Milgram Experiment: Teaching Authority Without Cruelty

Milgram (1963) found 65% of people gave dangerous shocks to a stranger when told. Milgram participants were led to believe they were administering real, increasingly painful shocks, but they were not told the shocks could kill; Milgram's procedure reassured them that no permanent tissue damage would occur if they asked about harm. Burger's (2009) partial replication found comparable willingness to continue at the 150-volt point, but it did not test whether participants would continue to Milgram's 450-volt endpoint. Milgram's Yale study looked at obedience to authority.

Milgram’s findings on obedience sit within the broader fundamental theories of learning that shape modern classroom authority and ethics.

​

​

​

​

‍

‍

What Was the Milgram Experiment?

The Milgram Experiment was a series of Yale University social psychology studies on obedience to authority. The standard account, reflected in APA PsycNet, Britannica and the British Psychological Society, is that participants acting as "teachers" were instructed to use a shock generator on a "learner" who was actually part of the research team. For classroom use, the important question is not whether learners should obey teachers, but how adults build authority without removing moral judgement.

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 (1969), whose humanistic theory 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 central to the experiment's design. The "learner" was seated in another room and strapped to an "electric chair." In reality, participants received a real 45-volt sample shock at the start to make the machine credible, but the learner received no shocks during the staged procedure. 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. Milgram wrote four prods for the experimenter to use when participants hesitated. They 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." Later transcript analysis questions how consistently these prods were delivered. 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

In the best-known baseline Yale condition, 65 per cent of participants administered the maximum 450-volt shock (Milgram, 1963). That number is important, but it should not be read as a universal obedience rate. Across Milgram's many variations, obedience changed sharply with proximity, setting, social support, and the authority figure's status. Several conditions produced far more refusal than compliance.

Milgram (1974) explained obedience through legitimacy, gradual escalation, and displaced responsibility, which he called the agentic state. Later scholarship treats this as one explanation, not the settled mechanism. In a classroom, this matters when a behaviour script makes learners feel that "the system" is responsible for an instruction. Teachers can reduce that risk by explaining the reason for rules, naming safe challenge routes, and inviting learners to help define fair routines.

‍

‍

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 central. 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. Peer rebellion mattered more: when two confederate peers refused to continue, obedience fell to 10 per cent. Burger (2009) conducted an ethical partial replication of the Milgram experiment with stricter safeguards. He measured whether participants would continue beyond 150 volts, not whether they would administer the 450-volt maximum. Many were still willing to continue, so the study supports concern about obedience without reproducing Milgram's full endpoint. 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 ecological systems theory, as proposed by Bronfenbrenner (1979), 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 ethics boards now expect informed consent, lower risk, a clear right to withdraw, and careful debriefing. Griggs, Blyler, and Jackson (2020) argue that teachers should use the controversy itself as a way to teach research ethics, rather than presenting Milgram as a simple morality tale. 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, but it must be taught with care. Hale (2018) found that some A-level psychology learners read Milgram as proof that Holocaust perpetrators killed mainly because they feared death for disobeying. Teachers should pair obedience theory with historical context, including propaganda, antisemitism, collaboration, and choices made by perpetrators. 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 present in every classroom. Teachers hold status, set routines, and decide which questions are welcomed. This power can protect learning when it is explained well, but it can also train quiet compliance when learners are discouraged from asking why. Understanding the conditions that promote blind obedience helps teachers build 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 proximity and perceived legitimacy shape obedience levels. In a classroom, a teacher's physical presence and subject knowledge both contribute to authority. The professional task is to use that 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 central for promoting ethical behaviour and academic success. Teachers might also reflect on Bronfenbrenner (Bronfenbrenner, 1979)'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 central 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 and Reicher (2012) 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. Gibson (2013) adds an important detail from the audio transcripts: participants often argued, negotiated, and resisted, and Milgram's final prod, "you have no other choice", was often weak rather than decisive. For classroom teaching, the lesson is not blind obedience alone. It is how context, legitimacy, language, and shared goals shape behaviour.

