summary

Milgram, Stanley. “Behavior Study of Obedience.” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 67 (1963): 371-378.

General Procedure

A procedure was devised which seems useful as a tool for studying obedience (Milgram, 1961). It consists of ordering a

naive subject to administer electric shock to a victim. A simulated shock generator is used, with 30 clearly marked voltage

levels that range from 15 to 450 volts. The instrument bears verbal designations that range from Slight Shock to Danger:

Severe Shock. The responses of the victim, who is a trained confederate of the experimenter, are standardized. The orders to

administer shocks are given to the naive subject in the context of a "learning experiment" ostensibly set up to study the

effects of punishment on memory. As the experiment proceeds the naive subject is commanded to administer increasingly

more intense shocks to the victim, even to the point of reaching the level marked Danger: Severe Shock. Internal resistances

become stronger, and at a certain point the subject refuses to go on with the experiment. Behavior prior to this rupture is

considered "obedience," in that the subject complies with the commands of the experimenter. The point of rupture is the act

of disobedience. A quantitative value is assigned to the subject’s performance based on the maximum intensity shock he is

willing to administer before he refuses to participate further. Thus for any particular subject and for any particular

experimental condition the degree of obedience may be specified with a numerical value. The crux of the study is to

systematically vary the factors believed to alter the degree of obedience to the experimental commands.

The technique allows important variables to be manipulated at several points in the experiment. One may vary aspects of the

source of command, content and form of command, instrumentalities for its execution, target object, general social setting,

etc. The problem, therefore, is not one of designing increasingly more numerous experimental conditions, but of selecting

those that best illuminate the process of obedience from the sociopsychological standpoint.

TABLE 1 Distribution of Age and Occupational Types in the Experiment (Note.–Total N540)

OCCUPATIONS 20—29 years n 30—39 years n 40—50 years n PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL

(OCCUPATIONS)

Workers, skilled, and unskilled 4 5 6 37.5

Sales, business, and white-collar 3 6 7 40.0

Professional 1 5 3 22.5

Percentage of total (Age) 20 40 40

Related Studies

The inquiry bears an important relation to philosophic analyses of obedience and authority (Arendt, 1958; Friedrich, 1958;

Weber, 1947), an early experimental study of obedience by Frank (1944), studies in "authoritarianism" (Adorno, Frenkel-

Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950; Rokeach, 1961), and a recent series of analytic and empirical studies in social power

(Cartwright, 1959). It owes much to the long concern with suggestion in social psychology, both in its normal forms (e.g.,

Binet, 1900) and in its clinical manifestations (Charcot, 1881). But it derives, in the first instance, from direct observation of

a social fact; the individual who is commanded by a legitimate authority ordinarily obeys. Obedience comes easily and often.

It is a ubiquitous and indispensable feature of social life.

Method

SUBJECTS The subjects were 40 males between the ages of 20 and 50, drawn from New Haven and the surrounding communities.

Subjects were obtained by a newspaper advertisement and direct mail solicitation. Those who responded to the appeal

believed they were to participate in a study of memory and learning at Yale University. A wide range of occupations is

represented in the sample. Typical subjects were postal clerks, high school teachers, salesmen, engineers, and laborers.

Subjects ranged in educational level from one who had not finished elementary school, to those who had doctorate and other

professional degrees. They were paid $4.50 for their participation in the experiment. However, subjects were told that

payment was simply for coming to the laboratory, and that the money was theirs no matter what happened after they arrived.

Table 1 shows the proportion of age and occupational types assigned to the experimental condition.

PERSONNEL AND LOCALE The experiment was conducted on the grounds of Yale University in the elegant interaction laboratory. (This detail is

relevant to the perceived legitimacy of the experiment. In further variations, the experiment was dissociated from the

university, with consequences for performance.) The role of experimenter was played by a 31-year-old high school teacher of

biology. His manner was impassive, and his appearance somewhat stern throughout the experiment. He was dressed in a gray

technician’s coat. The victim was played by a 47-year-old accountant, trained for the role; he was of Irish-American stock,

whom most observers found mild-mannered and likable.

