Milgram Experiment: Authority & Ethics in the Classroom

Milgram (1963) found 65% of people gave dangerous shocks to a stranger when told. They thought the shocks could kill. Burger's (2009) similar study shows the findings hold true. Milgram's Yale study looked at obedience to authority.

‍

​

‍

What Was the Milgram Experiment?

The Milgram Experiment was a series of social psychology studies demonstrating the extent to which people obey authority figures. Teachers' authority affects learner behaviour in class. Educators, be aware of your influence. Encourage learners to think critically and question harmful commands (Milgram, date).

The Milgram experiment was designed to understand the psychology of obedience to authority. Milgram (1963) sought to answer the question: Could the atrocities of the Holocaust be explained by situational factors rather than dispositional evil? He wanted to test the "Germans are different" hypothesis. The study involved recruiting participants through newspaper adverts, telling them they would be participating in a study on learning and memory. Participants were then assigned the role of "teacher" and instructed to administer electric shocks to a "learner" (who was actually a confederate) each time they made a mistake on a word-pair task. The shocks increased in voltage with each error. A key element was the experimenter's role. The experimenter, dressed in a lab coat, provided verbal prods to the teacher, such as "Please continue" or "The experiment requires that you continue," whenever the teacher hesitated or expressed a desire to stop. These prods were designed to exert pressure on the teacher to obey. The Milgram experiment offers important insights into moral development. For instance, consider a classroom scenario: a teacher asks a learner to complete a task that makes them uncomfortable, such as reading aloud a passage they find embarrassing. The learner hesitates, but the teacher insists, saying, "It's part of the lesson, and everyone needs to participate." The Milgram study suggests that the learner is more likely to comply due to the teacher's authority, even if they feel uneasy. Teachers can use this understanding to reflect on their own use of authority. Are instructions always necessary, or can learners be given more autonomy? Creating a classroom environment where learners feel safe to question instructions and express discomfort can encourage a more ethical and engaging learning space. This links to Carl Rogers' humanistic theory, which emphasises the importance of creating a supportive and empathetic environment for learning.

​

‍

How the Procedure Tested Obedience

The Milgram experiment used a carefully constructed procedure to manipulate and measure obedience. Participants were told that the study was investigating the effects of punishment on learning. This deception was crucial to the experiment's design. The "learner" was seated in another room and strapped to an "electric chair." In reality, the chair was not functional, and no actual shocks were administered. The learner followed a script, making pre-determined errors and expressing increasing levels of discomfort as the shock levels supposedly increased. At 150 volts, the learner began to complain of chest pain. At higher voltages, they screamed and eventually fell silent, implying unconsciousness or worse. The teacher was seated in front of a shock generator with switches ranging from 15 to 450 volts, labelled with descriptions like "Slight Shock," "Moderate Shock," and "Danger: Severe Shock." The teacher was instructed to administer a shock each time the learner made an error, increasing the voltage with each subsequent error. The experimenter's prods were standardised to ensure consistency across participants. These prods were: 1. "Please continue." 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." Think about a typical classroom setting. A teacher might ask learners to complete a worksheet independently, even when some learners are struggling. The teacher might say, "Just keep trying your best" or "You need to finish this before the end of the lesson." This echoes the experimenter's prods in the Milgram study. The teacher's authority and the perceived importance of completing the task can pressure learners to comply, even if they are finding it difficult or frustrating. Scaffolding in education can help learners overcome difficulties and reduce the need for such pressure. Teachers should be mindful of the pressure they place on learners. Providing clear explanations, offering support, and allowing for flexibility can create a more positive learning environment. Employing effective questioning strategies can also help gauge learners' understanding and address any difficulties they may be facing.

​

‍

Why Ordinary People Followed Orders

The most striking result of the Milgram experiment was the high level of obedience observed. In the original study, 65 per cent of participants administered the maximum 450-volt shock (Milgram, 1963). This finding was replicated in various forms and locations, suggesting that obedience to authority is a pervasive phenomenon. Blass's (1999) meta-analysis of multiple Milgram-style studies confirmed the consistency of these findings across different populations and time periods. Milgram proposed several factors to explain this high level of obedience. One key factor was the perceived legitimacy of the authority figure. The experimenter's lab coat and association with Yale University conveyed authority and expertise. Another factor was the gradual escalation of the shocks. Starting with small shocks made it easier for participants to continue administering higher shocks incrementally. The diffusion of responsibility also played a role. Participants may have felt less personally responsible for the learner's well-being because they were following the experimenter's instructions. Milgram (1974) described this as entering an "agentic state," where individuals see themselves as agents of another person's will. Consider a classroom scenario where a teacher implements a new behaviour management system. The teacher, as the authority figure, explains the rules and consequences. Learners may initially resist the new system, but the teacher's consistent enforcement and the gradual implementation of rewards and punishments can lead to compliance. The learners may begin to follow the rules, even if they disagree with them, because they perceive the teacher as a legitimate authority and feel pressure to conform. This also relates to social learning theory, where learners observe and imitate the behaviour of authority figures. Teachers can use this understanding to promote positive behaviour in the classroom. Building trust and rapport with learners, explaining the rationale behind rules, and involving learners in decision-making can encourage a sense of shared responsibility and reduce the need for authoritarian control.

​

‍

Key Variations and Replications

Milgram conducted numerous variations of his original experiment to explore the factors that influenced obedience. One significant variation involved the proximity of the learner. When the learner was in the same room as the teacher, obedience rates dropped to around 40 per cent. When the teacher had to physically force the learner's hand onto the shock plate, obedience dropped further, to 30 per cent. This highlights the importance of physical proximity in influencing obedience (Milgram, 1974). Another variation explored the role of authority. When the experimenter was replaced by an "ordinary man" (another confederate), obedience rates plummeted. This demonstrated that the perceived legitimacy of the authority figure was crucial. The location of the experiment also mattered. When the experiment was moved from Yale University to a run-down office building, obedience rates decreased slightly, though they remained substantial. Burger (2009) conducted a partial replication of the Milgram experiment, implementing stricter ethical safeguards. He found obedience rates similar to Milgram's original study, suggesting that the phenomenon of obedience to authority remains relevant today. However, Burger stopped the experiment at 150 volts, the point at which the learner first explicitly demanded to be released, to minimise distress. Imagine a classroom where a supply teacher is covering a lesson. Learners may be more likely to test the boundaries and challenge the supply teacher's authority compared to their regular teacher. This is because the supply teacher is perceived as less of an authority figure. Similarly, if a school policy is implemented inconsistently or is perceived as unfair, learners may be less likely to comply. This highlights the importance of consistent and fair application of rules and policies to maintain authority. Understanding Bronfenbrenner's ecological model can also help teachers appreciate the broader context in which learners' behaviour is shaped. Teachers can use these insights to reflect on their own authority and how it is perceived by learners. Building positive relationships, establishing clear expectations, and consistently enforcing rules can enhance their authority and promote a more cooperative learning environment.

​

‍

Ethical Concerns and Criticism

The Milgram experiment has been the subject of intense ethical debate since its publication. Critics argued that the study inflicted significant psychological distress on participants. Participants believed they were causing harm to another person, and many experienced considerable anxiety and guilt. Baumrind (1964) was a particularly vocal critic, arguing that the deception and emotional distress were unacceptable. One of the main ethical concerns was the lack of fully informed consent. Participants were not fully aware of the true nature of the experiment or the potential risks involved. They were deceived about the purpose of the study and the fact that the "shocks" were not real. Another concern was the right to withdraw. Although participants were told they could leave at any time, the experimenter's prods made it difficult for them to do so. The pressure to continue created a coercive environment. The Milgram experiment prompted significant changes in research ethics guidelines. Modern research ethics boards now require researchers to obtain fully informed consent, minimise potential harm to participants, and ensure that participants have the right to withdraw at any time without penalty. Debriefing is also essential. The Stanford Prison Experiment conducted by Zimbardo (1971) faced similar ethical criticisms. Arendt's (1963) concept of the "banality of evil" offers a broader perspective on the Milgram experiment. It suggests that ordinary people can commit terrible acts when placed in certain situations and under the influence of authority. Consider a school setting where a teacher uses a public shaming strategy to manage behaviour. While the teacher may believe they are promoting discipline, the strategy can inflict significant emotional distress on the learner and create a hostile learning environment. This demonstrates the importance of ethical considerations in all aspects of teaching. Teachers should be aware of the potential for their actions to cause harm, even unintentionally. Reflecting on their own use of authority and seeking feedback from colleagues can help them identify and address any ethical concerns.

