Obedience to Authority

by Stanley Milgram

  The experiments were conducted in a three-room office suite in a somewhat rundown commercial building located in the downtown shopping area. The laboratory was sparsely furnished, though clean, and marginally respectable in appearance. When subjects inquired about professional affiliations, they were informed only that we were a private firm conducting research for industry.

  Some subjects displayed skepticism concerning the motives of the Bridgeport experimenter. One man gave us a written account of the thoughts he experienced at the control board:

  . . . Should I quit this damn test? Maybe he passed out? What dopes we were not to check up on this deal. How do we know that these guys are legit? No furniture, bare walls, no telephone. We could of called the Police up or the Better Business Bureau. I learned a lesson tonight. How do I know that Mr. Williams [the experimenter] is telling the truth? . . . I wish I knew how many volts a person could take before lapsing into unconsciousness. . . .

  Another subject stated:

  I questioned on my arrival my own judgment [about coming]. I had doubts as to the legitimacy of the operation and the consequences of participation. I felt it was a heartless way to conduct memory or learning processes on human beings and certainly dangerous without the presence of a medical doctor.

  There was no noticeable reduction in tension for the Bridgeport subjects. And the subjects’ estimation of the amount of pain felt by the victim was slightly, though not significantly, higher than in the Yale study.

  A failure to obtain complete obedience in Bridgeport would indicate that the extreme compliance found in New Haven subjects was tied closely to the background authority of Yale University; if a large proportion of the subjects remained fully obedient, very different conclusions would be called for.

  As it turned out, the level of obedience in Bridgeport, although somewhat reduced, was not significantly lower than that obtained at Yale. A large proportion of the Bridgeport subjects were fully obedient to the experimenter’s commands (48 percent of the Bridgeport subjects delivered the maximum shock versus 65 percent in the corresponding condition at Yale), as Table 3 shows.

  How are these findings to be interpreted? It is possible that if commands of a potentially harmful or destructive sort are to be perceived as legitimate they must occur within some sort of institutional structure. But it is clear from the study that it need not be a particularly reputable or distinguished institution. The Bridgeport experiments were conducted by an unimpressive firm lacking any credentials. The laboratory was set up in a respectable office building with its title listed in the building directory; otherwise there was no evidence of benevolence or competence. It is possible that the category of institution, judged according to its professed function, rather than its qualitative position within that category, wins our compliance. Persons deposit money in elegant, but also in seedy-looking banks, without giving much thought to the differences in security they offer. Similarly, our subjects may consider one laboratory to be as competent as another, so long as it is a scientific laboratory.

  It would be valuable to pursue the investigation in contexts that go even further than the Bridgeport study in denying institutional support to the experimenter. It is possible that beyond a certain point obedience would disappear completely. But that point was not reached in the Bridgeport office: almost half the subjects obeyed the experimenter fully.

  Experiment 11: Subject Free to Choose Shock Level

  In the experiments described thus far the subject has acted in response to command, and we have assumed that the command is the effective cause of his action. But this conclusion is not warranted until we have performed a vital experimental control. For it is possible that the command is superfluous, that it simply corresponds to what the subject would do on his own.

  Indeed, one theoretical interpretation of the behavior holds that men harbor deeply aggressive instincts continually pressing for expression and that the experiment provides institutional justification for the release of these impulses. According to this view, if a person is placed in a situation where he has complete power over another individual, whom he may punish as much as he likes, all that is sadistic and bestial in man comes to the fore. The impulse to shock the victim is seen to flow from the potent aggressive tendencies, which are part of the motivational life of the individual, and the experiment, because it provides social legitimation, simply opens the door to their expression.

  It becomes vital, therefore, to compare the subjects’ performance when they are under orders and when they are allowed to choose the shock levels.

  Fig. 11. Mean shock on each trial when subjects are free to choose levels. (A critical trial refers to each occasion when the learner errs and incurs a shock. There are thirty critical trials in the course of a laboratory hour.)

