. An instructor at West Point contacted Professor Burger to say that she was teaching her students about his findings. She had the right idea — and the right audience. The findings of these two experiments should be part of the basic training for soldiers, police officers, jailers and anyone else whose position gives them the power to inflict abuse on others.
Untangling Pop Culture’s Obsession with the Milgram Experiment | The Other Sociologist - Analysis of Difference... By Dr Zuleyka Zevallos — May 10, 2014
[…] studies claim to replicate the original findings. For example, see this review in A Backstage Sociologist from 2008 and The Situationist from 2007 and 2011. One study has attempted to address the […]
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
About A Backstage Sociologist
Monte Bute is a backstage sociologist. From his roundabout journey from Red Wing Boy's Reformatory to anti-war activist to sociology professor. Monte's full of great stories, creative insights and powerful critiques—and now he has a blog! Read more…
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
February 2021
August 2017
February 2017
January 2017
November 2016
September 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
September 2012
February 2012
January 2012
November 2011
February 2010
November 2009
October 2009
August 2009
February 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
CC Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike
When the White Lab Coat Shocked the World
The white lab coat, be it in the medical or scientific sector, remains an iconic, recognizable symbol of the 21st century.
As garments go, there I say it is up there alongside other famous coats such as Jose Mourinho’s much-loved overcoat during his first stint at Chelsea FC back in the mid-noughties.
We have written previously about the concept of enclothed recognition and how the white lab coat oozes confidence and authority. So much so in fact that scientific research has proven many times over that wearing a white lab coat from a young age will vastly improve a student’s belief in their STEM abilities, their levels of recognition, and thus, naturally, their science career aspirations.
Browse Our Lab Coat Collection Now
However, there are two sides to every coin and with great power comes great responsibility. For instance, what happens when faith in the power of that white lab coat is twisted on its head? Enter Stanley Milgram .
The White Lab Coat Speaks Authority
The year is 1963. The Soviets send the first woman to space. Jack Nicklaus wins his first US Masters. Future entertainers Brad Pitt , Whitney Houston , Michael Jordan , and Johnny Depp enter the world presumably kicking and screaming like the rest of us mortals. Martin Luther King has a dream. And John F. Kennedy is assassinated by… well, let’s leave that for another day.
But less known perhaps is an assistant professor of psychology at Yale who publishes his infamous experiment on obedience to authority. Its conclusion, that most ordinary people were willing to administer what they believed to be increased and excessive volts of electricity to innocent strangers, sent shockwaves (I could not help myself) through the world. The smoking gun, all because a man in a white lab coat told them to do so! The findings would make the untenured Milgram a national celebrity.
For instance, frightening excerpts of the experiments in action make for a grim discovery.
“My heart’s starting to bother me now. Let me out of here, please!” the victim would scream.
“He says his heart’s bothering him. He wants to stop,” the test subject would state, turning to the white lab coat wearing scientist.
Instead, they would firmly be reminded by the man in the white lab coat that the experiment needs to continue. If the test subject still showed signs of hesitation, the scientist would again assert his assurance: “While the shocks may be painful, they are not harmful. Continue with the experiment, please.”
And as we now know, in the high majority of cases, the test subject did as instructed, trusting it would seem that the supposed scientist was a man who in control of the situation, no matter how teetering on the edge of disaster it may have seemed to the subject. Remarkably, this continued even after the increasingly powerful shocks had rendered the victim to stop responding to verbal prompts from the test subject and scientist.
Stern Men in White Lab Coats
The idea for the experiment came to Milgram following the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Israel in 1960. Milgram began researching the post-World War II Nuremberg Trials and noticed a pattern where defense after defense after defense of Nazi war crimes was based on the notion of obedience. They were just following orders from their superiors. This was the root that Milgram sought to pull at - was such a horrific event as the Holocaust committed simply because of the social and behavioral influences of authority figures?
Thus the trigger of his 1961 experiment was built around the character of an “impassive...and somewhat stern” male scientist wearing a white lab coat. This character would instruct volunteers to electrocute their test partners with a lethal electrical charge if they got a question wrong.
So, let’s backtrack a little. The experiment unfolded like so. A volunteer was greeted by a scientist in a white lab coat and was given the role of "teacher" for the experiment. Next, they were introduced to a "learner." The teacher would watch as the learner was strapped into a chair with an electrode attached to their wrist. The teacher was then seated behind a screen in front of a large electroshock machine to read out a list of words as instructed by the man in the white lab coat. It was the learner’s task to reply with pre-learned corresponding comments.