​

‍

What Is Agentic State Theory?

Milgram (1974) developed agentic state theory to explain the psychological mechanism behind his disturbing findings. The theory suggests that individuals shift from an autonomous state, where they feel responsible for their actions, to an agentic state. In this agentic state, people see themselves as instruments carrying out the wishes of an authority figure. Responsibility is displaced onto the authority, reducing personal guilt and moral strain. Imagine a teacher asking learners to complete a worksheet filled with repetitive exercises. A learner might normally question the value of such an activity. However, if the teacher frames it as "something the headteacher wants us to do," the learner may comply without further questioning. They have entered an agentic state, seeing themselves as an agent of the headteacher’s will rather than making an independent judgement about the task's worth. The shift to an agentic state is more likely when the authority figure is perceived as legitimate and the individual feels part of a hierarchical structure. The gradual escalation of demands also plays a role. Small requests are followed by increasingly larger ones, making it difficult to resist the final, more objectionable demand. This is similar to how the voltage was increased incrementally in the Milgram experiment. Teachers can use this understanding to promote ethical decision-making in the classroom. One strategy is to explicitly encourage learners to question instructions, especially when they feel uncomfortable. Teachers can also model critical thinking and ethical reasoning, demonstrating that questioning authority is acceptable and even desirable in certain situations. Creating a classroom culture that values autonomy and personal responsibility can counteract the tendency to blindly obey. This can be supported by scaffolding in education so learners can engage with increasingly complex ethical dilemmas.

​

‍

Authority and Compliance in Classrooms

The dynamics of obedience and authority are ever-present in the classroom. Teachers, by virtue of their position, hold authority over learners. This power active can influence learner behaviour in both positive and negative ways. Understanding the factors that promote blind obedience can help teachers create a more ethical and effective learning environment. Consider a classroom where learners are discouraged from questioning the teacher's methods. The teacher might say, "Just do it this way because I said so." Such a statement shuts down critical thinking and encourages compliance. Learners may complete tasks without understanding the underlying principles, simply because they are following orders. This can hinder deep learning and the development of metacognition. Milgram's research suggests that factors like proximity and perceived legitimacy of authority significantly impact obedience levels. In a classroom, a teacher's physical presence and perceived expertise contribute to their authority. However, it's crucial to use this authority responsibly. Teachers should strive to create a classroom climate where learners feel safe to express their opinions and challenge ideas respectfully. One practical strategy is to use collaborative activities that distribute authority. Group projects, peer teaching, and class discussions can enable learners and reduce their reliance on the teacher as the sole source of knowledge. Teachers can also explicitly teach critical thinking skills, encouraging learners to evaluate information and make informed decisions. Drawing on sociocultural theory, teachers can also model how to respectfully question and challenge ideas.

​

‍

How the Stanford Prison Study Differs

The Milgram experiment is often compared to the Stanford Prison Experiment conducted by Philip Zimbardo in 1971. Both studies explored the power of situational forces on human behaviour. However, they differed significantly in their methodology and focus. Milgram examined obedience to authority, while Zimbardo investigated the effects of assigned roles and social context. In the Stanford Prison Experiment, participants were randomly assigned to the roles of "guards" and "prisoners" in a simulated prison environment. The study was halted after only six days due to the disturbing behaviour of the "guards," who became increasingly authoritarian and abusive. The "prisoners," in turn, became passive and submissive. Zimbardo concluded that situational factors can override individual personalities, leading ordinary people to behave in cruel and inhumane ways. A key difference lies in the explicitness of instructions. Milgram's participants were directly instructed to administer shocks. Zimbardo's participants were given more ambiguous instructions, allowing them to interpret their roles more freely. This difference highlights the specific impact of direct orders versus the more general influence of social roles and expectations. Both experiments faced severe ethical criticism. However, they also provided valuable insights into the power of situational influences. For teachers, the key takeaway is that the classroom environment can profoundly impact learner behaviour. Creating a positive and supportive classroom culture, where learners feel valued and respected, is crucial for promoting ethical behaviour and academic success. Teachers might also reflect on Bronfenbrenner's ecological model to consider the broader influences on behaviour.

​

‍

How Teachers Can Apply This Research

Milgram’s work offers several important lessons for teachers. The most significant is the recognition that situational factors can powerfully influence behaviour. Learners are not simply products of their personalities or backgrounds. The classroom environment, the teacher's authority, and the expectations of the school system all play a crucial role. First, teachers should be mindful of their own authority and how it impacts learners. A teacher who is overly authoritarian or controlling may inadvertently create an environment where learners feel pressured to comply without question. This can stifle creativity, critical thinking, and independent learning. Instead, teachers should strive to create a more democratic classroom where learners have a voice and feel enabled to participate actively. Second, teachers should be aware of the potential for gradual escalation. Small requests or demands can lead to larger, more problematic ones. For example, a teacher who initially asks learners to simply follow instructions may gradually increase the pressure to conform, leading to a situation where learners feel unable to resist even unreasonable demands. Third, Milgram’s findings underscore the importance of ethical awareness and moral reasoning. Teachers should explicitly teach these skills, encouraging learners to question authority and make informed decisions based on their own values. Creating opportunities for ethical discussions and role-playing scenarios can help learners develop their moral compass. This can link to discussions around Kohlberg's moral development and how learners develop their understanding of right and wrong.

​

‍

Recent Criticisms: Did Milgram Manipulate the Data?

Recent criticisms highlight new archival research questioning the simplicity of Milgram's original findings and the standardisation of his procedures. Gina Perry's work with recordings, notes and participant interviews suggests that some people were more doubtful than the published reports implied, and some procedures were less standardised than textbook summaries suggest. That does not mean the study was invented, but it does mean teachers should present the famous 65 per cent figure as important evidence, not as the final word.

These criticisms also affect how we explain why people obey. Haslam, Reicher and Birney argued that many participants may have continued not because they switched off their morals, but because they identified with the scientific purpose of the experiment and trusted the authority leading it. For classroom teaching, this is a useful distinction, because it moves discussion beyond the idea that obedience is just weakness. It shows how context, legitimacy and shared goals can shape behaviour.

One practical strategy is to teach Milgram as a live debate rather than a closed case. Ask pupils to compare Milgram's 1963 paper with later criticisms from Perry, then sort claims into three groups: well supported, uncertain, and challenged. This helps students practise evaluation skills and see how psychological knowledge changes when new evidence appears.

A second strategy is to connect the debate to research methods and ethics. Students can discuss how deception, standardisation and debriefing affect the credibility of a study, then link this to modern ethical rules in psychology. A third classroom example is to apply the findings to school life, such as uniform rules, peer pressure, or online behaviour, and ask when following authority is sensible and when it should be questioned. That keeps Milgram relevant, rigorous and useful for teachers.

‍

Would People Still Obey Today?

This section explores whether people would still obey authority figures in modern society, despite increased awareness of rights and ethics. Jerry Burger's 2009 partial replication suggests the answer is, to an uncomfortable degree, yes. He stopped the procedure at 150 volts for ethical reasons, but many participants were still willing to continue that far when prompted by an authority figure. The broader message is that obedience is not just a product of the 1960s, it is a recurring feature of human behaviour when authority appears legitimate and responsibility feels shared.

Cross-cultural studies and later variations point in the same direction, although the exact level of obedience changes with context. Researchers have found that people are more likely to comply when instructions are given calmly, escalation is gradual, and someone else seems to take responsibility, which fits Milgram's agentic state explanation. Obedience usually drops when the victim feels psychologically closer, or when another person models resistance. For teachers, this matters because classrooms are full of authority signals, routines and pressures to conform, even when the stakes are far lower.

One practical strategy is to teach pupils to spot the conditions that make obedience easier. In discussion, you might give students a short scenario such as a group leader telling a pupil to exclude someone, then ask, who holds authority here, who carries the blame, and what would make refusal easier. A second strategy is to teach challenge language explicitly, for example, 'Can you explain why we are doing this?' or 'I do not think that is fair.' These sentence stems help pupils see that questioning authority can be thoughtful, not rude.

A third strategy is to use Milgram and Burger as a bridge into classroom culture. After learning the studies, pupils can reflect on moments when they followed a group, kept quiet, or changed their mind because someone influential spoke first. This helps move the lesson beyond shock value and towards ethical judgement. In psychology, PSHE or citizenship, the lasting lesson is not that people are simply cruel, but that good systems, clear accountability and permission to question authority all matter.

‍

Rethinking Compliance: Modern Behaviour Policies

Rethinking compliance in modern behaviour policies involves considering how school systems teach pupils about authority and the risks of blind obedience. Milgram’s idea of the agentic state is a useful warning here: when people stop judging the purpose of an instruction and simply comply, obedience can replace thought. In schools, that risk appears when zero-tolerance policies turn behaviour into automatic sanction chains and leave little space for professional judgement, context, or pupil reflection.

This does not mean schools should abandon routines or consequences. It means behavioural frameworks should separate calm consistency from punitive compliance. The evidence base is uncomfortable for hard-line models: the EEF (2019) found limited direct evidence for zero-tolerance approaches, while the APA Zero Tolerance Task Force (2008) concluded that such policies had weak support and notable unintended harms. By contrast, NICE (2022) explicitly recommends relational practise, inclusion, and attention to trauma-informed pedagogy.

A practical example makes the difference clear. A Year 8 pupil comes in from lunch, drops his book, and refuses the starter task; under a purely punitive model the script is, “You have not started, this is your warning, next step is removal,” and the pupil’s internal message is, “Just do it so I stay out of trouble.” In a relational practise model, the teacher still holds the line but responds differently: “You need to begin now. Start with question one only, I’ll be back in two minutes.” The pupil settles, completes the first retrieval question, and produces two accurate bullet points. That is self-regulation being taught, not just enforced.

For busy teachers, the test is simple. If a policy produces silence but not internalised motivation, better choices, or stronger self-control when no adult is watching, it is probably training obedience more than behaviour. Current UK guidance still backs high expectations, but it increasingly asks schools to match them with proportionate responses, SEND awareness, and thoughtful support rather than automatic escalation (DfE, 2024; NICE, 2022).

‍

‍

Frequently Asked Questions

How can teachers encourage pupils to question instructions respectfully?

Teach simple sentence stems such as "Can you explain why we are doing this?" or "I am not sure that is safe or fair". Build short pause points into lessons so pupils can ask for clarification before starting a task. Praise respectful challenge when it is thoughtful and evidence-based, not just quick compliance.

‍

Why do some pupils follow instructions even when they do not understand them?

Many pupils would rather avoid embarrassment or disapproval than admit confusion. Reduce this by checking understanding before work begins, using mini whiteboards, exit questions, or anonymous question boxes. Clear routines make it easier for pupils to ask for help early.

‍

What classroom routines reduce blind compliance?

Use routines that require thinking, not just obedience. Ask pupils to restate instructions in their own words, explain the purpose of a rule, and identify what to do if something feels unsafe or unfair. This helps build judgement alongside behaviour expectations.

‍

How can I use the Milgram experiment in a PSHE or citizenship lesson?

Frame it around moral choice, responsibility, and speaking up, rather than the shock procedure itself. Give pupils a scenario, ask what pressures are operating, and practise safe ways to disagree with authority. It works well when linked to safeguarding, bystander behaviour, and digital influence.

‍

How can schools help students speak up when an instruction feels wrong?

Students need explicit permission to question, plus a safe route for doing it. Schools can teach reporting scripts, display safeguarding contacts, and role-play how to challenge or seek a second adult. Adults then need to respond calmly so speaking up is seen as responsible, not defiant.

‍

While Milgram's findings are widely cited, subsequent archival research by Gina Perry has offered a critical re-examination of the original studies. Perry meticulously investigated Milgram's personal papers, laboratory notes, audio recordings, and participant questionnaires, revealing a more nuanced and complex picture than initially presented (Perry, 2012). Her work challenges some long-held assumptions about the experiment's methodology and conclusions.

Perry's archival research indicated that Milgram often manipulated his data, presenting selected results to support his obedience hypothesis. She found evidence that many participants did not fully believe the experimental setup, suspecting the learner was not truly receiving shocks. Milgram sometimes excluded participants who expressed doubt, skewing the reported obedience rates.

Furthermore, Perry (2012) uncovered significant inconsistencies in the experimental procedure itself. The experimenter's "prods" to continue were not always standardised; some participants received far more forceful or frequent instructions than others. While Milgram reported high levels of distress, Perry's analysis of the raw footage and participant accounts suggested that the extent and nature of this distress were often more varied and complex than the published reports conveyed.

The famous "65% obedience" figure, often presented as a singular, robust finding, was an average across several variations of the experiment. Perry's archival research showed that obedience rates varied considerably between different conditions, and Milgram's reporting sometimes conflated these. This means the headline figure masks significant methodological differences and participant responses across the studies.

Perry's work suggests that obedience was not as straightforward or automatic as Milgram's initial interpretation implied. Factors such as participant suspicion, the experimenter's inconsistent behaviour, and the selection of data all played a role in shaping the reported outcomes. This perspective encourages a more critical view of the power of authority and the individual's capacity for resistance or doubt.

For teachers, understanding Gina Perry's archival research is crucial for presenting the Milgram experiment comprehensively. It moves beyond simply stating the findings to exploring the scientific process itself, including potential biases and methodological limitations. For example, a psychology teacher might present Milgram's original claims, then introduce Perry's findings, asking pupils to analyse how the new evidence changes their interpretation of obedience.

Pupils could discuss questions like: "If participants suspected the shocks were fake, how does that affect the conclusion about obedience?" or "What does Perry's work teach us about evaluating psychological research?" This approach encourages critical thinking about source material and the complexities of scientific inquiry. It highlights that even landmark studies can be subject to rigorous re-evaluation and reinterpretation over time.

The Milgram experiment, while profoundly influential, ignited an intense ethical debate, largely spearheaded by psychologist Diana Baumrind. Her seminal ethical critique, published in the American Psychologist in 1964, challenged the fundamental morality and methodology of Milgram's research. Baumrind argued that the study inflicted unacceptable psychological distress upon participants and violated established ethical principles for human experimentation.

Baumrind specifically condemned the extensive deception employed by Milgram. Participants were led to believe they were administering painful, potentially lethal electric shocks to another human being, causing significant emotional turmoil. This deliberate misrepresentation of the experiment's true nature prevented genuine informed consent, a cornerstone of ethical research practice.

Participants exhibited clear signs of extreme stress, including trembling, sweating, stuttering, and nervous laughter, indicating severe psychological discomfort. Baumrind contended that exposing individuals to such intense emotional conflict, where they believed they were harming another person, could lead to lasting psychological damage. She questioned the long-term impact on participants' self-perception and their trust in scientific authority.

