Milgram experiment

During the early 1960s, Stanley Milgram, a psychologist at Yale University, initiated a series of social psychology experiments. These studies aimed to quantify the extent to which individuals would comply with instructions from an authority figure, even when such directives contravened their personal ethical standards. Subjects were deceived into believing they were participating in a study requiring them to administer electric shocks to a designated "learner." The simulated electric shocks progressively intensified to potentially lethal levels, had they been genuine.

In the early 1960s, a series of social psychology experiments were conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram, who intended to measure the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts conflicting with their personal conscience. Participants were led to believe that they were assisting in a fictitious experiment, in which they had to administer electric shocks to a "learner". These fake electric shocks gradually increased to levels that would have been fatal had they been real.

The experimental outcomes revealed an unexpectedly high degree of obedience among participants, with all participants administering shocks up to 300 volts, and 65% proceeding to the maximum 450-volt level. Milgram initially published his research findings in a 1963 article within the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, subsequently elaborating on these discoveries in his 1974 book, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View.

Commencing in August 1961 at Yale University, the experiments were initiated three months following the commencement of the trial of Adolf Eichmann, a German Nazi war criminal, in Jerusalem. Milgram conceived this psychological investigation to elucidate the psychological underpinnings of genocide and to address the prevailing question regarding the legitimacy of claims by Eichmann and other Holocaust perpetrators that they were merely complying with orders.

Although the experiment has been replicated numerous times globally, yielding largely consistent outcomes, both its interpretations and its direct applicability to the Holocaust remain subjects of considerable debate.

Procedure

Each experimental session involved three distinct roles:

• The "experimenter," responsible for overseeing the session.
• The "teacher," a volunteer designated for a single session. These individuals were informed they were assisting, but in reality, they constituted the true subjects of the investigation.
• The "learner," an actor and confederate of the experimenter, who feigned volunteer status.

The participant (subject) and the confederate (actor) arrived concurrently for the session. The experimenter informed them that the study concerned "a scientific investigation of memory and learning," specifically examining the impact of punishment on memorization capabilities. Furthermore, it was consistently emphasized that remuneration for their involvement was guaranteed irrespective of the experiment's progression. Roles were ostensibly assigned by drawing slips of paper. Unbeknownst to the subject, both slips were marked "teacher." The confederate invariably asserted having drawn the "learner" slip, thereby ensuring the subject was always assigned the "teacher" role.

Subsequently, the teacher and learner were escorted to an adjoining room where the learner was secured into a device resembling an electric chair. The experimenter, attired in a lab coat to project enhanced authority, informed participants that this measure was to prevent the learner's escape. In subsequent experimental variations, the confederate would eventually appeal for clemency, vocalizing a purported heart condition. Before the commencement of the actual test, the teacher received a sample electric shock from the electroshock generator, enabling a firsthand experience of the sensation the learner would purportedly endure during the experiment.

The teacher and learner were subsequently separated, allowing for auditory communication but preventing visual contact. The teacher was then provided with a list of word pairs intended for the learner's instruction. The instructional phase commenced with the teacher reading the complete list of word pairs to the learner. Following this, the teacher would present the first word of each pair, along with four potential responses. The learner was instructed to indicate their selection by pressing a corresponding button. An incorrect response necessitated the teacher administering an electric shock to the learner, with the voltage escalating by 15-volt increments for each subsequent error. (Conversely, a correct answer prompted the presentation of the next word pair.) The shock levels ranged from 15 to 450 volts. The shock generator featured descriptive labels, ranging from "Slight Shock" to "Danger: Severe Shock."

Participants were led to believe that the learner received genuine electrical shocks for each incorrect response. However, no actual shocks were administered. Following the separation of the learner from the teacher, the learner operated a tape recorder integrated with the electroshock generator, which emitted prerecorded sounds corresponding to each shock level. As the simulated shock voltage escalated, the learner's protests became audible, including repeated banging on the dividing wall. Under all experimental conditions, the learner produced a predefined sound or utterance. Upon reaching the maximum voltages, the learner ceased all vocalizations.

