Behaviour that the majority of people are susceptible to and how Authority aims to leverage that majority compliance in a Democracy -

We aim to get you to the 35% cohort so a message is sent back to rogue Authority - The target is 51% so that Democracy is restored.

The Milgram study, conducted by Stanley Milgram in the early 1960s at Yale University, is one of the most famous experiments in social psychology, originally designed to investigate obedience to authority. While its primary finding—that 65% of participants were willing to administer what they believed were potentially lethal electric shocks to another person when instructed by an authority figure—is widely known, the broader implications and wider findings of the study extend far beyond this headline result. These wider findings offer deeper insights into human behaviour, situational factors, and societal dynamics. Below, I’ll outline the key broader findings and their implications based on the original study and subsequent analyses.

1. The Power of Situational Context Over Personality

One of the most significant wider findings is that obedience is less about individual personality traits and more about the situational context. Milgram demonstrated that ordinary people, not just those with authoritarian tendencies, could be induced to perform harmful acts under the right conditions. Participants in the study were a diverse group of men from various backgrounds, yet most complied when placed in a structured environment with an authority figure. This suggests that situational pressures—like the presence of a legitimate-seeming authority or the design of the experiment—can override personal morals or disposition, challenging the notion that only "bad" people commit harmful acts.

2. The Role of Perceived Legitimacy

The study highlighted the critical role of perceived legitimacy in obedience. The experimenter, dressed in a lab coat and representing the prestigious Yale University, embodied scientific authority, which many participants found compelling. When Milgram later varied the setting (e.g., moving the experiment to a less prestigious office in Bridgeport), obedience rates dropped (from 65% to 47.5%), indicating that the perceived legitimacy of the authority and the institution significantly influenced compliance. This finding has broader implications for understanding why people obey in real-world settings, such as in bureaucracies or during historical events like the Holocaust, where authority was seen as legitimate.

3. Gradual Escalation and Commitment

Another key insight is the effect of incremental escalation on obedience. The experiment began with mild shocks (15 volts) and increased gradually to 450 volts. This step-by-step progression made it harder for participants to refuse as they became committed to the process. Many expressed discomfort but continued because they had already started, illustrating a "foot-in-the-door" effect. This finding suggests that obedience can be secured not through sudden, drastic demands but through small, incremental steps that normalize compliance—a phenomenon relevant to understanding how people become complicit in escalating unethical systems.

4. Moral Conflict and Emotional Distress

Milgram’s work revealed that obedience often comes at a significant emotional cost. Participants displayed visible signs of distress—sweating, trembling, nervous laughter, and even seizures in extreme cases—yet many still complied. This tension between internal moral resistance and external pressure underscores that obedience is not necessarily blind or unthinking. Instead, people may obey despite recognizing the wrongness of their actions, often because they feel trapped by the situation or shift responsibility to the authority figure. This has implications for understanding how individuals rationalize harmful behaviour in hierarchical structures.

5. The Agentic State and Responsibility Shifting

Milgram proposed the concept of the "agentic state" as a wider theoretical finding: when under authority, individuals shift from an autonomous state (where they feel responsible for their actions) to an agentic state (where they see themselves as instruments of the authority’s will). Many participants justified their actions by saying, “I was just following orders,” transferring moral responsibility to the experimenter. This finding has been widely applied to explain obedience in contexts like military atrocities or corporate scandals, where individuals deflect accountability to those higher up.

6. Variations in Obedience: Situational Factors Matter

Milgram conducted 23 variations of the experiment, and the results showed that obedience levels fluctuated based on situational tweaks. For example:

• Proximity: When the learner was in the same room (vs. a separate room), obedience dropped to 40%. If the teacher had to physically press the learner’s hand onto a shock plate, it fell further to 30%.
• Experimenter Presence: When instructions were given over the phone rather than in person, obedience decreased significantly (to 20.5%).
• Social Support: In a variation where confederates refused to continue, obedience plummeted, suggesting that defiance can be contagious. These variations reveal that obedience is not absolute but highly sensitive to situational cues, such as physical closeness to the victim, the authority’s direct presence, or peer influence. This nuanced finding broadens the study’s relevance to real-life scenarios where such factors vary.

7. Defiance and Resistance

While the 65% obedience rate is often emphasized, a significant minority (35%) defied the experimenter and refused to continue past a certain point, often after the learner’s first protests at 150 volts. Later analyses, including archival reviews, suggest that defiance was linked to empathy for the learner or skepticism about the experiment’s authenticity. This finding shifts the narrative from universal obedience to a more balanced view, highlighting that resistance is possible even under pressure, especially when individuals prioritize personal values or question authority’s credibility.

8. Cultural and Historical Resonance

Milgram’s study was inspired by the trial of Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi official who claimed he was “just following orders.” The wider finding—that ordinary people can commit destructive acts under authority—offered a psychological lens for understanding the Holocaust and similar events. However, the study’s applicability extends beyond this context to any hierarchical system (e.g., military, corporate, or governmental) where authority can lead to unethical outcomes. It raises questions about how societies structure power and responsibility to prevent such obedience-driven harm.

9. Ethical and Methodological Reflections

The study’s wider legacy includes its impact on research ethics. Participants experienced significant stress, and many were not fully debriefed, sparking debates about the balance between scientific inquiry and participant well-being. This led to stricter ethical guidelines in psychology, such as informed consent and the right to withdraw, influencing how experiments are conducted today. Methodologically, critics have questioned whether participants truly believed the shocks were real, with some suggesting compliance reflected trust in Yale rather than raw obedience—a debate that broadens the interpretation of the findings.

10. Enduring Relevance and Replications

Later replications (e.g., Jerry Burger’s 2009 study, which stopped at 150 volts) and cross-cultural studies (e.g., in Poland and France) have largely confirmed Milgram’s core insight: people remain prone to obey authority even decades later, despite greater awareness of the original findings. However, these replications also suggest that obedience is not static—it varies with cultural norms, education, and social changes—broadening the study’s scope to a global and contemporary context.

Broader Implications

Collectively, these wider findings suggest that obedience is a complex, context-dependent phenomenon influenced by authority’s legitimacy, situational design, emotional dynamics, and social factors. The study challenges simplistic views of human nature, showing that "evil" acts can stem from ordinary people in structured environments rather than inherent malice. It has informed fields beyond psychology, including sociology, organizational behaviour, and political science, prompting ongoing reflection on how to foster resistance to unjust authority and design systems that prioritize ethical autonomy.

In summary, the Milgram study’s wider findings reveal not just how far people will go under orders, but why they do so, under what conditions, and with what consequences—offering a profound commentary on human behaviour and societal structures that remains relevant today.