Milgram’s lesser known experiments on conditions for dissent
Overview
I recently read Thomas Blass’s intellectual biography of Stanley Milgram, The Man Who Shocked the World. In addition to being a rich behind the scenes look into Milgram’s life and work, the book described multiple variations of his well-known obedience experiments. While most results were published in academic journals, some of his important findings are often omitted from introductory psychology and social science education. These include experiments investigating conditions that reduce obedience to harmful orders. Yet, in totality, they offer a much richer picture of how different circumstances shape behavior. Below is a brief discussion about this subset of Milgram’s experiments and what they might suggest about recent events.
What increases disobedience
Social psychologist Stanley Milgram conducted over 20 variations of his famous and controversial obedience experiments. In his baseline study, 65% of participants administered the highest intensity shock to the victim or “learner” when told by an authority figure (the shocks were fake, and the learner was a confederate). Milgram began these experiments in the early 1960s, motivated to explain how ordinary Germans participated in the Holocaust.
What often receives less attention is Milgram’s contributions about how to counteract harm. The most effective experimental conditions for disobedience included:
-
Dissenting peers: When participants witnessed other “teachers” defy authority, only 10% obeyed orders.
-
Personal choice and responsibility: When participants could choose shock levels rather than being explicitly ordered to escalate, almost no one delivered shocks.
-
Closer contact with the victim: When the participant had to hold the learner’s hand onto a shock plate, obedience fell to 30%.
Other conditions that diminished obedience included contradictory orders from multiple authority figures, reduced legitimacy of the authority (moving the experiment from Yale’s lab to a run-down office off-campus), and remotely delivered orders.
It’s important to note that there are valid critiques of Milgram’s obedience experiments, related to ethics as well as replication. For an excellent overview, see 50 Years of “Obedience to Authority”: From Blind Conformity to Engaged Followership by Haslam and Reicher.
Some lessons for today?
Though there are caveats with translating Milgram’s lab finding to real-world scenarios, it’s worth revisiting this seminal work and what it may offer.
For those being asked to do harm, or who are part of institutions that are in some ways participating in harm, you may be more powerful than you think. In the US, nonviolent resistance by ordinary federal workers has reportedly impaired DOGE’s ability to destroy lifesaving programs. Some big law firms have experienced pushback and attrition after caving to political pressure by the Trump administration. Curiously, even the US Army acted in what some described as “malicious compliance” during the military parade coinciding with Trump’s birthday.
While visible dissent and witnessing peers disobey increases the probability of others doing so, not all such acts need to be loud. As political scientist Adam Bonica notes, professors can play a quiet but important role by supporting student protesters. Student protests have the potential for far reaching influence, because many have historically led to larger movements that resulted in downfall of powerful leaders and regimes.
Dissent can carry varying degrees of risk and that’s important to acknowledge. But it can also slow down harm, buy time, and catalyze others to act as well.