Learn in your language
Skip to content
A Level · Cambridge (CIE) · 9990

Milgram · obedience

Analyse Milgram’s 1963 main obedience study as a specific laboratory procedure. Keep it separate from the many later variations and evaluate both situational evidence and participant welfare.

Cambridge International AS & A Level Psychology 9990 · 2028–2030 · Version 1 · CORE-10
Exam scope and assessment notes

Original StudyForA teaching mapped to the Cambridge 2028–2030 syllabus. These lessons are independent study support, not Cambridge material, official mark schemes or awarded grades. No lesson reproduces a research article or Cambridge question. Human subject-expert review and full timed-paper grading remain pending. This lesson synthesises the named study from its original article and Cambridge's study outline; it is an original summary, not a reproduction of the paper.

Before you begin

  • This is one of the 12 compulsory AS core studies in the 2028–2030 Version 1 syllabus. Check that your exam entry uses this syllabus year.

Work on paper. Try each question before revealing help, and explain why your method works.

Quick readiness check

How many participants reached the maximum 450-volt switch in the main study?

What you will learn

  • Explain the study aim, sample, procedure and findings
  • Evaluate the method, ethics and evidence
  • Apply the relevant approach and issues/debates without overclaiming

Approach and research focus

Social approach. The study investigates conflict between obeying an authority figure and personal conscience, asking how far a participant proceeds when an instruction appears to harm another person.

Background: Milgram considered whether destructive obedience could be understood through a social situation as well as individual dispositions. The laboratory procedure was designed to measure the point at which a participant refused an authority’s instruction.

Aim and procedure

Forty male volunteers from the New Haven area took part in the main 1963 laboratory procedure. Under a cover story about learning, a participant was assigned the ‘teacher’ role and told to operate a shock generator in increasing labelled steps when the ‘learner’ made errors; the learner was a confederate and received no real shocks. The experimenter used standardised prompts. The dependent measure was the maximum shock level the participant was willing to select; the main study had no independent variable. Crucially, this syllabus study did not provide the teacher with voice feedback from the learner. Other Milgram variations must not be mixed into this procedure.

Results and conclusion

Twenty-six of the 40 participants continued to the maximum 450-volt switch; the others stopped earlier. Participants showed visible signs of tension, and the researchers used observation and a post-study interview. The result describes this sample and this particular authority–learner arrangement.

Many participants continued further than they expected when directed by the experimenter, showing how the immediate authority situation can influence behaviour. The study does not establish that obedience is inevitable or that the same proportion would comply in other settings.

Evaluate the evidence

A standardised laboratory procedure and a clearly recorded maximum switch position make the dependent measure comparable within this condition.

The sample comprised 40 male volunteers from one area, and the cover story and laboratory arrangement limit population and ecological generalisation.

Deception about the learner and shocks was central to the procedure; the setting could produce substantial stress, raising serious consent, withdrawal and protection concerns.

Because this main study had no independent variable, it does not itself compare authority conditions. Later variations are separate studies, not conditions in this sample.

Ethics and issues/debates

The learner received no real shocks, but participants believed they might be causing harm and showed distress. Deception, psychological harm, meaningful right to withdraw and debriefing are central ethical issues.

A modern design would require strong independent review, clear stopping safeguards and a scientifically necessary, proportionate procedure.

The social approach focuses on authority and the immediate situation; the procedure does not establish that dispositional explanations are irrelevant.

The main study measures obedience in one situation. Use later variations only when a question explicitly asks about them.

The results have everyday relevance as a prompt for examining authority, but a laboratory task cannot predict every real-world decision.

Sources for this lesson

Pause and explain

Which statement keeps the 1963 main study separate from later variations?

Put the idea to work

Worked example

A student explains the 1963 result by saying, ‘65% of people obey authority in any situation.’ Correct the claim.

Show the worked solution
  1. The figure refers to 26 of 40 participants reaching the maximum switch in one main laboratory condition.
  2. The sample was male volunteers from one area and the learner gave no voice feedback in this syllabus study.
  3. No independent variable was manipulated in the main condition, so the result is not a universal obedience rate.

Answer Twenty-six of 40 participants in Milgram’s particular 1963 main procedure reached the maximum switch. The figure cannot be generalised to all people or situations.

Try a topic test

Choose Easy, Normal or Difficult. Save your answers and open worked review after finishing.

Test this topic →

From guided practice to a new situation

Write your answer and reasoning first. Use a hint only if you are stuck. The model solution is for self-checking; your written work is not automatically marked.

1 · Guided

Twenty-six of 40 participants selected the maximum switch. State the finding and one reason not to generalise it to everyone.

Give me a hint

Name the study condition and sample before interpreting the proportion.

Compare my reasoning
  1. The result is 26 of 40 in the main 1963 laboratory procedure.
  2. Participants were male volunteers from one area.
  3. The condition also lacked voice feedback, so it does not represent every authority situation.

The result describes 26 of 40 male volunteers in one laboratory condition, not a universal obedience rate.

Look for these in your work

  • Result and denominator stated
  • Sample described
  • Scope bounded
2 · Independent

Evaluate one methodological strength and two ethical limitations of the main study.

