Social Cosmos - URN:NBN:NL:UI:10-1-116042

The Milgram experiment: Its impact and interpretation

Soesja R. Vogels
Clinical Psychology and Health Psychology
Abstract
Milgrams experiment which investigated obedience to authority is one of the most wellknown psychological studies of all time. The study is widely considered ethically
controversial, and found its results striking and disturbing. This raises the question as to
which part of the study contributed the most to the way it was interpreted by the scientific
community. Milgrams study had a harmful effect on his participants and is considered to
have included unethical aspects. The experiment showed that 65% of the experimental
subjects obeyed authority until the end of the experiment and carried out orders that they
believed involved extreme harm to others. After the experiment, ethical guidelines developed
which require valid informed consent and a proper consideration of the possible harm which
might be inflicted upon experimental subjects. There is an ongoing debate regarding the
extent to which ethical guidelines might hinder relevant research. The Milgram experiment
probably initially attracted the attention it did because of its results. It was only after the
results were widely reported that, the methods of the experiment were considered and the
study became known as ethically controversial.
Keywords: Stanley Milgram, the Milgram experiment, obedience to authority, controversial,
ethics in research, impact, interpretation, psychology

Introduction
Many papers have been written about Stanly Milgrams famous experiment on obedience to
authority. Milgrams experiment is one of the most famous psychological studies of all time,
and has been replicated many times and subjected to criticism on a number of different
grounds (Russel & Gregory, 2010). The interpretation of the results is still open to debate.
Many different explanations exist and there is no consensus about the connection between
Milgrams experiment and the behavior of Nazis in World War II even today (Gibson, 2011).
But his methods and particularly the ethical aspect of his methods are probably even more
criticized than his interpretation of the results. (Baumrind, 1964). Some have contended that
his experiment is unethical, but his results continued to be cited in the social sciences even
today, some 50 years later. So how should we characterize his study? Was it unethical? Did it
yield important results? This paper will examine how the social sciences interpreted the
Milgram experiment.
To answer the question, this article will provide a review of the experiment. First, the
experimental methodology, its results and the varying interpretations of the experiment
(including Milgrams own) will be discussed. Afterwards, the ethical standards imposed in
social science research (in part in reaction to the experiment) will be examined. Finally, the
influences of ethics on the future of social sciences will be discussed.
The Milgram experiment: Its content and purposes
World War II was one of the most shocking events in the history of the modern world. The
war ended the lives of tens of millions of people, devastated the lives of tents of millions of
others and had a lasting impact on society. Citizens were shocked by the fact that their
neighbors, who often seemed like ordinary people who did their jobs and loved their wives

Social Cosmos - URN:NBN:NL:UI:10-1-116042

and family, could become transformed into mass murderers. After the war, the world was
faced with the fact that seemingly ordinary people obeyed their superiors and executed their
brutal commands. It might not be a surprise that one of the most influential persons in the
history of social psychology was Adolf Hitler (Catwright, D. 1979). Social scientists, and in
particular social psychologists became interested in the nature of obedience to authority and
in the cruel actions which this led to.
One of them was Stanley Milgram (Milgram, 1963), and he conducted research on the
nature of obeying to authority. He measured the willingness of study participants to obey an
authority figure who instructed them to perform acts which conflicted with their personal
conscience. His experiment was striking, because its result seemed to show that ordinary
citizens in the United States were, to a great extent, capable of carrying out cruel orders in
obedience to authority (Blass, 2009).
Milgram conducted a great deal of research on obedience to authority (Blass, 2009).
Since a considerable amount of research that has been conducted on this subject concerns one
particular experiment that he conducted in 1963, the present paper will be limited to a review
of this experiment titled Behavioral study of Obedience (Milgram, 1963). Milgrams primary
motivation for devising the experiment was to try to find an explanation for the behavior of
the Nazis during the Holocaust. There was a common assumption that Germans tended to
obey orders more conscientiously than Americans, and many believed it was something in the
German national character that explained this difference (Russel & Gregory, 2010). To test
this hypothesis Milgram conducted a study in 1963 concerning the nature of obeying. He used
ordinary American citizens as participants. In the experiment, participants were asked to play
the role of teachers who were to instruct learners regarding a memory task. Each time the
learner gave the wrong answer the teacher had to administer a shock to the learner. These
shocks were represented in volts of electricity on a continuum from mild to lethal.
Methodology and responses of experimental confederates
In the Milgram experiment, each experimental subject came into a laboratory and was asked
to wait. Another participant was waiting there as well. The person already waiting was not an
actual participant but a confederate of the experimenters. Both were told by the experimenter
that the project they have volunteered to take part in had been designed to investigate the
effects of punishment on learning. Then they were told that one person would be the teacher
and the other the learner. It was be insinuated that the two individuals will be randomly
assigned to these two experimental conditions, but the experimental subject was always
assigned the role of teacher and the confederate that of learner.
The participant was placed behind what appeared to be a machine labeled a shock
generator, which consisted of 30 switches aligned in 15-volt increments from 15 to 450
volts. These switches were labeled in groups. The labels ranged from slight shock up to
very strong shock followed by: danger: severe shock. The last two switches from 435 and
450 volts were labeled XXX (implying prohibited levels of shock). The participant was
required to increase the level of shock administered following each incorrect answer (Russel
& Gregory, 2010). The experimenter urged the participant to continue shocking the learner.
He used the following four prompts to instruct the participants to go on: Please continue or
Please go on, The experiment requires that you continue; It is absolutely essential that
you continue and You have no other choice you must go on (Gibson, 2011, p. 2). The
experiment was stopped after the participant administered 3 successive 450-volt shocks
(Russel & Gregory, 2010). After the experiment the participants were debriefed about the
actual purpose of the experiment and its results (Cave & Holm, 2003).
The methods have been criticized on a number of different grounds. First a valid
informed consent was not obtained. The participants did not know what to expect and were

