What cover story were participants told when they arrived at Milgram's lab?
A: They were told they were participating in a study on punishment and learning
B: They were told they were testing the memory ability of the experimenter
C: They were told they were assessing the tolerance of electric shock in adults
D: They were told they were participating in a leadership and group decision-making study
Correct: They were told they were participating in a study on punishment and learning
Participants (recruited via a newspaper advertisement offering $4.50 for an hour of their time) were told the study was about the effects of punishment on learning. A confederate (introduced as another participant) was assigned the "Learner" role and strapped to a chair with electrodes. The real participant became the "Teacher," tasked with administering electric shocks of increasing voltage for each wrong answer the Learner gave on a memory task. In reality, the shocks were entirely simulated — the Learner's pain responses were pre-recorded — and the rigged drawing that decided roles ensured the real participant was always the Teacher.
In the baseline condition of the Milgram experiment, what percentage of participants administered the maximum 450-volt shock?
A: Around 5%
B: Around 35%
C: Around 65%
D: Around 85%
Correct: Around 65%
In the baseline "remote" condition — where the Learner was in a separate room and could only be heard through the wall — 65% of participants (26 out of 40) administered the full 450-volt shock labelled "XXX." Before the study, Milgram had surveyed Yale psychology students and psychiatrists, who predicted that fewer than 1–3% of participants would go to maximum voltage. The actual result was shocking to the scientific community. All 40 participants went at least as far as 300 volts, at which point the Learner made loud protests about his heart condition and demanded to be released.
Which experimental variation produced the LOWEST level of obedience in Milgram's series of studies?
A: When the authority figure gave instructions over the telephone rather than in person
B: When the participant had to physically press the Learner's hand onto a shock plate
C: When the experiment was conducted in a run-down commercial building rather than Yale
D: When the Learner mentioned having a heart condition before the experiment began
Correct: When the participant had to physically press the Learner's hand onto a shock plate
When Milgram introduced the "touch-proximity" condition — in which the participant had to physically hold the Learner's hand onto a shock plate to administer the shock — obedience fell to around 30%. This illustrated that the physical immediacy of the victim dramatically reduces compliance. In contrast, when the authority figure was remote (giving instructions by phone), obedience dropped to about 20%, and participants often cheated by administering lower voltages than instructed. Moving the experiment to a less prestigious location (a commercial building in Bridgeport) produced a modest reduction (to ~47%), but proximity to the victim had the largest effect on obedience rates.
Milgram used the concept of the "agentic state" to explain obedience. What does this term mean?
A: A state in which the individual acts according to their own moral values and sense of personal responsibility
B: A state in which the individual sees themselves as an agent of an authority, shifting moral responsibility upward
C: A state of heightened anxiety that makes individuals more susceptible to aggressive commands
D: A temporary state of cognitive dissociation induced by the experimental procedure
Correct: A state in which the individual sees themselves as an agent of an authority, shifting moral responsibility upward
In his 1974 book Obedience to Authority, Milgram proposed that individuals shift between two fundamental states. In the "autonomous state," a person acts according to their own values and accepts personal responsibility for their actions. In the "agentic state," however, a person views themselves as an agent executing the will of a legitimate authority, and responsibility for outcomes is perceived to reside with that authority rather than with themselves. This shift — facilitated by cues of legitimate authority, institutional context, and incremental escalation — helps explain why participants continued to administer shocks while expressing genuine distress, rationalising that "it's not my fault if something happens."
Which factor did NOT significantly reduce obedience in Milgram's variations?
A: Moving the experiment from Yale University to an office building
B: Having two peers refuse to continue before the critical participant's turn
C: Having the experimenter leave the room and give instructions by phone
D: Changing the participant's role from Teacher to assistant who reads the questions
Correct: Moving the experiment from Yale University to an office building
Relocating the experiment from Yale University (a prestigious institution lending authority to the procedure) to an ordinary commercial building in Bridgeport did reduce obedience — but only modestly, from 65% to approximately 47%. In contrast, peer rebellion was the most powerful variable: when two confederate "teachers" refused to continue at 150 and 210 volts respectively, obedience in the remaining participant dropped to just 10%. Receiving instructions by phone (remote authority) reduced obedience to about 20%. These variations show that while institutional prestige contributes, the presence of disobedient peers and the immediacy of authority have larger effects.