One practical strategy is to teach Milgram as a live debate rather than a closed case. Ask learners to compare Milgram's 1963 paper with later criticisms from Perry, then sort claims into three groups: well supported, uncertain, and challenged. This helps learners 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. learners 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 obedience changes with context. People are more likely to comply when instructions are calm, escalation is gradual, and someone else seems to take responsibility. Obedience usually drops when the victim feels closer, or when another person models resistance.

In 2026, similar authority signals also sit inside EdTech. Automated grading, safeguarding dashboards, AI lesson tools, and attendance risk flags can make adults and learners defer to algorithmic judgement. Selwyn (2022) warns that digital systems carry institutional authority, so teachers need to ask what the tool measures, what evidence it uses, and when human judgement should override the score.

One practical strategy is to teach learners to spot the conditions that make obedience easier. In discussion, give learners a short scenario: a group leader tells one learner to exclude someone. 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 learners 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, learners 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 learners 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 learner reflection.

This does not mean schools should abandon routines or consequences, but behavioural frameworks should separate calm consistency from punitive compliance. The evidence is hard for strict models: the EEF (2019) found little direct evidence for zero-tolerance approaches. The APA Zero Tolerance Task Force (2008) found weak support and notable unintended harms. By contrast, NICE (2022) explicitly recommends relational practice, inclusion, and attention to trauma-informed pedagogy.

A practical example makes the difference clear. A Year 8 learner 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 learner's internal message is, "Just do it so I stay out of trouble."

In a relational practice 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 learner settles, completes the first retrieval question, and produces two accurate bullet points. That is self-regulation being taught, not just enforced.

For busy teachers, whether a policy is labelled zero tolerance or warm strict, the test is simple. If it 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).

The same risk now appears in digital form. Teachers and learners may defer to automated marking, behaviour dashboards, safeguarding alerts, or AI lesson tools because the system looks neutral and data-led. Selwyn (2022) warns that automated decision-making in schools can hide human judgement inside technical systems. A Milgram-informed classroom asks who designed the system, what data it uses, who can challenge it, and which learner might be misread.

Psychological safety means learners know how to question an instruction, score, or alert without being punished for the question itself. A simple routine is to ask, "What evidence would change this decision?" before accepting a platform recommendation as final.

‍

‍

Frequently Asked Questions

‍

How can teachers encourage learners 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 learners 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 learners follow instructions even when they do not understand them?

Many learners 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 learners to ask for help early.

‍

‍

What classroom routines reduce blind compliance?

Use routines that require thinking, not just obedience. Ask learners 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 learners 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 learners speak up when an instruction feels wrong?

learners 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.

‍

Milgram's findings are widely cited, but later archival research by Gina Perry took a critical look at the original studies. Perry carefully examined Milgram's personal papers, laboratory notes, audio recordings, and participant questionnaires. This showed a more precise and complex picture than the one first presented (Perry, 2012). Her work questions some long-held ideas about the experiment's methodology and conclusions.

Perry's archival research indicated that Milgram often manipulated his data. He presented selected results to support his obedience hypothesis. She found evidence that many participants did not fully believe the experimental setup and suspected the learner was not really receiving shocks. Milgram sometimes excluded participants who expressed doubt, which skewed the reported obedience rates.

Perry (2012) also found important differences in how the experiment was run. The experimenter's prods were not always standardised. Some participants received stronger or more frequent instructions than others, and archive records describe repeated pressure beyond the four published prods. This matters because a study presented as tightly controlled may have included moments of improvisation and coercion.

The famous "65 per cent obedience" figure refers to Milgram's voice-feedback baseline condition, not to every version of the experiment. Perry's archival research showed that obedience rates varied considerably between conditions, and Milgram's reporting sometimes blurred these differences. Across Milgram's variations, obedience ranged from almost none in some settings to complete compliance in others, so teachers should treat the headline number as a starting point for analysis, not a fixed law of human behaviour.