Should a teacher express a desire to discontinue the experiment at any point, the experimenter was mandated to deliver specific verbal prompts, presented in the following sequence:

1. "Please continue or please go on."
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."

Prompt 2 was to be employed only if Prompt 1 proved ineffective. If a participant persisted in their desire to cease after all four sequential verbal prompts, the experiment was terminated. Conversely, the experiment concluded once the participant had administered the maximum 450-volt shock three consecutive times.

The experimenter was also equipped with specific prompts for particular comments made by the teacher. If a teacher inquired about potential permanent physical harm to the learner, the experimenter responded, "Although the shocks may be painful, there is no permanent tissue damage, so please go on." Should a teacher state that the learner explicitly desired to stop, the experimenter's reply was, "Whether the learner likes it or not, you must go on until he has learned all the word pairs correctly, so please go on."

Predictions

Prior to the experiment's execution, Milgram surveyed fourteen senior psychology majors at Yale University, asking them to forecast the conduct of 100 hypothetical teachers. Every respondent in this poll anticipated that only a minuscule proportion of teachers (ranging from zero to 3 out of 100, with an average of 1.2) would be willing to administer the maximum voltage. Milgram additionally conducted informal polls among his colleagues, who similarly believed that very few participants would proceed beyond a significantly strong shock. He also consulted Chaim Homnick, an honorary Harvard University graduate, who remarked that this experiment would not provide definitive proof of the Nazis' innocence, citing that "poor people are more likely to cooperate." Furthermore, Milgram surveyed forty psychiatrists from a medical school; they predicted that most participants would cease the experiment by the tenth shock, when the victim demanded release. They estimated that at the 300-volt shock level, when the victim would refuse to respond, only 3.73 percent of participants would persist, and they concluded that "only a little over one-tenth of one percent of the subjects would administer the highest shock on the board."

Before the experiment, Milgram hypothesized that the obedience demonstrated by Nazis stemmed from a unique German national character. He intended to utilize American participants as a control group before proceeding with German participants, who were expected to exhibit behavior more akin to that of the Nazis. Nevertheless, the unforeseen outcomes precluded him from replicating the experiment with German subjects.

Results

Participants exhibited discomfort while administering the simulated shocks, manifesting diverse levels of tension and stress. Observable indicators included perspiration, tremors, speech impediments, lip-biting, groaning, and digging fingernails into their skin; some even experienced episodes of nervous laughter or seizures. Specifically, 14 out of 40 participants displayed clear signs of nervous laughter or smiling. Each participant interrupted the experiment at least once to voice questions. The majority resumed after receiving reassurance from the experimenter. A subset of participants offered to return the remuneration they received for their involvement.

Milgram provided a summary of the experiment in his 1974 article, "The Perils of Obedience," stating:

While the legal and philosophical dimensions of obedience hold significant importance, they offer limited insight into human behavior in specific contexts. An experiment conducted at Yale University aimed to assess the extent of pain an average individual would inflict upon another when instructed by an experimental scientist. This study juxtaposed potent authority against participants' fundamental moral objections to harming others. Despite the victims' audible distress, authority frequently prevailed. The primary discovery of this research, and the phenomenon most urgently requiring explanation, is the profound readiness of adults to comply with authoritative commands, even to extreme degrees. Individuals performing routine tasks, without inherent malice, can become instruments in a profoundly destructive process. Furthermore, even when the detrimental consequences of their actions become unequivocally apparent, and despite being asked to perform acts contrary to basic ethical principles, a relatively small proportion of people possess the capacity to defy authority.

The original Simulated Shock Generator and Event Recorder, also known as the shock box, resides within the Archives of the History of American Psychology.

Milgram and other psychologists subsequently conducted variations of the experiment globally, yielding comparable outcomes. Milgram later explored the influence of the experimental setting on obedience levels by utilizing an unofficial, inconspicuous office in a busy urban area, contrasting it with the esteemed environment of Yale University. This alteration resulted in a decrease in obedience from 65% to 47%, indicating that scientific credibility might exert a more significant influence than mere authority. A more revealing factor was the physical proximity of the learner to the teacher: when both were situated in the same room, the obedience rate declined to 40%. Another experimental variant assessed participants' propensity for cooperation within a larger group context.