Social Cosmos - URN:NBN:NL:UI:10-1-116042

not told that they could leave the experiment at any time. They did not know they were able to
say no to authority. The participants also were not made aware of their rights before the
experiment started. The issue of the informed consent was important because the participants
volunteered in a study in which they might have chosen not participate in, had they known
what it was really about (McArthur, 2008). It has to be mentioned that the ethical standards
were not nearly as strict in 1963 as they are today. In the case of informed consent, Milgram
did not completely act unethically according to the ethical criteria of his time, for it was only
after his study that, there was a shift of the paradigm of informed consent (Williams, 2008).
Second, this study used deception in a controversial way. Deception is generally
accepted nowadays, provided that negative consequences for the participants are ruled out.
This because it is known that otherwise there will be reactive responses from participants and
this will distort the results (Herrera, 2001). It was the Milgram experiment itself that led to
intense debate about the use of deception. There is an ongoing debate about the proper limits
of deception. When is deception legal and when does it exceed the limits? In this case it is
difficult to say if the harm, which was inflicted on participants, was due to the use of
deception. The question is whether the participants primarily objected to being deceived, or if
they were distressed because they discovered the cruelty they were capable of (Herrera,
2001).
The self-image of the participants was definitely affected by the knowledge that they
were capable of obeying authority. In addition to the participants feeling responsible for their
own actions, they also had to face the fact that they had been fooled. This affected their selfesteem in several ways. This self-esteem change caused a lot of harm after the experiment.
Not only did their self-image and self-esteem change, but also their trust in others changed.
There appeared to be long-term damage on both these dimensions (Baumrind, 1980). Milgram
stated that he had questioned his participants and that 84% said they were glad to have
participated in the study (Cave & Holm, 2003). It is possible that the subjects Milgram used to
obtain this result were not to be trusted. For example, they may have simply been unaware
that they had suffered (Herrera, 2001).
Moreover, there is no doubt that many participants experienced distress during the
experiment. The procedure created anxiety and tension. Participants were sweating, stuttering
and trembling. Milgram (1963, p. 377) reported the emotional disturbance suffered by one of
his subjects: I observed a mature and initially poised businessman enter the laboratory
smiling and confident. Within 20 minutes he was reduced to a twitching, stuttering wreck,
who was rapidly approaching a point of nervous collapse.
Milgram reported this in a detached and objective manner (Baumrind, 1980). This clearly
seemed to reflect his willingness to let the participants feel emotional distress (Cave & Holm,
2003).
The question is if Milgram was justified in exposing his participants to such distress.
And is it justified in general for researchers to engage in actions that might distress or harm
research subjects? The distress that subjects would suffer in this experiment was foreseeable.
He had done pilot studies and knew that participants would likely experience high levels of
distress (Cave & Holm, 2003). Milgram responded to this criticism about the supposed harm
he inflicted on his participants. He stated that the harm was only temporary, and that the
subjects consented to or accepted the harm subsequently. He also stated that the harm was
outweighed by benefits obtained by the subjects participation and by the importance of
knowledge generated. But distress is still harm and Milgrams justification might not have
been good enough (Cave & Holm, 2003). The answer to the question of how much harm is
justified relies on the knowledge gained as a result of the experiment. (In other words, the
extent to which the knowledge about a certain phenomenon is important and significant for
society) (Kaufman, 1967).