If their response was incorrect, the teacher would apply an electric shock to the learner by pressing one of 30 switches. These were labeled from "slight shock" through to "danger: severe shock." For each incorrect response, the teacher was told to increase the voltage.
Underestimating the Power of White Lab Coat
Interestingly, before the experiment kicked off, Milgram polled psychology students and fellow white lab coat wearers. The majority believed only a minimal number of volunteers, between 1 and 3 percent , would be prepared to inflict the cruel punishment asked of them. Boy, oh boy. Were they wrong? There is a reason this experiment went down in infamy. In fact, more than 80 percent of participants continued after administering the 150-volt shock, and 65 percent went all the way up to 450 volts . The disparity between what scientists thought would happen and what did happen reveal further the magnitude of these results.
If not made clear already, it is important to repeat, the shocks were not real. That said, the participants were told that they were. Grimly, at 150 volts , the participant could hear the learner cry in protest, insist they were about to have a heart attack, and beg, beg, beg for mercy and to stop the study. After 330 volts , the learner made no noise at all, suggesting they were no longer capable of responding. Yet, through it, all, the man in the white lab coat kept telling the participant to ignore the protests or the unsettling silence and administer an increasingly large shock for each wrong answer or non-answer.
So, what does this all mean? Quite simple really. Ordinary people are willing to administer a lot of pain to innocent strangers if an authority figure instructs them to do so. And again, it hammers home the connection we have between a white lab coat and competence. While the learner was only feigning pain, 65 percent of volunteers effectively killed their student because they trusted the instructions they were getting from the man in the white lab coat.
Today, the Milgram experiments are considered among the most famous and most controversial of all time. They are also often used in expert testimony in cases where perceived obedience leads to crime. For instance, in 2004, psychologist Philip Zimbardo referenced Milgram’s work in the trial of an Abu Ghraib prison guard.
All of this paints a fascinating picture of our perception of the stereotypical scientist. Not only do we feel great about ourselves when decked out in white lab coat, but a lot of us would kill another human being at their request!
Up Next ...
How to look good in a lab coat.
Lab coats mean a lot of different things to medical patients, providers, and science professionals. But they’re primarily about protection in a lab or a ...read more.
Lab Coats and the Work of Archaeologists
Lab work is a critical aspect of archaeology practice, meaning a white lab coat is an essential part of an archaeologist’s uniform.
The Lab Coats That Built The Atomic Bombs
History was forever changed by men and women in white lab coats on the night of July 15-16, 1945, in the desert of Los Alamos, ...read more.
Lab Coat Experiments: Endangered Species Get the Cryogenic Treatment
Science is at it again. Is there anything that the men and women who don the white lab coat every day will not attempt? ...read more.
Legends of the Lab Coat: Rosalind Franklin
In the second of this series celebrating legends of the lab coat, we turn our attention to Rosalind Franklin. ...read more.
The Hidden Influence of the Lab Coat in Stanford Prison Experiment
Did the lab coat wearing researchers tip the scales in the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment? ...read more.
Legends of the Lab Coat: Marie Curie
In the first of this series celebrating legends of the lab coat, we turn our attention to Marie Curie. ...read more.
How Hollywood Highlights the White Lab Coat
How we view wearers of the white lab coat can often be forged in our minds by how we see them through the lens of ...read more.
The Mind-Bending Powers of the White Lab Coat
Since making its breakthrough on the medical scene in the late 19th century, the white lab coat has been a heavyweight of recognizable symbols. ...read more.
The Red Origins of the White Lab Coat in Medicine
Before the white lab coat become a symbol of the medical profession, the sector had some interesting hot takes. ...read more.
The best lab coat for chemical spills
The laboratory…a setting that most people only see in movies. And yet, it’s a second home to you. This sense of confidence often means greater ...read more.
4 Reasons You Need Multiple Lab Coats
OK, sure—Dr. James designs and sells lab coats. What would you say, though, if we told you there were four vital reasons why you really ...read more.
4 Challenges to medical providers serving humanity
Even with the best intention to help, a medical professional traveling to a new setting to provide humanitarian aid will come up against these common ...read more.
Top 20 jobs for science lovers
If you started your mornings with “Bill Nye the Science Guy” as a child, dreamed of wearing a lab coat when you grew up, or ...read more.
How to make PPE at home
How to make facemasks and even gloves and goggles at home has become a point of global interest since the COVID-19 pandemic has left communities ...read more.
Dr. James Lab Coats in Space Force
On episode seven of the Space Force, Dr. James apparel shows up front and center. Read here about the show and about what Dr. James ...read more.
Where are people buying lab coats?
Lab coats are an essential for a long list of STEM professionals, and the right protective coat goes a long way. But how do you ...read more.
The ultimate guide to disposable lab coats
Disposable lab coats are the workhorses of modern medicine and science. When dealing with hazardous chemicals, airborne particulate, pathogens, or flammable materials, disposable lab coats ...read more.
How to take care of yourself while taking care of others
Pointing to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, labcoat-wearing healthcare workers are at risk right now in one of the most fundamental areas of their own needs: ...read more.
Superheroes wear lab coats
If there’s anything movies have taught us, it’s that a lone hero will always be around to rescue the world. Unfortunately, the one thing these ...read more.
Labcoats vs. the coronavirus
Barely a week ago, the WHO characterized COVID-19 as a pandemic. The labcoat still has something to say about what comes next. The STEM community ...read more.
Wear a white lab coat, get better grades
What would you think if we told you that your lab coat could help you get better grades? It’s not magic. It’s not some wild ...read more.
Recent news in lab coats
How often do you read trade journals, white papers and research? In the world of labcoat-wearing professionals, the answer is “every day.” At Dr. James, ...read more.
The Future of Fabric and the White Coat
In this article we take you through time to the near future. We will see the evolution of fabric and how it can revolutionize the ...read more.
Special-Occasion Lab Coats
Different lab coats are more practical for different jobs. In the same way, different lab coats are better for specific events and occasions. The factors ...read more.
Is Amazon the best place to buy labcoats?
Where is the best place to buy lab coats? The internet, in particular, has changed accessibility for designer lab coats forever. Follow along as we ...read more.
Ophthalmologists and the White Lab Coat
For almost 150 years, the white lab coat has been more than just "regullar attire" for doctors. It has symbolic value for patients and providers ...read more.
What do labcoats and priests’ collars have in common?
What do labcoats and priests’ collars have in common? Symbolism and debate, of course. These two garments represent the attire most charged with meaning. The ...read more.
Paint, fabrics and environments: psychology of the color white
How do you perceive the color white at work? At home? In the examination room? When it comes to a labcoat doctor jacket, would you ...read more.
The Future of Nursing and Who Should Apply to Nursing School
It can be difficult to know what to expect from a nursing program, because it's bound to change—even as you move through it. If you're ...read more.
The Case for Lab Coats for Women
There do remain many barriers for women entering medicine that make it difficult for these professionals to don the iconic white lab coat. One of ...read more.
Lab Coat Trends and What’s Worn Under Them
From doctor labwear of old to the contemporary designer white coats, as well as what doctors tend to wear under them, we’ve got it all ...read more.
How do you keep white lab coats white?
Not all stains are created equal and, when in any setting that requires a white lab coat, chances are there are all sorts of stains ...read more.
The Fascinating History of Pharmacists: Before the White Coat
In this article, we offer a panoramic of the history of pharmacists. We see how pharmacists and the treatment of diseases used to be, how ...read more.
How do you know if your lab coat fits right?
A properly-fitted lab coat makes you look good and feel good, and if that sounds too vain (which we’ll argue it’s not), it also helps ...read more.
Types of Labwear [FULL GUIDE]
If your lab wear doesn’t provide you optimal functionality (or leaves you worried about its quality), you’re inviting not only distraction, but unnecessary anxiety. Read ...read more.
The New Generation of Women in Science and Medicine
Normally, defacement of property isn’t something we’d condone. That being said, glass ceilings need to be shattered. Female representation has increased in some science fields, ...read more.
Best Halloween Costumes for a Designer Lab Coat
Halloween is sneaking up! The yearly excuse to dress up exactly as you like (with no judgment) has many of us bubbling over with excitement. ...read more.
50 Med School Interview Questions to Prepare For
In this article, we talk to those of you getting ready to choose a med school. There will be rigorous application processes, the most dreaded ...read more.
9 things to know to start a successful residency or internship
You’re about to take the step from the textbook into the hospital. It’s the difference between the theoretical and the practical, and that difference can ...read more.
3 things every pharmacy student should know
Knowing what to expect from pharmacy school can play a major role in how you do, all the way from applying for pharm programs to ...read more.
How to adjust to your new med, pharmacy or nursing program
The changes in academic pressures and lifestyle moving from high school to a pre-med, nursing or other science-based undergrad program is enough to give anyone ...read more.
Creative study tips for exhausted med students
Studying science or medicine is exhausting. And this is no secret; everyone studying and working in science or health-related fields knows it, and most everyone ...read more.
Breaking out of imposter syndrome during medical school
Imposter Syndrome, or the overwhelming feeling that you "aren't good enough" or "don't belong" in a profession or program, is hard. It's destructive. And it ...read more.
When med and science students strut too much of their stuff
Whether it’s going out with friends during a new semester of medical school or heading straight into residency this fall, one question we can’t ever ...read more.
Where to buy a lab coat
Here we talk about where you can buy a lab coat. This is a question that goes beyond Google...beyond a simple bullet-point answer...because with the ...read more.
Med student back-to-school budgeting
This week, we’re going to give you some tips and tricks on how to optimize your spending and saving (funny how those go together) while ...read more.
Things I wish I knew before nursing school
You know nursing school will be hard, and that doesn’t scare you or let you down. The image of yourself wearing that white coat and ...read more.
Top conferences in 2019 for medical students to consider attending
Conferences not only help you do your job, they also broaden your horizons, put you among the first to learn about advances in medicine and ...read more.
Qualifying Conditions for Group Buying
1. You must be a registered organization.
2. You must order 20 units or more of any style or a mix of different styles.
3. We do not offer credit terms so all orders must be paid in advance of shipping.
4. Returns are accepted within 30 days of ordering as per our returns policy and conditions .
5. An organization registration number must be provided when ordering, to obtain a free sample.
6. Discount rates apply to the quantity specified in your order. Changes to your order at a later stage may effect the agreed price if quantities change.
7. Delivery dates are subject to stock availability.
8. Embroidered garments cannot be returned or exchanged in any way.
12 Month Warranty
Dr James value our customer experience. We hope that all our products are made with care and in a professional way. If our items become defective from normal wear, we will replace the garment free of charge under the Dr James Warranty. Examples of possible warranty claims could involve the garment studs, the garment seams, the garment cuffs. If you believe your Dr James product has not lived up its expectations, please email us on [email protected] with your claim and we will process it accordingly.
Controlled Experiment
Saul Mcleod, PhD
Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester
Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.
Learn about our Editorial Process
Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc
Associate Editor for Simply Psychology
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education
Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.
This is when a hypothesis is scientifically tested.
In a controlled experiment, an independent variable (the cause) is systematically manipulated, and the dependent variable (the effect) is measured; any extraneous variables are controlled.
The researcher can operationalize (i.e., define) the studied variables so they can be objectively measured. The quantitative data can be analyzed to see if there is a difference between the experimental and control groups.
What is the control group?
In experiments scientists compare a control group and an experimental group that are identical in all respects, except for one difference – experimental manipulation.
Unlike the experimental group, the control group is not exposed to the independent variable under investigation and so provides a baseline against which any changes in the experimental group can be compared.
Since experimental manipulation is the only difference between the experimental and control groups, we can be sure that any differences between the two are due to experimental manipulation rather than chance.
Randomly allocating participants to independent variable groups means that all participants should have an equal chance of participating in each condition.
The principle of random allocation is to avoid bias in how the experiment is carried out and limit the effects of participant variables.
What are extraneous variables?
The researcher wants to ensure that the manipulation of the independent variable has changed the changes in the dependent variable.
Hence, all the other variables that could affect the dependent variable to change must be controlled. These other variables are called extraneous or confounding variables.
Extraneous variables should be controlled were possible, as they might be important enough to provide alternative explanations for the effects.
In practice, it would be difficult to control all the variables in a child’s educational achievement. For example, it would be difficult to control variables that have happened in the past.
A researcher can only control the current environment of participants, such as time of day and noise levels.
Why conduct controlled experiments?
Scientists use controlled experiments because they allow for precise control of extraneous and independent variables. This allows a cause-and-effect relationship to be established.
Controlled experiments also follow a standardized step-by-step procedure. This makes it easy for another researcher to replicate the study.
Key Terminology
Experimental group.
The group being treated or otherwise manipulated for the sake of the experiment.
Control Group
They receive no treatment and are used as a comparison group.
Ecological validity
The degree to which an investigation represents real-life experiences.
Experimenter effects
These are the ways that the experimenter can accidentally influence the participant through their appearance or behavior.
Demand characteristics
The clues in an experiment lead the participants to think they know what the researcher is looking for (e.g., the experimenter’s body language).
Independent variable (IV)
The variable the experimenter manipulates (i.e., changes) – is assumed to have a direct effect on the dependent variable.
Dependent variable (DV)
Variable the experimenter measures. This is the outcome (i.e., the result) of a study.
Extraneous variables (EV)
All variables that are not independent variables but could affect the results (DV) of the experiment. Extraneous variables should be controlled where possible.
Confounding variables
Variable(s) that have affected the results (DV), apart from the IV. A confounding variable could be an extraneous variable that has not been controlled.
Random Allocation
Randomly allocating participants to independent variable conditions means that all participants should have an equal chance of participating in each condition.
Order effects
Changes in participants’ performance due to their repeating the same or similar test more than once. Examples of order effects include:
(i) practice effect: an improvement in performance on a task due to repetition, for example, because of familiarity with the task;
(ii) fatigue effect: a decrease in performance of a task due to repetition, for example, because of boredom or tiredness.
What is the control in an experiment?
In an experiment , the control is a standard or baseline group not exposed to the experimental treatment or manipulation. It serves as a comparison group to the experimental group, which does receive the treatment or manipulation.
The control group helps to account for other variables that might influence the outcome, allowing researchers to attribute differences in results more confidently to the experimental treatment.
Establishing a cause-and-effect relationship between the manipulated variable (independent variable) and the outcome (dependent variable) is critical in establishing a cause-and-effect relationship between the manipulated variable.
What is the purpose of controlling the environment when testing a hypothesis?
Controlling the environment when testing a hypothesis aims to eliminate or minimize the influence of extraneous variables. These variables other than the independent variable might affect the dependent variable, potentially confounding the results.
By controlling the environment, researchers can ensure that any observed changes in the dependent variable are likely due to the manipulation of the independent variable, not other factors.
This enhances the experiment’s validity, allowing for more accurate conclusions about cause-and-effect relationships.
It also improves the experiment’s replicability, meaning other researchers can repeat the experiment under the same conditions to verify the results.
Why are hypotheses important to controlled experiments?
Hypotheses are crucial to controlled experiments because they provide a clear focus and direction for the research. A hypothesis is a testable prediction about the relationship between variables.
It guides the design of the experiment, including what variables to manipulate (independent variables) and what outcomes to measure (dependent variables).
The experiment is then conducted to test the validity of the hypothesis. If the results align with the hypothesis, they provide evidence supporting it.
The hypothesis may be revised or rejected if the results do not align. Thus, hypotheses are central to the scientific method, driving the iterative inquiry, experimentation, and knowledge advancement process.
What is the experimental method?
The experimental method is a systematic approach in scientific research where an independent variable is manipulated to observe its effect on a dependent variable, under controlled conditions.
Related Articles
Research Methodology
Qualitative Data Coding
What Is a Focus Group?
Cross-Cultural Research Methodology In Psychology
What Is Internal Validity In Research?
Research Methodology , Statistics
What Is Face Validity In Research? Importance & How To Measure
Stanley Milgram and his 'Shock Machine' Exposed: How Much of Modern
Electric Schlock: Did Stanley Milgram's Famous Obedience Experiments
Electric Shock Experiment
The Fraudulent Stanley Milgram Authority Electric Shock Experiment
Stanley Milgram's Electric Shock Experiment.pptx
The Electric Shock Experiment
VIDEO
Electric Shock Experiment Risk #dangerous #electrical #shorts #youtubeshorts
Electric bicycle shock absorption adjustment process
Shocking Prank Gone Wrong Electric Shock Experiment Gone Bad
Homemade Easy Electric Shock Pen Using Old Lighter । #diy #fact #ideas
Milgram Electric Shock Experiment/Urdu/Dr. Faisal Rashid Khan
Testing out our new Electron E-Coat Master system on a sample wheel with a fade. #powdercoating
COMMENTS
Milgram experiment
The experimenter, dressed in a lab coat in order to appear to have more authority, ... the teacher was given a sample electric shock from the electroshock generator in order to experience firsthand what the shock that the learner would supposedly receive during the experiment would ... Obedience is a black-and-white film of the experiment, ...