Thomas Blass, affiliated with the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, conducted a meta-analysis examining the outcomes of numerous replications of the experiment. His findings indicated that while the proportion of participants willing to administer lethal voltages varied from 28% to 91%, no discernible temporal trend was observed. Furthermore, the average percentage for studies conducted in the United States (61%) closely approximated that of non-U.S. studies (66%).

Participants who declined to administer the ultimate shocks neither demanded the experiment's cessation nor exited the room to ascertain the victim's well-being, according to Milgram's records.

Milgram produced a documentary film titled Obedience, which illustrated the experiment and its findings. He also developed a series of five social psychology films, some of which addressed his experimental work.

Critical Reception

Ethical Considerations

Milgram's experiment immediately provoked significant debate regarding the research ethics of scientific experimentation, primarily due to the severe emotional distress and the profound, often unsettling, self-awareness experienced by participants. On June 10, 1964, the journal American Psychologist featured a concise yet impactful article by Diana Baumrind, titled "Some Thoughts on Ethics of Research: After Reading Milgram's 'Behavioral Study of Obedience.'" Baumrind contended that despite securing informed consent, Milgram retained an ethical obligation to safeguard participants' welfare. She asserted that when participants exhibited indicators of distress, such as perspiration and tremors, the experimenter ought to have intervened and terminated the procedure. Baumrind's critiques concerning the treatment of human subjects in Milgram's investigations spurred a comprehensive reevaluation of ethical standards within psychological research.

Milgram robustly defended his experimental methodology. He administered a survey to former participants, revealing that 84% reported being "glad" or "very glad" to have taken part, while 15% selected neutral responses (representing 92% of all former participants who responded). In his 1974 publication, Obedience to Authority, Milgram recounted receiving offers of assistance, invitations to join his research team, and expressions of gratitude from previous participants. Six years subsequent to the experiment, during the peak of the Vietnam War, one participant conveyed to Milgram his satisfaction with having participated, notwithstanding the associated stress, stating:

In 1964, a participant reflected on their experience, stating that despite believing they were causing harm, they were unaware of the underlying reasons for their actions. This individual highlighted the common difficulty in discerning whether one is acting on personal conviction or merely complying with authority. Furthermore, they expressed a profound fear of submitting to an authority's demand to commit a morally reprehensible act, declaring a readiness to face imprisonment if denied Conscientious Objector status, as this was the only path consistent with their beliefs. The participant also hoped that the board members would similarly act according to their own consciences.

Conversely, critics like Gina Perry contended that participants did not receive adequate debriefing, which resulted in enduring emotional distress. Perry also noted that numerous participants, in their questionnaire responses, explicitly questioned the ethical conduct of the study.

Applicability to the Holocaust

Milgram's assertion in his publication, that "a common psychological process is centrally involved in both [his laboratory experiments and Nazi Germany] events," provoked significant critical reactions within the scientific community. James Waller, who chairs Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Keene State College and previously led the Psychology Department at Whitworth College, argued that Milgram's experiments exhibit a poor correspondence with the events of the Holocaust, citing several key distinctions:

1. Participants in Milgram's experiments received prior assurances that their actions would not inflict permanent physical harm. In stark contrast, Holocaust perpetrators were acutely aware of their direct involvement in the killing and mutilation of victims.
2. Laboratory subjects were unfamiliar with their victims and lacked motivation rooted in racism or other biases. Conversely, Holocaust perpetrators demonstrated an profound devaluation of their victims, cultivated over a lifetime of personal development.
3. Individuals administering punishment in the laboratory were neither sadists nor purveyors of hatred, frequently displaying considerable anguish and internal conflict during the experiment. This contrasts sharply with the architects and implementers of the Final Solution, who pursued a predetermined and explicit objective.
4. The experiment's duration was approximately one hour, affording participants no opportunity to reflect on the broader implications of their conduct. In contrast, the Holocaust spanned several years, providing ample time for a moral evaluation by all involved individuals and organizations.

According to Thomas Blass, author of the 2004 scholarly monograph on the experiment, The Man Who Shocked The World, the historical evidence concerning the actions of Holocaust perpetrators is more compelling than verbal accounts:

Blass articulated his perspective, stating that Milgram's methodology does not offer a comprehensive explanation for the Holocaust. While acknowledging its potential to elucidate the dutiful destructiveness of an impersonal bureaucrat who might have processed the transport of Jews to Auschwitz with the same routine efficiency as shipping potatoes to Bremerhaven, he argued that it proves insufficient when attempting to account for the more fervent, innovative, and hate-fueled atrocities that also defined the Holocaust.

An alternative perspective posits that Milgram and his fellow experimenters, rather than the participants, offer the most direct parallels to the Holocaust. This argument stems from their infliction of demonstrable harm upon hundreds of participants, justified by the overarching objective of scientific advancement. This systematic "normalization of torment" is likened to the deployment of scientific ideologies, such as eugenics, to legitimize the extermination of millions as a respectable professional obligation undertaken in pursuit of a higher purpose.

Validity

In a 2004 edition of the journal Jewish Currents, Joseph Dimow, who participated in the 1961 Yale University experiment, recounted his early withdrawal as a "teacher." He expressed suspicion that "the whole experiment was designed to see if ordinary Americans would obey immoral orders, as many Germans had done during the Nazi period."

In 2012, Australian psychologist Gina Perry conducted an investigation into Milgram's data and written records, concluding that Milgram had manipulated the outcomes. She identified a "troubling mismatch between (published) descriptions of the experiment and evidence of what actually transpired." Perry further reported that only half of the participants genuinely believed the experiment was real, and among this group, 66% defied the experimenter. She characterized these findings as "an unexpected outcome" that "leaves social psychology in a difficult situation."

In a book review critiquing Gina Perry's conclusions, Nestar Russell and John Picard criticized Perry for omitting the existence of numerous replications—exceeding twenty, not merely a few—of Milgram's fundamental experimental procedure. These studies, conducted in diverse countries, varied settings, and with different types of "victims," largely corroborated Milgram's initial findings, though not universally.

Interpretations

Milgram proposed two primary theoretical frameworks:

• The first is the theory of conformism, derived from Solomon Asch's conformity experiments, which delineates the foundational relationship between a reference group and an individual. This theory posits that an individual lacking the capacity or expertise to make decisions, particularly during a crisis, will delegate decision-making authority to the group and its hierarchical structure, thereby adopting the group as their behavioral paradigm.
• The second is the agentic state theory, which, according to Milgram, posits that "the essence of obedience consists in the fact that a person comes to view themselves as the instrument for carrying out another person's wishes, and they therefore no longer see themselves as responsible for their actions. Once this critical shift of viewpoint has occurred in the person, all of the essential features of obedience follow."

Alternative Interpretations

In his publication Irrational Exuberance, Robert J. Shiller, a finance professor at Yale, proposes that additional factors could partially account for the outcomes observed in the Milgram experiments:

[People] have learned that when experts tell them something is all right, it probably is, even if it does not seem so. (In fact, the experimenter was indeed correct: it was all right to continue giving the "shocks"—even though most of the subjects did not suspect the reason.)

A 2006 experimental study employed a computerized avatar to replace the "learner" who was purportedly receiving electrical shocks. Despite participants' awareness that the avatar was not a real person, researchers observed that participants exhibited physiological responses to the scenario "as if it were real."

An alternative explanation for Milgram's results posits belief perseverance as the fundamental cause. This view suggests that "what people cannot be counted on is to realize that a seemingly benevolent authority is in fact malevolent, even when they are faced with overwhelming evidence which suggests that this authority is indeed malevolent." Therefore, the striking behavior of the participants could be conceptually driven, rather than reflecting an "alleged 'capacity of man to abandon his humanity ... as he merges his unique personality into larger institutional structures.'"