Milgram (1964) defended his research by citing extensive debriefing sessions and follow-up questionnaires, which indicated that most participants reported positive feelings about their involvement. He maintained that the scientific insights gained into human obedience justified the temporary discomfort experienced. However, Baumrind's critique highlighted the inherent power imbalance between researcher and participant, arguing that participants might feel pressured to express satisfaction even after a distressing experience.

The vigorous debate initiated by Baumrind's critique was instrumental in shaping modern research ethics. It directly contributed to the mandatory establishment of institutional review boards (IRBs) or ethics committees, which now scrutinise all proposed research involving human subjects. These bodies ensure adherence to principles such as fully informed consent, the right to withdraw without penalty, and comprehensive post-experiment debriefing.

In educational settings, the Milgram experiment and Baumrind's critique serve as a crucial case study in research ethics. For instance, in an A-level psychology class, teachers might present students with the original study design and then ask them to evaluate it against current ethical guidelines. Pupils could then draft a revised experimental procedure that addresses Baumrind's concerns while still attempting to investigate obedience, perhaps by using simulated scenarios or less harmful stimuli, demonstrating their understanding of ethical research practice.

The Milgram experiment's findings resonate deeply with the philosophical observations of Hannah Arendt, particularly her concept of the banality of evil. Arendt, a political theorist, observed the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem in 1961, a key organiser of the Holocaust. She noted that Eichmann was not a monstrous sadist but an ordinary bureaucrat who meticulously performed his duties without apparent malice or deep ideological conviction.

Arendt (1963) coined the term "banality of evil" to describe how evil can manifest not through radical wickedness but through thoughtlessness, adherence to rules, and a failure to engage in critical moral reasoning. Eichmann's actions, she argued, stemmed from a lack of imagination and an uncritical acceptance of orders, rather than from inherent evil. He was concerned with career progression and administrative efficiency, viewing himself as merely "doing his job".

Milgram's research provides empirical support for Arendt's controversial thesis. His participants, like Eichmann, were largely ordinary individuals who inflicted harm not out of personal hatred, but because they were following instructions from an authority figure (Milgram, 1974). They became agents in a system, disengaging their personal moral compass in favour of fulfilling a perceived duty. This demonstrates how situational pressures can lead individuals to commit acts they would otherwise consider reprehensible.

Understanding the banality of evil is crucial for educators. It challenges the simplistic notion that only "bad people" commit bad acts, instead highlighting the importance of critical thinking and moral courage in everyday situations. Teachers can use these insights to help pupils recognise the subtle pressures to conform and the potential for harm when individuals abdicate personal responsibility.

For instance, in a PSHE or history lesson, a teacher might present a scenario where a group of students is asked to enforce a seemingly minor, but unfair, rule on their peers. The teacher could then ask: "What are the potential consequences if you simply follow this rule without questioning it? What responsibilities do you have, even when someone in authority gives an instruction?" This prompts pupils to consider the ethical dimensions of obedience and the importance of independent moral judgment.

Discussing Arendt's concept alongside Milgram's findings encourages pupils to reflect on their own capacity for independent thought and action. It underscores that resisting harmful authority requires conscious effort and a commitment to ethical principles, rather than assuming one would automatically act heroically. This pedagogical approach equips pupils with the tools to navigate complex social and ethical dilemmas throughout their lives.

Milgram conducted numerous variations of his original obedience experiment, systematically altering variables to understand their impact. One particularly noteworthy, though unpublished, variation was the Relationship Condition (Condition 24). In this iteration, participants were asked to administer electric shocks to a close friend or family member, rather than a stranger.

The design of the Relationship Condition (Condition 24) aimed to test the strength of personal bonds against perceived authority. Participants were instructed to bring someone they knew well to act as the 'learner'. This setup created a direct conflict between the participant's social connection and the experimental demand to inflict pain.

Milgram hypothesised that the pre-existing personal relationship would significantly reduce obedience.

The ethical controversies surrounding Milgram's original experiments prompted researchers to explore alternative methodologies for studying obedience without exposing participants to similar distress. Virtual Reality Replications emerged as a promising avenue, allowing for the creation of immersive, controlled environments that simulate the core elements of the Milgram paradigm. This approach enables researchers to investigate human behaviour in ethically sensitive contexts.

One significant contribution came from Mel Slater and colleagues in 2006, who conducted an immersive virtual reality replication of the Milgram experiment. Participants interacted with a virtual learner and a virtual experimenter, administering what they believed were electric shocks. The study aimed to determine if the psychological impact and behavioural responses observed by Milgram could be elicited in a simulated environment (Slater et al., 2006).

Slater's findings were compelling, demonstrating that participants in the virtual reality scenario still exhibited severe stress and physiological arousal. Measures such as heart rate and skin conductance showed significant increases, indicating genuine emotional engagement despite the knowledge that the situation was not real. Crucially, a substantial proportion of participants continued to administer shocks up to the maximum level when instructed by the virtual authority figure (Slater et al., 2006).

These virtual reality replications provide strong evidence that the situational factors identified by Milgram are powerful determinants of obedience, even when the consequences are known to be simulated. The immersive nature of virtual reality appears sufficient to trigger the psychological mechanisms of the agentic state, where individuals perceive themselves as instruments of another's will. This reinforces Milgram's original assertion that ordinary people can engage in harmful behaviour under specific situational pressures.

The use of virtual reality in studying obedience offers significant ethical advantages, allowing researchers to explore complex human behaviour without causing actual harm or distress to participants. It permits detailed observation of reactions and decision-making processes in a controlled, repeatable manner. This methodology ensures that the pursuit of psychological understanding aligns with modern ethical guidelines for human research.

For educators, discussing these Virtual Reality Replications provides a valuable opportunity to explore both the enduring relevance of Milgram's work and the evolution of research ethics. Teachers can explain how technology allows for the investigation of sensitive topics responsibly. For example, a teacher might present the scenario to pupils: "Imagine you are designing a virtual reality experiment to study bystander behaviour. How would you ensure participants feel immersed enough to react naturally, but also protect their psychological well-being and right to withdraw?"

This discussion helps pupils understand the careful balance researchers must strike between experimental control and participant welfare. It highlights how advancements in technology, like virtual reality, enable continued exploration of fundamental psychological questions within an ethical framework. Understanding these modern approaches deepens pupils' appreciation for the complexities of psychological research and its real-world implications.

While Milgram's findings on obedience were impactful, a significant methodological critique emerged concerning the participants' belief in the experimental setup. Critics argued that the study was susceptible to demand characteristics, where participants infer the experiment's purpose and adjust their behaviour to align with what they perceive the researcher expects.

Martin Orne (1962) was a leading voice in this critique, highlighting how cues within an experimental setting can influence participant behaviour. He suggested that participants in psychological experiments often enter a "pact of ignorance" where they implicitly understand the artificiality of the situation and try to be "good subjects" by fulfilling perceived expectations. Charles Holland (1967) further elaborated on this, specifically applying the critique to Milgram's work.

Orne and Holland argued that many participants likely did not genuinely believe they were administering dangerous electric shocks. They reasoned that the prestigious Yale University setting, coupled with the experimenter's calm demeanour despite the learner's apparent distress, might have subtly communicated that no real harm would occur. Participants might have inferred that the experiment was a deception designed to observe their reactions, leading them to play along with the scenario.

Don Mixon (1972) reinforced this perspective, suggesting that participants were not truly deceived but rather engaged in a form of 'play-acting', responding to the implicit demands of the situation. If participants did not believe the shocks were real, then their "obedience" might reflect a willingness to cooperate with the experimenter rather than a genuine willingness to inflict pain under authority. This interpretation fundamentally challenges Milgram's conclusion that ordinary people are capable of extreme cruelty when commanded.