  The procedure was identical to that used in Experiment 5 except that the teacher was told that he was free to select any shock level on any of the trials. (The experimenter took pains to point out that the teacher could use the highest levels on the generator, the lowest, any in between, or any combination of levels.) Each subject proceeded for thirty critical trials. The learner’s protests were coordinated to standard shock levels, his first grunt coming at shock level 5, his first vehement protest at level 10. The results of the experiment are shown in Table 3.

  The average (mean) shocks used across the thirty critical trials are shown in Figure 11, with an over-all average of 3.6. (It is to be recalled that the victim indicated no signs of discomfort at all until shock level 5.) We may also consider the maximum shock delivered by each subject (even if he used it only once and at any point in his performance). Three subjects limited their shocks to the very lowest on the board, 28 went no higher than the first indication of discomfort, and 38 did not go beyond the point where the learner vehemently protested (shock level 10). Two subjects provided the exception, administering the 25th and the 30th shock levels. But the over-all result was that the great majority of subjects delivered the very lowest shocks to the victim when the choice was left up to them.

  We must always keep this result in mind in interpreting the meaning of these experiments. It is not enough to say that the situation provided a setting in which it was acceptable for the subject to hurt another person. This setting remained the same in the present experiment, and, by and large, subjects were not inclined to have the victim suffer. Insofar as the experiments tell us something about human nature, the revelation on how men act toward others when they are on their own is here. Whatever leads to shocking the victim at the highest level cannot be explained by autonomously generated aggression but needs to be explained by the transformation of behavior that comes about through obedience to orders.

  CHAPTER

  7

  Individuals Confront Authority II

  Let us now consider the performance of several subjects who participated in the variations just described.

  Fred Prozi, Unemployed (in Experiment 5)

  The subject is about fifty years old, dressed in a jacket but no tie; he has a good-natured, if slightly dissolute, appearance. He employs working-class grammar and strikes one as a rather ordinary fellow.

  He begins the experiment calmly but becomes increasingly tense as the experiment proceeds. After administering the 180-volt shock, he pivots around in his chair and, shaking his head, addresses the experimenter in agitated tones:

  SUBJECT: I can’t stand it. I’m not going to kill that man in there. You hear him hollering?

  EXPERIMENTER: As I told you before, the shocks may be painful, but—

  SUBJECT: But he’s hollering. He can’t stand it. What’s going to happen to him?

  EXPERIMENTER (his voice is patient, matter-of-fact); The experiment requires that you continue, Teacher.

  SUBJECT: Aaah, but, unh, I’m not going to get that man sick in there . . . know what I mean?

  EXPERIMENTER: Whether the learner likes it or not, we must go on, through all the word pairs.

  SUBJECT: I refuse
to take the responsibility. He’s in there hollering!

  EXPERIMENTER: It’s absolutely essential that you continue, Teacher.

  SUBJECT (indicating the unused questions): There’s too many left here; I mean, Geez, if he gets them wrong, there’s too many of them left. I mean who’s going to take the responsibility if anything happens to that gentleman?

  EXPERIMENTER: I’m responsible for anything that happens to him. Continue, please.

  SUBJECT: All right. (Consults list of words) The next one’s “Slow—walk, truck, dance, music.” Answer, please. (A buzzing sound indicates the learner has signaled his answer.) Wrong. A hundred and ninety-five volts. “Dance.”

  LEARNER (yelling): Let me out of here. My heart’s bothering me! (Teacher looks at experimenter.)

  EXPERIMENTER: Continue, please.

  LEARNER (screaming): Let me out of here, you have no right to keep me here. Let me out of here, let me out, my heart’s bothering me. let me out! (Subject shakes head, pats the table nervously.)

  SUBJECT: You see, he’s hollering. Hear that? Gee, I don’t know.

  EXPERIMENTER: The experiment requires . . .

  SUBJECT (interrupting): I know it does, sir, but I mean—hunh! He don’t know what he’s getting in for. He’s up to 195 volts! (Experiment continues, through 210 volts, 225 volts, 240 volts, 255 volts, 270 volts, at which point the teacher, with evident relief, runs out of word-pair questions.)

