The Yale University experiment conducted by Stanley Milgram from 1961 to 1962 tested obedience, in which participants believed they administered painful electric shocks to others under authority.
In the early 1960s, a deceptively simple question arose in a laboratory at Yale University: How far would an ordinary person go if instructed by an authority figure to harm another person? The answer, given by psychologist Stanley Milgram, would become one of the most cited, and most controversial, findings in modern psychology.The obedience experiments that Milgram conducted between 1961 and 1962 did not begin as abstract research. It was shaped in the wake of the Holocaust and, more specifically, by the trial of Adolf Eichmann, who defended his role in organizing the logistics of the mass deportation of Jews to ghettos and extermination camps, a key part of the Nazi program of systematic mass murder, by claiming that he was “just following orders.”
In his 1974 book Obedience to Authority, Stanley Milgram put the question squarely: “Could it be that Eichmann and his millions of accomplices in the Holocaust were merely following orders? Can we call them all accomplices?”
How the experiment was designed
Milgram recruited participants through newspaper advertisements, and presented the study as research on learning and memory. In the most popular version, 40 men participated, each paying $4.50.
Participants were assigned the role of “teacher.” Another person, who was introduced as a fellow participant but was actually an actor working with the researchers, played the role of the “learner.” The learner was placed in a separate room and connected to what appeared to be an electric shock device. The teacher sat in front of a shock generator marked from 15 volts to 450 volts, in 15 volt increments. The keys are labeled in ascending terms: “Minor Shock,” “Moderate Shock,” and “Danger: Severe Shock,” with the final keys marked simply “XXX.” The task was structured but repetitive. The teacher read the word pairs and tested the learner’s memory. Each incorrect answer requires a shock, with increasing effort each time. The shocks were not real and the participants did not know it. As the session progressed, the learner’s answers were written down. At lower levels, slight discomfort was expressed. As the voltage increased, his reactions became more urgent, as he complained of a heart condition, demanded release, and began at 300 volts banging on the wall.
And then he fell silent. The experimenter instructed that silence should be treated as an incorrect answer. When participants hesitated, they were given a standardized series of prompts: “Please continue.” “Experience requires you to keep going.” “It is absolutely necessary to continue.” “You have no choice, you have to keep going.”
He watches
Milgram Experiment (1962) Full Documentary
What Milgram said
In the most famous version of the experiment, the results were astonishing: 65% of participants – 26 out of 40 – went on to reach the maximum level of 450 volts. Many showed obvious distress. Some protested, some laughed nervously, and others questioned the measure. A number of them asked if they should stop. But under instructions, most of them continued. Milgram concluded that people are highly responsive to authority, even when obedience conflicts with their personal values. He said that situational factors, not individual behavior alone, shape behavior. Many of these factors were consistent across differences.
The physical presence of the authority figure increased compliance. The association with Yale gave credibility and trust. The gradual increase in effort made each step seem gradual rather than extreme. Participants also seemed to shift responsibility to the experimenter, seeing themselves as carrying out instructions rather than making independent decisions. When these circumstances changed, obedience changed. When the responsible person was absent or instructions were given remotely, compliance decreased.
When other participants refused to continue, obedience declined sharply, and in one case, 36 out of 40 participants stopped early.
What the experiment suggested, and what later research found
Milgram’s work suggests that obedience is not just a matter of personality but of context. Under certain circumstances, individuals may comply with instructions that they would otherwise reject. Subsequent research has complicated this picture. Studies and analyzes have indicated that obedience does not depend only on authority, but rather on identification, the extent to which participants agree with the goal of the authority figure, and the strength of their identification with them.
People are more likely to follow instructions when they see the authority as legitimate and consistent with their own values.
Stanley Milgram American social psychologist Stanley Milgram with the “shock generator” he used in his famous experiment at Yale University in the 1960s/Photo: Britannica
Other analyzes have identified multiple variables that influence obedience, including closeness to the victim, perceived legitimacy of authority, and the presence of dissenting peers. These findings suggest that obedience is not automatic or uniform, but is shaped by specific social circumstances.
Ethical concerns and criticism
From the beginning, the experiments raised serious ethical questions. Participants were deceived about the nature of the study, leading them to believe they were causing real harm. Many of them experienced significant psychological distress, including anxiety, stress and guilt. The experimenter’s insistence, especially the instruction “You have no choice; you must continue,” has been criticized as undermining the participant’s right to withdraw. Milgram stated that the participants were then questioned, explaining the true nature of the experiment. However, subsequent investigations have questioned the consistency and accuracy of doing so.Psychologist Gina Perry, an Australian researcher who examined archived recordings and documents, wrote Behind the Shock Machine: The Untold Story of Milgram’s Infamous Psychology Experiments after retracing Milgram’s steps and interviewing participants decades later. She said the reality of the experiment was more complex than the published account suggested, noting that what appeared as obedience could also resemble pressure: “The slavish obedience to authority that we associate with the Milgram experiments sounds more like bullying and coercion when you listen to these recordings,” Berry suggested in an article for Discover magazine. Perry’s research also raised questions about debriefing, suggesting that many participants were not fully aware of the deception, sometimes for months or even years.
Questions about validity and repeatability
More criticism has focused on how the results are interpreted. A widely cited figure. 65% of obedience came from one specific type. In other versions of the experiment, obedience rates were significantly lower, and in some cases none of the participants delivered the maximum shock. There is also evidence that some participants questioned the setup. Subsequent analysis indicated that those who believed the traumas were real were less likely to continue, while those who suspected that the learner had not actually been harmed were more willing to move on. Replications of the study have yielded mixed results. Ethical constraints have required modifications, for example, limiting maximum shock levels or screening participants more carefully.
Some of these studies have found similar patterns of obedience, while others have argued that differences in design make direct comparison difficult. The fundamental issue remains unresolved: the original experiment cannot be fully replicated under modern ethical standards, which limits the ability to verify its results in the same manner.
Why does experience still matter?
Despite its problems, the Milgram experiment still holds a central place in psychology.
It is often taught not only for what it claims to show about obedience, But also for what it reveals about the limits of experimental design.Its impact comes in part from how simple the setup is, and the clear and controlled setting produces results that many people find both annoying and familiar. It gives people a way to think about power, responsibility, and ethical choices, while also sparking ongoing debate about how the experiment itself was conducted.As Gina Perry has argued, the study remains an enduring narrative rather than a definitive answer. Reflecting on its legacy, she noted: “I think it leaves social psychology in a difficult position. … It’s an iconic experiment. And I think it really leads to the question of why we continue to point to and believe in Milgram’s results. I think the reason the Milgram experiment is still so popular today is that it’s sort of a powerful allegory.”
It is so widely known and cited so often that it takes on a life of its own. … This experience and this story about ourselves plays some role for us 50 years later.
