- Agentic state
- Milgram's account of the psychological mechanism behind extreme obedience. When entering a hierarchical system with a legitimate authority, individuals shift from an "autonomous state" — in which they act on their own values — to an "agentic state," in which they perceive themselves as instruments of the authority's will and transfer moral responsibility upward. The agentic shift explains why participants continued while visibly distressed: they felt responsible to the authority, not for the consequences.
- Legitimate authority
- An authority whose right to issue commands is recognised by the person receiving them. In Milgram's study, the experimenter wore a lab coat and gave instructions in a Yale laboratory — all markers of institutional legitimacy that conferred authority independent of any actual expertise. The power of legitimate authority is that it activates the agentic state: people defer to roles and institutions, not just to specific individuals.
- Milgram's obedience experiment
- Participants were instructed by an authority figure (experimenter in a lab coat) to administer escalating electric shocks to a confederate learner. Despite the learner's expressed pain and demands to stop, 65% of participants administered the maximum 450-volt shock. The study systematically varied victim proximity, authority proximity, and peer behaviour to isolate the situational determinants of obedience.
- Gradual commitment (foot-in-the-door)
- Milgram's procedure increased shock levels in 15-volt increments. Each small step felt like a minimal departure from the last rather than a large independent decision. By the time participants reached dangerous voltage levels, they had already crossed many smaller lines — and the principle of behavioural consistency made each next step feel continuous with what had already been done. The design exploited commitment escalation.
- Dispositional vs situational explanations
- Before Milgram's study, the dominant explanation for atrocities like the Holocaust was dispositional: perpetrators were assumed to be sadistic, deranged, or uniquely cruel. Milgram's situational findings challenged this: ordinary, mentally healthy Americans demonstrated the same pattern of obedience under comparable conditions. The study is a foundational demonstration of the power of situational factors over character in explaining extreme behaviour.
- Ethical issues in obedience research
- Milgram's study involved extensive deception (participants believed shocks were real), inflicted genuine psychological distress (trembling, sweating, fits of nervous laughter), and did not obtain fully informed consent. The study catalysed the development of ethical codes in social science, including the requirement for fully informed consent, the right to withdraw, and the obligation to debrief. Burger's 2009 partial replication — stopping participants at 150 volts — attempted to balance scientific value against ethical requirements.