  EXPERIMENTER: You’ll have to go back to the beginning of that page and go through them again until he’s learned them all correctly.

  SUBJECT: Aw, no. I’m not going to kill that man. You mean I’ve got to keep going up with the scale? No sir. He’s hollering in there. I’m not going to give him 450 volts.

  EXPERIMENTER: The experiment requires that you go on.

  SUBJECT: I know it does, but that man is hollering in there, sir.

  EXPERIMENTER(same matter-of-fact tone): As I said before, although the shocks may be painful . . .

  SUBJECT (interrupting): Awwww. He—he—he’s yelling in there.

  EXPERIMENTER: Start with “Blue,” please, at the top of the page. Continue, please, Teacher. Just go ahead.

  SUBJECT (concentrating intently on list of words in front of him, as if to shut everything else out): “Blue—boy, girl, grass, hat.” (Buzz indicates answer.) Correct. “Night—day, sky, job, chair.” (Buzz) Wrong. The answer is “day.” Two hundred and eighty-five volts.

  LEARNER: Ohhuhhoohhh!

  EXPERIMENTER: Continue, please.

  SUBJECT: “Fat—man, lady, tub, neck.” Answer, please. (Buzz) Wrong. The answer is “neck.” Three hundred volts.

  LEARNER: Ohhh. I absolutely refuse to answer any more. (Shouting urgently, now) Let me out of here. You can’t hold me here. Get me out. Get—me—out—of—here.

  EXPERIMENTER: Continue. The next word is “Green,” please.

  SUBJECT: “Green—grass, hat, ink, apple.” (Nothing happens. No answering buzz. Just gloomy silence.)

  SUBJECT: I don’t think he is going to answer.

  EXPERIMENTER: If the learner doesn’t answer in a reasonable time, about four or five seconds, consider the answer wrong. And follow the same procedures you have been doing for wrong answers. Say, “Wrong,” tell him the number of volts, give him the punishment, read him the correct answer. Continue, please.

  SUBJECT: “Green—grass, hat, ink, apple.” Answer, please. (More silence. Subject just sits there.)

  EXPERIMENTER: Go on with the procedure, please, Teacher.

  SUBJECT: Three hundred and fifteen volts. The answer is “ink.”

  LEARNER: Ohh. Ooohh.

  SUBJECT (relieved to hear response): Next one . . .

  LEARNER: I absolutely refuse to answer.

  SUBJECT: You got to. You get a shock if you don’t answer. (Experiment continues with learner refusing to answer, and, finally, failing even to grunt or groan. At 375 volts, the subject stands up.)

  SUBJECT; I think something’s happened to that fellow in there. I don’t get no answer. He was hollering at less voltage. Can’t you check in and see if he’s all right, please?

  EXPERIMENTER (with same detached calm): Not once we’ve started. Please continue, Teacher.

  SUBJECT (sits down, sighs deeply): “Cool—day, shade, water, paint.” Answer, please. Are you all right in there? Are you all right?

  EXPERIMENTER: Please continue, Teacher. Continue, please. (Subject pushes lever.)

  SUBJECT (swiveling around in his chair): Something’s happened to that man in there. (Swiveling back) Next one. “Low—dollar, necklace, moon, paint.” (Turning around again) Something’s happened to that man in there. You better check in on him, sir. He won’t answer or nothing.

  EXPERIMENTER: Continue. Go on, please.

  SUBJECT: You accept all responsibility?

  EXPERIMENTER: The responsibility is mine. Correct. Please go on. (Subject returns to his list, starts running through words as rapidly as he can read them, works through to 450 volts.)

  SUBJECT: That’s that.

  EXPERIMENTER: Continue using the 450-volt switch for each wrong answer. Continue, please.

  SUBJECT: But I don’t get no anything!

  EXPERIMENTER: Please continue. The next word is “white.”

  SUBJECT: Don’t you think you should look in on him, please?

  EXPERIMENTER: Not once we’ve started the experiment.

