Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle On-The-Road
    • Professional Development
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle On-The-Road
    • Professional Development
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    College Advising
    Serving Higher Ed
    Chronicle Festival 2025
Sign In
Blog Logo

Percolator

Research that matters.

The ‘Secret’ Milgram Experiments

By Tom Bartlett July 24, 2013
Stanley Milgram with his shock machine
Stanley Milgram with his shock machine

In the early 1960s, Stanley Milgram set out to see whether ordinary people would administer painful shocks to a stranger if told to do so by someone in a white lab coat. He found that most people (65 percent) would continue to administer the shocks even when the stranger protested, complained of a heart condition, and stopped responding. The shocks were fake, and the stranger was an actor, but what the findings seemed to say about human nature was real and disturbing. Milgram, then at Yale University, wrote that a subject “divests himself of responsibility by attributing all initiative to the experimenter” and views himself “not as a person acting in a morally accountable way but as the agent of external authority.” Most of us, in other words, are potential Nazis.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

Stanley Milgram with his shock machine
Stanley Milgram with his shock machine

In the early 1960s, Stanley Milgram set out to see whether ordinary people would administer painful shocks to a stranger if told to do so by someone in a white lab coat. He found that most people (65 percent) would continue to administer the shocks even when the stranger protested, complained of a heart condition, and stopped responding. The shocks were fake, and the stranger was an actor, but what the findings seemed to say about human nature was real and disturbing. Milgram, then at Yale University, wrote that a subject “divests himself of responsibility by attributing all initiative to the experimenter” and views himself “not as a person acting in a morally accountable way but as the agent of external authority.” Most of us, in other words, are potential Nazis.

A forthcoming book, titled Behind the Shock Machine: The Untold Story of the Notorious Milgram Psychology Experiments (The New Press, September), questions Milgram’s methods and conclusions. The author, Gina Perry, an Australian psychologist, dug into the archives at Yale and tracked down subjects from the experiments. She questions, among other things, Milgram’s accuracy in explaining whether subjects thought the shocks they were delivering were genuine. Milgram reported that some saw through the ruse and played along, but he claimed they made up only a quarter of subjects. Perry argues, by going back to the original data, that it was closer to half.

Milgram’s rationale here was that subjects who had shocked a stranger—seemingly to death—had an incentive to say, after the truth was revealed, that they knew the whole time it was a hoax. Perry dismisses this as too convenient: “When it suited him, he used his data; when it didn’t suit him, he ignored it.” That said, as Perry discovers, some former subjects have been haunted for decades by the orders they willingly obeyed. The shocks seemed genuine enough to them.

ADVERTISEMENT

Poking around in the archives, Perry stumbled on the results of experiments that Milgram chose not to publish. She calls these the “secret” experiments. Milgram wanted to see what would happen if people knew the person getting (fake) shocked. As in the original experiment, the supposed victim was aware of the true purpose and was only pretending to cry out in pain from behind a wall. The subject giving the shocks was told it was a memory test. Below is part of a transcript that Perry unearthed. Larry and Doug are neighbors. Larry is the subject (the teacher) and Doug is the supposed victim (the learner). Williams is Milgram’s assistant. At this point in the experiment Larry has just shocked Doug.

Doug: Ow! Hey, Larry, let’s stop it. I wanna get out of here, come on!

Williams: Continue, please.

Larry: Even though he’s against it?

Williams: Continue, please.

Doug: Hey, Lar?

Larry [calling out to Doug]: He told me to keep going! [To Williams.] Even if it’s against his will?

Williams: Please continue, teacher. The experiment requires that you go on.

Larry: Oh, boy. [Pause.] Short time. Sharp: axe, needle, stick, blade. [Answer lights up.] Wrong. One-eight-oh. [Gives shock.]

Doug: Ow! Hey, Larry, that’s too much!

Larry: Sharp needle.

Doug: Come on, let me out.

Larry: Slow—

Doug: Let me out of here, come on.

Larry [to Williams]: Look, I’m not going to do this against his will.

Doug: Get me out of here. Come on, Lar!

Larry: If he’s against it, I can’t do it.

Williams: The experiment requires that you continue.

Larry: Yeah, but if he’s against it I’m not going to continue. I mean, this guy’s in pain. I can’t do it.

Williams: As I said, the shocks may be painful, but they’re not dangerous.

Larry: Would you ask him if he wants to continue?

Williams: No, we can’t have any contact once we’ve started the test. We should avoid any talking, as a matter of fact. It’s absolutely essential that you continue.

Larry: All right. Slow: walk, dance, truck, music. [Answer lights up.] Wrong. One ninety-five. [Gives shock.]

Doug [yelling]: Ow, Lar, get me out of here these straps. Come on!

Larry doesn’t give any more shocks after this, telling the experimenter, “I can’t. I can’t go on.” The experiment is discontinued, and the truth is revealed to Larry.

When subjects knew the victims, Milgram found, they were more likely to refuse to continue. Three pairs were family members: brothers-in-law, a nephew and uncle, a father and son. (Perry mentions that Milgram briefly considered using husbands and wives as subjects but decided that “could generate ill-feeling between people.”) In each of these cases the subject insisted that the experiment be halted. None of them went to the maximum of 450 volts. Perry writes that Milgram had failed in his attempt to sever the “bonds of family and friendship” and that “instead of measuring obedience … he’d measured the power of love.”

But is it really as rosy as that? While Larry does bail eventually, he shocks Doug even after Doug twice begs him to stop. That’s a funny kind of love.

We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
About the Author
Tom Bartlett
Tom Bartlett is a senior writer who covers science and ideas. Follow him on Twitter @tebartl.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

More News

Pro-Palestinian student protesters demonstrate outside Barnard College in New York on February 27, 2025, the morning after pro-Palestinian student protesters stormed a Barnard College building to protest the expulsion last month of two students who interrupted a university class on Israel. (Photo by TIMOTHY A. CLARY / AFP) (Photo by TIMOTHY A. CLARY/AFP via Getty Images)
Campus Activism
A College Vows to Stop Engaging With Some Student Activists to Settle a Lawsuit Brought by Jewish Students
LeeNIHGhosting-0709
Stuck in limbo
The Scientists Who Got Ghosted by the NIH
Protesters attend a demonstration in support of Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil, March 10, 2025, in New York.
First-Amendment Rights
Noncitizen Professors Testify About Chilling Effect of Others’ Detentions
Photo-based illustration of a rock preciously suspended by a rope over three beakers.
Broken Promise
U.S. Policy Made America’s Research Engine the Envy of the World. One President Could End That.

From The Review

Vector illustration of a suited man with a pair of scissors for a tie and an American flag button on his lapel.
The Review | Opinion
A Damaging Endowment Tax Crosses the Finish Line
By Phillip Levine
University of Virginia President Jim Ryan keeps his emotions in check during a news conference, Monday, Nov. 14, 2022 in Charlottesville. Va. Authorities say three people have been killed and two others were wounded in a shooting at the University of Virginia and a student is in custody. (AP Photo/Steve Helber)
The Review | Opinion
Jim Ryan’s Resignation Is a Warning
By Robert Zaretsky
Photo-based illustration depicting a close-up image of a mouth of a young woman with the letter A over the lips and grades in the background
The Review | Opinion
When Students Want You to Change Their Grades
By James K. Beggan

Upcoming Events

07-31-Turbulent-Workday_assets v2_Plain.png
Keeping Your Institution Moving Forward in Turbulent Times
Ascendium_Housing_Plain.png
What It Really Takes to Serve Students’ Basic Needs: Housing
Lead With Insight
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin