Stanley Milgram was born in 1933 to a Jewish family in New York City,[3] the child of

a Romanian-born mother, Adele (ne Israel), and a Hungarian-born father, Samuel Milgram
(1902-1953).[4][5] Milgram's father worked as a baker to provide a modest income for his
family until his death in 1953 (upon which Stanley's mother took over the bakery).
Milgram excelled academically and was a great leader among his peers. In 1954,
Milgram received his Bachelor's Degree in Political Science from Queens College, New
Yorkwhere he attended tuition-free.[2] He applied to a Ph.D. program in social
psychology at Harvard University and was initially rejected due to an insufficient
background in psychology (he had not taken one undergraduate course in psychology
while attending Queens College). He was eventually accepted to Harvard in 1954 after
first enrolling as a student in Harvard's Office of Special Students.[2]

Milgram started his experiments in 1961, shortly after the trial of the World War II criminal
Adolph Eichmann had begun. Eichmanns defense that he was simply following instructions
when he ordered the deaths of millions of Jews roused Milgrams interest.

Add your favorite media clips and applications in three easy steps:
1. Go to your favorite video clip, podcast, or embedded application. Anything from Google
Calendar to Twitter to YouTube!
2. Find the HTML code to paste into your site. This will be found in a text box labeled "Embed",
"Embed HTML", "Add to My Site/Blog", "Link to this page", or similar.
3. Paste in the HTML below and click "Preview" to see how it will look. When you save your
changes by clicking the "Save" button, your media clip or application will appear in your
page.
The subject was brought into the room and met with another individual they were told was also a volunteer (in
actuality it was someone working for the experiment, a confederate). The researcher told both participants they
would be participating in an experiment that would test punishment's effects on learning.
Then the researcher presented the subject and the confederate each with a piece of paper, which they were
told would either say teacher or learner. The subject thought there was a 50 percent chance he would be one
or the other, but in reality the subject was always the teacher and the confederate always the learner.
Afterwards, the confederate went behind a wall and the subject sat at a desk with what looked like an electricshock generator.
The subject was given a list of words that were paired together. He was instructed to read the word pairs to the
other individual and then say the first word and ask what word was paired with it. The subject gave four
possible answers and the learner would push a button that would light up in front of the teacher to signify the

answer. The teacher was then supposed to give a shock if the answer was wrong, or move on to the next word
if correct. For each wrong answer the shock voltage would be turned up a notch.
The subject was under the impression a real electric shock was given each time. But in reality no shock was
ever administered. Instead the activating of the "electric-shock generator" would play a clip from an audio tape
that gave more and more distraught responses. The confederate would, after a few shocks, pound on the wall
and complain about a heart condition. A few shocks later the confederate would cease all communications.
At various times the subject was likely to protest to the researcher about the experiment, the purpose, or the
dangers to the other individual. At any time the researcher would simply offer only one of these responses:
1. Please continue.
2. The experiment requires that you continue.
3. It is absolutely essential that you continue.
4. You have no other choice, you must go on.
If the subject still wanted to stop the experiment after all four verbal prods then it would be stopped. If the
subject did not stop, the experiment would end after the maximum voltage of 450 volts was administered for the
third time.
[edit]Stop

reading for a minute

If you are not familiar with this study, stop for a minute and honestly ask yourself how far you would have gone
with the experiment. When would you have stopped? Would you have gone all the way? Now ask yourself how
many people you think went all the way. Remember that these are just normal people; how many would you
expect to obey?
[edit]Results
Many people when they first hear about the outline of the experiment often predict only a few people will
proceed to the maximum voltage. In fact, Milgram asked 19 psychology majors before the experiment what
they thought would happen. The average was that barely over one percent would go all the way.
The results are often surprising the first time you see them: 26 out of the 40 participants (65 percent)
administered the full shock, and not a single subject stopped before 300 volts. All the subjects, at one point at
least, expressed concern, many offering to give back their compensation if they could quit, but with the single
sentence prod from the researcher they continued. Of the subjects that did stop early, none checked on the
learner, or inquired about their welfare.
Several other studies have replicated Milgram's work, with over 60 percent being the standard number of
individuals that are willing to deliver a fatal shock.
[edit]Reactions

and criticisms

By today's standards such an experiment would never receive ethical approval. The emotional distress caused
to the subject would be viewed as too severe. Also the debriefing done after the experiment was not adequate
by modern standards. However, all the participants in Milgram's study were polled at a later date and after

disclosure and asked about how they felt about participating. Close to 90 percent said they were "glad" or "very
glad" they did so. Many wanted to join his lab and help with his work afterwards.
The interpretations of the results and the ethical dilemmas surrounding it were instantly a hot topic. To this day
psychology courses across the world focus on Milgram's work. Variations of the obedience study were carried
out, both by Milgram and others. Milgram found that participants were less willing to inflict pain when the 'victim'
was immediately in front of them, unlike in the original experiment where a wall separated them, and were also
less willing when the experimenter (as authority figure) was outside the room. In some of Milgram's variants,
the subject was accompanied by other "teachers" (ostensibly also subjects but actually actors). The subjects
proved to be highly influenced by these additional participants: if they expressed reluctance to continue, the
subject would also desist. This suggests that the willingness to commit cruelty is affected by conformity as well
as authority.
To eliminate the possibility that subjects might have seen through the deception, a similar experiment was
conducted by Charles Sheridan and Richard King in 1972, in which the subject instead administered genuine
electric shocks to a puppy. The result was similar: 20 out of 26 subjects continued to the end, despite some
being severely distressed by the pain they were causing. An infamous"Prisoners and Guards"
experiment (1971) demonstrated the serious problems destructive obedience can caus