  SUBJECT: But what if something has happened to the man?

  EXPERIMENTER: The experiment requires that you continue. Go on, please.

  SUBJECT: Don’t the man’s health mean anything?

  EXPERIMENTER: Whether the learner likes it or not . . .

  SUBJECT: What if he’s dead in there? (Gestures toward the room with the electric chair.) I mean, he told me he can’t stand the shock, sir. I don’t mean to be rude, but I think you should look in on him. All you have to do is look in on him. All you have to do is look in the door. I don’t get no answer, no noise. Something might have happened to the gentleman in there, sir.

  EXPERIMENTER: We must continue. Go on, please.

  SUBJECT: You mean keep giving him what? Four-hundred fifty volts, what he’s got now?

  EXPERIMENTER: That’s correct. Continue. The next word is “white.”

  SUBJECT (now at a furious pace): “White—cloud, horse, rock, house.” Answer, please. The answer is “horse.” Four-hundred and fifty volts. (Administers shock.) Next word, “Bag—paint, music, clown, girl.” The answer is “paint.” Four-hundred and fifty volts. (Administers shock.) Next word is “Short—sentence, movie . . .”

  EXPERIMENTER: Excuse me, Teacher. We’ll have to discontinue the experiment.

  The subject’s performance more or less speaks for itself, but we may note a few points. First, despite his numerous, agitated objections, his continuous and persistent dissent, he continues to administer the shocks as ordered by the experimenter. There is, thus, a dissociation between words and action. Second, by no stretch of the imagination can it be said that this man wanted to administer shocks to the learner. To the contrary, it was a painful act for him, one which came about because of his relationship to the experimenter. Third, we note that “responsibility” is an issue important to the subject, and it is only when the experimenter explicitly accepts responsibility that, after several seconds of hesitation, the subject is able to continue. Finally, the language employed by the participant is revealing. Despite the considerable tension of the situation, a tone of courtesy and deference is meticulously maintained. The subject’s objections strike us as inordinately weak and inappropriate in view of the events in which he is immersed. He thinks he is killing someone, yet he uses the language of the tea table.

  Karen Dontz, Nurse (in Experiment 8)

  Karen Dontz describes herself as a forty-year-old housewife who for the past six years has worked part time as a registered nurse. Her husband is a plumber. She is Catholic and her mother was born in Czechoslovakia. Mrs. Dontz has an unusually c
asual, slow-paced way of speaking, and her tone expresses constant humility; it is as if every assertion carries the emotional message: “I’m just a very ordinary person, don’t expect a lot from me.” Physically, she resembles Shirley Booth in the film Come Back, Little Sheba.

  Throughout the experiment she is nervous.

  At 225 volts, she turns to the experimenter, stating in a highly tentative voice designed not to offend, “I hesitate to press these.”

  When he instructs her to follow the procedure, she does so without further comment. But before administering the 345-volt shock, she points to the label, DANGER on the shock generator.

  The experimenter remarks that although the shocks are painful they cause no permanent tissue damage. She accepts the experimenter’s comment saying, “I’ll continue, providing it’s not dangerous.” She sits on the edge of her seat, but her voice remains casual when reading the word pairs. When no sound is heard from the learner, she queries, “Do I go right to the end, sir? I hope there’s nothing wrong with him there.”

  She begins to mumble to herself inaudibly. When the experimenter instructs her to continue using the 450-volt switch, she says in tones that are both concerned but exceedingly humble, “What if there’s something wrong with the man, sir?”

  But she proceeds.

  In the interview she is very slow in her responses, and even after she is told that the learner received no shocks, she still considers the experiment to be one of the effect of punishment on learning. She emphasizes that she did what the experimenter told her to do and seems satisfied with her own compliance. She states she was nervous because she knows that 210 volts (sic) is household current and “most people can be electrocuted with that.” She emphasizes she was more nervous here than in the hospital because “in the hospital I know what rights I have; here, I didn’t know.”

  INTERVIEWER: Did you think of stopping at one time?