Give me a hint

Separate measurement consistency from what participants believed and experienced.

Compare my reasoning
  1. A standardised procedure and maximum-switch measure support consistent recording.
  2. Participants were deceived about the learner and believed the shocks could harm another person.
  3. Visible tension raises concerns about distress and whether participants felt free to withdraw.

The procedure gave a consistent behavioural measure, but deception and participant distress create substantial ethical limits.

Look for these in your work

  • Measure linked to strength
  • Deception identified
  • Harm/withdrawal concern explained
3 · Transfer

Propose a safer study of how authority cues affect willingness to follow a harmless instruction.

Give me a hint

Use a non-harmful task, informed consent and an explicit stop option.

Compare my reasoning
  1. Ask consenting adults to complete a neutral sorting task under different clearly described instruction styles.
  2. Randomly assign or counterbalance the authority wording and measure whether participants begin, pause or decline.
  3. Tell participants in advance that no penalty follows refusal and allow them to stop without explanation.

A harmless, transparent task can compare clearly defined authority cues while preserving voluntary withdrawal and avoiding deceptive harm.

Look for these in your work

  • No harmful outcome
  • Authority condition operationalised
  • Consent and stop right protected

Common mistakes

  • Combining this main study with a later voice-feedback or proximity variation
  • Claiming the learner received real electric shocks
  • Calling the maximum switch level an independent variable
  • Presenting the 26/40 result as a universal rate of obedience
Recall without your notes

What can you explain now?

What was the dependent measure in the main study?

Compare with the explanation

The maximum shock level the participant selected

The main procedure recorded an outcome but did not manipulate an independent variable.

After trying it yourself, choose your next review. This is your self-assessment.

Your review choice appears on Today. Sign in to sync it across devices.

Make it stick

Name the aim, the best-evidenced result and one methodological limitation of Milgram.

If you needed the solution, close it and solve the problem again from a blank page. A correct answer is stronger when you can explain the reason for each step.

Keep learning Psychology

Course scope and assessment

Seven original lessons map all 15 AS research-method and methodological-concept sections to explained Guided, Independent and Transfer practice. All 12 compulsory AS core studies have original study-specific teaching and staged practice; five additional A Level methodology lessons cover research design and validity. All 15 Clinical, all 15 Consumer (2.1.1–2.5.3) and all 15 Health (3.1.1–3.5.3) Psychology sections link to original teaching and staged practice. All 15 Organisational Psychology sections 4.1–4.5 now have original teaching and explained staged practice; the six new 4.4–4.5 lessons bring the planning map to 92 of 92 indexed sections. Consumer lessons cover physical and psychological environments; decision models, heuristics and mistakes; packaging, selling and buying; advertising, self-monitoring, product placement, brand recognition and slogans. Evaluation boundaries are explicit: studies use particular products, samples, tasks and settings; gaze, recall, self-report, EEG indices, ratings, choices and purchases are different outcomes. Health evidence is bounded: Laba et al. measured hypothetical preferences; Riekert and Drotar raise a non-response concern; Chung and Naya's cap tracked openings, not swallowing; Chaney et al. was a short caregiver-reported pilot; Yokley and Glenwick examined immunisation attendance in one public-health setting. MacLachlan et al. report one patient, not a controlled treatment effect; Brudvik et al. compared separate child, parent and physician ratings in one emergency department. Chandola et al. found a cohort association; Wang et al. measured responses during a monitored arithmetic task; Evans and Wener observed commuters; Bridge et al. found mixed self-rated outcomes in radiotherapy. Janis and Feshbach measured short-term self-reports in one school; Lewin et al. tested a rehabilitation package, not information alone. Tapper et al. and Fox et al. studied bounded school and worksite programmes; incentive effects do not establish transfer or rule out reporting effects. Weinstein measured comparative expectations, while Seligman’s framework is conceptual and Shoshani and Steinmetz used a school-level comparison. These findings do not establish universal health effects or diagnose individuals. Need-theory examples use a child measurement study, not a workplace test; SMART is a practical checklist, not a motivational theory. Landry et al. compared reward framing with student volunteers in a lab; this does not establish universal effects in workplaces. Cuadrado et al. (2008) measured undergraduate evaluations of presented leaders, not workplace performance or hiring; this does not establish a universal gender effect. The historical 1995 Munchausen criteria are not a current diagnostic checklist. Cambridge’s 2028–2030 Reference List treats Oruč et al. (1997) as an example of genetic explanation although its participants had bipolar I; gambling disorder is listed in Cambridge’s Clinical topic but classified under addictive behaviours in ICD-11. Candidates choose two options, but all four remain listed so schools can select a route. The 92-section count is a planning index, not a Cambridge score. Remaining work is deeper coverage review, separate-year syllabus reconciliation, timed-paper practice and human subject-expert review. The separate 2027 and 2024–2026 syllabuses are not reconciled into this route. Practice is not official grading, a timed-paper simulation or human subject-expert review.

StudyForA · Learn with understanding

Original teaching content and links to official sources. Check your exam year and qualification before using a resource.