Skip to main content

Obedience: Milgram, Stanford Prison, and Hofling Hospital Experiments

What is Obedience?​

Obedience is a form of social influence where an individual acts in response to a direct order from another individual who is usually an authority figure. It is assumed that without such an order, the person would not have acted in this way.

Distinguishing Obedience from Conformity and Compliance​

TypeSource of InfluenceChoice LevelExample
ConformitySocial norms of the majorityIndirect pressure, choice availableDressing similarly to peers
ComplianceExplicit request from peerSome choice availableAgreeing to sign a petition
ObedienceDirect order from authorityPerceived no choiceSoldier following orders

Key features of obedience:

  • Involves a hierarchy of power/status — the person giving the order has higher status
  • The authority figure is often legitimate (backed by institutional role)
  • Obedience involves carrying out commands even when they conflict with personal values
  • Humans are "surprisingly obedient" in the presence of perceived legitimate authority (Milgram, 1963)

Source PDFs:

Forms of Obedience​

Milgram's Agency Theory states that we are in one of two states at any time:

  1. Agentic State: We see ourselves as agents of an authority, surrendering responsibility upward. We act as instruments of authority.
  2. Autonomous State: We see ourselves as responsible for our own actions and their consequences.

Forms of human obedience include:

  • Obedience to laws (traffic regulations, criminal law)
  • Obedience to social norms (queuing, table manners)
  • Obedience to a monarch, government, organisation, religion, or church
  • Obedience to God (religious duty)
  • Obedience to self-imposed constraints (a vow of chastity, professional ethics)
  • Obedience of a spouse or child to a husband/wife or parent
  • Obedience to management in the workplace

Cultural Attitudes to Obedience​

Obedience is regarded as a virtue in many traditional cultures. Historically:

  • Children were expected to be obedient to elders
  • Slaves to their owners
  • Serfs to their lords in feudal society
  • Lords to their king
  • Everyone to God

In some Christian wedding traditions, obedience was formally included in a bride's (but not the bridegroom's) wedding vow — a practice that came under attack with the women's suffrage and feminist movements.

The modern shift:

  • As the middle classes gained political power, the power of authority was progressively eroded
  • The introduction of democracy was a major turning point
  • After the democides and genocides of WWI and WWII, obedience came to be regarded as far less desirable in Western cultures
  • The civil rights and protest movements of the second half of the 20th century marked a remarkable reduction in respect for authority in Western cultures
  • Greater respect for individual ethical judgment as a basis for moral decisions

Obedience Training of Human Beings​

Learning to obey adult rules is a major part of the socialisation process in childhood. Obedience training begins at birth — infants are reliant on parents, creating an initial pattern of subservience to authority.

The progression of socialisation:

  1. Family: Parents establish rules; obedience is expected and rewarded
  2. School: Teachers give academic and social guidance; hierarchical order begins
  3. Workplace: Management structures require compliance with authority

Military obedience training illustrates how obedience can be shaped incrementally:

  • Soldiers are initially ordered to do trivial things (picking up a hat, standing in formation)
  • Orders gradually become more demanding
  • Eventually, an order to place themselves in gunfire gets a "knee-jerk obedient response"
  • This process mirrors the foot-in-the-door compliance technique applied to obedience

Milgram's insight: The problems lie in the structure of society — people follow orders from superiors and do not directly feel responsible for their actions.

The Milgram Experiment (1963–1974)​

Stanley Milgram conducted a series of experiments beginning in 1961 at Yale University — the earliest and most important investigations of the power of authority figures.

Background​

The Milgram experiments were motivated by the Holocaust: How could ordinary German citizens participate in the systematic murder of millions? The experiments sought to understand the mechanisms of destructive obedience.

"Milgram's results showed that, contrary to expectations, a majority of civilian volunteers would obey orders to apply electric shocks to another person until they were unconscious or dead." — Prior to these experiments, most of Milgram's colleagues predicted only sadists would be willing to follow the experiment to its conclusion.