Perry's work suggests that obedience was not as simple or automatic as Milgram first claimed. Participant suspicion, the experimenter's inconsistent behaviour, and the choice of data all helped shape the reported results. This view supports a more critical look at the power of authority. It also highlights that individuals may still resist, question, or doubt what they are told to do.

For teachers, understanding Gina Perry's archival research is central to presenting the Milgram experiment fully. It helps move the lesson beyond the headline findings and into the scientific process itself, including possible bias and limits in the method. For example, a psychology teacher might present Milgram's original claims, then introduce Perry's findings and ask learners how this new evidence changes their view of obedience.

learners 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 had a major influence, but it also led to a serious ethical debate. Psychologist Diana Baumrind led much of this challenge. Her important ethical critique, published in the American Psychologist in 1964, questioned both the morals and the methods of Milgram's research. Baumrind argued that the study caused unacceptable psychological distress and broke accepted ethical rules for research with people.

Baumrind was especially critical of the strong deception used by Milgram. Participants believed they were giving painful and possibly lethal electric shocks to another person, which caused serious emotional distress. Because Milgram hid the true purpose of the study, participants could not give genuine informed consent. Informed consent is a key rule in ethical research because people need to know what they are agreeing to.

Participants showed clear signs of extreme stress, including trembling, sweating, stuttering, and nervous laughter. These signs showed severe psychological discomfort. Baumrind argued that this intense emotional conflict could cause lasting psychological damage. This risk was greater because participants believed they were harming another person.

She questioned how the study might affect participants in the long term. In particular, she focused on their self-perception and their trust in scientific authority.

Milgram (1964) defended his research by pointing to detailed debriefing sessions and follow-up questionnaires. These showed that most participants reported positive feelings about taking part. He argued that the study's findings about human obedience justified the short-term discomfort participants felt. However, Baumrind's critique stressed the power imbalance between researcher and participant, arguing that people might feel pressured to say they were satisfied even after a distressing experience.

The strong debate started by Baumrind's critique helped shape modern research ethics. It directly led to the required use of institutional review boards (IRBs), or ethics committees, which now check all planned research involving human subjects. These groups make sure researchers follow key principles, including fully informed consent, the right to withdraw without penalty, and full post-experiment debriefing.

In education, the Milgram experiment and Baumrind's critique work well as a central case study in research ethics. For example, in an A-level psychology class, teachers might show learners the original study design and ask them to judge it against current ethical guidelines. Learners could then draft a revised experimental procedure that responds to Baumrind's concerns while still trying to study obedience. They might use simulated scenarios or less harmful stimuli to show their understanding of ethical research practice.

The findings from the Milgram experiment closely connect with Hannah Arendt's ideas, especially her concept of the banality of evil. Arendt was a political theorist who watched the 1961 trial in Jerusalem of Adolf Eichmann, a key organiser of the Holocaust. She argued that Eichmann was not a monstrous sadist, but an ordinary bureaucrat who carefully carried out his duties without clear 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 gives empirical support, or evidence from observation, for Arendt's controversial thesis. Like Eichmann, his participants were mostly ordinary people who caused harm because an authority figure told them to, not because of personal hatred (Milgram, 1974). They acted as agents in a system and set aside their own moral judgement to carry out what they saw as a duty. This shows how pressure from a situation can lead people to do things they would normally see as wrong.

Understanding the banality of evil is central 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 learners 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 learners 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 learners to consider the ethical dimensions of obedience and the importance of independent moral judgment.

Discussing Arendt's concept alongside Milgram's findings helps learners think about their own capacity for independent thought and action. It shows that resisting harmful authority takes conscious effort and a commitment to ethical principles. Learners should not assume they would automatically act heroically. This pedagogical approach gives learners the tools to navigate complex social and ethical dilemmas throughout their lives.

Milgram ran many versions of his original obedience experiment, changing variables in a planned way to see their effect. One especially important, though unpublished, version was the Relationship Condition (Condition 24). In this version, participants were asked to give electric shocks to a close friend or family member, rather than to 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 thought the existing personal relationship would matter. He predicted that it would greatly reduce obedience.

