Obedience

• AO1 - baseline procedure

  • Milgram designed a baseline procedure to assess obedience levels.
  • This procedure was adapted in later variations by Milgram.
• AO1 - participants

  • Milgram’s participants were 40 American men from Connecticut.
  • They were volunteers recruited through a newspaper advert.
• AO1 - procedure

  • The learner was strapped into a chair in a separate room and wired with electrodes.
  • The learner has to remember pairs of words and each time he made an error, the teacher (real participant) delivered a stronger ‘electric shock‘ (fake).
• AO1 - shocks and prods

  • The shocks increased in 15-volt steps up to 450 volts.
  • If the teacher wished to stop, the experimenter gave a verbal ‘prod’ to continue.
• AO1 - findings

  • Milgram found that 12.5% of participants stopped at 300 volts and 65% continued to 450 volts (highest level), showing they were fully obedient.
  • Milgram also collected qualitative data including observation, participants showed extreme signs of tension and 3 had ‘full-blown uncontrollable seizures’.
• AO1 - psychology students

  • Before the study, Milgram asked 14 psychology students to predict the participants’ behaviour.
  • The students estimated no more than 3% would continue to 450 volts, showing the findings were unexpected.
• AO1 - conclusion

  Milgram concluded that we obey orders even when they may cause harm to someone else.
• AO3 - ✔️replications have supported Milgram’s research findings 


  • In a French TV documentary of a game show, contestants were paid to give (fake) electric shocks to other participants (actors).
  • 80% of participants gave the maximum shock of 460 volts to an apparently unconscious man.
  • Their behaviour was identical to Milgram’s participants e.g. signs of anxiety.
  • Supports Milgram’s original findings about obedience to authority.
• AO3 - ✖️study lacked internal validity


  • Orne and Holland argued that participants behaved as they did as they didn’t believe the shocks were real, so they were ‘play-acting’.
  • Perry’s research supported this. She listened to tapes of Milgram’s participants and reported that only about half of participants believed the shocks were real.
  • Suggests that participants may have been responding to demand characteristics.
• AO3 - counterpoint; study lacked internal validity

  • Sheridan and King conducted a study using a procedure like Milgram’s.
  • Participants gave real shocks to a puppy in response to orders from an experimenter.
  • Despite the real distress of the animal, 54% of men and 100% of women gave what they thought was a fatal shock.
  • Suggests the obedience in Milgram’s study might be genuine.
• AO3 - ✖️findings may not be due to blind obedience


  • Haslam et al found that all participants given the first 3 prods obeyed the experimenter, but those given the fourth prod (“you have no other choice, you must go on”) disobeyed.
  • According to social identity theory, participants only obeyed when they identified with the scientific aims of the research, but when ordered to blindly obey an authority figure, they refused.
  • Shows that the findings are best explained in terms of identification with scientific aims and not as blind obedience to authority.