Milgram's variation studies: experiments 7, 10 and 13

The baseline

Pearson's guide notes that the variations are compared with Milgram's Experiment 5 (the new baseline, in which the learner mentions a heart condition). In the baseline 26 of 40 men (65%) went to the full 450 V. Each variation changed one feature and kept the rest of the procedure (word pairs, shock generator 15 V to 450 V, standard prods) the same, so differences can be put down to that feature.

Experiment 7: telephonic instructions

The experimenter gave the first instructions in person, then left the room and gave all further orders and prods by telephone. Milgram (1974) reports that 9 of 40 participants were fully obedient (22.5%). Some revision guides quote about 20%. Several participants cheated: they told the experimenter they were raising the shocks while giving the lowest ones. Conclusion: physical closeness of the authority matters; with the authority absent, dissent rose.

Experiments 10 and 13

Experiment 10: rundown office block. The study moved to a rundown commercial office in Bridgeport, Connecticut, with all links to Yale removed; the researchers posed as a private research firm. Full obedience was 47.5% (19 of 40), compared with 65% at Yale. Milgram did not regard the difference as significant, but it suggests the prestige of the setting adds to obedience.

Experiment 13: ordinary man gives orders. The experimenter was called away by a rigged phone call before saying which shock levels to use. A second confederate, apparently another volunteer who had been recording times, suggested increasing the shocks and urged the teacher to continue. Only 4 of 20 (20%) obeyed to 450 V. In a follow-up, when the ordinary man took over the switches, almost all of the 16 refusers protested and 5 took physical action against him or the shock generator. Conclusion: orders from someone with no legitimate authority are often defied.

Evaluation

Strengths: standardised procedures and quantitative data allow direct comparison with the baseline (reliability); Experiment 10 has more mundane realism than a university lab.

Weaknesses: deception and distress remain; the samples were American men, so findings may not generalise; some variations had small samples (20 in Experiment 13); in Experiment 7 cheating means the shock data understate disobedience.

Worked example

Calculate the fall in full obedience from the baseline (65%) to Experiment 13 (20%), in percentage points, and explain it.

1. 65 - 20 = 45 percentage points.
2. The person giving orders had no legitimate authority (no lab coat, no expert status).
3. So participants did not make the agentic shift as readily.

Answer: A fall of 45 percentage points, because an ordinary man lacks legitimate authority.

Check yourself

1. In Experiment 7, 9 of 40 participants were fully obedient. Calculate this as a percentage.
   Show answer

   22.5 %. 9 / 40 x 100 = 22.5%.

2. Full obedience fell from 65% at Yale to 47.5% in Experiment 10. By how many percentage points did it fall?
   Show answer

   17.5 percentage points. 65 - 47.5 = 17.5 percentage points.

3. In Experiment 13, 4 of 20 participants obeyed fully. How many refused for every one who obeyed?
   Show answer

   4 refusers per obeyer. 16 refused and 4 obeyed: 16 : 4 = 4 : 1.

4. Which situational factor did Experiment 10 test?
   • The distance between teacher and experimenter
   • The status of the person giving orders
   • The number of peers who rebelled
   • The prestige of the location
   Show answer

   The prestige of the location. Moving from Yale to a rundown office reduced the setting's prestige.

5. What did several participants in Experiment 7 do?
   • Asked to swap roles with the learner
   • Gave lower shocks than ordered while saying they were following the procedure
   • Left before the first shock
   • Refused to read the word pairs
   Show answer

   Gave lower shocks than ordered while saying they were following the procedure. With the experimenter absent, participants deceived him by using the lowest switches.

6. In Experiment 13, who gave the order to increase the shocks?
   • The experimenter by telephone
   • A doctor in a white coat
   • The learner
   • A confederate who appeared to be another ordinary volunteer
   Show answer

   A confederate who appeared to be another ordinary volunteer. An 'ordinary man' with no authority suggested the procedure.

7. Give one strength of Milgram's variation studies as research.
   Show answer

   The procedure was standardised, with the same generator and prods as the baseline, so only one variable changed and the results can be compared and replicated.. Changing one feature while keeping the rest standard lets the effect of that feature be seen.

Practise with instant feedback Print this lesson

Sources

• Pearson Edexcel International Advanced Subsidiary/Advanced Level in Psychology specification (issue January 2026)
• Pearson International A Level Psychology component guide: WPS01
• Cognito: Milgram's research into obedience (Edexcel notes)
• R. Gerlich: The Milgram experiments, findings on obedience (citing Milgram, 1974, Obedience to Authority)
• Lumen Learning (Simply Psychology text): The Milgram shock experiment
• IAL Psychology revision site: Milgram's research

Last updated 8 November 2026. Spotted a mistake? Tell us.