You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 9 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Stanley Milgram's obedience experiment is the most famous — and the most disturbing — study in the whole of the OCR course, and it is the classic study for the social-area theme of responses to people in authority. Its finding is easy to state and hard to accept: a clear majority of ordinary, psychologically normal volunteers continued to deliver what they believed were painful and ultimately dangerous electric shocks to a stranger, simply because a calm experimenter told them to go on. No one had predicted this. When Milgram described the procedure to psychiatrists, students and ordinary adults beforehand, almost all of them expected that only a tiny, pathological fraction of people would obey to the end. They were wrong, and the gap between what people predicted and what people did is one of the enduring lessons of the study.
This lesson tells the study in the OCR "tell the story" format: the historical background that motivated it, the aim, the method (design, sample and step-by-step procedure), the results with their real figures, Milgram's conclusions, and a full evaluation of its methods, data, ethics, validity and reliability. It closes by linking the study to its key theme, its area, the relevant perspectives and the debates it fuels. Because Milgram anchors so many synoptic answers, knowing it precisely is one of the highest-yield investments you can make for Component 02.
| This lesson covers | OCR H567 Component 02 element | AO focus |
|---|---|---|
| Background and aim of Milgram's obedience research | Section A — Social; theme: responses to people in authority (classic) | AO1 knowledge |
| Method: laboratory experiment; sample (n and who); shock-generator procedure | Section A — Core study (Milgram) | AO1; AO2 |
| Results (obedience rate to 450V; qualitative signs of stress) | Section A — Core study | AO1 |
| Conclusions (situational explanation of obedience) | Section A — Core study | AO1; AO3 |
| Evaluation: method, data type, ethics, validity, reliability, sampling, ethnocentrism | Section A; Section B debates | AO3 |
| Links to theme, area (Social), perspective and debates | Section B — Areas, perspectives, debates | AO1; AO3 |
The specification is referenced descriptively; consult the official OCR H567 specification document for its exact published wording. This lesson develops AO1 (the aim, procedure, results and conclusions), AO2 (applying the situational explanation to novel scenarios of obedience) and AO3 (evaluating the study's ethics, validity, reliability and generalisability).
Milgram was writing in the long shadow of the Second World War and the Holocaust. A recurring question in the post-war years was how so many ordinary people could have participated in, or acquiesced to, systematic atrocities. One widely-discussed answer was dispositional: that there was something distinctive — even defective — about the people involved, a peculiarly obedient national character. Milgram was sceptical of this comfortable explanation. His hunch was that the capacity for destructive obedience is not the property of a particular kind of person but a feature of the situation — specifically, of being placed under the instructions of a legitimate authority. He set out to test, under controlled conditions, how far ordinary Americans would go in obeying an authority figure who told them to harm another person.
The study is therefore best understood not as a study of cruelty but as a study of obedience to authority: the willingness to follow the orders of a person perceived as legitimately in charge, even when those orders conflict with one's own conscience. This framing matters for the exam, because the whole point of Milgram's design is that the participant does not want to continue — the drama of the study lies in the conflict between the participant's evident distress and their continued compliance.
The dispositional explanation Milgram set out to challenge is worth stating carefully, because understanding what he was arguing against clarifies the significance of his result. The comfortable, widely-held view was that participation in atrocities reflected something about the participants — a peculiar authoritarianism, a cultural predisposition to obey, or simple moral defectiveness. If that view were correct, then such events could be safely regarded as the work of an aberrant few, and the rest of us could be confident we would have behaved differently. Milgram suspected this was a self-serving illusion. His alternative hypothesis was that the capacity for destructive obedience is latent in ordinary people and is activated by situational conditions — above all, by being placed under the direction of an authority perceived as legitimate. To test this, he needed a situation in which an ordinary person would be ordered, by a legitimate-seeming authority, to inflict escalating harm on an innocent other, with the level of harm precisely measurable. The shock-generator paradigm was his ingenious solution to that design problem: it operationalised "how far will you go?" as a number of volts.
Milgram's choice of a prestigious university setting was itself a deliberate part of the design rather than a mere convenience. Yale conferred legitimacy on the authority: participants had reason to assume that a scientist at a famous institution knew what he was doing and would not permit real harm. Milgram was aware that this legitimacy might be inflating obedience, and he later ran a variation in a run-down commercial office building away from the university to test exactly that — obedience dropped somewhat but remained substantial, showing that the setting contributed to, but did not wholly create, the effect. Knowing that the Yale setting was an intentional legitimising feature, not an incidental fact, is the kind of detail that lifts an answer's evaluation of the study's validity.
Milgram's aim was to investigate how far ordinary people would go in obeying an instruction from an authority figure to inflict harm on another person. More specifically, he wanted to establish the level of obedience — measured as the maximum electric shock a participant would administer under orders — in a controlled laboratory situation, and to observe the process by which people either continued or stopped.
The study was a controlled laboratory experiment in its procedure, though Milgram's initial 1963 report is often described as a controlled observation of obedience because its central measure was simply how far each participant went under a single, standardised set of conditions rather than a comparison between manipulated conditions. (Milgram went on to run many variations — altering proximity, location and the presence of others — but the classic 1963 baseline is the one to know first.) It was conducted at Yale University, a prestigious and legitimising setting.
