The Milgram Experiment: Understanding Obedience to Authority
The Milgram Experiment, conducted by social psychologist Stanley Milgram in the early 1960s, remains one of the most controversial and influential studies in the history of psychology. This groundbreaking experiment aimed to investigate the extent to which individuals would comply with authority figures, even when their actions conflicted with their personal conscience.
Milgram’s basic premise was that “the person who, with inner conviction, loathes stealing, killing, and assault may find himself performing these acts with relative ease when commanded by authority. Behavior that is unthinkable in an individual who is acting on his own may be executed without hesitation when carried out under orders” (Milgram, 1974).
Key Definition:
Stanley Milgram’s experiments were a series of controversial psychological studies conducted in the 1960s at Yale University. The most well-known of these experiments involved participants being instructed to administer what they believed to be increasingly painful electric shocks to another person, who was actually an actor and not receiving any shocks. The study aimed to investigate the willingness of participants to obey authority figures, even when their actions caused harm to others.
Society, Rules, and Obedience
Milgram explains that “obedience is the psychological mechanism that links individual action to political purpose. It is the dispositional cement that binds men to systems of authority” (Milgram, 1974). Humans need each other. Human societies provides tremendous benefits to the members. Rules, and obedience to the the rules, are necessary ingredients for the smooth functioning of the group. Governments, families, and employers all create rule based expectations, along with punishments for violations.
While obedience is often a virtue, it can also be manipulated. Unscrupulous groups and leaders use blind obedience to serve unethical and diabolical purposes. We may refer to following the dictates of these leaders as destructive obedience.
Background and Methodology
Stanley Milgram designed the experiment in response to the widely debated question of whether the atrocities of the Holocaust could be attributed to a distinct characteristic of the German national character. The study first of several experiments in this series was conducted at Yale University and involved participants who were led to believe that they were taking part in a memory and learning experiment. Milgram conducted 24 variations of this experiment in total.
The unsuspecting participants were assigned the role of “teacher” and instructed to administer increasingly severe electric shocks to a “learner” whenever they made a mistake in a word-pairing task. Unbeknownst to the “teacher,” the “learner” was an actor who did not actually receive any electric shocks. This setup was intended to investigate the “teacher’s” willingness to obey the instructions of the experimenter, despite the apparent distress exhibited by the “learner.”
Commands from Authority Figure
When a teacher was hesitant to administer stronger shocks to the learner the experimenter prodded the teacher with specific orders.
The prods were, in this order:
- Please continue or Please go on.
- The experiment requires that you continue.
- It is absolutely essential that you continue.
- You have no other choice; you must go on (Milgram, 1963)
(Adobe Stock Images)
The Level Progressive Level of Shocks
The seven levels of shocks progressively administered were:
- Slight Shock
- Moderate Shock
- Strong Shock
- Very Strong Shock
- Intense Shock
- Extreme Intensity Shock
- Danger: Severe Shock (Milgram, 1963)
Milgram predicted that most US citizens would break off early from the experiment, refusing to administer stronger shocks. However, the results proved different. “In the repeated trial of the baseline experiment, about 65% of people obeyed all the way to the punitively fatal end” (Badhwar, 2009).
Results and Implications
The results of the Milgram Experiment were startling, as a significant majority of participants were willing to administer the highest level of electric shocks to the “learner” when instructed to do so by the authority figure. Many participants displayed extreme discomfort and distress during the experiment, yet they continued to follow the orders given to them.
Based on his research, Milgram stated that “if a system of death camps were set up in the US of the sorts we had seen in Nazi Germany one would be able to find sufficient personnel for those camps in any medium-sized American town” (Sapolski, 2018. Kindle location: 7,343). We proudly defend that this could never happen her. Yet, with supporting provocation from an unscrupulous leader, a group of violent protesters marched on our nation’s capital ready to kill.
Robyn Dawes wrote, “the implication of Milgram’s experiments and others that followed is that ‘authoritarianism’ is not such an unusual phenomenon. Perfectly normal people have a tendency to accept authority—even to the point of inflicting pain and possible harm on others, or at least believing they are. In fact, so strong is this tendency that we do not make compelling demands on authorities to prove that they are indeed authorities” (Dawes, 1996. p. 202).
Inner Tension
Erich Fromm wrote that social scientists discovered two findings from Milgram’s experiments. “The first finding concerns the sheer strength of obedient tendencies manifested in this situation.” He explains that “subjects have learned from childhood that it is a fundamental breach of moral conduct to hurt another person against his will. Yet, 26 students abandon this tenet in following the instructions of an authority who has no special powers to enforce his commands.”