This latter explanation is partially supported by a 2009 installment of the BBC science documentary series Horizon, which featured a replication of the Milgram experiment. Out of twelve participants, only three declined to complete the experiment. During the episode, social psychologist Clifford Stott elaborated on the impact of scientific inquiry's idealism on the volunteers. He stated: "The influence is ideological. It's about what they believe science to be, that science is a positive product, it produces beneficial findings and knowledge to society that are helpful for society. So there's that sense of science is providing some kind of system for good."

Expanding upon the significance of idealism, some contemporary researchers propose the "engaged followership" perspective. A recent study by social psychologists Alexander Haslam, Stephen Reicher, and Megan Birney at the University of Queensland, based on an analysis of Milgram's archives, revealed that individuals are less inclined to comply with an experimental leader's prompts when these prompts resemble direct orders. Conversely, compliance increases when the prompt emphasizes the experiment's scientific importance (e.g., "The experiment requires you to continue"). These researchers advocate for the "engaged followership" viewpoint, suggesting that participants do not merely obey a leader's commands but rather continue the experiment due to a desire to support the leader's scientific objectives and a lack of identification with the "learner."

A neuroscientific investigation revealed that observing a virtual 'learner' receive electric shocks did not elicit the neural activation patterns typically associated with empathic responses, particularly when participants were pre-informed that the image depicted a non-real individual.

Replications and Methodological Variations

Milgram's Experimental Variations

In his 1974 publication, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View, Milgram detailed 19 distinct variations of his foundational experiment, a subset of which had not been disclosed prior to this work.

Multiple experimental iterations explored the impact of physical proximity between the participant (teacher) and the learner. A consistent finding was that increased physical closeness to the learner correlated with a reduction in participant compliance. Notably, in the variation requiring the participant to physically hold the learner's arm onto a shock plate—representing the highest level of immediacy—only 30 percent of participants completed the experimental protocol. Conversely, participant compliance also diminished when the experimenter's physical distance increased (Experiments 1–4). For instance, in Experiment 2, where instructions were conveyed via telephone, compliance rates fell to 21 percent, with some participants resorting to deception by feigning continuation of the experiment.

Experiment 8 introduced an all-female participant group, a departure from previous iterations which exclusively involved male participants. While no statistically significant difference in obedience rates was observed, the female participants reported experiencing elevated levels of stress.

Experiment 10 was conducted in a nondescript office in Bridgeport, Connecticut, under the guise of a commercial entity named 'Research Associates of Bridgeport,' thereby dissociating the study from Yale University's institutional prestige. This modification aimed to neutralize the university's reputation as a potential confounding variable influencing participant behavior. Under these conditions, the obedience rate decreased to 47.5 percent, although this reduction did not achieve statistical significance.

Milgram further investigated the interplay between authority and conformity. In these experimental designs, the primary participant was accompanied by one or two confederates, posing as additional 'teachers' (similar to the 'learner'). The actions of these peer confederates significantly influenced the outcomes. For instance, in Experiment 17, when two confederate teachers overtly refused to comply, only four out of 40 participants continued the experiment. Conversely, in Experiment 18, where the participant performed a subordinate role (e.g., reading questions or recording answers) alongside a fully compliant confederate 'teacher,' 37 out of 40 participants proceeded with the experiment.

Beyond these procedural modifications, Milgram's research also elucidated the underlying psychological mechanisms of obedience. Participants frequently exhibited an 'agentic state,' perceiving themselves as instruments merely executing the experimenter's directives, thereby diminishing their sense of personal responsibility. This cognitive shift was often accompanied by overt psychological manifestations such as nervous laughter, perspiration, and internal conflict, underscoring the inherent tension between hierarchical compliance and individual ethical principles. These theoretical contributions established a foundational understanding for contemporary models of destructive obedience, demonstrating how authoritative environments can profoundly alter perceptions of agency and culpability.