For example, if a teacher asks pupils to perform a seemingly unusual task, such as sorting objects by a hidden rule, pupils might try to guess the rule and then sort the objects in a way that confirms their hypothesis, rather than following their natural inclination. The teacher must carefully design instructions and procedures to minimise such cues, ensuring that pupils' responses genuinely reflect their understanding or behaviour rather than their perception of what is expected.

The critique by Orne and Holland highlights the importance of experimental realism and participant belief in the validity of research findings. It prompts educators and researchers to consider how the context and cues within any learning or experimental environment might inadvertently shape responses, potentially obscuring genuine understanding or behaviour.

The ethical controversies surrounding Milgram's obedience experiments were pivotal, directly influencing the establishment of formal guidelines for human research. Prior to Milgram's work, and particularly following the atrocities of World War II, there was a growing recognition of the need for robust ethical frameworks to protect research participants. This led to the development of foundational documents that continue to shape research practice today.

One such foundational document is the Nuremberg Code, established in 1947 as a direct result of the Nuremberg Trials. This code outlined ten ethical principles for human experimentation, primarily in response to the horrific medical experiments conducted by Nazi physicians. Its core tenets include the absolute necessity of voluntary consent, the right of the participant to withdraw at any time, and the avoidance of all unnecessary physical and mental suffering. The Nuremberg Code asserted that the welfare of the individual participant must always take precedence over the interests of science or society.

Building upon these early principles, the Belmont Report was published in 1979 in the United States, following public outcry over unethical research, most notably the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. This report articulated three fundamental ethical principles for the protection of human subjects in research: Respect for Persons, Beneficence, and Justice. Respect for Persons acknowledges individual autonomy and requires informed consent, while Beneficence obligates researchers to maximise potential benefits and minimise potential harms. Justice demands that the burdens and benefits of research are distributed fairly across populations (Resnik, 2018).

These two documents, the Nuremberg Code and the Belmont Report, form the bedrock of modern research ethics. They mandate that all research involving human participants undergoes rigorous ethical review by independent committees, often known as Research Ethics Committees (RECs) in the UK or Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in the US. These committees ensure that studies adhere to principles such as informed consent, minimisation of risk, and protection of vulnerable populations, preventing a recurrence of the ethical failings seen in studies like Milgram's.

For teachers, understanding these ethical frameworks is crucial, not only when discussing historical studies like Milgram's but also when conducting classroom-based research or teaching research methods. For example, if a teacher plans to conduct a small survey on student learning preferences, they must ensure pupils understand their right to refuse participation and that their responses will be kept confidential. This directly applies the principles of Respect for Persons and Beneficence, ensuring that any data collection is conducted ethically and prioritises pupil welfare.

The Milgram experiment did not emerge in isolation; it built upon earlier foundational research into social influence. Stanley Milgram was a student of Solomon Asch, whose pioneering work on conformity in the 1950s significantly shaped the understanding of how group pressure affects individual judgment. Asch's studies demonstrated that individuals often yield to group opinion, even when that opinion contradicts clear perceptual evidence. This established a crucial baseline for understanding the power of social context.

In his classic conformity experiments, Asch (1951) presented participants with a simple perceptual task: matching the length of a line to one of three comparison lines. While confederates in the group deliberately gave incorrect answers, the lone naive participant frequently conformed to the erroneous majority, despite the correct answer being visually obvious. This revealed the powerful influence of social pressure on individual decision-making and the desire for social acceptance.

Milgram's subsequent research on obedience can be seen as a direct extension and deepening of Asch's work. While Asch explored conformity to peer groups and the pressure to align with a majority, Milgram investigated the extent to which individuals would obey direct commands from an authority figure, even when those commands involved inflicting apparent harm. Both researchers sought to understand how powerful situational forces could override personal moral judgment and autonomy. The transition from conforming to a wrong answer to obeying a potentially harmful command highlights a continuum of social influence.

Both Asch and Milgram's findings profoundly underscore the impact of situational variables on human behaviour, challenging purely dispositional explanations. They demonstrated that ordinary people, under specific social pressures or authoritative instructions, can act in ways that contradict their personal beliefs or moral compass. This perspective is crucial for educators understanding group dynamics, individual responses within a classroom setting, and the broader mechanisms of social influence.

Consider a classroom scenario where a teacher asks a question, and several confident students (perhaps genuinely mistaken or influenced by others) offer an incorrect answer. A less confident pupil, despite possessing the correct knowledge, might conform to the group's response to avoid standing out or appearing incorrect. This directly mirrors Asch's findings on conformity, illustrating how peer pressure and the desire for social acceptance can influence a pupil's stated understanding, even if their internal knowledge is accurate. Teachers must be aware of such dynamics to accurately assess individual learning and encourage independent, critical thought.

Jerry M. Burger conducted a partial replication of Milgram's obedience study in 2009, investigating whether similar levels of obedience still existed under modern ethical standards. His study, often called "Obedience Lite", addressed significant ethical concerns from Milgram's original research. Burger's primary modification was his "150-volt solution", where participants were stopped if they administered the 150-volt shock and showed any hesitation to continue. This ethical constraint prevented participants from experiencing the full psychological distress observed previously.

The 150-volt solution was strategically chosen because, in Milgram's (1963) original studies, 79% of participants who continued past the 150-volt mark proceeded to administer the maximum 450-volt shock. This voltage represented a critical point where the learner's protests became most vocal, indicating a participant's willingness to obey. By stopping participants at this juncture, Burger (2009) could assess the initial propensity to obey without requiring them to inflict what they believed were dangerous levels of harm, ensuring a more ethically sound investigation.

Burger's (2009) findings were remarkably consistent with Milgram's, despite the ethical modifications. He found that 70% of participants were willing to continue past the 150-volt point, only a slight decrease from Milgram's 82.5% who continued past 150 volts. This suggests the fundamental human tendency to obey perceived authority figures remains largely unchanged. Furthermore, Burger's study found no significant difference in obedience rates between men and women, nor did personality traits like empathy or desire for control predict obedience.

These findings reinforce that situational factors powerfully influence behaviour, often overriding individual dispositions. In an educational context, understanding Burger's (2009) replication helps teachers recognise subtle pressures leading to compliance, even when pupils privately disagree. For example, a teacher might observe pupils quietly completing a task they find unengaging, simply because the teacher, as an authority figure, instructed them to do so, rather than challenging the instruction. This highlights the importance of building critical thinking and agency.

The Milgram experiment's design incorporated a crucial psychological principle known as the foot-in-the-door technique, also referred to as gradual escalation. Participants were initially asked to administer very mild electric shocks, which were not perceived as harmful. This small, acceptable request served as the "foot in the door" for subsequent, more significant demands.

The voltage of the shocks increased incrementally, from a seemingly harmless 15 volts to a potentially lethal 450 volts. Each step up the shock generator was a small increase, making it difficult for participants to identify a clear point at which to refuse. This gradual increase in demand made the extreme final action seem like a natural progression rather than an abrupt, unacceptable leap (Milgram, 1974).

The effectiveness of the foot-in-the-door technique relies on a person's tendency to maintain consistency in their behaviour and self-perception. Once an individual complies with a small request, they are more likely to comply with larger, related requests to avoid cognitive dissonance and maintain a consistent self-image as a cooperative person (Freedman & Fraser, 1966). Refusing a later, larger request would contradict their earlier compliance.

In an educational context, teachers might observe a similar process when managing pupil behaviour or academic expectations. For instance, a pupil might initially make a small, almost imperceptible deviation from a rule, such as whispering during quiet work. If this minor infraction is not addressed, it can gradually escalate to louder talking, then disrupting others, because the pupil has already committed to the initial small breach and perceives a lower threshold for further misconduct.