The participants were 40 men, aged 20 to 50, recruited from the New Haven area via a newspaper advertisement and direct mail which invited them to take part in a study of memory and learning at Yale. They were paid $4.50 simply for turning up (and were told the payment was theirs regardless of what happened after they arrived). The sample spanned a range of occupations — postal workers, teachers, salesmen, engineers, labourers — a self-selected (volunteer) sample of ordinary working men. Crucially, they believed they were taking part in a study of memory, not obedience: the true aim was concealed.
On arrival, each genuine participant met two people: the experimenter, a stern 31-year-old man in a grey technician's coat (a confederate playing the authority figure), and another apparent "volunteer", a mild, likeable 47-year-old accountant (Mr Wallace, also a confederate). The experimenter explained that the study concerned the effect of punishment on learning. A rigged draw ensured the real participant always became the "teacher" and Mr Wallace always the "learner".
The learner was taken to an adjoining room, strapped into a chair and had an electrode attached to his arm ("to avoid blisters and burns"), while the teacher watched. The teacher was then given a genuine sample shock of 45 volts to convince him the apparatus was real. He was seated before an imposing shock generator with a row of 30 switches labelled from 15 volts up to 450 volts in 15-volt steps, with descriptive labels running from "Slight Shock" through "Danger: Severe Shock" to a final ominous "XXX".
The teacher read pairs of words to the learner, then tested him by giving the first word of a pair and four possible partners; the learner answered by pressing a button that lit a light on the teacher's panel. Each time the learner answered wrongly, the teacher was instructed to administer a shock, increasing the voltage by one 15-volt step for every successive error. No shocks were actually delivered — the learner's responses were standardised and pre-recorded — but the teacher did not know this.
As the (apparent) voltage climbed, the learner's scripted responses escalated: grunts, then verbal complaints, then — at 300 volts — pounding on the wall and a refusal to answer further, after which he fell silent (silence was treated as a wrong answer, so the teacher was told to continue shocking). When the teacher hesitated or asked to stop, the experimenter responded with a fixed sequence of standardised verbal "prods", escalating in insistence — in essence, "please continue", "the experiment requires that you continue", "it is absolutely essential that you continue", and "you have no other choice, you must go on". If the teacher still refused after the fourth prod, the session was ended. The dependent variable was the maximum voltage the teacher administered before refusing to go on (or reaching 450 volts).
The headline quantitative finding is the one every candidate must know precisely:
| Measure | Result |
|---|---|
| Participants who continued to the maximum 450 volts | 26 of 40 = 65% |
| Participants who stopped before 450 volts (defied the experimenter) | 14 of 40 = 35% |
| Point before which no participant stopped | 300 volts (the point at which the learner first pounded the wall) — all 40 went at least this far |
| Participants who stopped at 300 volts (the first to defy) | A small number began to break off from 300 volts onward |
Beyond the numbers, Milgram recorded striking qualitative observations of the participants' distress. Many showed extreme tension: they were seen to sweat, tremble, stutter, groan, bite their lips and dig their fingernails into their flesh, and a number had nervous laughing fits — three participants had full-blown, uncontrollable seizures of nervous laughter. Despite this evident anguish, most continued. This combination — high obedience together with visible reluctance and stress — is the study's signature, and it refutes any reading in which the obedient participants were simply callous.
Milgram concluded that ordinary people are remarkably obedient to authority, even when obeying causes them severe internal conflict and requires them to harm an innocent person. Since the participants were a cross-section of ordinary men and displayed such distress, the obedience could not plausibly be attributed to individual cruelty or abnormality. The cause lay instead in the situation: the presence of a legitimate authority in a prestigious setting, issuing commands that escalated in small, graded steps.
Milgram identified several situational factors that fostered obedience: the legitimacy of the authority (a scientist at Yale), the sense that the experimenter, not the teacher, bore responsibility for the outcome, the gradual, incremental nature of the shocks (each only 15 volts more than the last, making it hard to identify a moment to stop), and the novelty of the situation, which left participants without a script for how to resist. He later theorised an "agentic state", in which a person stops seeing themselves as an autonomous agent and instead as an instrument carrying out another's wishes — though the agentic-state theory is a later elaboration rather than part of the 1963 report.
It is important to read Milgram's conclusion precisely, because it is easy to over-state. He did not conclude that people are inherently cruel, nor that the participants secretly wished to harm the learner; the visible distress of the obedient participants rules that out. Nor did he conclude that everyone obeys — a full 35% did not. His conclusion is narrower and more unsettling: that under the right situational conditions, ordinary people who do not want to inflict harm nonetheless will, because the pressure of a legitimate authority, combined with the displacement of responsibility and the incremental structure of the task, overrides their own moral reluctance. The drama of the study lies exactly in this gap between what participants wanted (to stop) and what they did (continue). This is why Milgram is such powerful evidence on the situational side of the individual–situational debate: it is not that the participants lacked conscience, but that the situation defeated it.
The incremental structure of the shocks deserves particular emphasis, because it is one of the most psychologically important features of the design and a frequent focus of exam questions. Each shock was only one 15-volt step above the last, so at no single point was there an obvious, dramatic threshold at which to refuse. A participant who had given 195 volts had no principled reason to balk at 210; the "foot-in-the-door" logic of the escalating commitment made each successive step feel continuous with the one before. Had the experimenter asked participants to deliver 450 volts immediately, it is highly likely far fewer would have complied. The graded procedure is therefore not a mere procedural detail but part of the explanation for the obedience — a point that distinguishes a strong answer from one that merely recites the 65% figure.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 9 lessons in this course.