PROCEDURE One naive subject and one victim (an accomplice) performed in each experiment. A pretext had to be devised that would

justify the administration of electric shock by the naive subject. This was effectively accomplished by the cover story. After

a general introduction on the presumed relation between punishment and learning, subjects were told:

 But actually, we know very little about the effect of punishment on learning, because almost no truly scientific studies have been made of it in human beings.

 For instance, we don’t know how much punishment is best for learning–and we don’t know how much difference it makes as to who is giving the punishment, whether an adult learns best from a younger or an older person than

himself–or many things of that sort.

 So in this study we are bringing together a number of adults of different occupations and ages. And we’re asking some of them to be teachers and some of them to be learners.

 We want to find out just what effect different people have on each other as teachers and learners, and also what effect punishment will have on learning in this situation.

 Therefore, I’m going to ask one of you to be the teacher here tonight and the other one to be the learner.

 Does either of you have a preference? Subjects then drew slips of paper from a hat to determine who would be the teacher and who would be the learner in the

experiment. The drawing was rigged so that the naive subject was always the teacher and the accomplice always the learner.

(Both slips contained the word "Teacher.") Immediately after the drawing, the teacher and learner were taken to an adjacent

room and the learner was strapped into an "electric chair" apparatus.

The experimenter explained that the straps were to prevent excessive movement while the learner was being shocked. The

effect was to make it impossible for him to escape from the situation. An electrode was attached to the learner’s wrist, and

electrode paste was applied "to avoid blisters and burns." Subjects were told that the electrode was attached to the shock

generator in the adjoining room.

In order to improve credibility the experimenter declared, in response to a question by the learner: "Although the shocks can

be extremely painful, they cause no permanent tissue damage."

Learning Task The lesson administered by the subject was a paired-associate learning task. The subject read a series of

word pairs to the learner, and then read the first word of the pair along with four terms. The learner was to indicate which of

the four terms had originally been paired with the first word. He communicated his answer by pressing one of four switches

in front of him, which in turn lit up one of four numbered quadrants in an answer-box located atop the shock generator.

Shock Generator The instrument panel consists of 30 lever switches set in a horizontal line. Each switch is clearly labeled

with a voltage designation that ranges from 15 to 450 volts. There is a 15-volt increment from one switch to the next going

from left to right. In addition, the following verbal designations are clearly indicated for groups of four switches going from

left to right: Slight Shock, Moderate Shock, Strong Shock, Very Strong Shock, Intense Shock, Extreme Intensity Shock,

Danger: Severe Shock. (Two switches after this last designation are simply marked XXX.)

Upon depressing a switch: a pilot light corresponding to each switch is illuminated in bright red; an electric buzzing is heard;

an electric blue light, labeled "voltage energizer," flashes; the dial on the voltage meter swings to the right; various relay

clicks are sounded.

The upper left-hand corner of the generator is labeled Shock Generator, Type ZLB, Dyson Instrument Company, Waltham,

Mass. Output 15 Volts—450 Volts.

Details of the instrument were carefully handled to insure an appearance of authenticity. The panel was engraved by

precision industrial engravers, and all components were of high quality. No subject in the experiment suspected that the

instrument was merely a simulated shock generator.1

Sample Shock Each naive subject is given a sample shock on the shock generator, prior to beginning his run as teacher. This

shock is always 45 volts, and is applied by pressing the third switch of the generator. The shock is applied to the wrist of the

naive subject, and has its source in a 45-volt battery wired into the generator. This further convinces the subject of the

authenticity of the generator.

Page 372

Shock Instructions The subject is told to administer a shock to the learner each time he gives a wrong response. Moreover–

and this is the key command–the subject is instructed to "move one level higher on the shock generator each time the learner

flashes a wrong answer." He is also instructed to announce the voltage level before administering a shock. This serves to

continually remind subjects of the increasing intensity of shocks administered to the learner.

Preliminary and Regular Run Pretests revealed that the procedure of reading words and administering shocks requires

some practice before it can be handled smoothly. Therefore, immediately preceding the regular run, the teacher is given a

preliminary series of 10 words to read to the learner. There are 3 neutral words in the practice series (i.e., words that the

learner answers correctly), so that shocks are administered for 7 of the words, with the maximum shock at 105 volts

(moderate shock). Almost all subjects master the procedure by the time the preliminary run is over.