The ethical debate around Milgram's original experiments led researchers to look for other ways to study obedience. They wanted methods that would not expose participants to the same level of distress. Virtual Reality Replications became a useful option because they create immersive and controlled settings that copy the main parts of the Milgram study design. This method helps researchers study human behaviour in contexts where ethics need special care.

One important contribution came from Mel Slater and colleagues in 2006. They carried out an immersive virtual reality replication of the Milgram experiment. Participants worked with a virtual learner and a virtual experimenter, giving what they believed were electric shocks. The study tested whether Milgram's psychological impact and behavioural responses could be produced in a simulated environment (Slater et al., 2006).

Slater's findings were strong because participants in the virtual reality scenario still showed severe stress and physiological arousal. Measures such as heart rate and skin conductance rose significantly, showing real emotional engagement even though participants knew the situation was not real. Importantly, a large share of participants kept giving shocks up to the maximum level when the virtual authority figure told them to do so (Slater et al., 2006).

These virtual reality replications give strong evidence that Milgram's situational factors can shape obedience, even when people know the harm is simulated. The immersive nature of virtual reality seems to trigger the agentic state, where people see themselves as carrying out someone else's wishes. This supports Milgram's original claim that ordinary people can do harmful things under specific social pressures.

Using virtual reality to study obedience has clear ethical benefits. It allows researchers to explore complex human behaviour without causing real harm or distress to participants. It also lets them observe reactions and decision-making in a controlled way that can be repeated, while keeping the research in line with modern ethical guidelines.

For educators, discussing these Virtual Reality Replications offers a useful way to explore Milgram's lasting relevance and the development of research ethics. Teachers can explain how technology allows sensitive topics to be studied responsibly. For example, a teacher might present the scenario to learners: "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 learners see the balance researchers need to manage. They must keep enough experimental control while also protecting participant welfare. It also shows how new technology, such as virtual reality, can help researchers keep studying key questions in psychology within an ethical framework. By understanding these modern methods, learners can better see why psychological research is complex and why it matters in the real world.

Milgram's findings on obedience had a strong impact. However, critics raised an important concern about the method: did participants really believe the experiment was real? They argued that the study may have been affected by demand characteristics, where people guess the aim of a study and change their behaviour to fit what they think the researcher wants.

Martin Orne (1962) was a leading voice in this critique, showing that cues in an experimental setting can shape participant behaviour. He argued that participants in psychological experiments often enter a "pact of ignorance". In this pact, they sense that the situation is artificial and try to be "good subjects" by doing what they think the researcher expects. Charles Holland (1967) then developed this critique and applied it 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 learners to perform a seemingly unusual task, such as sorting objects by a hidden rule, learners 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 learners' responses genuinely reflect their understanding or behaviour rather than their perception of what is expected.

Orne and Holland's critique shows why experimental realism matters. In other words, participants need to believe that the situation is real enough for their responses to be useful. It also reminds educators and researchers that classroom or research cues can shape responses, which may hide what people truly understand or how they would really behave.

The ethical debates around Milgram's obedience experiments were important. They directly shaped the creation of formal guidelines for human research. Before Milgram's work, and especially after the atrocities of World War II, researchers increasingly saw the need for strong ethical frameworks to protect participants. This led to foundational documents that still guide research practice today.

One foundational document is the Nuremberg Code, established in 1947 after the Nuremberg Trials. It set out ten ethical principles for human experimentation in response to the medical experiments carried out by Nazi physicians.

For a Milgram lesson, the key points are voluntary consent, the right to withdraw, and protection from unnecessary physical and mental suffering. The Declaration of Helsinki states that the rights and interests of individual research participants must prevail over the interests of science and society; the Nuremberg Code requires voluntary consent and safeguards against unnecessary suffering and disproportionate risk.