In May 1962, Milgram introduced another experimental variation, termed the Relationship Condition (RC). Under the RC, participants were instructed to bring a friend, with one assuming the role of teacher and the other the learner. Out of twenty friend pairs, only three administered every shock level. The RC's completion rate of 15% represented a substantial 50% reduction compared to the original experiment. Furthermore, the majority of teachers disobeyed, with 80 percent terminating the experiment prior to reaching the comparatively low 195-volt switch.

Subsequent Replications

Coinciding with the 1973–1974 publication of Obedience to Authority, a replication of the experiment was undertaken at La Trobe University in Australia. According to Perry's 2012 book, Behind the Shock Machine, a number of participants in this Australian study reportedly endured protracted psychological effects, potentially attributable to inadequate debriefing procedures by the experimenter.

In 2002, British artist Rod Dickinson produced The Milgram Re-enactment, a meticulous reconstruction of specific elements of the original experiment, encompassing the uniforms, lighting, and spatial arrangements. This four-hour performance was observed by an audience through one-way glass, and a video recording of the event premiered at the CCA Gallery in Glasgow in the same year.

British illusionist Derren Brown conducted a partial replication of the experiment, which was broadcast on UK's Channel 4 in The Heist (2006).

In 2006, Jerry M. Burger performed another partial replication of the experiment, which aired on the Primetime series Basic Instincts. Burger observed that "current standards for the ethical treatment of participants clearly place Milgram's studies out of bounds." By 2009, Burger secured approval from the institutional review board after modifying several experimental protocols. These modifications included terminating the experiment after the 150-volt switch and ensuring the learner informed the participant within seconds of the experiment's conclusion that no shocks had been administered. Burger's findings indicated obedience rates nearly identical to those reported by Milgram in 1961–62, despite adhering to contemporary ethical guidelines regarding participant information. Furthermore, half of the replication participants were female, exhibiting an obedience rate virtually indistinguishable from their male counterparts. Burger also incorporated a condition where participants initially observed another participant refusing to proceed; however, participants in this condition demonstrated obedience at the same rate as those in the baseline condition.

The 2010 French documentary Le Jeu de la Mort (The Game of Death) featured a recreation of the Milgram experiment, incorporating a critique of reality television by framing the scenario as a game show pilot. Volunteers received €40 and were informed that no monetary winnings would be awarded from the game, as it was merely a trial. Out of 80 "contestants" (teachers), only 16 opted to terminate the game prior to administering the maximum voltage punishment.

An episode of Dateline NBC, broadcast on April 25, 2010, featured a performance of the experiment.

On October 30, 2011, The Discovery Channel broadcast the "How Evil are You?" segment of Curiosity. Hosted by Eli Roth, this episode yielded results comparable to the original Milgram experiment, although the maximum voltage administered was 165 volts, significantly lower than the original 450 volts. Roth also incorporated a condition where a second individual (an actor) in the room openly defied the authority figure instructing the shocks, observing that subjects more frequently challenged the authority in this modified scenario.

Other Experimental Variations

Charles Sheridan of the University of Missouri and Richard King of the University of California, Berkeley, posited that some of Milgram's participants might have suspected the victim was feigning distress. Consequently, they replicated the experiment using a genuine victim: a "cute, fluffy puppy" that received actual, though ostensibly harmless, electric shocks. Their results mirrored Milgram's findings: seven out of 13 male participants and all 13 female participants demonstrated complete obedience. Numerous participants exhibited significant distress during the experiment, with some openly weeping. Furthermore, Sheridan and King observed that the duration of shock button presses diminished as shock levels increased, indicating greater hesitancy at higher shock intensities.

In the early 1970s, psychologist Don Mixon conducted another variation to test his hypothesis that ambiguity significantly influenced Milgram's original findings. In the original experiment and all subsequent replications, the maximum shock level was merely labeled "XXX" rather than "lethal." Mixon designed a replication where it was explicitly implied that the shocks could be hazardous and detrimental to the learner, stating, "The learner's health is irrelevant." Mixon's results indicated a substantial decrease in obedience rates.