What were the main ethical criticisms of the Milgram experiment?
A: The results were not replicated, making the original claims unreliable
B: Participants were deceived, experienced significant psychological distress, and could not give fully informed consent
C: The study was funded by military organisations, creating a conflict of interest
D: The "electric shocks" were real, meaning participants received physical harm
Correct: Participants were deceived, experienced significant psychological distress, and could not give fully informed consent
The Milgram experiment drew intense criticism from Diana Baumrind and others on three ethical grounds: (1) Deception — participants were told they were in a learning study, not an obedience study, and the Learner was a confederate; (2) Psychological harm — many participants showed extreme stress (trembling, sweating, stuttering, nervous laughter), and some experienced lasting distress; (3) Failure of informed consent — participants could not consent to a study whose true nature was concealed. Milgram defended the study by noting that debriefing interviews and one-year follow-ups found that 84% of participants reported they were glad to have participated. He also argued the knowledge gained about human nature justified the temporary distress. The controversy contributed to the development of formal research ethics guidelines and IRB oversight.
Jerry Burger (2009) conducted a partial replication of the Milgram experiment with modifications. What was the main finding and change in procedure?
A: Participants in the 21st century showed much lower obedience (~20%), suggesting society has changed
B: The study was stopped at 150 volts; obedience rates were similar to Milgram's original, around 70%
C: Participants showed similar obedience to Milgram's baseline, and the study was stopped at 150 volts
D: Burger found obedience was higher in women than in men, reversing Milgram's findings
Correct: Participants showed similar obedience to Milgram's baseline, and the study was stopped at 150 volts
Burger (2009) at Santa Clara University replicated Milgram's baseline procedure but stopped at 150 volts — the point at which the Learner first demanded to be released — to avoid causing participants significant distress. He found that 70% of participants continued past 150 volts (when the experimenter prompted them to continue), remarkably close to Milgram's 82.5% rate at that same voltage level. Burger also screened out participants showing high anxiety or prior knowledge of the original study. The findings confirmed that the situational pressures identified by Milgram remain operative in contemporary samples, suggesting that what Milgram observed was not a historical artifact of 1960s American culture.
Which real-world event most directly inspired Stanley Milgram to design the obedience experiment?
A: The Korean War, during which American prisoners of war were reportedly "brainwashed" by captors
B: The trial of Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi official who claimed he was "just following orders"
C: The Kitty Genovese murder, in which bystanders failed to intervene despite witnessing an attack
D: The McCarthy hearings, which demonstrated how institutional pressure could silence individuals
Correct: The trial of Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi official who claimed he was "just following orders"
Milgram was directly inspired by the 1961 trial of Adolf Eichmann, a senior Nazi administrator who had coordinated the logistics of the Holocaust. Eichmann's defence — that he was merely following orders — raised profound questions about the relationship between individual moral agency and institutional authority. Philosopher Hannah Arendt, covering the trial for The New Yorker, famously coined the phrase "the banality of evil" to describe how ordinary, bureaucratic compliance — not sadism — could enable mass atrocity. Milgram designed the obedience studies to test whether the psychological mechanisms Arendt identified could be observed under controlled laboratory conditions. His results suggested they could.
The Milgram Obedience Experiment
What cover story were participants told when they arrived at Milgram's lab?
About this quiz
In 1961 and 1962, Stanley Milgram at Yale University conducted a series of experiments that would permanently alter how psychologists think about human obedience to authority. Inspired by the Nuremberg trials and Hannah Arendt's concept of the "banality of evil," Milgram wanted to understand how ordinary people could participate in atrocities under the command of authority figures.
His findings were disturbing: the majority of ordinary participants administered what they believed to be potentially lethal electric shocks to a stranger simply because an experimenter in a lab coat told them to continue. The study exposed the fragile line between ordinary life and extreme harm.