sociology

Behavioral Study of Obedience

Stanley Milgram

(1963)

This article describes a procedure for the study of destruc- tive obedience in the laboratory. It consists of ordering a naive S to administer increasingly more severe punish- ment to a victim in the context of a learning experiment. Punishment is administered by means of a shock genera- tor with 30 graded switches ranging from Slight Shock to Danger: Severe Shock. The victim is a confederate of the E. The primary dependent variable is the maximum shock the S is willing to administer before he refuses to continue further. 26 Ss obeyed the experimental commands fully, and administered the highest shock on the generator. 14 Ss broke off the experiment at some point after the victim protested and refused to provide further answers. The pro- cedure created extreme levels of nervous tension in some Ss. Profuse sweating, trembling, and stuttering were typ- ical expressions of this emotional disturbance. One unex- pected sign of tension — yet to be explained — was the regular occurrence of nervous laughter, which in some Ss developed into uncontrollable seizures. The variety of in- teresting behavioral dynamics observed in the experiment, the reality of the situation for the S, and the possibility of parametric variation within the framework of the proce- dure, point to the fruitfulness of further study.1

OBEDIENCE is as basic an element in thestructure of social life as one can point to. Some system of authority is a requirement of all communal living, and it is only the man dwelling in isolation who is not forced to respond, through defiance or submission, to the commands of oth- ers. Obedience, as a determinant of behavior, is of particular relevance to our time. It has been reli- ably established that from 1933–45 millions of in- nocent persons were systematically slaughtered on command. Gas chambers were built, death camps were guarded; daily quotas of corpses were pro- duced with the same efficiency as the manufacture of appliances. These inhumane policies may have originated in the mind of a single person, but they could only be carried out on a massive scale if a

very large number of persons obeyed orders. Obedience is the psychological mechanism that

links individual action to political purpose. It is the dispositional cement that binds men to systems of authority. Facts of recent history and observation in daily life suggest that for many persons obedi- ence may be a deeply ingrained behavior tendency, indeed a prepotent impulse overriding training in ethics, sympathy, and moral conduct. C. P. Snow (1961) points to its importance when he writes:

When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion. If you doubt that, read William Shirer’s Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. The German Officer Corps were brought up in the most rigorous code of obedience . . . in the name of obedience they were party to, and assisted in, the most wicked large scale actions in the history of the world [p. 24].

While the particular form of obedience dealt with in the present study has its antecedents in these episodes, it must not be thought all obedience en- tails acts of aggression against others. Obedience serves numerous productive functions. Indeed, the very life of society is predicated on its existence. Obedience may be ennobling and educative and re- fer to acts of charity and kindness as well as to de- struction.

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 gen-

1Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378.

STANLEY MILGRAM 1 Behavioral Study of Obedience

erator is used, with 30 clearly marked voltage lev- els 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 exper- imenter, 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 ex- periment 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 exper- imenter. The point of rupture is the act of disobe- dience. A quantitative value is assigned to the sub- ject’s performance based on the maximum intensity shock he is willing to administer before he refuses to participate further. Thus for any particular sub- ject and for any particular experimental condition the degree of obedience may be specified with a nu- merical value. The crux of the study is to systemat- ically 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 design- ing increasingly more numerous experimental con- ditions, but of selecting those that best illuminate the process of obedience from the sociopsychologi- cal standpoint.

Table 1. Distribution of Age and Occupational Types in the Experiment

Ages % of Total Occupations 20–29 30–39 40–50 (occupations) Workers, skilled and unskilled

4 5 6 37.5

Sales, busi- ness and white-collar

3 6 7 40.0

Professional 1 5 3 22.5 % of total (Age)

20 40 40

Related Studies

The inquiry bears an important relation to philo- sophic analyses of obedience and authority (Arendt, 1958; Friedrich, 1958; Weber, 1947), an early ex- perimental 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 di- rect 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 sur- rounding communities. Subjects were obtained by a newspaper advertisement and direct mail solic- itation. Those who responded to the appeal be- lieved they were to participate in a study of mem- ory and learning at Yale University. A wide range of occupations is represented in the sample. Typi- cal subjects were postal clerks, high school teach- ers, salesmen, engineers, and laborers. Subjects ranged in educational level from one who had not finished elementary school, to those who had doc- torate and other professional degrees. They were paid $4.50 for their participation in the experiment.

STANLEY MILGRAM 2 Behavioral Study of Obedience

However, subjects were told that payment was sim- ply for coming to the laboratory, and that the money was theirs no matter what happened after they ar- rived. Table 1 shows the proportion of age and oc- cupational types assigned to the experimental con- dition.