Building on these early principles, the Belmont Report was published in 1979 in the United States. It followed public outcry over unethical research, especially the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. The report set out three key ethical principles to protect people in research: Respect for Persons, Beneficence, and Justice. Respect for Persons means recognising personal autonomy and requiring informed consent, Beneficence means maximising possible benefits and minimising possible harms, and Justice means sharing the burdens and benefits of research 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, these ethical frameworks matter in two main ways. They matter when discussing historical studies such as Milgram's, and when carrying out classroom-based research or teaching research methods. For example, if a teacher plans a small survey on student learning preferences, learners must know that they can refuse to take part and that their responses will stay confidential. This applies Respect for Persons and Beneficence by making data collection ethical and keeping learner welfare first.

The Milgram experiment did not appear on its own. It built on earlier research into social influence, or how other people shape our choices. Stanley Milgram was a student of Solomon Asch (1951), whose work on conformity showed how group pressure can affect personal judgement. Asch's studies found that people often follow the group, even when the group is clearly wrong.

In his classic conformity experiments, Asch gave participants a simple visual task: match the length of one line to one of three comparison lines. Confederates, or people working with Asch, gave wrong answers on purpose. The lone naive participant often agreed with the wrong majority, even when the right answer was clear. This showed how strongly social pressure and the wish for social acceptance can shape personal decisions.

Milgram's subsequent research on obedience extends Asch's work. Asch explored conformity to peer groups and the pressure to align with a majority. Milgram investigated whether individuals would obey direct commands from an authority figure, even when those commands involved apparent harm.

Together, the studies show a continuum of social influence. A learner may first copy a wrong answer to fit in, then later follow an adult instruction because refusing feels socially costly.

Both Asch and Milgram showed how much situational variables can shape human behaviour. This challenges explanations that focus only on a person's character or disposition. Their findings showed that ordinary people can act against their beliefs or moral compass when they face social pressure or orders from authority.

This matters for educators because classrooms have group dynamics and social influence. It helps teachers understand how learners may respond as individuals within a group setting.

Consider a classroom scenario where a teacher asks a question and several confident learners offer an incorrect answer. A quieter learner, despite knowing the correct response, may copy the group to avoid standing out.

This mirrors Asch's findings on conformity: peer pressure and the wish for acceptance can shape what a learner says, even when their private understanding is accurate. Teachers can reduce this by using mini whiteboards, wait time, and private retrieval before public answers.

Jerry M. Burger carried out a partial replication of Milgram's obedience study in 2009. He examined whether similar levels of obedience still existed under modern ethical standards. His study, often called "Obedience Lite", addressed major ethical concerns from Milgram's original research. Burger's main change was his "150-volt solution", where participants were stopped if they gave the 150-volt shock and showed any hesitation about continuing.

This ethical limit meant participants did not experience the full psychological distress seen in the earlier study. It still allowed Burger to study obedience under tighter safeguards.

The 150-volt solution was chosen for a clear reason. In Milgram's (1963) original studies, 79% of participants who went past 150 volts also gave the maximum 450-volt shock. At this point, the learner's protests became loudest, so it showed a participant's willingness to obey. By stopping there, Burger (2009) could assess the first signs of obedience without asking participants to inflict what they believed was dangerous harm.

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. Perry also, 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 show that situational factors can strongly shape behaviour, often more than individual dispositions. In schools, Burger's (2009) replication can help teachers spot subtle pressures that lead to compliance, even when learners privately disagree. For example, learners may quietly complete a task they find dull simply because the teacher, as an authority figure, told them to do it. This highlights the need to build critical thinking and agency.

The Milgram experiment's design incorporated a central 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 foot-in-the-door technique works because people often want their actions and self-image to stay consistent. After a person agrees to a small request, they are more likely to agree to a larger, related request. This helps them avoid cognitive dissonance, the discomfort of acting against their earlier choice, and keep seeing themselves as cooperative (Freedman & Fraser, 1966). Refusing the later, larger request would clash with their first act of compliance.

In an educational context, teachers might observe a similar process when managing learner behaviour or academic expectations. For instance, a learner 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 learner has already committed to the initial small breach and perceives a lower threshold for further misconduct.

