The Milgram Experiment: Executioners by Order—How Obedience to Authority Removes Responsibility

The Milgram experiment with electric shocks is one of the most famous studies in the history of psychology. Its notoriety comes from the uncomfortable truth it reveals: many people are willing to harm others if a more authoritative figure assumes responsibility. Like the famous Stanford Prison Experiment, it exposes the darker side of humanity and has faced criticism for ethical reasons. Over the years, researchers have attempted to replicate and expand on Milgram’s findings, uncovering new insights into the original study.

How the Experiment Worked

Milgram selected healthy young adults from the middle class with no criminal records or mental health issues. Participants were told the experiment was about the effect of pain on memory. Each participant played the role of a “teacher,” helping a “learner” memorize pairs of words. The “learner” was actually an actor connected to a machine that only pretended to deliver electric shocks.

To maintain the illusion, a rigged drawing assigned the actor as the learner. The teacher administered a test, and for every mistake, was instructed to deliver an electric shock, increasing the voltage by 15 volts each time, starting at 15V and going up to a maximum of 450V—twice the voltage of a standard household outlet, enough to cause serious harm if real.

The procedure was standardized: the learner gave one correct answer for every three mistakes. At 150V, the learner would ask to stop, becoming increasingly distressed, complaining of heart pain, and eventually screaming in agony. If the teacher hesitated, the experimenter would insist, “It is absolutely essential that you continue.”

Results and Further Hypotheses

Before the experiment, Milgram asked students and colleagues to predict how many participants would go all the way. Most guessed no more than 20%. In reality, out of 40 participants, 26 went to the maximum voltage. Only one stopped before 300V, and a few others dropped out at higher voltages.

Milgram tested several additional hypotheses:

• Obedience to authority: When the experiment was moved from Yale to a commercial building in Bridgeport, 48% still went to the end.
• Gender differences: When women were tested, their behavior was similar to men’s.
• Sadism: Participants were screened for mental health and personality; results showed they were no different from the general population.
• Presence of authority: When the experimenter left the room, only 20% continued, suggesting the physical presence of authority increased obedience.

Milgram’s article was published in 1963 in the Journal of Abnormal Psychology. In 1973, the American Psychological Association banned experiments involving deliberate deception. Despite this, Milgram’s 1974 book Obedience to Authority became highly popular.

Background and Milgram’s Biography

Stanley Milgram was born in 1933 to Jewish immigrants from Europe. He studied at Queens College in New York and completed graduate work at Harvard, later working at Yale and Princeton. His mentor was Solomon Asch, known for research on conformity.

Milgram also conducted other notable studies, such as the “small world” experiment (the “six degrees of separation” concept) and the “lost letter” experiment, which tested whether people would mail a found letter, even if it appeared to be from a suspicious source.

In the 1970s, Milgram asked students to request seats from strangers on the subway; 56% of passengers complied. The famous shock experiment was inspired by Milgram’s interest in how ordinary Germans became executioners during WWII, particularly after the trial of Adolf Eichmann, who claimed he was “just following orders.” Milgram, himself Jewish, wondered if the Holocaust could happen elsewhere and hypothesized that obedience to authority was a key factor.

Theories of Obedience

Milgram developed two main theories:

• Conformity theory: Based on Asch’s work, it suggests that in crisis situations, people without experience tend to follow group hierarchy.
• Agentic state theory: People see themselves as instruments for another’s will and no longer feel responsible for their actions. This shift is critical for obedience.

Milgram explained his results with the agentic state theory: people obey orders because they transfer responsibility to the authority figure. Later, this was criticized and replaced by the “engaged followership” theory, which argues that people commit harmful acts when they believe they are serving a greater good—such as science or ideology.

Archival Research and Criticism

American and German sociologists Matthew Hollander and Jason Turowetz analyzed Yale’s archives of the Milgram experiment. They found that not all participants believed they were causing real harm; some suspected it was staged. This undermines the engaged followership theory, as only 25% mentioned serving science as a motive, while 60% said they were simply following instructions, and 10% cited contractual obligations.

Furthermore, 72% of those who obeyed admitted they didn’t believe the shocks were real, and experimenters had told them the shocks wouldn’t harm the learner. This suggests participants’ motives were more complex than previously thought.

Australian psychologist Gina Perry’s 2013 book Behind the Shock Machine reached similar conclusions after reviewing Yale’s audio archives. Many participants realized the experiment was fake, and some wrote to Milgram afterward expressing their suspicions. Others doubted that Yale would conduct such inhumane research or that a random volunteer with heart problems would be used.

Perry also found ethical violations: most participants were not properly debriefed, causing distress. Additionally, Milgram exaggerated the uniformity of the procedure; recordings showed experimenters sometimes pressured participants, blurring the line between obedience and independent action.

Recent Research on Obedience and Responsibility

In 2016, researchers from the UK, Belgium, and the US conducted a new, modified experiment (published in Current Biology) using only female participants. In one part, participants could choose to administer shocks or fines to each other for a reward; in another, they had to follow the experimenter’s orders. The shocks were set above each participant’s pain threshold but were still tolerable.

Participants were asked to estimate the time between pressing a button and hearing a sound, a measure of perceived control and responsibility. When following orders, the interval felt longer, indicating a reduced sense of responsibility. Brain activity also showed less processing of outcomes when actions were ordered rather than chosen freely.

Lead researcher Patrick Haggard (UCL Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience) explained: “Our results show that people who obey orders may actually feel less responsible for their actions—not just claim it. People seem to experience some distance from the outcome when following instructions. It’s important to distinguish between subjective feelings of responsibility and objective facts.”

The Experiment’s Relevance Today

The Milgram experiment has inspired plays, films, TV shows, and songs (such as Peter Gabriel’s “Milgram’s 37,” referencing the 37 out of 40 who obeyed). Interest in the study surged after the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prison scandals. Jerry Burger replicated the experiment for ABC News, and the results were featured in the series Our Inner Evil.

Today, the Milgram experiment is a staple example in psychology and business courses, illustrating the dangers of blind obedience. But its findings have broader applications:

• People can be taught to feel more responsible, helping them resist inappropriate or harmful orders.
• If those who give orders feel more responsible, society can better manage the distribution of responsibility.

If more people take responsibility and understand its limits, society could improve. Moving from “human resource management” to conscious cooperation is an ideal worth striving for—even small steps in this direction would benefit everyone.