Personnel and Locale

The experiment was conducted on the grounds of Yale University in the elegant interaction labora- tory. (This detail is relevant to the perceived le- gitimacy of the experiment. In further variations, the experiment was dissociated from the univer- sity, with consequences for performance.) The role of experimenter was played by a 31-year-old high school teacher of biology. His manner was impas- sive, and his appearance somewhat stern throughout the experiment. He was dressed in a gray techni- cian’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 effec- tively accomplished by the cover story. After a gen- eral 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 sci- entific 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 punish- ment, 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 draw- ing was rigged so that the naive subject was always the teacher and the accomplice always the learner. (Both slips contained the word “Teacher.”) Imme- diately 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 im- possible 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 at- tached 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 sub- ject was a paired-associate learning task. The sub- ject 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 ver- bal designations are clearly indicated for groups of four switches going from left to right: Slight Shock,

STANLEY MILGRAM 3 Behavioral Study of Obedience

Moderate Shock, Strong Shock, Very Strong Shock, Intense Shock, Extreme Intensity Shock, Danger: Severe Shock. (Two switches after this last desig- nation are simply marked XXX.)

Upon depressing a switch: a pilot light cor- responding 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 re- lay clicks are sounded.

The upper left-hand corner of the generator is labeled Shock Generator, Type ZLB, Dyson Instru- ment 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.2

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 gener- ator. 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 sub- ject of the authenticity of the generator. Shock Instructions The subject is told to adminis- ter a shock to the learner each time he gives a wrong response. Moreover — and this is the key com- mand — 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 adminis-

tering shocks requires some practice before it can be handled smoothly. Therefore, immediately pre- ceding the regular run, the teacher is given a prelim- inary 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 maxi- mum 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 approx- imately three wrong answers to one correct answer. In the present experimental condition no vocal re- sponse 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 in- structs the subject to treat the absence of a response as a wrong answer, and to shock the subject accord- ing 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 cor- rectly. The learner’s pounding is repeated after the

21 A related technique, making use of a shock generator, was reported by Buss (1961) for the study of aggression in the lab- oratory. 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.

STANLEY MILGRAM 4 Behavioral Study of Obedience

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 admin- ister 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 re- actions.

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 con- tinue. Prod 3: It is absolutely essential that you con- tinue. 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 re- luctance 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 per- manent 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 nec- essary.]

Dependent Measures

The primary dependent measure for any subject is the maximum shock he administers before he re-

fuses to go any further. In principle this may vary from 0 (for a subject who refuses to administer even the first shock) to 30 (for a subject who adminis- ters 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 experi- mental commands fully, and proceeds to administer all shock levels commanded, is termed an obedient subject. Further Records With few exceptions, experimen- tal sessions were recorded on magnetic tape. Oc- casional photographs were taken through one-way mirrors. Notes were kept on any unusual behav- ior occurring during the course of the experiments. On occasion, additional observers were directed to write objective descriptions of the subjects’ behav- ior. The latency and duration of shocks were mea- sured by accurate timing devices. Interview and Dehoax Following the experiment, subjects were interviewed; open-ended questions, projective measures, and attitude scales were em- ployed. After the interview, procedures were un- dertaken to assure that the subject would leave the laboratory in a state of well being. A friendly recon- ciliation was arranged between the subject and the victim, and an effort was made to reduce any ten- sions that arose as a result of the experiment.

Results

Preliminary Notions

Before giving an account of the experimental re- sults, it is instructive to consider how persons pre- dict others will perform when commanded to ad- minister powerful shocks to another person. Four- teen Yale seniors, all psychology majors, were pro- vided with a detailed description of the experimen- tal situation. They were asked to reflect carefully on it, and to predict the behavior of 100 hypotheti- cal subjects. More specifically, they were instructed to plot the distribution of obedience of “100 Ameri- cans of diverse occupations, and ranging in age from 20 to 50 years,” who were placed in the experimen- tal situation.

STANLEY MILGRAM 5 Behavioral Study of Obedience

There was considerable agreement among the respondents on the expected behavior of hypotheti- cal 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 con- tinue 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 be- yond the designation Very Strong Shock.

Result of Experiment

Subjects Accept Situation With few exceptions subjects were convinced of the reality of the ex- perimental situation, that they were administer- ing shocks to another person, and the most po- tent 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 pow- erful shocks. In a large number of cases the de- gree 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 re- sponses 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 smil- ing. The laughter seemed entirely out of place, even bizarre. Full-blown, uncontrollable seizures were observed for 3 subjects. On one occasion we ob- served a seizure so violently convulsive that it was necessary to call a halt to the experiment. The sub-

ject, a 46-year-old encyclopedia salesman, was se- riously embarrassed by his untoward and uncontrol- lable 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 dis- tribution of scores deviates radically from the pre- diction.