Conversely, a teacher might use gradual escalation positively, by starting with small, achievable tasks to build confidence before introducing more complex assignments. Milgram's study powerfully demonstrated how this psychological phenomenon can lead individuals to perform actions they would otherwise find abhorrent. Understanding gradual escalation is therefore critical for recognising how seemingly minor concessions can lead to significant outcomes in various social settings.

Thomas Blass, a leading authority on Stanley Milgram, dedicated significant research to understanding and contextualising Milgram's controversial studies. His definitive biographical work, The Man Who Shocked the World: The Life and Legacy of Stanley Milgram (Blass, 2004), provides a comprehensive account of Milgram's life and the profound impact of his obedience research.

Beyond biography, Blass conducted extensive meta-analyses of Milgram-style obedience experiments. These analyses compiled data from numerous replications conducted across various decades and cultures, offering crucial insights into the consistency of obedience rates (Blass, 1999). His findings demonstrated that the overall level of obedience has remained remarkably stable over time, with no significant decline since the original 1960s studies.

Blass's meta-analyses revealed an average obedience rate of approximately 61% across these diverse studies, closely mirroring Milgram's initial 65% finding. This consistency challenges the idea that increased public awareness or societal changes have reduced people's susceptibility to authority. The fundamental psychological mechanisms driving obedience appear robust and enduring.

In the classroom, educators can utilise Blass's work to underscore the contemporary relevance of the Milgram experiment. A teacher might explain, "Blass's research shows us that the power of authority to elicit obedience is not a historical curiosity; it remains a potent force in human behaviour today." This prompts pupils to consider why such obedience persists and how it might manifest in modern contexts, for example, when discussing conformity in social media or adherence to rules in institutions.

Blass's findings reinforce that the ethical dilemmas and psychological insights from Milgram's work are not confined to a specific era. They continue to reflect fundamental aspects of human social psychology, making the study of obedience critical for understanding group dynamics and individual responsibility.

‍

While Milgram's agentic state theory suggests participants acted as instruments of authority, an alternative perspective, rooted in Social Identity Theory, proposes a different motivation. Haslam and Reicher (2012) argue that participants were not blindly obedient but rather engaged followers who identified with the scientific goals of the experiment. They contend that participants followed instructions because they believed they were contributing to a legitimate and important scientific endeavour.

This concept of Engaged Followership suggests that individuals comply when they identify with the group or cause represented by the authority figure. In the Milgram experiment, participants may have identified with the experimenter as a representative of science, believing their actions served a greater good. They were not simply obeying orders but actively participating in what they perceived as a shared, meaningful project.

For instance, in a classroom, pupils might complete a challenging group project not just because the teacher instructs them, but because they identify with the group's goal of creating an outstanding presentation. Their effort stems from a sense of shared purpose and identity with the learning community, rather than mere compliance with authority. Understanding this dynamic helps teachers recognise how building a collective identity around learning can enhance engagement and effort.

Recent research has confirmed the enduring power of situational factors on obedience, even in contemporary societies. A notable replication by Doliński and Grzyb (2017) conducted a near-exact recreation of Milgram's original procedure in Poland. This study aimed to determine if the high levels of obedience observed in the 1960s were still present decades later, in a different cultural context.

The findings were striking, revealing that 90% of participants were willing to administer the maximum 450-volt shock. This figure is even higher than the 65% observed in Milgram's (1963) original Yale study, suggesting that the propensity for obedience to authority remains profoundly strong. The study used a "learner" who feigned pain and distress, just as in the original experiment.

These results underscore that the mechanisms of obedience are not confined to specific historical periods or cultures. Teachers can use this evidence to discuss critical thinking and moral reasoning with pupils, for example, when analysing historical events like the Holocaust or contemporary issues involving group conformity. A teacher might ask pupils to consider, "If 90% of people in a modern study obeyed, what does that tell us about resisting harmful instructions?" This prompts reflection on individual responsibility versus situational pressures.

‍

Archival Revelations & Methodological Criticisms (Gina Perry)

Recent archival research by Gina Perry has significantly re-evaluated the Milgram experiments, challenging some long-held interpretations of the studies. Perry's examination of Milgram's original records, including participant questionnaires and experimenter notes, revealed complexities not fully captured in the initial reports (Perry, 2012).

Perry's findings suggest that a substantial number of participants may have suspected the shocks were not real, or at least questioned the experiment's authenticity. This contradicts Milgram's assertion that participants genuinely believed they were administering painful, potentially lethal, electric shocks. Some participants openly expressed disbelief during the debriefing.

Furthermore, Perry highlighted inconsistencies in the experimental procedure, noting instances where experimenters deviated from the strict script. These deviations, such as offering additional prods or reassurance not specified in the original protocol, could have influenced participant behaviour. Such variations complicate the interpretation of obedience levels and the internal validity of the findings.

These revelations prompt educators to encourage a more nuanced understanding of the Milgram experiments in the classroom. For example, a teacher might present pupils with excerpts from Milgram's original debriefing transcripts alongside Perry's analysis of participant suspicion. Pupils could then debate how these new insights affect the conclusions about human obedience to authority, considering the ethical implications of deception and experimental control.

‍

‍

The "Engaged Followership" Theory (Social Identity)

While Milgram's (1974) agentic state theory suggests participants become passive instruments of authority, the "Engaged Followership" theory offers an alternative perspective. This model proposes that participants are not simply obeying blindly but actively identify with the experimenter's scientific goals (Haslam & Reicher, 2012).

Participants in the Milgram experiment may have viewed their actions as contributing to a legitimate scientific endeavour. Their willingness to administer shocks stemmed from a shared social identity with the experimenter and a commitment to the perceived greater good of scientific discovery, rather than a loss of personal autonomy.

In a classroom, this concept can be observed when pupils engage deeply with a challenging project. For example, a teacher might introduce a complex design and technology task by explaining its real-world relevance and the scientific principles involved. Pupils then actively collaborate, troubleshoot, and refine their designs, demonstrating 'engaged followership' towards the learning objective, rather than merely following instructions.

This perspective suggests that compliance in structured environments, including schools, often arises from a sense of shared purpose and identification with the leader's objectives. Individuals act as active agents pursuing a collective goal, rather than simply submitting to an authority figure.

‍

‍

The "Teacher" vs. "Examiner" Distinction

Recent analyses of the Milgram experiment suggest a crucial re-evaluation of the participant's role, moving from "teacher" to "examiner". This distinction highlights that participants were not instructing new material but rather testing the recall of pre-learned word pairs by the "learner". Understanding this difference can alter interpretations of obedience.

The original framing as "teacher" implies a role in facilitating learning and student welfare. However, participants were primarily assessing the learner's memory, administering shocks for incorrect answers as part of a stated experimental procedure. This subtle shift in perceived responsibility may influence how individuals respond to authority.

Role	Primary Function	Perceived Responsibility
Teacher (traditional sense)	Instructs, guides learning, supports development.	High responsibility for learner's progress and well-being.
Examiner (Milgram participant)	Assesses existing knowledge, follows test protocol.	Lower responsibility for learning outcome, higher for procedure adherence.

When participants view themselves as mere examiners, their focus shifts to following instructions and completing the task as directed by the authority figure. This aligns with Milgram's agentic state theory, where individuals see themselves as instruments carrying out another's will (Milgram, 1974). The perceived distance from direct responsibility for the learner's suffering increases.

Consider a classroom scenario where a teacher administers a national standardised test. Their role is to ensure correct procedure and timing, not to teach the content during the assessment. If a student performs poorly, the teacher's primary responsibility is to report the score accurately, not to feel accountable for the student's lack of understanding in that moment. This parallels the Milgram participant's role as an examiner, reducing personal culpability for outcomes.

‍

‍

Specifics of Modern Replications (Burger's '150-Volt Solution')

Ethical guidelines have evolved significantly since Milgram's original experiments, making direct replication challenging. Jerry Burger (2009) addressed these concerns by designing a partial replication that adhered to modern ethical standards.