On the other hand, a teacher might use gradual escalation in a positive way. They might begin with small, achievable tasks to build confidence before introducing more complex assignments. Milgram's study showed how this psychological phenomenon can lead people to do things they would otherwise find abhorrent. Understanding gradual escalation is therefore important, because small concessions can lead to significant outcomes in many social settings.

Thomas Blass, a leading authority on Stanley Milgram, spent much of his research explaining Milgram's controversial studies. He also placed them in context. His definitive biography, The Man Who Shocked the World: The Life and Legacy of Stanley Milgram (Blass, 2004), gives a full account of Milgram's life and the strong impact of his obedience research.

Beyond biography, Blass also carried out large reviews of Milgram-style obedience experiments. These meta-analyses brought together data from many replications across different decades and cultures (Blass, 1999). They showed that obedience rates have stayed strikingly stable over time, with no significant fall since the original studies in the 1960s.

Blass's meta-analyses found an average obedience rate of about 61% across these varied studies. This was very close to Milgram's original finding of 65%. The steady pattern challenges the idea that public awareness or social change has made people less open to authority. The basic psychological mechanisms that drive obedience seem strong and long lasting.

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 learners 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 show that the ethical dilemmas and psychological insights from Milgram's work still matter today. They are not limited to one period in history. They reflect basic parts of human social psychology, so the study of obedience remains important for understanding group dynamics and individual responsibility.

‍

Milgram's agentic state theory says that participants acted as tools of authority. Social Identity Theory offers a different explanation. Haslam and Reicher (2012) argue that participants were not simply obeying without thought. They were engaged followers who felt part of the experiment's scientific goals.

They argue that participants followed instructions because they thought they were helping a legitimate scientific study. They also saw that study as important.

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, learners 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 learners, for example, when analysing historical events like the Holocaust or contemporary issues involving group conformity. A teacher might ask learners 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 led scholars to reassess the Milgram experiments. Her work challenges some interpretations of the studies that had been accepted for a long time. Perry examined Milgram's original records, including participant questionnaires and experimenter notes. She found details and complexities that were not fully shown in the first reports (Perry, 2012).

Perry's findings suggest that many participants may have suspected the shocks were not real, or at least doubted the experiment's authenticity. This challenges Milgram's claim that participants truly believed they were giving painful, potentially lethal, electric shocks. Some participants openly said they did not believe the set-up during the debriefing.

Perry also highlighted inconsistencies in the experimental procedure. She noted cases where experimenters moved away from the strict script, such as giving extra prods or reassurance that was not in the original protocol. These variations may have influenced participant behaviour, making it harder to interpret obedience levels and judge the internal validity of the findings.

These findings can help teachers give learners a clearer view of the Milgram experiments. For example, a teacher might share parts of Milgram's original debriefing transcripts with Perry's analysis of participant suspicion. Learners could then debate how this evidence changes what we can say about obedience to authority.

They could also consider the ethical implications of deception and experimental control. This keeps the discussion focused on both evidence and ethics.

‍

The "Engaged Followership" Theory (Social Identity)

Milgram's (1974) agentic state theory suggests that participants become passive tools of authority. The "Engaged Followership" theory gives a different view. It argues that participants do not just obey blindly. Instead, they actively identify with the experimenter's scientific goals (Haslam & Reicher, 2012).

Participants in the Milgram experiment may have seen their actions as part of a legitimate scientific endeavour. They may have felt a shared social identity with the experimenter. Their willingness to give shocks came from this shared identity and a belief in the greater good of science. It did not simply come from losing personal autonomy, or the ability to choose for themselves.

In a classroom, this idea can be seen when learners work hard on a challenging project. For example, a teacher might introduce a complex design and technology task by showing why it matters in real life and explaining the science behind it. Learners then collaborate, solve problems, and improve their designs. This shows 'engaged followership' towards the learning objective, rather than just 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 central 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.