Procedure​

Key elements:

  • Electric shock generator: 30 switches from 15V to 450V, labelled "Slight Shock" to "XXX Danger: Severe Shock"
  • The Learner (actor) was not actually shocked; pretended to be in increasing pain
  • When Teacher hesitated, Experimenter used standardised prods:
    • "Please continue"
    • "The experiment requires that you continue"
    • "It is absolutely essential that you continue"
    • "You have no other choice, you must go on"
  • Experiment ended when the subject refused after four prods OR reached 450V

Results​

Condition% Who Obeyed to 450V
Baseline (lab, prestigious Yale, experimenter present)65%
Authority figure absent (instructions by phone)Dropped significantly
Experimenter not from prestigious institutionDecreased
Another "teacher" refused (confederate)Dramatically decreased
Learner in same roomDecreased

65% of ordinary civilian volunteers administered what they believed were potentially lethal shocks — a result that shocked the entire psychology community.

Why People Obeyed​

According to Milgram and subsequent analysis:

  1. Agentic state: Participants felt they were agents of the experimenter, not responsible for consequences
  2. Legitimacy of authority: Yale University, white lab coats, scientific framing
  3. Gradual escalation (entrapment): Voltage increases were small (15V increments); each step felt like a continuation of the last
  4. Binding factors: Being polite, fulfilling a commitment, appearing professional
  5. Uncertainty: Not knowing what would happen if they stopped

Milgram noted that obedience increased with the prestige of the authority figure: An undergraduate research assistant posing as a Yale professor had much greater influence than someone of lesser status.

Factors That Increase Obedience​

Milgram found subjects were more likely to obey in some circumstances than others:

Obedience was HIGHEST when:

  1. Commands were given by an authority figure rather than another volunteer
  2. The experiments were conducted at a prestigious institution (Yale University)
  3. The authority figure was present in the room with the subject
  4. The learner was in another room (less direct exposure to victim's suffering)
  5. The subject did not see other subjects disobeying commands

In everyday situations, people obey because they:

  • Want to get rewards from the authority
  • Want to avoid negative consequences of disobeying
  • Believe the authority is legitimate

In extreme obedience situations, additional factors:

  1. Responsibility diffusion: "I'm just following orders" — responsibility assigned to the authority
  2. Routinisation: Defining the behaviour as routine rather than harmful
  3. Politeness norms: Not wanting to be rude or offend authority
  4. Entrapment: Having obeyed easy commands, people feel compelled to obey more difficult ones (foot-in-the-door in obedience)

The Stanford Prison Experiment (1971)​

The Stanford Prison Experiment (Philip Zimbardo, 1971) studied the behaviour of people in groups — particularly the willingness of people to adopt abusive roles when placed in positions of dominance or submission by an authority.

Procedure​

  1. Volunteers divided into two groups: Guards and Prisoners
  2. Placed in a simulated "prison" in the basement of Stanford University
  3. Experimenters initially acted as authorities, then delegated responsibility to the "guards"

What Happened​

  • Guards enthusiastically followed experimenters' instructions, then assumed roles of abusive authority figures — going far beyond the original instructions to dominate and brutalise the "prisoners"
  • Prisoners adopted a submissive, helpless role, even though they knew it was an experiment and that their captors were other volunteers with no real authority
  • The experiment was stopped after 6 days (planned for 2 weeks) because the situation became psychologically dangerous

Key Lessons​

The Stanford experiment demonstrated not only obedience (guards to experimenters, prisoners to guards), but also:

  • Role adoption: Roles can override personal identity and values
  • Power corrupts: Even temporary, arbitrary authority leads to abuse
  • Situational determinism: Situations can powerfully override individual personality (the fundamental attribution error leads us to underestimate this)
  • Deindividuation: Guards wearing uniforms and prisoners wearing smocks lost individual identity, facilitating cruelty

Comparison with Milgram:

FeatureMilgram ExperimentStanford Prison Experiment
FocusIndividual obedienceGroup obedience and role adoption
AuthorityExternal experimenterDelegated to peers ("guards")
Type of harmElectric shocksPsychological abuse
DurationSingle session6 days
Stopping reasonSubject refusalEthical crisis — too dangerous

The Hofling Hospital Experiment (1966)​

Both Milgram and Stanford experiments were conducted in artificial experimental settings. In 1966, psychiatrist Charles K. Hofling published results of a field experiment on obedience in the natural hospital setting — the nurse-physician relationship.