What Really Happened During The Milgram Experiment?
The groups that Milgram polled before the experiments began had predicted that just three or four percent of test subjects could be convinced to deliver a potentially fatal electric shock to an unwilling participant. But results showed that 26 of the 40 subjects — 65 percent — went all the way up to 450 volts during the experiment.
Milgram Shock Experiment
Stanley Milgram Shock Experiment. By. Saul Mcleod, PhD. Updated on. November 14, 2023. Updated on. November 14, 2023. ... The teacher is told to administer an electric shock every time the learner makes a mistake, increasing the level of shock each time. ... The lab coat worn by the experimenter in the original study served as a crucial symbol ...
Replications. Criticisms. Impact. The Milgram experiment was a famous and controversial study that explored the effects of authority on obedience. During the 1960s, Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted a series of obedience experiments that led to some surprising results. In the study, an authority figure ordered participants ...
Milgram experiment
Milgram experiment, controversial series of experiments examining obedience to authority conducted by social psychologist Stanley Milgram. In the experiment, an authority figure, the conductor of the experiment, would instruct a volunteer participant, labeled the "teacher," to administer painful, even dangerous, electric shocks to the ...
Stanley Milgram's Experiment (SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY)
Stanley Milgram was one of the most influential social psychologists of the twentieth century. Born in 1933 in New York, he obtained a BA from Queen's College, and went on to receive a PhD in psychology from Harvard. Subsequently, Milgram held faculty positions in psychology at Yale University and the City University of New York until his ...
Rethinking One of Psychology's Most Infamous Experiments
In the 1960s, Stanley Milgram's electric-shock studies showed that people will obey even the most abhorrent of orders. But recently, researchers have begun to question his conclusions—and offer ...
The Milgram Experiment: Summary, Conclusion, Ethics
The goal of the Milgram experiment was to test the extent of humans' willingness to obey orders from an authority figure. Participants were told by an experimenter to administer increasingly powerful electric shocks to another individual. Unbeknownst to the participants, shocks were fake and the individual being shocked was an actor.
Author Interview: Gina Perry, Author Of 'Behind The Shock Machine ...
On the many variations of the experiment "Over 700 people took part in the experiments. When the news of the experiment was first reported, and the shocking statistic that 65 percent of people ...
The Milgram Shock Experiment
The Milgram Shock Experiment. One of the most famous studies of obedience in psychology was carried out by Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University. He conducted an experiment focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience. Milgram (1963) examined justifications for acts of genocide offered by those ...
The Milgram Shock Experiment
History of the Milgram Shock Study. This study is most commonly known as the Milgram Shock Study or the Milgram Experiment. Its name comes from Stanley Milgram, the psychologist behind the study. Milgram was born in the 1930s in New York City to Jewish immigrant parents. As he grew up, he witnessed the atrocities of the Holocaust from thousands ...
Stanley Milgram Obedience to Authority
It was understood that the electric shocks were to be of increased by 15 volts in intensity for each mistake the "learner" made during the experiment. The shock generator that the "teacher" was told to operate had 30 switches in 15 volt increments, each switch was labeled with a voltage ranging from 15 up to 450 volts.
Stanley Milgram Obedience experiments authority study 1974 psychology
He introduced to a stern looking experimenter in a white coat and to a rather pleasant and friendly co-subject who was also presumably recruited via the same newspaper ad. ... Milgram Obedience Experiment: Shock Range Labelling: Electric Shocks simulated: Slight Shock: 15, 30, 45, 60 volts: Moderate Shock: 75, 90. 105, 120 volts: Strong Shock ...
What Milgram's Shock Experiments Really Mean
The shock experiments reveal not blind obedience but conflicting moral tendencies that lie deep within. Michael Shermer is publisher of Skeptic magazine ( www.skeptic.com) and a Presidential ...
The Stanley Milgram Experiment: Understanding Obedience
Stanley Milgram with shock generator Milgram's Independent Variables. As we have seen, in Stanley Milgram's famous experiment conducted at Yale University in the 1960s, he sought to investigate the extent to which ordinary people would obey the commands of an authority figure, even if it meant administering severe electric shocks to another person.
