MILGRAM’S

RESEARCH INTO
OBEDIENCE
• Milgram (1963) was interested in researching how far people
would go in obeying an instruction if it involved harming another
person.

• Stanley Milgram was interested in how easily ordinary people

could be influenced into committing atrocities, for example,
Germans in WWII.
Aim
• Milgram wanted to investigate how obedient participants would be
when following orders would mean breaking their moral code and
harming another person.
Procedure

• Volunteers were recruited for a lab experiment studying memory

• Participants were 40 males, aged between 20 and 50, whose jobs

ranged from unskilled to professional, from the New Haven area.

• They were paid $4.50 for just turning up.

• At the beginning of the experiment, they were introduced to
another participant, who was a confederate of the experimenter
(Milgram).

• They drew straws to determine their roles – learner or teacher –

although this was fixed and the confederate was always the learner.

• There was also an “experimenter” dressed in a gray lab coat, played

by an actor (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” (Mr. Wallace) was strapped to a chair with

electrodes. After he has learned a list of word pairs given him to
learn, the "teacher" tests him by naming a word and asking the
learner to recall its partner/pair from a list of four possible
choices.

• The teacher is told to administer an electric shock every time the

learner makes a mistake, increasing the level of shock each time.
• There were 30 switches on the shock generator marked from 15
volts (slight shock) to 450 (danger – severe shock).

• The learner gave mainly wrong answers (on purpose), and for each
of these, the teacher gave him an electric shock. When the teacher
refused to administer a shock, the experimenter was to give a series
of orders/prods to ensure they continued.
• There were four prods and if one was not obeyed, then the
experimenter read out the next prod, and so on.
• Prod 1: Please continue.
• Prod 2: The experiment requires you to continue.
• Prod 3: It is absolutely essential that you continue.
• Prod 4: You have no other choice but to continue.
Results

• 65% (two-thirds) of participants (i.e., teachers) continued to the

highest level of 450 volts.

• All the participants continued to 300 volts.

Conclusion

• Ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by an authority

figure, even to the extent of killing an innocent human being.
NOTE

• Milgram did more than one experiment – he carried out 18 variations

of his study. All he did was alter the situation (IV) to see how this
affected obedience (DV).
Milgram Experiment Variations
• Experiment 7: Telephonic instructions
• Experiment 10: Rundown office block
• Experiment 13: Ordinary man giving orders
Milgram’s Experiment 7: Telephonic
instructions
Aim
• To see if having the experimenter in the room affected the level of
obedience, so this was carried out with the experimenter in touch by
phone.
Procedures
• The experimenter was away from the participant, out of sight, and
gave instructions over the telephone.

• The experimenter gave the instructions at the start, in the same

room, but then left the laboratory and communicated only by
telephone.
Results
• The obedience dropped sharply when orders were given by
telephone. Instead of 26 obeying the orders, nine obeyed (22.5 %).

• Participants lied to the experimenter about giving increases in

voltage, instead they gave lower shocks.

• Over the phone, these participants said that they were raising the
shock levels, as requested, but were not and did not confess.
Conclusions
• When the experimenter is not face-to-face with the participant, it is
easier not to obey.

• Physical presence was an important force.

Milgram’s Experiment 10: Rundown office
block
Aim
• To see if the outcome would be similar if the study took part in a
rundown office block and not conducted in Yale University as it was
regarded as prestigious.

• This was as a result of follow-up interviews suggesting that the

integrity of Yale institution had given them the confidence to take
part in the study.
 Procedure
• The experiment was relocated to a rundown commercial office building in
Bridgeport, Connecticut and all links to Yale University were removed.

• The same procedures were followed as the original, although the building
was sparsely furnished. The lab was clean.
• This includes the volunteers being asked and paid $4.50 dollars for
attending.

• The same personnel were used and the same age and occupation
details for participants.

• The researchers said that they were from a private firm.

Results
• Participants have more doubts about this study.

• One participant made notes and asked himself a number of questions

about the legitimacy of the study.

• Another participant questioned his own judgement and thought the

study was ‘heartless’.
• Obedience did not drop that much. 47.5% obeyed to the maximum
voltage level compared with 65 per cent in the original study at Yale.

• This was a lower level of obedience, but Milgram did not think that it
was a significant difference.
Conclusions
• The idea of having a legitimate setting does seem to be backed by
evidence, albeit a barely significant one.
Milgram’s Experiment 13: Ordinary man
giving orders
Aim
• To see whether an order given by someone without authority is
followed.

• In particular to see if an order given by an ordinary man, who it is

clear holds no authority unlike his predecessor, is carried out.
Procedures
• The experimenter gives the instructions about administering the
shock, but then gets ‘called away’ and leaves the room.

• There is an accomplice in the room who was initially given the task of
recording the times and the participant thinks is another participant
like him and the learner.

• The accomplice makes a suggestion of increasing the shocks one at a

time as the victim makes a mistake.
Results
• The experimenter leaving creates an awkward atmosphere, which
undermined the credibility of the experiment.

• Sixteen of 20 (80 %) participants broke away from the ordinary man’s

instructions, even though the accomplice urged them to continue.

• Four of 20 (20 per cent) went to the maximum shock level.

• When the participant refused the orders of the ‘ordinary man’, there was
an adaption to the experiment and the accomplice said the participant
should swap roles and take over the recording.

• 16/20 watched the distressing scene as the ordinary man gave the
shocks.

• All of the 16 bystanders protested and five tried to disconnect the power
from the generator or physically restrain the accomplice.
Conclusions
• Levels of obedience fell dramatically with an ordinary man who had
no perceived authority.

• Participants did not like seeing the ‘ordinary man’ giving the shocks,
but were not able to prevent it.