Social Cosmos - URN:NBN:NL:UI:10-1-116042

Altogether the methods of Milgram received a lot of criticism. There is criticism about
the lack of informed consent, but the guidelines in Milgrams time were different then they
are today. Besides that, the harm inflicted to the patients during and after the experiment is a
major point of discussion. It also flared the debate of deception and the debate of the
justification of harm inflicted to participants. The conclusion about the justification of
inflicted harm is probably that there has to be a proper consideration of the harm and of the
scientific importance of the given experiment.
The results and their use
In Milgrams study 65% of participants obeyed the experimenter until the end; they
administered all the shocks ordered including three at what they believed to be a level of
450 volt. Generalized to the population, this would mean that almost two thirds of persons are
capable of obeying authority to the extent of inflicting deadly pain on others.
These results were noteworthy. No one, not even Milgram himself, expected such a
high rate of obedience and this finding had disturbing implications for not only the
participants but for human beings in general. It appeared to suggest that evil is inside every
human being (Russel & Gregory, 2010).
Milgram interpreted the results as follows: the participants entered an agentic state
during the experiment. This agentic state was a state wherein the participant allowed his
actions to be determined by another person and stopped thinking for himself. The agent was,
in this case, the experimenter (Gibson, 2011). Participants own descriptions of their
involvement seemed to support this explanation. This interpretation of Milgram is
controversial. The agentic state would seem to apply that, the participant blamed the
experimenter completely for his actions and did not feel guilty himself. This was not true, as
participants did feel guilty during and after completing the experiment (Russel & Gregory,
2010).
Blass contended (2009) that there are three lessons to be learned from the experiment.
First, the experiment made clear how strong the tendency to obey was. There was consensus
about the existence of this tendency but it was not known that it was so strong. Milgrams
experiment also made clear that the tendency to obey can make people act in ways that are
contrary to their moral principles. It does not take evil persons to carry out those kind of
brutal actions. Second, the experiment showed the internal changes which are mediating
mechanisms that made destructive obedience possible. It resulted in peoples willingness to
follow a leaders cruel orders, which they normally would not have done on their own. These
internal changes reflect the acceptance of the legitimacy of authority, the acceptance of
authoritys right to prescribe ones behavior and therefore feel the obligation to submit to that
authority. Third, the experiment demonstrated that human behavior is often more the product
of the external circumstances than ones supposed character and values.
The influence of this experiment continues to be felt, some 50 years after it was
conducted and 30 years following Milgrams untimely death. This influence is seen in its
inevitable mention in all general psychology textbooks. It also is referenced in discussions of
a wide range of topics and in popular culture (Blass, 1999). There are novels and plays based
on the experiment. There is even an episode of the Simpsons based on it. In social psychology
as well as in other fields the Milgram experiment is a phenomenon (Herrera, 2001).
Actions of the scientific community
Because of current ethical standards applied to scientific research with human subjects, an
experiment like Milgrams is no longer possible (Herrera, 2001). The ethical concerns
mentioned earlier are among the reason for this. One expression of these ethical concerns is
the Declaration of Helsinki (Williams, 2008).

Social Cosmos - URN:NBN:NL:UI:10-1-116042

The Declaration of Helsinki was been developed by the World Medical Association as
a guide for medical researchers to protect the well being of human subjects. It was presented
at the WMA General Assembly in 1964 for the first time. Unlike its predecessor, the
Nuremberg Code, the Declaration of Helsinki requires that the participants in research studies
provide their informed consent (Williams, 2008).
The Declaration of Helsinki consists of basic principles, principles for clinical and
non-clinical therapeutic research, and standards of professional care. These principles are in
part a reaction to the unethical characteristics of the Milgram experiment. The principles state
that there has to be informed consent and that the importance of the knowledge one hopes to
gain from the experiment has to be in proportion to the risks for the participant (Williams,
2008).
Since the end of World War II, the emphasis of most ethical guidelines has been on
promoting the welfare of individual participants. There is a conflict between public and
individual health in the ethics of research on humans. The wellbeing of individual subjects is
nowadays considered more important than the advancement of science and promotion of
public health (Williams, 2008).
Ethics in science
The emphasis on the maintenance of the wellbeing of individuals compared to the public
raises questions in science. Ethical guidelines, which help protect individual wellbeing, could
in this way hinder research. This might not be beneficial for science and research. There is no
question that it is important to maintain individuals wellbeing. But because of the resulting
ethical guidelines, there is a lot of hidden information that science is not able to figure out.
The main question in this regard is whether discovering this information is worth the possible
risks.
McArthur stated in in his article that good ethics mean better science. Unethical
methods can provide distorted results. Good ethics can ensure that the important variables are
controlled. In addition, ethical safeguards are required to help protect the integrity of the
results (McArthur, 2008).
McArthur does have a point, for it is true that unethical investigations can distort
research. But is it true that unethical behavior can be studied in an ethical way? The outcome
of ones results might show unethical behavior. A study conducted to reveal unethical
behavior, such as Milgrams experiment, might lead participants to realize that they are
capable of unethical behavior. The participants will probably be harmed by this conclusion,
and the study might be considered unethical. This is probably the reason why particular
studies concerning behavior like racism and aggression are not conducted in the
experimentally controlled manner, employed by Milgram. Studies with implicit test are
frequently used nowadays. (Greenwald, McGhee & Schwartz, 1998).
Research conducted to investigate unethical behavior will always be difficult. The
most important task of the researchers is probably to provide for the well being of the
participants and assure that informed consent has been obtained. Doing this will maintain the
scientific integrity of an investigation. Ethics will probably always be a controversial point of
research because ethics are based on morals and morals might not be the same across cultures,
nations and even across individuals within a particular culture or nation. Yet, it does seem
important to ensure that certain issues regarding the wellbeing of human experimental
subjects are always taken into consideration, and therefore, basic ethical principles provided
by associations like the World Health Association are meaningful.

