The Milgram Experiment: The Shocking Truth About Obedience to Authority

The Milgram experiment revealed 65% of ordinary people will administer apparently lethal electric shocks when ordered by authority. Discover Stanley Milgram’s shocking obedience study, its controversial results, ethical issues, modern replications, and what it teaches us about human nature.

The Milgram Experiment (also known as the Milgram Obedience Study or Milgram Shock Experiment) is one of the most famous — and most disturbing — studies in the history of psychology. Conducted in 1961 at Yale University by psychologist Stanley Milgram, it revealed just how far ordinary people would go in harming another person simply because an authority figure told them to.

The results stunned the world: 65 % of participants were willing to administer what they believed were potentially lethal electric shocks to a helpless victim. Most of us like to believe “I would never do that.” Milgram’s work shows that, under the right conditions, most of us probably would.

Still referenced in psychology textbooks, documentaries, films (like The Experiment and Obedience), and even court cases about war crimes, the Milgram experiment remains as relevant today as it was sixty years ago. In this in-depth guide we’ll cover exactly how the study worked, its shocking results, the ethical controversy, replications, and what it teaches us about human nature.

Why Did Stanley Milgram Conduct the Obedience Experiment?

In the aftermath of World War II and the Holocaust, the world asked: How could ordinary citizens participate in industrial-scale genocide? Were Nazis uniquely evil, or was something deeper at work?

Stanley Milgram wanted to test whether normal Americans would also obey authority figures when ordered to harm others. His hypothesis? People in a democratic society would resist immoral orders. The reality turned out to be far darker.

How the Milgram Experiment Worked: Step-by-Step Design

Participants were recruited through newspaper ads for a “study on memory and learning” (the true purpose was hidden). Here’s exactly how it unfolded:

1. Roles were assigned Two participants arrived: one real participant (“teacher”) and one confederate actor (“learner”). A rigged drawing ensured the real participant always became the teacher.
2. The “learner” was wired up The learner was taken to an adjacent room and strapped into a chair with electrodes attached to his wrist. The teacher watched this happen and was given a real 45-volt sample shock so they believed the machine was genuine.
3. The word-pair test began The teacher read word pairs and then tested the learner. Every wrong answer required the teacher to press a switch delivering an electric shock. The shock levels increased in 15-volt increments from 15 V (“Slight Shock”) all the way to 450 V (marked “XXX” — lethal).
4. The screams and protests From 75 V onward, the learner (following a pre-recorded script) began to grunt, complain of heart pain, scream, beg to be released, and eventually fall silent — as if unconscious or dead.
5. Authority pressure Whenever the teacher hesitated or tried to stop, the experimenter (in a gray lab coat) delivered scripted prods in this order:

• “Please continue.”
• “The experiment requires that you continue.”
• “It is absolutely essential that you continue.”
• “You have no other choice; you must go on.”

If the teacher asked who was responsible, the experimenter replied: “I am responsible.”

Milgram Experiment Results: The Numbers That Shocked the World

Before the study, Milgram polled psychiatrists who predicted that less than 1 % — and possibly only 0.1 % — of people would go all the way to 450 volts. Most thought participants would stop around 150 V.

Reality:

• 100 % of participants went to at least 300 volts.
• 65 % obeyed completely and administered the maximum 450-volt shock.

No one stopped before 300 volts. Many participants showed extreme distress — sweating, trembling, stuttering, even nervous laughter — yet they continued because an authority figure told them to.

Variations of the Milgram Experiment: What Changed Obedience Rates?

Milgram ran 18 variations to identify the factors that increase or decrease obedience:

• Proximity of authority: When the experimenter gave orders by phone, obedience dropped to ~20 %.
• Prestige of institution: Conducted in a rundown office instead of Yale University → obedience fell to 48 %.
• Proximity of victim: When the learner was in the same room → 40 %. When the teacher had to physically force the learner’s hand onto the shock plate → only 30 % obeyed fully.
• Presence of rebellious peers: When two other “teachers” (confederates) refused to continue, obedience plummeted to 10 %.

These variations proved obedience is highly situational, not just a personality trait.

Ethical Criticism of the Milgram Experiment

When the study was published in 1963, it triggered an ethical firestorm:

• Participants suffered extreme psychological distress (some had seizures).
• Deception was used extensively.
• No true informed consent.
• Inadequate debriefing (many were simply sent a follow-up questionnaire).

The American Psychological Association nearly expelled Milgram. Today, the experiment would never pass a modern ethics review board.

Is the Milgram Experiment Still Valid Today?

Partial replications suggest yes:

• 2009 (Burger): 70 % of participants were willing to go beyond 150 volts (the ethical limit of the replication).
• 2015 (Poland): 90 % full obedience in a near-identical setup.

We see the same dynamics in real life:

• Workplace scandals (e.g., employees following unethical orders)
• Military atrocities justified by “just following orders”
• Medical errors caused by blind obedience to doctors
• Online mob behavior and cancel culture

What the Milgram Experiment Teaches Us

Stanley Milgram’s most chilling conclusion: Evil acts don’t require evil people — they often require ordinary people surrendering responsibility to authority.

Hannah Arendt’s phrase “the banality of evil,” coined after the Eichmann trial, is perfectly illustrated here. Most participants weren’t sadists; they were normal people who shifted moral responsibility to the experimenter.

The takeaway? We must actively cultivate critical thinking, moral courage, and the willingness to question authority — especially when someone says, “I’m responsible” or “It’s just my job.”

How far do you think you would have gone? Drop your thoughts in the comments!