His study, known as the "150-Volt Solution", stopped the experiment when participants reached the 150-volt shock level. At this point, the confederate learner would typically emit their first strong protest, stating they wanted to stop.

Milgram's earlier research indicated that if participants continued past 150 volts, they were highly likely to proceed to the maximum 450-volt shock. Burger's methodology allowed him to assess the critical decision point for obedience without exposing participants to extreme distress.

Feature	Milgram (1963)	Burger (2009)
Maximum Shock Level	450 volts	150 volts
Ethical Approval	Conducted before modern ethical boards	Approved by university Institutional Review Board (IRB)
Key Finding	65% administered 450V	70% willing to administer past 150V

Burger (2009) found that 70% of participants were willing to continue past the 150-volt threshold. This figure is only slightly lower than the 82.5% who continued past 150 volts in Milgram's original study, suggesting consistent obedience rates.

In a psychology lesson, a teacher might present both Milgram's and Burger's methodologies for comparison. Pupils could then discuss the ethical considerations of each study and propose how to research obedience today, ensuring participant welfare.

‍

‍

The Suppressed "Relationship" Condition

Milgram conducted an unpublished variation, Condition 24, where participants were instructed to bring a friend or family member to act as the learner. This setup directly tested the influence of personal relationships on obedience to authority. Unlike other conditions, the participant knew the learner intimately.

This 'Relationship' condition yielded an 85% disobedience rate, the highest across all Milgram's variations. Participants largely refused to administer shocks to someone they knew and cared about. Milgram chose not to publish these findings, a decision that has led to scholarly discussion regarding the full scope of his work (Miller, 1986).

In education, this highlights how strong personal connections can influence ethical decision-making and resistance to perceived injustice. Teachers can use scenarios where pupils consider the impact of their actions on friends versus strangers. For example, a teacher might ask, 'Would you share a friend's personal secret if a popular group pressured you, compared to a stranger's secret?'

‍

‍

Virtual Reality Replications & Physiological Stress

The 2006 immersive virtual reality (VR) replication of Milgram's study offered significant insights into human responses to simulated threats. Participants were explicitly aware that the 'learner' was a computer-generated avatar and that the electric shocks were entirely fake. Despite this cognitive understanding, physiological monitoring revealed genuine stress responses (Slater et al., 2006).

Data from skin conductance and heart rate monitors demonstrated that participants experienced measurable anxiety and arousal when instructed to administer these simulated shocks. This indicates that the brain's emotional and physiological systems can react to perceived social threats as if they were real, even when conscious thought recognises their artificiality. The body's response can bypass rational knowledge.

For educators, this finding underscores the profound impact of immersive experiences, even when pupils know they are not real. When exploring historical events or ethical dilemmas, a teacher might utilise a VR simulation to place pupils in a relevant scenario. Pupils could then discuss their emotional and physiological reactions, reflecting on how their bodies responded despite their minds knowing the situation was simulated.

‍

‍

Formal Ethical Frameworks & Baumrind's Critique

The Milgram experiment prompted significant debate regarding the ethical responsibilities of researchers towards human participants. Before this study, formal ethical guidelines for psychological research were less codified than they are today. The experiment highlighted the urgent need for robust frameworks to protect participant welfare.

Diana Baumrind (1964) published a prominent critique in American Psychologist, directly challenging Milgram's methodology and its ethical implications. She argued that Milgram's deception and the psychological distress inflicted on participants were unacceptable. Baumrind contended that researchers have a moral obligation to protect participants from harm and ensure their dignity.

Baumrind's critique, alongside others, was instrumental in shaping modern research ethics. It underscored the importance of informed consent, the right to withdraw, and comprehensive debriefing procedures. These principles now form the cornerstone of ethical review boards and institutional guidelines for human subjects research.

In the classroom, teachers can guide pupils to analyse historical experiments like Milgram's through an ethical lens. Pupils might evaluate the original study against current ethical standards, identifying specific breaches and proposing revised methodologies. For instance, pupils could draft a mock informed consent form for a similar study, detailing participant rights and potential risks.

‍

‍

The Neurodivergent Learner & The Milgram Effect: Moving from Compliance

Discussions of Milgram's obedience experiments rarely consider the implications for neurodivergent learners. The complex interplay of social cognition, executive function, and sensory processing can significantly alter how neurodivergent individuals perceive and respond to authority figures and social pressure. Understanding these differences is crucial for educators aiming to cultivate genuine understanding over mere compliance.

‍

‍

Understanding Diverse Responses to Authority

Neurodivergent learners, including those with autism or ADHD, may process social cues and hierarchical structures differently. Some autistic individuals might exhibit a more literal interpretation of rules and instructions, leading to strict adherence without necessarily internalising the underlying rationale or questioning potential ethical implications. Conversely, others might challenge authority more readily, particularly if instructions lack clear purpose or conflict with their internal logic or sensory needs.

For learners with ADHD, challenges with executive functions such as inhibition or working memory can affect their ability to consistently follow multi-step instructions or resist immediate impulses. This does not imply defiance but rather a difference in processing and response regulation. Teachers must recognise that compliance or non-compliance can stem from diverse cognitive pathways, not just wilful obedience or disobedience.

‍

‍

From Compliance to Critical Thinking

The Milgram experiment highlights how situational factors can override personal moral compasses. For neurodivergent learners, who may already navigate a world with differing social expectations, building critical thinking is paramount. Educators should explicitly teach the skills needed to question, evaluate, and make autonomous decisions, rather than relying solely on obedience to rules.

This involves moving beyond simply stating rules to explaining their purpose and consequences. Teachers can use structured approaches to help learners analyse situations, identify ethical dilemmas, and consider multiple perspectives. Such explicit instruction supports the development of independent ethical reasoning, a skill vital for all learners (Rosenshine, 2012).

‍

‍

Classroom Strategies for Autonomy

In a Year 4 classroom, when setting up a collaborative project, a teacher might say, "We need to work in groups of four, and everyone must contribute to the poster. Why do you think it's important for everyone to share ideas, even if one person has a 'best' idea?" This encourages pupils to articulate the value of collaboration and shared responsibility, rather than just following the instruction to work in groups. It helps neurodivergent learners understand the social contract beyond a simple directive.

For secondary students studying historical events with ethical dimensions, a teacher could provide a graphic organiser to map out the perspectives of different stakeholders involved in a conflict. Pupils could then identify the authority figures, the instructions given, and the potential consequences of obedience or defiance. This structured approach helps learners with varying executive function profiles to deconstruct complex ethical scenarios and develop their own reasoned judgments (Wiliam, 2011).

By explicitly teaching decision-making processes and creating safe spaces for questioning, educators can help neurodivergent learners develop a robust internal compass. This approach supports them in navigating complex social situations and making informed choices, rather than simply complying with perceived authority.

‍

‍

The "Examiner" Trap: What New Milgram Research Means for School

Recent research by Grzyb and Dolinski (2025) introduces a critical distinction to our understanding of obedience, moving beyond the classic Milgram experiment. Their findings indicate that participants placed in a true "teacher" role, collaborating with a learner, disobeyed harmful orders far more frequently than those in a mere "examiner" role. The "examiner" role involved testing and punishing without the same collaborative engagement.

This new evidence suggests that the nature of the relationship between the authority figure, the participant, and the "victim" significantly influences the willingness to inflict harm. When individuals perceive themselves as collaborators in a learning process, their moral agency appears stronger. This has profound implications for how we structure roles and responsibilities within educational settings.

‍

‍

‍

Teachers as Collaborators, Not Just Assessors

Many educational systems inadvertently push teachers into an "examiner" role, prioritising assessment and compliance over genuine pedagogical collaboration. When teachers primarily focus on delivering content for high-stakes tests or rigidly marking against narrow criteria, their role shifts from guiding learning to evaluating performance. This can diminish their sense of professional autonomy and moral responsibility for the learning process itself.