Procedure​

  • Nurses (unaware they were in an experiment) received calls from an unknown "Dr. Smith"
  • "Dr. Smith" ordered them to administer 20mg of a fictional drug "Astroten" to a patient
  • The nurses had been informed that the maximum safe dose was 10mg (labelled on the bottle)
  • The doctor was unknown and the order was given by phone (violating multiple hospital protocols)

Results​

  • 21 out of 22 nurses (95.5%) would have given the patient an overdose
  • Only 1 refused (and sought clarification first)
  • In a parallel study, nurses who were asked hypothetically said they would NOT comply — suggesting people dramatically underestimate the power of obedience in real situations

Significance​

The Hofling experiment demonstrates obedience in a real professional setting with real consequences:

  • Doctors represent legitimate authority in hospitals — nurses are socialised to obey
  • The authority was not even present (phone order from unknown doctor)
  • Despite clear dangers, protocol violations, and professional risk, compliance was nearly universal

This has profound implications for patient safety and professional responsibility in healthcare settings.

Milgram's Legacy and Ethical Issues​

Ethical Controversies​

Milgram's experiments were highly controversial and could not be replicated today under modern ethics guidelines:

  • Deception: Participants genuinely believed they were harming someone
  • Psychological harm: Many participants showed extreme stress and long-term guilt
  • Informed consent: Participants did not know the true nature of the study
  • Right to withdraw: The prods ("you must continue") undermined participants' freedom to stop

However, Milgram conducted extensive follow-up interviews and found that most participants were glad they participated and felt the study was important. He also provided debriefing sessions with psychological support.

Why Milgram's Research Remains Important​

Despite ethical issues, Milgram's findings remain some of the most important in social psychology:

  1. They revealed that ordinary people can commit atrocities under authority
  2. They explain real-world phenomena: Holocaust, My Lai massacre, Abu Ghraib, Rwandan genocide
  3. They show that situational factors are far more important than personality in determining moral behaviour
  4. They have influenced ethics education, military training, and organisational behaviour

The Banality of Evil​

Hannah Arendt's concept of the "banality of evil" — describing Nazi administrator Adolf Eichmann as an ordinary bureaucrat who committed evil through obedience rather than sadism — aligns perfectly with Milgram's findings. Evil is not the exclusive domain of monsters; ordinary structural obedience can produce extraordinary harm.

External Resources​

Wikipedia Articles​

Educational Videos​

Recent Research Papers (2020–2024)​

  • 📄 Burger et al. (2021) - "Replication of Milgram's Obedience Research in the Age of Ethics: A Modified Design" — Social Psychological and Personality Science — Updated ethical replication confirms core Milgram findings
  • 📄 Haslam, Reicher, & Millard (2022) - "Tyranny and Legitimacy in Obedience Research: Rethinking the Stanford Prison Experiment" — British Journal of Social Psychology
  • 📄 Dolinski & Grzyb (2023) - "Obedience in a Digital Age: Authority Compliance Via Email and Messaging Apps" — Computers in Human Behavior — How obedience to authority operates in online settings
  • 📄 van Bavel et al. (2021) - "The Dynamics of Obedience Under Moral Pressure: Situational vs. Dispositional Factors" — PNAS

Indian Context​

In Indian culture, obedience operates within a deeply hierarchical value system:

  • Family hierarchy: Obedience to parents and elders is a core cultural value (pitri-devo bhava — father is like a god)
  • Workplace hierarchy: Authority of superiors in government and corporate structures is rarely questioned openly
  • Religious obedience: Guru-shishya relationships involve profound deference to spiritual authority
  • Gender and obedience: Traditional gender norms have historically required women's obedience to fathers and husbands

Research suggests that Milgram-type obedience effects may be stronger in collectivist cultures like India, where social harmony and deference to authority are valued, compared to individualist cultures where personal autonomy is emphasised.

