The Milgram Experiment was a study conducted at Yale University in May 1962, within the elegant interaction laboratory. The subjects were 40 males between the ages of 20 and 50 residing in the Greater New Haven area, obtained through newspaper advertisements and direct mail solicitation.
Their occupations ranged from corporation presidents to labourers, and their educational levels varied. The study aimed to investigate the extent to which individuals would obey the commands of an authority figure, even if those commands involved administering what appeared to be painful electric shocks to another person.
Procedure
Upon arrival, two participants were informed that the study concerned the effect of punishment on learning. Through a seemingly random draw, one participant was assigned the role of "teacher" and the other the role of "learner". However, the draw was rigged, ensuring that the naive subject always became the teacher, while an accomplice of the experimenter always became the learner.
The learner was taken to a separate room and strapped into what appeared to be an electric chair. Electrodes were attached to the learner's wrist with electrode paste, explained as necessary for good contact and to prevent blistering or burns. The teacher was present during this setup. The experimenter stated that the restraints were to prevent the learner from escaping. The teacher was then given a sample electric shock of 45 volts from the shock generator to understand the sensation the learner might experience. Participants were informed they would be paid for their time regardless of the experiment's outcome.
The teacher was then seated in front of a shock generator in an adjacent room, unable to see the learner but able to hear them. The shock generator had 30 switches ranging from 15 to 450 volts, labelled with increasing intensity, from "Slight Shock" to "Danger: Severe Shock". Above 300 volts, red lights illuminated, and labels read "XXX".
The teacher was given a list of word pairs to teach the learner. The teacher would read a pair, then read the first word along with four options. The learner would indicate their choice by pressing a button, which would illuminate a number on a panel visible to the teacher. If the learner's answer was incorrect, the teacher was instructed to administer an electric shock, increasing the voltage by 15 volts for each subsequent error. The teacher was also instructed to announce the voltage level before administering the shock. If the learner answered correctly, the teacher would proceed to the next word pair.
In later versions of the study, the learner would react audibly to the shocks, beginning with grunts at lower voltages, progressing to shouts of pain, and eventually, at 300 volts, banging on the wall and ceasing to provide answers.
Experimenter Intervention
If the teacher hesitated or expressed a desire to stop, the experimenter, dressed in a lab coat to convey authority, would issue a series of standardised "prods" in sequence:
- 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.
The experiment would only be terminated if the teacher refused to continue after all four prods were used, or if the teacher administered the maximum shock of 450 volts. If the teacher asked specific questions, such as whether the shocks could cause permanent damage, the experimenter would reply with statements like, "although shocks can be extremely painful, they cause no permanent damage".
Results
The results of the experiment were unexpected. Despite the learner's increasingly vocal protests and eventual silence, a significant number of teachers continued to administer shocks up to the highest voltage. All 40 subjects reached 300 volts, at which point the learner banged on the wall and stopped answering. Only 5 subjects refused to go beyond this point. A total of 26 out of the 40 subjects (65%) proceeded to administer the final 450-volt shock.
During the experiment, many teachers displayed signs of severe distress, including sweating, trembling, stuttering, biting their lips, groaning, and digging their fingernails into their flesh. Three subjects had seizures, with one being so severe that the experiment had to be stopped. Notably, 14 out of 40 subjects exhibited definite signs of nervous laughter and smiling. Post-experimental interviews revealed that these subjects did not enjoy inflicting pain and were not sadistic.
Conclusions
The high level of obedience observed suggested that ordinary individuals could be induced to act against their conscience by an authority figure. The fact that payment was assured regardless of participation level, and that similar results were obtained with unpaid students, indicated that financial incentive was not the primary driver of obedience.
Several factors were highlighted as potentially contributing to the high compliance rate:
- The prestige of Yale University as the setting for the experiment may have lent credibility and authority to the procedure.
- The perceived randomness of the teacher and learner roles might have made the teacher feel they could have been in the learner's position, creating a sense of obligation.
- The subjects may have felt obligated to help the experimenter after volunteering for the study, extending this obligation to the learner who had also seemingly submitted to the experimenter's authority.
- The reassurance that the shocks were painful but not deadly provided by the experimenter may have reduced the perceived severity of the teachers' actions.
- The gradual escalation of shock voltage may have created a "foot-in-the-door" effect, making it harder to refuse at higher levels after complying with lower ones.
- The short duration of each experimental session may have limited the time for reflection and dissent.
Variations of the experiment, such as conducting it in a less prestigious office building, yielded similar results, suggesting that the institutional context, while potentially a factor, was not the sole determinant of obedience levels. The study raised disturbing questions about human nature and the potential for individuals to commit harmful acts when instructed by authority.
Ethical Considerations
The Milgram Experiment has been the subject of considerable ethical debate. Criticisms focused on the deception involved (participants were unaware the learner was an actor and not receiving real shocks), the level of stress and discomfort experienced by the teachers, and the potential for long-term psychological distress.
While participants provided consent to participate in a study of memory, they were not fully informed about the true nature of the experiment. Some argue that the experiment should have been paused when participants showed significant distress.
However, the researcher defended the study, arguing that the ethical concerns arose from the disturbing findings about human behaviour. Following the experiment, participants were debriefed, assured the learner was unharmed, and reconciled with the learner. They were also sent a detailed report of the results.