Subjects are then presented with a second list, and are told that the procedure is the same as for the first list; the experimenter

adds, however:

 When you get to the bottom of the list, repeat it over again, and continue giving shocks, until the learner has learned all the pairs correctly.

The experimenter instructs the subject to,

 start from 15 volts and increase the shock level one step each time the learner gives a wrong answer.

Feedback from the Victim In all conditions the learner gives a predetermined set of responses to the word pair test, based

on a schedule of approximately three wrong answers to one correct answer. In the present experimental condition no vocal

response or other sign of protest is heard from the learner until Shock Level 300 is reached. When the 300-volt shock is

administered, the learner pounds on the wall of the room in which he is bound to the electric chair. The pounding can be

heard by the subject. From this point on, the learner’s answers no longer appear on the four-way panel.

At this juncture, subjects ordinarily turn to the experimenter for guidance. The experimenter instructs the subject to treat the

absence of a response as a wrong answer, and to shock the subject according to the usual schedule. He advises the subjects to

allow 5—10 seconds before considering no response as a wrong answer, and to increase the shock level one step each time

the learner fails to respond correctly. The learner’s pounding is repeated after the 315-volt shock is administered; afterwards

he is not heard from, nor do his answers reappear on the four-way signal box.

Experimenter Feedback At various points in the experiment the subject may turn to the experimenter for advice on whether

he should continue to administer shocks. Or he may indicate that he does not wish to go on. It was important to standardize

the experimenter’s responses to these inquiries and reactions.

If the subject indicated his unwillingness to go on, the experimenter responded with a sequence of "prods," using as many as

necessary to bring the subject into line.

 Prod 1: Please continue. or Please go on.

 Prod 2: The experiment requires that you continue.

 Prod 3: It is absolutely essential that you continue.

 Prod 4: You have no other choice, you must go on. The prods were always made in sequence: Only if Prod 1 had been unsuccessful, could Prod 2 be used. If the subject refused

to obey the experimenter after Prod 4, the experiment was terminated. The experimenter’s tone of voice was at all times firm,

but not impolite. The sequence was begun anew on each occasion that the subject balked or showed reluctance to follow

orders.

Special prods. If the subject asked if the learner was liable to suffer permanent physical injury, the experimenter said:

 Although the shocks may be painful, there is no permanent tissue damage, so please go on. [Followed by Prods 2, 3, and 4 if necessary.]

If the subject said that the learner did not want to go on, the experimenter replied:

 Whether the learner likes it or not, you must go on until he has learned all the word pairs correctly. So please go on. [Followed by Prods 2, 3, and 4 if necessary.]

DEPENDENT MEASURES The primary dependent measure for any subject is the maximum shock he administers before he refuses to go any further. In

Page 373

principle this may vary from 0 (for a subject who refuses to administer even the first shock) to 30 (for a subject who

administers the highest shock on the generator). A subject who breaks off the experiment at any point prior to administering

the thirtieth shock level is termed a defiant subject. One who complies with experimental commands fully, and proceeds to

administer all shock levels commanded, is termed an obedient subject.

Further Records With few exceptions, experimental sessions were recorded on magnetic tape. Occasional photographs

were taken through one-way mirrors. Notes were kept on any unusual behavior occurring during the course of the

experiments. On occasion, additional observers were directed to write objective descriptions of the subjects’ behavior. The

latency and duration of shocks were measured by accurate timing devices.

Interview and Dehoax Following the experiment, subjects were interviewed; open-ended questions, projective measures,

and attitude scales were employed. After the interview, procedures were undertaken to assure that the subject would leave

the laboratory in a state of well being. A friendly reconciliation was arranged between the subject and the victim, and an

effort was made to reduce any tensions that arose as a result of the experiment.