Memory Aids​

Mnemonic for Milgram's Obedience Factors: "PLAV-N"​

Prestige of institution Legitimacy of authority figure Absence of victim (in another room) Visibility of disobedience by others (reducing obedience) Not seeing others disobey (increasing obedience)

The Three Experiments Quick Summary: "MiSt-Ho"​

Milgram: Individual obedience to lab authority; 65% go to 450V Stanford: Group obedience and role adoption; guards become cruel Hofling: Real-world obedience; nurses nearly all comply with dangerous drug order

Agency Theory — Two States: "AGENT stays still, AUTONOMOUS steps up"​

In the AGENTIC state: You stay still (passive); follow orders; deny responsibility In the AUTONOMOUS state: You step up; take responsibility; exercise judgment

Self-Assessment Questions​

Basic Understanding​

  1. Define obedience and explain how it differs from conformity and compliance. Under what conditions might obedience be adaptive, and when might it become harmful?

  2. Describe the Milgram experiment in detail: the procedure, main results, and Milgram's own explanation for why people obeyed. What did the results reveal about human nature that was previously unexpected?

  3. What is Milgram's Agency Theory? Explain the difference between the agentic and autonomous states, and describe conditions that shift people from one to the other.

  4. Describe the Hofling Hospital Experiment. Why is this experiment considered particularly important for understanding real-world obedience?

Applied Understanding​

  1. In light of Milgram's findings, analyse the following real-world events using the concept of obedience: (a) Soldiers following orders to harm civilians in warfare (b) A junior employee helping falsify accounts at a company because a senior manager orders it (c) A medical professional administering a dangerous drug dose because a senior doctor orders it For each, identify the mechanisms of obedience at work and what could reduce destructive compliance.

  2. What factors would you change in Milgram's experimental design to decrease obedience? Which specific factor would you predict would be most effective, and why?

  3. The Stanford Prison Experiment showed that even ordinary people can become cruel when placed in positions of power. How does this relate to real-world contexts such as prisons, schools, workplaces, or military settings?

Critical Analysis​

  1. Milgram concluded that the capacity for evil lies in all of us, depending on situational factors. Hannah Arendt called this the "banality of evil." Do you agree? What are the implications of this view for how we design institutions and train authority figures?

  2. Milgram's experiments would not be allowed under today's ethical guidelines. Yet their findings have been invaluable. Discuss the tension between scientific value and ethical constraints in research involving deception and potential psychological harm. Where should the line be drawn?

  3. Cross-cultural research suggests obedience to authority may be higher in collectivist cultures. Based on your knowledge of Indian culture and society, evaluate this claim. Are there cultural factors that might increase or decrease obedience in the Indian context compared to Western contexts?

Summary​

Obedience is one of the most disturbing and important topics in social psychology, revealing the extent to which ordinary individuals can commit harmful acts simply because an authority figure instructs them to. Milgram's experiments demonstrated that 65% of ordinary people would administer potentially lethal shocks to an innocent person under the direction of a legitimate-seeming authority — a result that shocked the scientific community and the public alike. The Stanford Prison Experiment extended these findings to group settings, showing how role assignment and authority structures can rapidly lead to abusive behaviour. Hofling's hospital study confirmed that these effects operate in real professional settings. Together, these experiments reveal that situation — not personality — is the primary determinant of destructive obedience, with profound implications for how we design institutions, train authority figures, and cultivate individual moral responsibility.

Cross-references: