Psychology › Social psychology › Social influence: conformity and obedience
Milgram obedience experiments
1961–1963· Finding or experiment
Mixed evidenceSome support; effects smaller or less consistent than once thought.
Stanley Milgram's Yale experiments, in which most volunteers in the best-known version obeyed instructions to give what they believed were severe electric shocks.
See it on the Psychology map →What it says
In 1961–62, Milgram told volunteers they were testing whether punishment aids learning. Each time a 'learner' (an actor) erred, they pressed switches marked up to 450 volts; no real shocks were given. Despite screams and protests, 26 of 40 men in the first study went to the end, though psychiatrists had predicted almost no one would. Across about two dozen variations, obedience ranged widely; it fell when the experimenter was absent or peers refused.
Why it matters
It suggested ordinary people can be led to harm others under authority, shaping debates about the Holocaust and helping prompt stricter research ethics rules.
The evidence
Milgram's 1963 paper and 1974 book; partial replications in California (2009) and Poland (2017). Archive work by Gina Perry found improvised prods and many participants who doubted the shocks were real.
Open questions
Was it blind obedience, or 'engaged followership' by people who believed in the science? Most refused when told flatly, 'You have no other choice, you must go on.'
Connections (4)
▸Milgram obedience experiments are the most famous studies of Social influence: conformity and obedienceMixed evidence
The connection
Milgram's studies became the defining evidence that ordinary people defer to authority, extending social influence from going along with peers to following orders. His variations showed obedience depends on the situation: the authority's closeness and legitimacy, and whether others refuse.
Who showed it and when
Yale University, New Haven, 1961–1962, with about 780 volunteers from the community; published in 1963 and in Obedience to Authority (1974).
How solid is it?
Partial replications in California (2009) and Poland (2017) found similar shares willing to continue, though the researchers halted at 150 volts for ethical reasons.
Open questions
Archive studies suggest many participants doubted the shocks, and some argue the studies show identification with science more than obedience.
▸Milgram obedience experiments built on the work of Asch conformity experimentsWell replicated
The connection
Milgram worked as Asch's assistant and wanted to make conformity research weightier by studying actions with consequences, not judgments of lines. He planned to test group pressure on shocks, but obedience alone proved so high it became the focus. One variation echoed Asch's ally effect: when two peers refused, obedience fell sharply.
Who showed it and when
Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study, 1959–1960, where Milgram assisted Asch; the obedience studies followed at Yale in 1961.
The evidence
Milgram's own essays and Thomas Blass's 2004 biography, The Man Who Shocked the World, document the influence.
Open questions
How much the design came from Asch versus Milgram's concern with the Holocaust; the 1961 Eichmann trial coincided with the first studies.
▸Milgram obedience experiments illustrate the authority principle in Cialdini's principles of persuasionMixed evidence
The connection
In Influence, Cialdini makes Milgram his centerpiece for authority: about two-thirds of participants kept giving what they believed were 450-volt shocks because a lab-coated experimenter told them to. He adds that titles, uniforms and expensive clothes trigger similar deference, and warns that con artists borrow these symbols.
Who showed it and when
Milgram at Yale, 1961–1962; Charles Hofling's 1966 hospital study, in which 21 of 22 nurses set out to give an overdose ordered by phone by an unknown 'doctor'; Cialdini's Influence, 1984.
How solid is it?
Jerry Burger's 2009 partial replication found about 70% continued past 150 volts; field studies on uniforms and titles also support the authority principle.
Open questions
Archival work suggests many Milgram participants doubted the shocks were real, and some argue they obeyed because they believed in the science, not from blind deference.
▸Fundamental attribution error explains why people misjudge Milgram obedience experimentsWell replicated
The connection
Milgram's results surprise because people assume only cruel or weak people would deliver the shocks, overlooking the situation's pull. Psychiatrists predicted almost no one would go to the end. Even observers of a vivid re-enactment underestimated obedience and blamed the teacher's character.
Who showed it and when
Milgram's surveys of psychiatrists and students at Yale; Günter Bierbrauer's 1979 re-enactment study; Lee Ross and Richard Nisbett's 1991 book The Person and the Situation.
The evidence
Bierbrauer's observers kept attributing obedience to personality after watching a realistic re-enactment, a direct demonstration of the error.
Open questions
Later research found modest personality links to obedience, so the situation is not everything; how much character matters is still debated.