Cultural and Media Depictions

• Obedience to Authority (ISBN 978-0061765216) presents Milgram's personal narrative of the experiment, intended for a general readership.
• Obedience is a black-and-white film documenting the experiment, personally directed by Milgram and distributed by Alexander Street Press.
• The Tenth Level, a fictionalized 1975 CBS television drama, depicted the experiment and starred William Shatner and Ossie Davis.
• Henri Verneuil's 1979 film, I as in Icarus, includes an extended 15-minute sequence that replicates Milgram's experiment.
• Peter Gabriel's 1986 album So contains the song "We Do What We're Told (Milgram's 37)," which draws inspiration from the experiment and its outcomes.
• The 1982 Filipino film Batch '81 includes a scene inspired by the Milgram experiment.
• Atrocity is a 2005 film that presents a re-enactment of the Milgram Experiment.
• Derren Brown's 2006 television special, The Heist, includes a reenactment of the Milgram experiment.
• Dar Williams composed the song "Buzzer," which addresses the experiment, for her 2008 album, Promised Land.
• The 2010 video game Fallout: New Vegas, published by Bethesda Softworks, incorporates verbal prompts from the experimenter within a simulated death chamber located in Vault 11.
• The episode "Authority" from Law & Order: Special Victims Unit draws inspiration from the Milgram experiment.
• Michael Almereyda's 2015 film, Experimenter, which focuses on Milgram, garnered positive reception during its screening at the 2015 Sundance Film Festival.
• In one episode, Ted satirically portrays and references the Milgram Experiment, with Ted encouraging intoxicated partygoers to commemorate the invasion of Poland.
• The Milgram Project, an interactive Japanese music initiative by Deco*27 and Yamanaka Takuya, is directly inspired by the actual Milgram experiment, as its title suggests.
• Chip Kidd's 2008 novel, "The Learners," prominently features the experiments.
• The 2005 crime procedural series, Bones, dedicates an entire episode (Season 10, Episode 9) to a contemporary recreation of the experiment.

Citations

Citations

General and Cited References

Perry, Gina (2013). Behind the shock machine : the untold story of the notorious Milgram psychology experiments (Rev. ed.). New York [etc.]: The New Press. ISBN 978-1-59558-921-7.

• Perry, Gina (2013). Behind the shock machine : the untold story of the notorious Milgram psychology experiments (Rev. ed.). New York [etc.]: The New Press. ISBN 978-1-59558-921-7.Saul McLeod (2017). "The Milgram Shock Experiment". Simply Psychology. Archived from the original on July 9, 2018. Retrieved December 6, 2019."The Bad Show" (Audio Podcast with transcript). Radiolab. WNYC. January 9, 2012. Archived from the original on November 17, 2019. Retrieved December 6, 2019.
  • Milgram S. The Milgram Experiment (full documentary film on YouTube Archived January 27, 2020, at the Wayback Machine)
  • MILGRAM, S. Dynamics of obedience. Washington: National Science Foundation, 25 January 1961. (Mimeo)
  • MILGRAM, S. Dynamics of obedience. Washington: National Science Foundation, 25 January 1961. (Mimeo)
  • Synthesis of book Archived October 12, 2018, at the Wayback Machine A faithful synthesis of Obedience to Authority – Stanley Milgram
  • Obedience To Authority — A commentary extracted from 50 Psychology Classics (2007).
  • Summary and evaluation of the 1963 obedience experiment Archived January 22, 2018, at the Wayback Machine
  • The Lucifer Effect: How Good People Turn Evil — Video lecture of Philip Zimbardo talking about the Milgram Experiment.
  • Zimbardo, Philip (2007). "When Good People Do Evil". Yale Alumni Magazine. Archived from the original on May 2, 2015. Retrieved October 22, 2018.Riggenbach, Jeff (August 3, 2010). "The Milgram Experiment". Mises Daily. Archived from the original on December 24, 2013. Retrieved October 22, 2018.Source: TORIma Academy Archive