Social Cosmos - URN:NBN:NL:UI:10-1-116042

Conclusion
The aim of this article was to investigate how social scientists reacted to the Milgram
experiment. The methods of that experiment were criticized on many grounds, including a
lack of informed consent, controversial use of deception and inflicting harm on participants
during and after the study as a result of the procedure employed. It has to be noted that the
standards at the time Milgram conducted his experiment, were very different from current
standards. Taking this into account, the experiment still harmed patients and this causes for
concern even at that time. Besides that, the results revealed a noteworthy rate of obedience.
There is still no consensus about the interpretation of the results. But the results and several
interpretations are frequently referenced in the scientific literature.
This article discussed the unethical aspects of Milgrams methods and the impact and
use of the results obtained. Both the methods and the results led to many responses from
society at large. After a comprehensive discussion of the experiment and taking into account
the lessons Blass mentioned (Blass, 2009), it is clear that both sides contributed to the impact
of the experiment. Both characterizations of the experiment influenced each other. Because of
the unethical methods employed, it was difficult to accept the results. And because of the
disturbing results, people were more critical about the methods.
But it is probably the case that the Milgram experiment gained such notoriety because
of his disturbing results in the first place. This was the characteristic which made the Milgram
experiment famous. It was only after the Milgram experiment gained notoriety because of the
results, that people became interested in the methods. It is likely that many experiments
involving unethical methods had been conducted prior to Milgrams experiment on obedience
to authority, but that they simply went unnoticed because their results and conclusions were
no of particular importance.
Those conducting scientific research with human subjects now have ethical guidelines,
in place that prevent further unethical or controversial research. These guidelines are
expressed in The Declaration of Helsinki, as well as in other documents. This declaration
premises to protect the wellbeing of individuals who participate in research studies, and to
obtain their informed consent.
In current ethical standards employed in the social sciences, the wellbeing of the
individual is considered more important than the wellbeing of the public at large. This
preference is in itself ethically controversial because it may prevent important research
from being carried out. Ethics and their use will always be a contentious issue because they
are subjects to varying opinions.

References
Baumrind, D. (1964). Some thoughts on ethics of research: After reading Milgrams
behavioral study of obedience. American Psychologist, 19, 421-423. doi:10.1037/h0040128
Blass, T. (2009). The man who shocked the world: the life and legacy of Stanley Milgram.
Basic Books.
Blass. T. (2009). From new Haven to Santa Clara: a historical perspective on the Milgram
obedience experiments. American Psychologist, 64, 37-45. doi:10.1037/a0014434
Cartwright, D. (1979). Contemporary social psychology in historical perspective. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 42, 82-93. doi:10.2307/3033880

Social Cosmos - URN:NBN:NL:UI:10-1-116042

Cave, E., & Holm, S. (2003). Milgram and Tuskegee paradigm research projects in
bioethics. Health Care Analysis, 11, 27-40. doi:10.1023/A:1025333912720
Gibson. S. (2011). Milgrams obedience experiments: a rhetorical analysis. British Journal of
Social Psychology, 52, 290-309. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02070.x
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K, (1998). Measuring individual
differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 74, 1464-1480. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464
Herrera, C. D. (2001). Ethics, deceptions and those Milgram experiments. Journal of
Applied Philosophy, 18, 245-256. doi:10.1111/1468-5930.00192
Kaufmann, H. (1967). The price of obedience and the price of knowledge. American
Psychologist, 22, 321-322. doi:10.1037/h0037664
McArthur, D. (2009). Good ethics can sometimes mean better science: Research ethics and
the Milgram experiments. Science and Engineering Ethics, 15, 69-79. doi:10.1007/s11948008-9083-4
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 67, 371-378.
Russel, N. J. C., & Gregory, R.J. (2010). Spinning an organizational web of obligation?
Moral choice in Stanley Milgrams obedience experiments. The American Review of public
Administration, 41, 495-518, doi:10.1177/0275074010384129
Williams, J. R. (2008). The Declaration of Helsinki and public health. Bulletin of the World
Health Organization, 86, 650-652. doi:10.1590/S0042-96862008000800022