PDF CommonLit
participant). There was another confederate dressed in a grey lab coat and playing the role of "experimenter" (not Milgram). Two rooms in the Yale Interaction Laboratory were used — one for the learner (with an electric chair) and another for the teacher and experimenter (with an electric shock generator). The learner was
Milgram Experiment: Explaining Obedience to Authority
When the participant baulked at giving the electrical shocks, the experimenter - an authority figure dressed in a white lab coat - ordered them to continue. Results of the Milgram shock experiments. Before I explain the results, try to imagine yourself as the participant in the Milgram experiment.
Would You Punish Someone with Electric Shocks If Told to Do So?
Even when the victim begged from the other room not to be shocked, so many of Milgram's subjects kept increasing the voltage all the way to the "severe shock" setting because a man in a lab coat told them it was OK. The Milgram experiments are probably the most famous and influential studies in all of psychology.
Four Decades After Milgram, We're Still Willing to Inflict Pain
For the first time in four decades, a researcher has repeated the Milgram experiment to find out whether, after all we have learned in the last 45 years, Americans are still as willing to inflict ...
The Man Who Shocked the World: The Life and Legacy of Stanley Milgram
The late Stanley Milgram fairly lays claim to be one of the greatest behavioural scientists of the 20th century.He derives his renown from of a series of experiments on obedience to authority, which he conducted at Yale University in 1961-2. Milgram found, surprisingly, that 65% of his subjects, ordinary residents of New Haven, were willing to give apparently harmful electric shocks—up to ...
Milgram's Experiment Alive and Well
A famous experiment, repeated, produces the same result. ... electric shocks to innocent people if a man in a white lab coat told them to. For the first time in four decades, a researcher has repeated the Milgram experiment to find out whether, after all we have learned in the last 45 years, Americans are still as willing to inflict pain out of ...
White Lab Coat Shocks The World
Stern Men in White Lab Coats. The idea for the experiment came to Milgram following the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Israel in 1960. Milgram began researching the post-World War II Nuremberg Trials and noticed a pattern where defense after defense after defense of Nazi war crimes was based on the notion of obedience.
People would rather be electrically shocked than left alone ...
In fact, some people even prefer an electric shock to being left alone with their minds. "I'm really excited to see this paper," says Matthew Killingsworth, a psychologist at the University of California (UC), San Francisco, who says his own work has turned up a similar result. "When people are spending time inside their heads, they're markedly ...
What Is a Controlled Experiment?
Hypotheses are crucial to controlled experiments because they provide a clear focus and direction for the research. A hypothesis is a testable prediction about the relationship between variables. It guides the design of the experiment, including what variables to manipulate (independent variables) and what outcomes to measure (dependent variables).
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
The experimenter, dressed in a lab coat in order to appear to have more authority, ... the teacher was given a sample electric shock from the electroshock generator in order to experience firsthand what the shock that the learner would supposedly receive during the experiment would ... Obedience is a black-and-white film of the experiment, ...
The groups that Milgram polled before the experiments began had predicted that just three or four percent of test subjects could be convinced to deliver a potentially fatal electric shock to an unwilling participant. But results showed that 26 of the 40 subjects — 65 percent — went all the way up to 450 volts during the experiment.
Stanley Milgram Shock Experiment. By. Saul Mcleod, PhD. Updated on. November 14, 2023. Updated on. November 14, 2023. ... The teacher is told to administer an electric shock every time the learner makes a mistake, increasing the level of shock each time. ... The lab coat worn by the experimenter in the original study served as a crucial symbol ...
Replications. Criticisms. Impact. The Milgram experiment was a famous and controversial study that explored the effects of authority on obedience. During the 1960s, Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted a series of obedience experiments that led to some surprising results. In the study, an authority figure ordered participants ...
Milgram experiment, controversial series of experiments examining obedience to authority conducted by social psychologist Stanley Milgram. In the experiment, an authority figure, the conductor of the experiment, would instruct a volunteer participant, labeled the "teacher," to administer painful, even dangerous, electric shocks to the ...
Stanley Milgram was one of the most influential social psychologists of the twentieth century. Born in 1933 in New York, he obtained a BA from Queen's College, and went on to receive a PhD in psychology from Harvard. Subsequently, Milgram held faculty positions in psychology at Yale University and the City University of New York until his ...