Results

PRELIMINARY NOTIONS Before giving an account of the experimental results, it is instructive to consider how persons predict others will perform

when commanded to administer powerful shocks to another person. Fourteen Yale seniors, all psychology majors, were

provided with a detailed description of the experimental situation. They were asked to reflect carefully on it, and to predict

the behavior of 100 hypothetical subjects. More specifically, they were instructed to plot the distribution of obedience of

"100 Americans of diverse occupations, and ranging in age from 20 to 50 years," who were placed in the experimental

situation.

There was considerable agreement among the respondents on the expected behavior of hypothetical subjects. All respondents

predicted that only an insignificant minority would go through to the end of the shock series. (The estimates ranged from 0 to

3%; i.e., the most "pessimistic" member of the class predicted that of 100 persons, 3 would continue through to the most

potent shock available on the shock generator–450 volts.) The class mean was 1.2%. The question was also posed informally

to colleagues of the author, and the most general feeling was that few if any subjects would go beyond the designation Very

Strong Shock.

RESULT OF EXPERIMENT I Subjects Accept Situation With few exceptions subjects were convinced of the reality of the experimental situation, that

they were administering shocks to another person, and the most potent shocks were extremely painful. In the post-

experimental interview subjects were asked: "How painful to the learner were the last few shocks that you administered to

him?" Subjects were instructed to indicate their answers on a printed 14-point scale ranging from "Not at all painful" to

"Extremely painful." The modal response was 14 (Extremely painful) with the mean at 13.42.

Signs of Extreme Tension Many subjects showed signs of nervousness in the experimental situation, and especially upon

administering the more powerful shocks. In a large number of cases the degree of tension reached extremes that are rarely

seen in sociopsychological laboratory studies. Subjects were observed to sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips, groan, and dig

their fingernails into their flesh. These were characteristic rather than exceptional responses to the experiment.

One sign of tension was the regular occurrence of nervous laughing fits. Fourteen of the 40 subjects showed definite signs of

nervous laughter and smiling. The laughter seemed entirely out of place, even bizarre. Full-blown, uncontrollable seizures

were observed for 3 subjects. On one occasion we observed a seizure so violently convulsive that it was necessary to call a

halt to the experiment. The subject, a 46-year-old encyclopedia salesman, was seriously embarrassed by his untoward and

uncontrollable behavior. In the post-experimental interviews subjects took pains to point out that they were not sadistic

types, and that the laughter did not mean they enjoyed shocking the victim.

Distribution of Scores It had been conjectured that persons would not, in general, agree to administer shocks beyond the

level designated as Very Strong Shock. The distribution of maximum shocks for this experiment is shown in Table 2. The

obtained distribution of scores deviates radically from the prediction.

Page 374

TABLE 2

Distribution of Breakoff Points

VERBAL DESIGNATION AND VOLTAGE

INDICATION

NUMBER OF SUBJECTS FOR WHOM THIS WAS

MAXIMUM SHOCK

Slight Shock

15 0

30 0

45 0

60 0

Moderate Shock

75 0

90 0

105 0

120 0

Strong Shock

135 0

150 0

165 0

180 0

Very Strong Shock

195 0

210 0

225 0

240 0

Intense Shock

255 0

270 0

285 0

300 5

Extreme Intensity Shock

315 4

330 2

345 1

360 1

Danger: Severe Shock

375 1

390 0

405 0

420 0

XXX

435 0

450 26

Upon command of the experimenter, each of the 40 subjects went beyond the expected break-off point. No subject stopped

prior to administering Shock Level 20. (At this level–300 volts–the victim kicks on the wall and no longer provides answers

to the teacher’s multiple-choice questions.)

Of the 40 subjects, 5 refused to obey the experimental commands beyond the 300-volt level. Four more subjects

administered one further shock, and then refused to go on. Two broke off at the 330-volt level, and 1 each at 345, 360, and

375 volts. Thus a total of 14 subjects defied the experimenter. It is instructive to reprint their remarks at the point of

definance, as transcribed from the tape recordings:

Page 375

 [0124] I think he’s trying to communicate, he’s knocking. . . . Well it’s not fair to shock the guy . . . these are terrific volts. I don’t think this is very humane. . . . Oh, I can’t go on with this; no, this isn’t right. It’s a hell of an

experiment. The guy is suffering in there. No, I don’t want to go on. This is crazy. [Subject refused to administer

more shocks.]

