Education Reform Report
Talking to Kids
Book Boondoggle?
Nat'l Board Certif
Ordinary People
Writing Sample
Getting rid of democracy
Schools and violence
Education and the Culture
Wars Blog
SD Education Report BLOG
Eliminating bad teachers
Improving teacher quality
San Diego Education
Report Home
092704  Nevitt statements
Main Case Timeline
Motivations CP teachers
Case Summary
2003 Stutz invoices
2002 SDCOE payments
to Daniel Shinoff
2003 part 2 Stutz invoices
Team Success
Peters v. Guajome
Park Academy
School Boards
Long Beach
Del Mar USD
Bonsall USD
Cox goes to jail
CDE Charter Schools
Vista Unified
Charter Schools
Brown Act Violations
Vista Unified
School District
VUSD v. BJ Freeman
Shinoff Bully Booklet
Public Records
Vista Unified
CVESD Trustee Districts
Peters v. Guajome
Park Academy
Community Colleges
Elem/High Schools
Evalyn Drobnicki
Gay rights/free speech
GCCCD David Agosto case
MiraCosta Declarations
GCCCD incumbents &
Rosinski & CTA v. unions
Cajon Valley USD
Poway Unified SD
Poway Unified SD
CVESD Trustee Districts
Cajon Valley USD
Larkins case
Map of Site
Free Speech
Ethics in gov't
Defamation Suit
Cheryl Cox Games
Free Speech
Conflicts of interest
Federal Judges
College presidents
Highest paid
Gov't eavesdropping
Typical abuse by teachers
ADD at Olympics
African Am Ed
Bullies in Schools
Fixing Education
Peters case in Vista
Schools and violence
Fred Kamper case
Kids bullying kids:
Jeremiah Lasater case
Bullies are popular
Covering Up
Dominican abuse
Stutz Artiano Shinoff &
Holtz v. Maura Larkins
Stutz' First Amended
Elizabeth Schulman
Elizabeth Schulman and
Larkins case
Rock Star Superintendent
Failure to Think
Special Education
Anti-parent war chest
Prescilla Dugard cases
Public Entity Lawyers
First Americans
Deposition of
Maura Larkins
Milgram’s Experiment on Obedience to

Gregorio Billikopf Encina
University of California

Why is it so many people obey when they feel coerced? Social psychologist
Stanley Milgram researched the effect of authority on obedience. He concluded
people obey either out of fear or out of a desire to appear cooperative--even
when acting against their own better judgment and desires. Milgram’s classic yet
controversial experiment illustrates people's reluctance to confront those who
abuse power. It is my opinion that Milgram's book should be required reading (see
References below) for anyone in supervisory or management positions.

Milgram recruited subjects for his experiments from various walks in life.
Respondents were told the experiment would study the effects of punishment on
learning ability. They were offered a token cash award for participating. Although
respondents thought they had an equal chance of playing the role of a student or
of a teacher, the process was rigged so all respondents ended up playing the
teacher. The learner was an actor working as a cohort of the experimenter.

"Teachers" were asked to administer increasingly severe electric shocks to the
"learner" when questions were answered incorrectly. In reality, the only electric
shocks delivered in the experiment were single 45-volt shock samples given to
each teacher. This was done to give teachers a feeling for the jolts they thought
they would be discharging.

Shock levels were labeled from 15 to 450 volts. Besides the numerical scale,
verbal anchors added to the frightful appearance of the instrument. Beginning
from the lower end, jolt levels were labeled: "slight shock," "moderate shock,"
"strong shock," "very strong shock," "intense shock," and "extreme intensity
shock." The next two anchors were "Danger: Severe Shock," and, past that, a
simple but ghastly "XXX."

In response to the supposed jolts, the "learner" (actor) would begin to grunt at 75
volts; complain at 120 volts; ask to be released at 150 volts; plead with increasing
vigor, next; and let out agonized screams at 285 volts. Eventually, in desperation,
the learner was to yell loudly and complain of heart pain.

At some point the actor would refuse to answer any more questions. Finally, at
330 volts the actor would be totally silent-that is, if any of the teacher participants
got so far without rebelling first.

Teachers were instructed to treat silence as an incorrect answer and apply the
next shock level to the student.

If at any point the innocent teacher hesitated to inflict the shocks, the
experimenter would pressure him to proceed. Such demands would take the form
of increasingly severe statements, such as "The experiment requires that you

What do you think was the average voltage given by teachers before they refused
to administer further shocks? What percentage of teachers, if any, do you think
went up to the maximum voltage of 450?

Results from the experiment. Some teachers refused to continue with the shocks
early on, despite urging from the experimenter. This is the type of response
Milgram expected as the norm. But Milgram was shocked to find those who
questioned authority were in the minority. Sixty-five percent (65%) of the teachers
were willing to progress to the maximum voltage level.

Participants demonstrated a range of negative emotions about continuing. Some
pleaded with the learner, asking the actor to answer questions carefully. Others
started to laugh nervously and act strangely in diverse ways. Some subjects
appeared cold, hopeless, somber, or arrogant. Some thought they had killed the
learner. Nevertheless, participants continued to obey, discharging the full shock
to learners. One man who wanted to abandon the experiment was told the
experiment must continue. Instead of challenging the decision of the
experimenter, he proceeded, repeating to himself, "It’s got to go on, it’s got to go

Milgram’s experiment included a number of variations. In one, the learner was not
only visible but teachers were asked to force the learner’s hand to the shock plate
so they could deliver the punishment. Less obedience was extracted from
subjects in this case. In another variation, teachers were instructed to apply
whatever voltage they desired to incorrect answers. Teachers averaged 83 volts,
and only 2.5 percent of participants used the full 450 volts available. This shows
most participants were good, average people, not evil individuals. They obeyed
only under coercion.

In general, more submission was elicited from "teachers" when (1) the authority
figure was in close proximity; (2) teachers felt they could pass on responsibility to
others; and (3) experiments took place under the auspices of a respected

Participants were debriefed after the experiment and showed much relief at
finding they had not harmed the student. One cried from emotion when he saw
the student alive, and explained that he thought he had killed him. But what was
different about those who obeyed and those who rebelled? Milgram divided
participants into three categories:

Obeyed but justified themselves. Some obedient participants gave up
responsibility for their actions, blaming the experimenter. If anything had
happened to the learner, they reasoned, it would have been the experimenter’s
fault. Others had transferred the blame to the learner: "He was so stupid and
stubborn he deserved to be shocked."

Obeyed but blamed themselves. Others felt badly about what they had done and
were quite harsh on themselves. Members of this group would, perhaps, be more
likely to challenge authority if confronted with a similar situation in the future.

Rebelled. Finally, rebellious subjects questioned the authority of the experimenter
and argued there was a greater ethical imperative calling for the protection of the
learner over the needs of the experimenter. Some of these individuals felt they
were accountable to a higher authority.

Why were those who challenged authority in the minority? So entrenched is
obedience it may void personal codes of conduct.


Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. New York:
Harper and Row. An excellent presentation of Milgram’s work is also found in
Brown, R. (1986). Social Forces in Obedience and Rebellion. Social Psychology:
The Second Edition. New York: The Free Press.