In the 1960s, Stanley Milgram's electric-shock studies showed that people will obey even the most abhorrent of orders. But recently, researchers have begun to question his conclusions—and offer ...
The goal of the Milgram experiment was to test the extent of humans' willingness to obey orders from an authority figure. Participants were told by an experimenter to administer increasingly powerful electric shocks to another individual. Unbeknownst to the participants, shocks were fake and the individual being shocked was an actor.
On the many variations of the experiment "Over 700 people took part in the experiments. When the news of the experiment was first reported, and the shocking statistic that 65 percent of people ...
The Milgram Shock Experiment. One of the most famous studies of obedience in psychology was carried out by Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University. He conducted an experiment focusing on the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience. Milgram (1963) examined justifications for acts of genocide offered by those ...
History of the Milgram Shock Study. This study is most commonly known as the Milgram Shock Study or the Milgram Experiment. Its name comes from Stanley Milgram, the psychologist behind the study. Milgram was born in the 1930s in New York City to Jewish immigrant parents. As he grew up, he witnessed the atrocities of the Holocaust from thousands ...
It was understood that the electric shocks were to be of increased by 15 volts in intensity for each mistake the "learner" made during the experiment. The shock generator that the "teacher" was told to operate had 30 switches in 15 volt increments, each switch was labeled with a voltage ranging from 15 up to 450 volts.
He introduced to a stern looking experimenter in a white coat and to a rather pleasant and friendly co-subject who was also presumably recruited via the same newspaper ad. ... Milgram Obedience Experiment: Shock Range Labelling: Electric Shocks simulated: Slight Shock: 15, 30, 45, 60 volts: Moderate Shock: 75, 90. 105, 120 volts: Strong Shock ...
The shock experiments reveal not blind obedience but conflicting moral tendencies that lie deep within. Michael Shermer is publisher of Skeptic magazine ( www.skeptic.com) and a Presidential ...
Stanley Milgram with shock generator Milgram's Independent Variables. As we have seen, in Stanley Milgram's famous experiment conducted at Yale University in the 1960s, he sought to investigate the extent to which ordinary people would obey the commands of an authority figure, even if it meant administering severe electric shocks to another person.
participant). There was another confederate dressed in a grey lab coat and playing the role of "experimenter" (not Milgram). Two rooms in the Yale Interaction Laboratory were used — one for the learner (with an electric chair) and another for the teacher and experimenter (with an electric shock generator). The learner was
When the participant baulked at giving the electrical shocks, the experimenter - an authority figure dressed in a white lab coat - ordered them to continue. Results of the Milgram shock experiments. Before I explain the results, try to imagine yourself as the participant in the Milgram experiment.
Even when the victim begged from the other room not to be shocked, so many of Milgram's subjects kept increasing the voltage all the way to the "severe shock" setting because a man in a lab coat told them it was OK. The Milgram experiments are probably the most famous and influential studies in all of psychology.
For the first time in four decades, a researcher has repeated the Milgram experiment to find out whether, after all we have learned in the last 45 years, Americans are still as willing to inflict ...
The late Stanley Milgram fairly lays claim to be one of the greatest behavioural scientists of the 20th century.He derives his renown from of a series of experiments on obedience to authority, which he conducted at Yale University in 1961-2. Milgram found, surprisingly, that 65% of his subjects, ordinary residents of New Haven, were willing to give apparently harmful electric shocks—up to ...
A famous experiment, repeated, produces the same result. ... electric shocks to innocent people if a man in a white lab coat told them to. For the first time in four decades, a researcher has repeated the Milgram experiment to find out whether, after all we have learned in the last 45 years, Americans are still as willing to inflict pain out of ...
Stern Men in White Lab Coats. The idea for the experiment came to Milgram following the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Israel in 1960. Milgram began researching the post-World War II Nuremberg Trials and noticed a pattern where defense after defense after defense of Nazi war crimes was based on the notion of obedience.
In fact, some people even prefer an electric shock to being left alone with their minds. "I'm really excited to see this paper," says Matthew Killingsworth, a psychologist at the University of California (UC), San Francisco, who says his own work has turned up a similar result. "When people are spending time inside their heads, they're markedly ...
Hypotheses are crucial to controlled experiments because they provide a clear focus and direction for the research. A hypothesis is a testable prediction about the relationship between variables. It guides the design of the experiment, including what variables to manipulate (independent variables) and what outcomes to measure (dependent variables).