 [0123] He’s banging in there. I’m gonna chicken out. I’d like to continue, but I can’t do that to a man. . . . I’m sorry I can’t do that to a man. I’ll hurt his heart. You take your check. . . . No really, I couldn’t do it.

These subjects were frequently in a highly agitated and even angered state. Sometimes, verbal protest was at a minimum, and

the subject simply got up from his chair in front of the shock generator, and indicated that he wished to leave the laboratory.

Of the 40 subjects, 26 obeyed the orders of the experimenter to the end, proceeding to punish the victim until they reached

the most potent shock available on the shock generator. At that point, the experimenter called a halt to the session. (The

maximum shock is labeled 450 volts, and is two steps beyond the designation: Danger: Severe Shock.) Although obedient

subjects continued to administer shocks, they often did so under extreme stress. Some expressed reluctance to administer

shocks beyond the 300-volt level, and displayed fears similar to those who defied the experimenter; yet they obeyed.

After the maximum shocks had been delivered, and the experimenter called a halt to the proceedings, many obedient subjects

heaved sighs of relief, mopped their brows, rubbed their fingers over their eyes, or nervously fumbled cigarettes. Some shook

their heads, apparently in regret. Some subjects had remained calm throughout the experiment, and displayed only minimal

signs of tension from beginning to end.

Discussion

The experiment yielded two findings that were surprising. The first finding concerns the sheer strength of obedient

tendencies manifested in this situation. Subjects have learned from childhood that it is a fundamental breach of moral

conduct to hurt another person against his will. Yet, 26 subjects abandon this tenet in following the instructions of an

authority who has no special powers to enforce his commands. To disobey would bring no material loss to the subject; no

punishment would ensue. It is clear from the remarks and outward behavior of many participants that in punishing the victim

they are often acting against their own values. Subjects often expressed deep disapproval of shocking a man in the face of his

objections, and others denounced it as stupid and senseless. Yet the majority complied with the experimental commands.

This outcome was surprising from two perspectives: first, from the standpoint of predictions made in the questionnaire

described earlier. (Here, however, it is possible that the remoteness of the respondents from the actual situation, and the

difficulty of conveying to them the concrete details of the experiment, could account for the serious underestimation of

obedience.)

But the results were also unexpected to persons who observed the experiment in progress, through one-way mirrors.

Observers often uttered expressions of disbelief upon seeing a subject administer more powerful shocks to the victim. These

persons had a full acquaintance with the details of the situation, and yet systematically underestimated the amount of

obedience that subjects would display.

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. There were striking

reactions of tension and emotional strain. One observer related:

 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. He

constantly pulled on his earlobe, and twisted his hands. At one point he pushed his fist into his forehead and

muttered: "Oh God, let’s stop it." And yet he continued to respond to every word of the experimenter, and obeyed to

the end.

Any understanding of the phenomenon of obedience must rest on an analysis of the particular conditions in which it occurs.

The following features of the experiment go some distance in explaining the high amount of obedience observed in the

situation.

1. The experiment is sponsored by and takes place on the grounds of an institution of unimpeachable reputation, Yale University. It may be reasonably presumed that the personnel are competent and reputable. The importance of this

background authority is now being studied by conducting a series of experiments outside of New Haven, and without

any visible ties to the university.

Page 376

2. The experiment is, on the face of it, designed to attain a worthy purpose–advancement of knowledge about learning and memory. Obedience occurs not as an end in itself, but as an instrumental element in a situation that the subject

construes as significant, and meaningful. He may not be able to see its full significance, but he may properly assume

that the experimenter does.

3. The subject perceives that the victim has voluntarily submitted to the authority system of the experimenter. He is not (at first) an unwilling captive impressed for involuntary service. He has taken the trouble to come to the laboratory

presumably to aid the experimental research. That he later becomes an involuntary subject does not alter the fact

that, initially, he consented to participate without qualification. Thus he has in some degree incurred an obligation

toward the experimenter.