Consider a Year 6 teacher pressured to ensure all pupils achieve a specific score on a standardised writing assessment. The teacher might feel compelled to teach to the test, focusing on formulaic responses rather than building creative expression or deep understanding of writing principles. This reduces the teacher to an "examiner" of prescribed outcomes, rather than a "teacher" who collaborates with pupils to develop their unique writing voices and critical thinking skills (Wiliam, 2011).

‍

‍

‍

Pupils as Active Learners, Not Passive Subjects

The "examiner" trap also extends to pupils, who can become passive recipients of instruction rather than active participants in their learning. When the primary interaction involves pupils completing tasks solely for grading or compliance, they adopt a mindset of being "examined" rather than truly engaging with the material. This reduces opportunities for metacognition and self-regulation, essential for deep learning (Dunlosky et al., 2013).

For example, in a secondary science lesson, pupils might be asked to follow a lab procedure precisely and record results without understanding the underlying scientific principles or the purpose of each step. Their focus becomes accurately completing the steps to receive a good mark, rather than exploring the scientific phenomenon. This positions them as subjects to be "examined" on their adherence to instructions, rather than active scientists collaborating in discovery.

‍

‍

‍

Cultivating Agency and Moral Responsibility

The Grzyb and Dolinski (2025) study highlights the importance of building environments where both teachers and pupils feel a sense of agency and collaborative responsibility. Schools must actively resist structures that reduce teachers to mere implementers of policy or pupils to passive recipients of knowledge. Promoting genuine dialogue, shared decision-making, and a focus on process over product can counteract the "examiner" trap.

By enabling teachers to adapt curriculum to pupil needs and encouraging pupils to question, explore, and co-construct knowledge, schools can cultivate a stronger sense of moral agency. This ensures that education remains a collaborative endeavour, where individuals are encouraged to think critically and act responsibly, rather than simply obeying instructions.

‍

‍

The Pace of Compliance: Preventing Cognitive Overload with Writing Frames

Burger (2014) observed that participants in Milgram's obedience experiments often complied because the rapid, relentless pace of the procedure induced cognitive overload. This intense pressure gave them "little opportunity to reflect" on the moral implications of their actions, hindering their ability to consciously process the ethical dilemmas presented.

In educational settings, pupils can experience similar cognitive overload when faced with complex academic tasks or a fast instructional pace. This can prevent deep processing and critical reflection, leading to superficial learning or errors, much like Milgram's participants struggled to pause and consider their choices.

‍

‍

‍

Understanding Cognitive Overload in Learning

Cognitive Load Theory explains that working memory has a limited capacity; when the demands of a task exceed this capacity, learning becomes inefficient (Sweller, 1988). Tasks such as extended writing, problem-solving, or complex analysis inherently place a high demand on working memory for planning, organising, and generating content.

When pupils are overwhelmed, they may resort to rote recall or focus on surface features of a task, rather than engaging in higher-order thinking processes like evaluation, synthesis, or metacognition. This reduces the crucial opportunities for deliberate reflection that underpin deeper understanding and skill development (Dunlosky et al., 2013).

‍

‍

‍

Using Writing Frames to Manage Pace and Promote Reflection

Writing frames function as structured scaffolds that externalise some of the cognitive load associated with task organisation and structure. By providing pre-defined sections, sentence starters, or guiding questions, they reduce the working memory demands for the mechanics of composition.

This reduction in extraneous cognitive load frees up mental resources, allowing pupils to dedicate more attention to the core content and critical thinking required by the task. It creates a deliberate pause, enabling them to consider their ideas, refine their arguments, and engage in more thoughtful processing.

‍

‍

‍

Classroom Examples of Structured Reflection

For Key Stage 2 pupils writing a persuasive argument about local environmental issues, a writing frame could offer distinct sections for an opening statement, three supporting reasons with evidence, and a concluding call to action. The teacher might instruct, "Use this frame to organise your thoughts carefully; focus on developing each reason fully before moving to the next section."

This structured approach guides pupils through the argumentative process, preventing them from feeling overwhelmed by the blank page and the multiple demands of persuasive writing. Pupils can then concentrate their cognitive energy on crafting compelling language and evaluating the strength of their arguments, rather than struggling with how to begin or sequence their points.

In a Key Stage 4 science lesson, pupils explaining the process of cellular respiration can use a frame that prompts for reactants, products, energy transformations, and the location within the cell. The teacher could advise, "Before you write your full explanation, use the frame to map out each stage and the associated chemical changes, checking for accuracy."

This systematic framework ensures pupils address all necessary components and consider the logical flow of the scientific explanation. It encourages them to reflect on the accuracy and completeness of their understanding before committing it to paper, building a more deliberate and thoughtful response to complex scientific concepts.

‍

‍

From "Agentic State" to "Engaged Followership": A Framework for Classroom

Milgram's "agentic state" theory suggests individuals relinquish personal responsibility when obeying authority, becoming instruments of another's will (Milgram, 1974). However, an alternative perspective, "Engaged Followership," proposes that participants in Milgram's studies did not obey blindly. Instead, they actively collaborated because they identified with the experimenter's stated "noble scientific cause" and felt their actions contributed to a greater good (Haslam & Reicher, 2012).

This reinterpretation offers a powerful lens for understanding and shaping classroom culture, moving beyond mere compliance to genuine engagement. Teachers can cultivate a learning environment where pupils are not just following instructions, but actively participating because they identify with the educational purpose. This shifts the focus from external authority to shared goals and intrinsic motivation.

‍

‍

‍

Defining the "Noble Cause" in Education

In the classroom, the "noble cause" is the overarching purpose and value of learning, extending beyond simply passing tests. It encompasses intellectual growth, skill development, critical thinking, and contributing to a positive learning community. When pupils understand and internalise this purpose, their engagement deepens.

Teachers articulate this cause by explaining *why* specific learning activities are important, not just *what* to do. This helps pupils see their efforts as meaningful contributions to their own development and the collective progress of the class. It transforms tasks from arbitrary demands into purposeful endeavours.

‍

‍

‍

Cultivating Identification with Learning Goals

To encourage engaged followership, teachers must explicitly frame learning activities within a broader, valued context. This involves moving beyond simply stating instructions to articulating the significance of the work. Pupils are more likely to commit when they perceive their efforts as contributing to a worthwhile objective.

For instance, in a Year 5 history lesson on ancient civilisations, a teacher might frame the task of researching and presenting on a specific aspect (e.g., Egyptian burial rituals) not as a mere assignment, but as contributing to the class's collective understanding of human history. The teacher could say, "Your research will help all of us build a complete picture of how people lived thousands of years ago. We are historians, piecing together the past." Pupils then see their work as vital to a shared academic endeavour.

‍

‍

‍

Promoting Active Collaboration and Ownership

Engaged followership thrives when pupils feel a sense of ownership and agency within the learning process. Providing opportunities for choice, collaborative problem-solving, and contributing ideas can significantly increase identification with classroom goals. This moves pupils from passive recipients to active collaborators.

Consider a Year 10 science class tackling a complex experiment on chemical reactions. Instead of simply dictating steps, the teacher might state, "Our goal today is to meticulously observe and record data, just like professional scientists, to uncover the principles governing these reactions. Your careful work contributes to our collective scientific literacy." This encourages pupils to take ownership of precision and accuracy, seeing themselves as active participants in scientific discovery.

Providing constructive feedback also reinforces pupils' contributions and their identification with the learning process (Hattie & Timperley, 2007). When feedback highlights the impact of their efforts on achieving the "noble cause," pupils are more likely to remain engaged. This approach helps to build a classroom culture where pupils are intrinsically motivated, rather than merely compliant.

Further Reading