mistake.club2nd Opinion ↗
Back to the archive

The encyclopedia · R&D & Science · Strategic decision · 1961–1973

Stanley Milgram made subjects believe they were killing someone — for science

Milgram's 1961 obedience study found 65% of subjects gave apparently fatal shocks. The findings reshaped psychology — and so did the ethics crisis.

Yale University

What happened

The Milgram experiment, at Yale from August 1961, is one of psychology's most controversial studies. Inspired by Eichmann's trial, Milgram investigated how ordinary people obey orders to harm others. Participants were recruited via newspaper ad for a 'memory study,' assigned as 'teacher,' and told to administer shocks to a 'learner' — an actor — for wrong answers. The shock machine ranged from 15 volts to 450 volts ('XXX'), and the learner simulated distress: pounding at 315 volts, then falling silent at 330 volts.

Every participant administered at least 300 volts, and 65% — 26 of 40 — went all the way to 450 volts, the maximum lethal-looking level. The experimenter used scripted prods: 'The experiment requires you to continue' and 'You have no other choice, you must go on.' Subjects showed extreme distress: sweating, trembling, nervous laughter, and protest. Yet most continued. Milgram published the results in 1963, and they became an instant sensation — and an instant ethical lightning rod.

Psychologist Diana Baumrind led the ethical critique, arguing that Milgram had inflicted severe emotional distress on subjects under false pretenses, with no meaningful right to withdraw. Critics pointed to lasting harm: subjects had been made to believe they had nearly killed someone. The controversy forced a fundamental revision of the American Psychological Association's ethical standards in 1973 and contributed to the development of institutional review boards. Milgram defended the work as necessary for understanding obedience, but the ethical shadow never fully lifted.

Subsequent replications — including Jerry Burger's 2006 partial replication (70% obedience) and a 2010 French documentary — have confirmed that the basic obedience finding holds across contexts. But the Milgram experiment's primary legacy may be procedural: it reshaped what researchers are allowed to do in the name of knowledge.

Why it happened

  • Milgram chose a research design that used extreme deception — telling subjects they were administering real shocks to another person — without adequate safeguards for their psychological welfare.
  • The experiment's prod protocol pressured subjects to continue even when they were in visible distress, removing the practical ability to withdraw that ethical guidelines require.
  • Yale University, as the host institution, approved and oversaw a study that inflicted severe emotional trauma on 40 subjects — every one of whom believed they might have killed someone.
  • The controversy triggered a decade of ethics reform in psychology, and the experiment remains a textbook example of the tension between scientific discovery and participant welfare.
What it costAPA ethics code rewritten; Yale's reputation damagedcostly

The lesson

When a researcher pursues dramatic findings without adequate ethical safeguards, the cost to the field can outweigh the contribution — and reshape the rules for everyone who follows.

Aftermath

The APA revised its ethical standards in 1973, substantially tightening requirements for informed consent, debriefing, and the right to withdraw. The Milgram experiment remains a core case in research ethics education. Attempts to fully replicate the study with modern safeguards have produced broadly similar obedience rates (70% in a 2006 partial replication). The experiment itself is now prohibited under the ethical standards it helped create.

Sources

spotted an error? The club wants to know.

Comments · 0

    Sign in to join the comments.

    More like this

    2010–2017 · R&D & Science

    Amy Cuddy's power posing was a TED talk phenomenon — and the science collapsed

    Millions wasted on ineffective corporate training
    2011–2016 · R&D & Science

    A respected psychologist published evidence of ESP — the replication crisis was born

    Reputational damage to psychology; trust lost in peer review
    1998–2016 · R&D & Science

    Ego depletion was psychology's most famous willpower theory — and it failed to replicate

    Millions on willpower and decision fatigue programs

    Somewhere, someone solved the problem this company failed at. 2nd Opinion →