Fromm continues, “the second unanticipated effect was the extraordinary tension generated by the procedures. One might suppose that a subject would simply break off or continue as his conscience dictated. Yet, this is very far from what happened” (Fromm, 2013. Kindle location: 1,128). Obedience to authority when that obedience conflicts with inner tenants of behavior creates tension that we must resolve.
These findings raised profound ethical concerns and sparked important discussions about the power of authority. Also of importance, the experiments bring attention to the influence of situational factors on behavior. Accordingly, we see the potential for ordinary individuals to commit acts that violate their moral principles when ordered to do so by an authority figure.
Moral Justification
As Milgram proclaimed, “the person who, with inner conviction, loathes stealing, killing, and assault may find himself performing these acts with relative ease when commanded by authority.” And thus, ordinary citizens act in extraordinary and violent ways, self-righteously violating self proclaimed values and ordinary human ethics to gladly march in obedience to an authority figure.
According to Albert Bandura we internalize laws that regulate our behavior through self sanctions. However, when our behaviors violate these self sanctions, shunning the internalized ethical laws, we justify.
According to moral disengagement theory, moral justification refers to the process of framing harmful actions or behaviors in a way that makes them seem morally acceptable or justified. In many instances, it appears that obedience to authority supersedes internalized ethics. However, we then must address the cognitive dissonance of conflicting morals and behaviors. We do this through a number of defensive strategies.
Legacy and Ethical Considerations
Peter K. Lunt wrote, “Milgram is perhaps the best-known social psychologist outside the discipline and he and his experiments are a fantastic ambassador, bringing the issues and concerns of the relation between the individual and the social world to a wide audience” (Lunt, 2009, p. 111).
Despite its immense impact on the field of psychology and popular understanding, the Milgram Experiment has also faced criticism regarding its ethical implications and the potential stress imposed on the participants. Milgram dismissed the stress the experiment caused on the subjects, justifying it brought helpful personal insights about their willingness to obey authorities. Diana Baumrind described this process of gaining self-knowledge as ‘inflicted insight'” (Herrera, 2001).
Nevertheless, it has significantly contributed to our understanding of obedience, conformity, and the complex interactions between individuals and authority figures. The readers of Milgram’s experiments benefit without the harm. However, how do we measure harm to some that benefits others. Can we sacrifice the good of the few for the benefit of the many when the few had no choice in the matter other than willingness to participate in a social experiment at a laboratory at Yale?
A Few Words by Psychology Fanatic
In conclusion, the Milgram Experiment serves as a powerful reminder of the intricacies of human behavior and the critical importance of ethical considerations in psychological research. It continues to stimulate ongoing debates on the nature of obedience, moral decision-making, and the ethical boundaries of scientific inquiry.
Milgram’s experiments, like most experiments, has been subject to harsh criticism. Critics contend he manipulated numbers and tainted the experiments with his own bias. Perhaps, some of their criticism is justified. Personally, I’m not certain that any experiment in the a laboratory can be completely pristine, untainted by the environment. Accordingly, we must view the results with some skepticism. However, this does not dismiss all his findings. We still can learn much from these social experiments, consider our own tendencies to destructively obey, and make some mindful changes.
Last Update: February 23, 2024
References:
Badhwar, Neera (2009). The Milgram Experiments, Learned Helplessness, and Character Traits. The Journal of Ethics, 13(3), 257-289. DOI: 10.1007/s10892-009-9052-4
Dawes, Robyn (1996). House of Cards. Psychology and Psychotherapy Built on Myth. Free Press; 1st edition.
Fromm, Erich (2013). The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness. Open Road Media; 1st edition.
Herrera, C. (2001). Ethics, Deception, and ‘Those Milgram Experiments’. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 18(3). DOI: 10.1111/1468-5930.00192
Kumar Das, Krishanu (2020). Milgram’s Experiment: Obedience or Emotional Adaptation on Empathy Emotional Scale?. Social Sciences. DOI: 10.11648/j.ss.20200901.12
Lunt, Peter Kenneth (2009). Stanley Milgram: Understanding Obedience and its Implications. Bloomsbury Academic; 1st edition.
Milgram, Stanley (1963). Behavioral Study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 67(4), 371-378. DOI: 10.1037/h0040525
Milgram, Stanley (2009/1974). Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. Harper Perennial Modern Classics; Reprint edition.
Sapolski, Robert (2018). Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst. Penguin Books; Illustrated edition.
Resources and Articles
Please visit Psychology Fanatic’s vast selection of articles, definitions and database of referenced books.
Topic Specific Databases:
PSYCHOLOGY – EMOTIONS – RELATIONSHIPS – WELLNESS – PSYCHOLOGY TOPICS