Table 2. Distribution of Breakoff Points

Verbal Designation and Number of Subjects Voltage Indication 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 4 390 2 405 1 420 1

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 administer-

STANLEY MILGRAM 6 Behavioral Study of Obedience

ing 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 exper- imental 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:

[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 hu- mane. . . . Oh, I can’t go on with this; no, this isn’t right. It’s a hell of an experiment. The guy is suffer- ing 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 ag- itated 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 max- imum shock is labeled 450 volts, and is two steps beyond the designation: Danger: Severe Shock.) Although obedient subjects continued to adminis- ter shocks, they often did so under extreme stress. Some expressed reluctance to administer shocks be- yond the 300-volt level, and displayed fears simi- lar to those who defied the experimenter; yet they obeyed.

After the maximum shocks had been delivered, and the experimenter called a halt to the proceed- ings, 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 dis-

played only minimal signs of tension from begin- ning to end.

Discussion

The experiment yielded two findings that were sur- prising. 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 an- other person against his will. Yet, 26 subjects aban- don this tenet in following the instructions of an au- thority 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 expres- sions of disbelief upon seeing a subject administer more powerful shocks to the victim. These persons had a full acquaintance with the details of the sit- uation, and yet systematically underestimated the amount of obedience that subjects would display.

The second unanticipated effect was the extraor- dinary 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 ob- server related:

I observed a mature and initially poised businessman enter the laboratory smiling and confident. Within

STANLEY MILGRAM 7 Behavioral Study of Obedience

20 minutes he was reduced to a twitching, stuttering wreck, who was rapidly approaching a point of ner- vous 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 obe- dience must rest on an analysis of the particular con- ditions 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 rep- utable. The importance of this background authority is now being studied by conducting a series of ex- periments outside of New Haven, and without any visible ties to the university. 2. The experiment is, on the face of it, designed to attain a worthy purpose — advancement of knowl- edge about learning and memory. Obedience oc- curs 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 volun- tarily submitted to the authority system of the ex- perimenter. 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 quali- fication. Thus he has in some degree incurred an obligation toward the experimenter. 4. The subject, too, has entered the experiment vol- untarily, 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 labo- ratory. In part this is canceled out by the experi- menter’s statement that:

“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.”3

6. 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 draw- ing 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.) 7. There is, at best, ambiguity with regard to the pre- rogatives of a psychologist and the corresponding rights of his subject. There is a vagueness of expec- tation concerning what a psychologist may require of his subject, and when he is overstepping accept- able limits. Moreover, the experiment occurs in a closed setting, and thus provides no opportunity for the subject to remove these ambiguities by discus- sion with others. There are few standards that seem directly applicable to the situation, which is a novel one for most subjects. 8. The subjects are assured that the shocks admin- istered to the subject are “painful but not danger- ous.” Thus they assume that the discomfort caused the victim is momentary, while the scientific gains resulting from the experiment are enduring. 9. 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 will- ing to “play the game.” It is only after Shock Level 20 that the victim repudiates the rules completely, refusing to answer further.

3Forty-three subjects, undergraduates at Yale University, were run in the experiment without payment. The results are very similar to those obtained with paid subjects.

STANLEY MILGRAM 8 Behavioral Study of Obedience

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 proposi- tions to be confirmed or disproved by further exper- iments.4

The following features of the experiment con- cern the nature of the conflict which the subject faces. 10. The subject is placed in a position in which he must respond to the competing demands of two per- sons: 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 experi- menter are mutually exclusive. Moreover, the reso- lution 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. 11. 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 re- garded as equally pressing and legitimate. The ex- perimenter seeks an abstract scientific datum; the victim cries out for relief from physical suffering caused by the subject’s actions. 12. 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 under- stands that the conflict will have a persistent aspect to it, and may well become more intense as increas- ingly more powerful shocks are required. The ra- pidity with which the conflict descends on the sub- ject, and his realization that it is predictably recur- rent may well be sources of tension to him. 13. At a more general level, the conflict stems

from the opposition of two deeply ingrained behav- ior dispositions: first, the disposition not to harm other people, and second, the tendency to obey those whom we perceive to be legitimate authorities.

References

1. Adorno, T., Frenkel-Brunswik, Else, Levin- son, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. The Authoritar- ian Personality. New York: Harper, 1950.

2. Arendt, H. What was authority? In C. J. Friedrich (Ed.), Authority. Cambridge: Har- vard 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: Bu- reaux 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. Wash- ington: National Science Foundation, 25 Jan- uary 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.

4A series of recently completed experiments employing the obedience paradigm is reported in Milgram (1964).

STANLEY MILGRAM 9 Behavioral Study of Obedience