Milgram’s Shock Box Experiment
Starting in April of 1961, viewers tuned in to watch the televised trial of Nazi commander, Adolph Eichmann. Eichmann was an integral cog in the Nazi hate machine that killed millions of Jews. He personally oversaw their deportation and helped to devise the “Final Solution.” After the war he fled to Argentina but was captured by Mossad Intelligence agents and taken to Israel to stand trial.
In his testimony he argued that he was not in a position to give orders, only to follow them. Hannah Arendt, who was covering the trials, wrote in her 1963 book, Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil, that Eichmann was not evil. Instead, she contended that he was a simple bureaucrat who perpetuated heinous crimes because he did not perceive situations from the point of view of others. Many people objected to Arendt’s claims, believing that she was an apologist for the Nazi officials who conducted their orders.
Stanley Milgram, a 27-year-old social psychologist and himself Jewish, watched the trials and wondered what could drive a man to commit such crimes. Was he naturally evil, or was he just a henchman following his orders?
In 1961, Milgram conducted a test to discover the answer to this question. His initial experiment involved forty volunteers, a machine that would elicit electric shocks and an experimenter.
In his test, Milgram brought two “volunteers” into a room and explained that they would undergo an experiment to study the results of punishment on a person’s learning ability. The “volunteers” chose from two slips of paper. One paper designated a “teacher” and the other a “learner.” The drawing was rigged by the examiner. All volunteers were to be the “teacher,” and the “learner” was an actor, as was the “experimenter.”
The next step was to strap the “learner” into a chair and apply electrical devices to them while the “teacher” looked on. Following this, the “experimenter” would proceed to another room and have the “teacher” sit in a chair in front of a machine that could emit electric shocks to the “learner” in the other room. The machine listed an array of shock levels, starting at 15 volts and increased to 450 volts. The “experimenter” would then apply the “teacher” with a 45-volt shock, so that they would experience the feeling for themselves.
The next step was for the “teacher” to provide the “learner” with word parings to which the “learner” was to memorize them and then answer when quizzed later. For every wrong answer supplied, the “teacher” was to submit a shock starting with the lowest amount and then proceed by fifteen volts for every subsequent wrong answer.
For a shock applied at 75-volts, the “learner” would let out a grunt, which would increase in volume with the intensity of every shock. At 120-volts, the “learner” objected, and at 150-volts the “learner” requested to be released from the experiment. With every shock afterwards, the “learners” pleads became more frantic, blooming at full-grown agony at 285-volts. The “learner” would then plead for the experiment to stop and state they have heart pain. At 330-volts they “learner” would not reply, giving the appearance that they were either dead or refusing to comply. At this point, the “experimenter” instructed the “teacher” to accept no response as a wrong answer and apply the next shock level.
If, at any moment, during the experiment, the “teacher” opposed applying the next shock level, the “experimenter” would encourage them saying, “Please continue.” If the “teacher” still objected, the “experimenter” responded, “The experiment requires that you continue.” If the “teacher” seemed weary to proceed, the “experimenter” than said, “It is absolutely essential that you continue.” If this command did not work, the “experimenter” insisted, “You have no other choice, but to continue.”

Before the experiment, Milgram predicted that most tested individuals would not apply the maximum level of 450 volts, but he was horrified to find that despite, many objecting to the screams and the ethics of the test, 65% of the “teachers” applied the full 450 volts. (In reality, the machine did not transmit any electric shock to the learner.)
After speaking with the “teachers” and learning their thought processes he grouped them into three categories.
Obeyed but justified themselves. This group comprised the participants who deferred responsibility to the “experimenter.”
Obeyed but blamed themselves. These “teachers” accepted the responsibility and felt terrible for what they had done to the “learner.”
Rebelled. The “teachers” who refused to continue. They openly questioned the intentions of the experiment and the “experimenter,” and some did not need to follow the experimenter’s orders, as they were accountable to a higher authority.
Milgram exercised several variations of the experiment. In one test, he had the “experimenter” wear a lab coat and other times the “experimenter” appeared in plain clothes. When wearing a lab coat, participants were more willing to follow their authority.
In another experiments, testing was moved from the campus of Yale University to a vacant shop in a run-down section of Bridgeport, Connecticut. Experiments here saw participant’s obedience levels decline to 47.5%. Most of the subjects gave less credibility to the test as it was off campus.
In one of Milgram’s studies, the “teachers” were allowed to apply the shock level they felt was appropriate. In these tests, “teachers” applied shocks that averaged only eighty-three volts and a mere 2.5% of the “teachers” implemented the full 450 volts.
Analyzing the data from his test, Milgram concluded that most individuals are good, normal people and not sadistic, or possessing evil intent. It is when the coercion is applied that people perform horrific acts. Milgram summarized his conclusions.
Teachers applied greater shocks when an authority figure was in close proximity. Second, teachers could blame the “experimenter.” The third conclusion revealed that participants were more comfortable performing the experiment conducted by a respected institution.
In total, seven hundred individuals participated in the experiments done over a course of three years (1961 to 1963). Many critics objected to the experiment as unethical while others argued it was necessary. The ethics of Milgram’s shock experiments continues to be examined in college lectures today and remains as divisive in 2024 as it was in 1963.