4. The subject, too, has entered the experiment voluntarily, and perceives himself under obligation to aid the experimenter. He has made a commitment, and to disrupt the experiment is a repudiation of this initial promise of

aid.

5. Certain features of the procedure strengthen the subject’s sense of obligation to the experimenter. For one, he has been paid for coming to the laboratory. In part this is canceled out by the experimenter’s statement that:

6. Of course, as in all experiments, the money is yours simply for coming to the laboratory. From this point on, no matter what happens, the money is yours.2

7. From the subject’s standpoint, the fact that he is the teacher and the other man the learner is purely a chance consequence (it is determined by drawing lots) and he, the subject, ran the same risk as the other man in being

assigned the role of learner. Since the assignment of positions in the experiment was achieved by fair means, the

learner is deprived of any basis of complaint on this count. (A similar situation obtains in Army units, in which–in

the absence of volunteers–a particularly dangerous mission may be assigned by drawing lots, and the unlucky soldier

is expected to bear his misfortune with sportsmanship.)

8. There is, at best, ambiguity with regard to the prerogatives of a psychologist and the corresponding rights of his subject. There is a vagueness of expectation concerning what a psychologist may require of his subject, and when he

is overstepping acceptable limits. Moreover, the experiment occurs in a closed setting, and thus provides no

opportunity for the subject to remove these ambiguities by discussion with others. There are few standards that seem

directly applicable to the situation, which is a novel one for most subjects.

9. The subjects are assured that the shocks administered to the subject are "painful but not dangerous." Thus they assume that the discomfort caused the victim is momentary, while the scientific gains resulting from the experiment

are enduring.

10. Through Shock Level 20 the victim continues to provide answers on the signal box. The subject may construe this as a sign that the victim is still willing to "play the game." It is only after Shock Level 20 that the victim repudiates the

rules completely, refusing to answer further.

11. These features help to explain the high amount of obedience obtained in this experiment. Many of the arguments raised need not remain matters of speculation, but can be reduced to testable propositions to be confirmed or

disproved by further experiments.3

12. The following features of the experiment concern the nature of the conflict which the subject faces. 13. The subject is placed in a position in which he must respond to the competing demands of two persons: the

experimenter and the victim. The conflict must be resolved by meeting the demands of one or the other; satisfaction

of the victim and the experimenter are mutually exclusive. Moreover, the resolution must take the form of a highly

visible action, that of continuing to shock the victim or breaking off the experiment. Thus the subject is forced into a

public conflict that does not permit any completely satisfactory solution.

14. While the demands of the experimenter carry the weight of scientific authority, the demands of the victim spring from his personal experience of pain and suffering. The two claims need not be regarded as equally pressing and

legitimate. The experimenter seeks an abstract scientific datum; the victim cries out for relief from physical suffering

caused by the subject’s actions.

15. The experiment gives the subject little time for reflection. The conflict comes on rapidly. It is only minutes after the subject has been seated before the shock generator that the victim begins his protests. Moreover, the subject

perceives that he has gone through but two-thirds of the shock levels at the time the subject’s first protests are heard.

Thus he understands that the conflict will have a persistent aspect to it, and may well become more intense as

increasingly more powerful shocks are required. The rapidity with which the conflict descends on the subject, and

his realization that it is predictably recurrent may well be sources of tension to him.

16. At a more general level, the conflict stems from the opposition of two deeply ingrained behavior dispositions: first, the disposition not to harm other people, and second, the tendency to obey those whom we perceive to be legitimate

authorities.

Page 377

Notes 1A related technique, making use of a shock generator, was reported by Buss (1961) for the study of aggression in the

laboratory. Despite the considerable similarity of technical detail in the experimental procedures, both investigators

proceeded in ignorance of the other’s work. Milgram provided plans and photographs of his shock generator, experimental

procedure, and first results in a report to the National Science Foundation in January 1961. This report received only limited

circulation. Buss reported his procedure 6 months later, but to a wider audience. Subsequently, technical information and

reports were exchanged. The present article was first received in the Editor’s office on December 27, 1961; it was

resubmitted with deletions on July 27, 1962.

2Forty-three subjects, undergraduates at Yale University, were run in the experiment without payment. The results are very

similar to those obtained with paid subjects.