Calling the participant a "teacher" suggests a role linked to learning and student welfare. In practice, participants mainly tested the learner's memory and gave shocks for wrong answers, as the experiment told them to do. This small change in how they saw their duty may shape how people 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 changed a great deal since Milgram's original experiments. This makes a direct replication difficult. Jerry Burger (2009) responded to these concerns by designing a partial replication. His study followed 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 showed that participants who went past 150 volts were very likely to continue to the maximum 450-volt shock. Burger's method focused on this key decision point for obedience. This meant he could study obedience without putting participants through 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 compare the methods used by Milgram and Burger. Learners could then discuss the ethical issues in each study. They could also suggest how researchers might study obedience today while protecting 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 learners 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 gave important insight into how people respond to simulated threats. Participants clearly knew that the 'learner' was a computer-generated avatar and that the electric shocks were fake. Even so, physiological monitoring showed real 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 shows the profound impact of immersive experiences, even when learners know they are not real. When exploring historical events or ethical dilemmas, a teacher might utilise a VR simulation to place learners in a relevant scenario. learners 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 led to serious debate about researchers' ethical duties towards human participants. Before this study, formal rules for psychology research were less clear than they are today. The experiment showed the urgent need for strong systems to protect participants' welfare.

Diana Baumrind (1964) published an important critique in American Psychologist. She directly challenged Milgram's method and the ethical issues it raised. She argued that Milgram's deception and the distress caused to participants were not acceptable, and that researchers have a moral duty to protect people from harm and respect 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 help learners study historical experiments like Milgram's through an ethical lens. Learners might compare the original study with current ethical standards. They could identify specific breaches and suggest revised methodologies. For example, learners could write a mock informed consent form for a similar study, setting out participant rights and possible risks.

‍

The Neurodivergent Learner & The Milgram Effect: Moving from Compliance

Discussions of Milgram's obedience experiments rarely consider the defiance penalty. This means that some learners are punished most when they resist authority. Neurodivergent learners, including those with PDA profiles, may refuse demands that feel unsafe or arbitrary. Minoritised learners may also be seen as disrespectful for the same challenge that a more privileged learner can make safely.

For teachers, the point is not to excuse harm. It is to separate unsafe refusal from moral agency, sensory overload, cultural misreading, or a reasonable request for explanation.

‍

Understanding Diverse Responses to Authority

Neurodivergent learners, including those with autism or ADHD, may read social cues and chains of authority in different ways. Some autistic people may take rules and instructions very literally, so they may follow them closely without taking in the reasons behind them or asking about ethical issues. Others may question authority sooner, especially if instructions lack a clear purpose or clash with their own 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 shows how situational factors can override a person's moral compass. For neurodivergent learners, who may already face different social expectations, critical thinking is especially important. Educators should directly teach learners how to question, evaluate, and make autonomous decisions, rather than rely only on obedience to rules.

This means doing more than stating rules. Teachers also need to explain why rules exist and what can happen when they are ignored. Structured approaches can help learners analyse situations, spot ethical dilemmas, and consider different viewpoints. This explicit teaching supports independent ethical reasoning, a vital skill 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 learners 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 learners studying historical events with ethical dimensions, a teacher could use a graphic organiser. It could help learners map the views of different stakeholders in a conflict. Learners could then identify the authority figures, the instructions given, and the possible consequences of obedience or defiance. This structure helps learners with different executive function profiles break down complex ethical scenarios and form their own reasoned judgments (Wiliam, 2011).

Teachers can directly teach decision-making steps and make it safe for learners to ask questions. This can help neurodivergent learners build a strong internal compass, or clear sense of what feels right. It also helps them handle complex social situations and make informed choices, rather than just obeying authority.

‍

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

Recent research by gives teachers a sharper way to read Milgram: the participant was often closer to an examiner than a teacher. In their study, participants who first taught the learner refused more often than those who only checked answers, although the difference was not statistically significant. The finding still matters for schools because it separates assessment-only roles from relationships where adults feel responsible for the learner's understanding and welfare.

