APA Citation
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral Study of Obedience. *Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology*, 67(4), 371-378. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040525
Summary
In one of psychology's most famous and disturbing experiments, Milgram demonstrated that ordinary people would administer apparently dangerous electric shocks to strangers simply because an authority figure instructed them to do so. 65% of participants continued to the maximum 450-volt shock level despite hearing (recorded) screams of pain. The study revealed that situational pressures—particularly obedience to authority—can override individual moral judgment, leading ordinary people to participate in harmful acts they would never commit independently.
Why This Matters for Survivors
If you've wondered how enablers allow narcissistic abuse to continue—why family members, coworkers, or institutions fail to intervene—Milgram's research provides insight. People follow authority, even when it conflicts with their own moral sense. The flying monkeys who participate in the narcissist's campaigns, the HR departments that side with abusive executives, the family members who pressure you to reconcile—they're not necessarily bad people. They're responding to authority pressure in predictable, if troubling, ways.
What This Research Establishes
Ordinary people obey harmful orders. 65% of participants administered maximum shocks to strangers simply because an authority figure instructed them to continue. This wasn’t sadism but obedience—participants showed distress but followed orders anyway.
Situational factors override individual morality. The study demonstrated that context—particularly authority pressure—can lead people to act against their own moral judgment. Character alone doesn’t predict behavior; situation matters enormously.
Gradual escalation facilitates compliance. Starting with small shocks and escalating gradually made it harder to refuse. Each small step seemed like a minor increment from the last, even as the cumulative effect became severe.
Defiance is possible but requires support. 35% refused to continue. Having an ally who refused, physical distance from victims, and questioning authority’s legitimacy all increased resistance. Defiance can be cultivated.
Why This Matters for Survivors
Understanding why people enable abuse. The family members who pressure you to reconcile, the coworkers who side with the abusive executive, the friends who believe the narcissist’s narrative—they’re responding to authority pressure. The narcissist has established themselves as an authority figure, and people obey authorities.
Why getting support is so hard. When you seek help, you’re asking people to defy the authority the narcissist has established. This is difficult for most people. Understanding this reduces personalization: their failure to help may reflect situational pressure, not lack of care for you.
How narcissistic systems perpetuate harm. Narcissists create systems where others participate in harmful acts—scapegoating, gaslighting, ostracism—that they’d never initiate independently. The narcissist’s authority makes these acts feel legitimate to participants.
Why you may have stayed. If you obeyed the narcissist longer than you now wish you had, understand that obedience to authority is a powerful human tendency. Milgram’s participants weren’t weak people—they were ordinary people in extraordinary situations. So were you.
Clinical Implications
Assess the authority structure. When patients describe abuse, understand who holds authority in the system. The narcissist’s power often derives from established authority—parent, executive, expert—that makes others’ obedience predictable.
Normalize the difficulty of defiance. Patients who stayed in abusive situations, who obeyed harmful demands, often feel shame. Milgram’s research normalizes this: defying authority is genuinely difficult. 65% of ordinary people couldn’t do it in controlled conditions.
Build support for resistance. Milgram found that having an ally who refused increased defiance dramatically. Help patients build support networks outside the narcissist’s authority sphere.
Address institutional complicity. When institutions (families, workplaces) enable narcissistic abuse, understand this as predictable authority-obedience dynamics, not necessarily malice. But also support patients in recognizing when institutions won’t help.
How This Research Is Used in the Book
Milgram’s research appears in chapters on narcissistic systems and enablers:
“Milgram’s famous obedience experiments showed that 65% of ordinary people would administer dangerous shocks simply because an authority figure instructed them to. This explains why enablers participate in the narcissist’s campaigns—the narcissist has established authority, and people obey. The flying monkeys aren’t necessarily bad people; they’re responding to powerful situational pressures.”
Historical Context
Milgram conducted his experiments at Yale University in 1961-1962, shortly after Adolf Eichmann’s trial in Jerusalem. Hannah Arendt’s concept of “the banality of evil”—ordinary bureaucrats participating in genocide—raised questions about how this was possible. Milgram sought to test whether Americans would show similar obedience.
The results shocked both Milgram and the public. The experiments sparked intense ethical debate about research methods but profoundly influenced understanding of human behavior. Milgram demonstrated that the capacity for harmful obedience wasn’t specific to Germans or to any national character—it was a human tendency that could emerge given the right situational pressures.
Further Reading
- Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. Harper & Row.
- Blass, T. (2004). The Man Who Shocked the World: The Life and Legacy of Stanley Milgram. Basic Books.
- Zimbardo, P. (2007). The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. Random House.
- Burger, J.M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? American Psychologist, 64(1), 1-11.
About the Author
Stanley Milgram (1933-1984) was a social psychologist at Yale University and later Harvard and CUNY. His obedience experiments, conducted in the early 1960s, became some of the most influential and controversial studies in psychology's history.
Milgram designed his experiments partly in response to the trial of Adolf Eichmann, seeking to understand how ordinary Germans participated in the Holocaust. His findings suggested the answer lay not in national character but in universal human susceptibility to authority.
Historical Context
Published in 1963, two years after Eichmann's trial, Milgram's study addressed urgent questions about how genocide could occur. The findings were shocking: not Germans specifically, but humans generally, showed alarming willingness to harm others when instructed by authority. The experiments sparked intense ethical debate about research methods while profoundly influencing understanding of obedience, conformity, and moral responsibility.
Frequently Asked Questions
65% of participants administered the maximum 450-volt shock to a stranger simply because an experimenter in a lab coat told them to continue. Participants showed distress but obeyed anyway. The study demonstrated that situational authority pressure can override individual moral judgment, leading ordinary people to harm others.
Several factors contributed: the authority figure's apparent expertise and legitimacy, gradual escalation (starting with small shocks), diffusion of responsibility ('I was just following orders'), and the difficulty of defying authority in the moment. People weren't sadistic—they were responding to powerful situational pressures.
People who enable narcissists—family members who pressure reconciliation, HR who sides with abusive executives, friends who believe the narcissist's narrative—aren't necessarily bad people. They're responding to authority (the narcissist's confidence, status, or family role) in predictable ways. Understanding this helps explain why getting support can be so difficult.
Milgram didn't excuse harmful obedience—he sought to explain it. Understanding why people obey doesn't remove moral responsibility, but it shifts focus from individual wickedness to situational pressures. Prevention requires recognizing these pressures and building structures that support moral courage.
No—35% refused to continue to maximum shock. Milgram studied what enabled resistance: having an ally who refused, physical distance from the victim, and questioning the authority's legitimacy all increased defiance. This suggests how to support people in resisting harmful authority.
Narcissists often establish themselves as authorities—in families, workplaces, relationships. Once people accept the narcissist's authority, they may follow harmful directives (ostracizing the scapegoat, keeping secrets, participating in gaslighting) that they'd never initiate independently. The system, not just the narcissist, perpetuates harm.
The experiments sparked lasting ethical debate. Participants weren't fully informed and experienced significant distress. However, Milgram argued the knowledge gained—about how ordinary people participate in atrocity—justified the methods. The controversy led to stricter research ethics protections.
Recognize that people you trust may side with the narcissist due to authority pressure, not because they don't care about you. Build support networks outside the narcissist's sphere of influence. Understand that breaking from authority requires courage and support—and extend that understanding to yourself if you stayed too long.