3A series of recently completed experiments employing the obedience paradigm is reported in Milgram (1964).

References

1. Adorno, T., Frenkel-Brunswik, Else, Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper,

1950.

2. Arendt, H. What was authority? In C. J. Friedrich (Ed.), Authority. Cambridge: Harvard Univer. Press, 1958. Pp. 81—112.

3. Binet, A. La suggestibilité. Paris: Schleicher, 1900.

4. Buss, A. H. The psychology of aggression. New York: Wiley, 1961.

5. Cartwright, S. (Ed.) Studies in social power. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Institute for Social Research, 1959.

6. Charcot, J. M. Oeuvres complètes. Paris: Bureaux du Progrès Médical, 1881.

7. Frank, J. D. Experimental studies of personal pressure and resistance. J. gen. Psychol., 1944, 30, 23—64.

8. Friedrich, C. J. (Ed.) Authority. Cambridge: Harvard Univer. Press, 1958.

9. Milgram, S. Dynamics of obedience. Washington: National Science Foundation, 25 January 1961. (Mimeo)

10 Milgram, S. Some conditions of obedience and disobedience to authority. Hum. Relat., 1964, in press.

11. Rokeach, M. Authority, authoritarianism, and conformity. In I. A. Berg & B. M. Bass (Eds.), Conformity and deviation.

New York: Harper, 1961. Pp. 230—257.

12. Snow, C. P. Either-or. Progressive, 1961 (Feb.), 24.

13. Weber, M. The theory of social and economic organization. Oxford: Oxford Univer. Press, 1947.

Page 378

Milgram, Stanley. “Behavior Study of Obedience.” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 67 (1963): 371-378.

Web 24 September 2012. <Wadsworth.com>

Meta-Milgram: An Empirical Synthesis of the Obedience Experiments(http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0093927&representation=PDF) Nick Haslam*, Steve Loughnan, Gina Perry School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia

Abstract: Milgram’s famous experiment contained 23 small-sample conditions that elicited striking variations in obedient responding. A synthesis of these diverse conditions could clarify the factors that influence obedience in the Milgram paradigm. We assembled data from the 21 conditions (N= 740) in which obedience involved progression to maximum voltage (overall rate 43.6%) and coded these conditions on 14 properties pertaining to the learner, the teacher, the experimenter, the learner-teacher relation, the experimenter-teacher relation, and the experimental setting. Logistic regression analysis indicated that eight factors influenced the likelihood that teachers continued to the 450 volt shock. Citation: Haslam N, Loughnan S, Perry G (2014) Meta-Milgram: An Empirical Synthesis of the Obedience Experiments. PLoS ONE 9(4): e93927. doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0093927 Editor: Martin Voracek, University of Vienna, Austria Received January 2, 2014; Accepted March

10, 2014; Published April 4, 2014 Copyright :ß 2014 Haslam et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative

Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Funding: The authors have no support or funding to report.Competing Interests:The authors have declared that no competing interests exist

No. Condition label N N “obey” Percent obey

1 No feedback 40 26 64%

2 Voice feedback 40 25 62.5%

3 Proximity 40 16 40%

4 Touch 40 12 30%

5 Coronary Trouble 40 26 64%

6 Different actors 40 20 50%

7 Group pressure to disobey 40 4 10%

8 The learner’s proviso 40 16 40%

9 Group pressure to obey 40 29 72.5%

10 Conflicting instructions 20 20 100%

11 Group choice 40 7 17.5%

12 Role reversal 20 20 100%

13 Non-trigger position 40 37 92.5%

14 Carte blanche 20 1 5%

15 Good/bad experimenter 20 4 20%

16 Experimenter -> Learner 20 13 65%

17 Teacher in charge 20 11 55%

18 No experimenter 40 9 22.5%

19 Authority from afar 40 15 37.5%

20 Women 40 26 64%

22 Peer authority 20 4 20%

23 Bridgeport 40 19 47.5%

24 Intimate relationships 20 3 15%

See April 2014 Plos One Volume 9 Issue 4 Meta-Milgram article (http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0093927

&representation=PDF)