This new evidence suggests that relationships matter. The link between the authority figure, the participant, and the "victim" can shape how willing someone is to cause harm. When people see themselves as partners in a learning process, their moral agency, or sense of personal responsibility, seems stronger. This matters for how schools set roles and responsibilities.

‍

Teachers as Collaborators, Not Just Assessors

Many education systems can push teachers into an "examiner" role without meaning to. This makes assessment and compliance more important than real pedagogical collaboration, where teachers and learners work together on learning. When teachers mainly deliver content for high-stakes tests or mark tightly against narrow criteria, they move from guiding learning to judging performance. This can weaken their professional autonomy and their moral responsibility for the learning process itself.

Consider a Year 6 teacher pressured to ensure all learners 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 learners to develop their unique writing voices and critical thinking skills (Wiliam, 2011).

‍

learners as Active Learners, Not Passive Subjects

The "examiner" trap can also affect learners. They may become passive receivers of instruction instead of active partners in learning. When learners mainly complete tasks for marks or compliance, they can feel they are simply being "examined" rather than engaging with the subject. This gives them fewer chances to use metacognition, or thinking about their own thinking, and self-regulation, or managing their own learning (Dunlosky et al., 2013).

For example, in a secondary science lesson, learners 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

Schools should resist structures that reduce teachers to policy deliverers or learners to passive recipients of knowledge. Dialogue, shared decision-making, and attention to process can counter the "examiner" trap.

Schools can build a stronger sense of moral agency by allowing teachers to adapt the curriculum to learner needs. They can also encourage learners to question, explore, and co-construct knowledge. In this way, education stays collaborative, and learners learn to think critically and act responsibly instead of simply obeying instructions.

‍

The Pace of Compliance: Preventing Cognitive Overload with Writing Frames

Burger (2014) noted that people in Milgram's obedience experiments often complied because the procedure moved very fast and did not let up. This pace caused cognitive overload, meaning they had too much to process at once. Under this pressure, they had "little opportunity to reflect" on the moral meaning of their actions or think through the ethical dilemmas.

In educational settings, learners 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 limited capacity. When a task asks for more than this capacity can handle, learning becomes less efficient (Sweller, 1988). Extended writing, problem-solving, and complex analysis all place high demands on working memory because learners must plan, organise, and create content at the same time.

When learners feel overwhelmed, they may fall back on rote recall. They may also focus on surface features of a task, instead of using higher-order thinking such as evaluation, synthesis, or metacognition. Metacognition means thinking about one's own learning. This limits the chances for deliberate reflection that support 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 learners 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 learners 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 learners through the argumentative process, preventing them from feeling overwhelmed by the blank page and the multiple demands of persuasive writing. learners 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, learners 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 helps learners cover all the necessary parts of a scientific explanation. It also helps them think about the logical flow of their ideas. Before writing, they can check whether their understanding is accurate and complete, which supports a more careful response to complex scientific concepts.

‍

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

Milgram's "agentic state" theory suggests that people give up personal responsibility when they obey authority. In this state, they become tools of another person's will (Milgram, 1974). However, another view, "Engaged Followership," argues that participants in Milgram's studies did not obey blindly. Instead, they actively worked with the experimenter because they identified with the stated "noble scientific cause" and felt their actions served a greater good (Haslam & Reicher, 2012).

This reinterpretation gives teachers a clear way to understand and shape classroom culture. It moves the focus beyond simple compliance and towards genuine engagement. Teachers can build a learning environment where learners do more than follow instructions. They take part because they identify with the educational purpose, 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 learners 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 learners 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. learners 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." learners then see their work as vital to a shared academic endeavour.

‍

Promoting Active Collaboration and Ownership

Engaged followership grows when learners feel they have ownership and agency in their learning. This means they can make choices, solve problems with others, and share ideas. These chances help them connect more strongly with classroom goals and move 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 learners to take ownership of precision and accuracy, seeing themselves as active participants in scientific discovery.

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

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

‍

Further Reading