The Milgram Experiment

How willing would someone be to obey an order that conflicts with his or her personal conscience? That’s what Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram set out to understand in his controversial psychological experiment in 1961.

Experiment volunteers were paid to participate in what they were told was a study on the effects of punishment on learning. Each experiment consisted of a teacher and a learner. The subjects drew slips to determine who would play the roles of teacher and learner in the experiment. They were placed in adjacent rooms, with the learner in one room strapped to a chair with his arm banded by an electric shock band. The teacher witnessed as the learner was hooked up, and then went to his own room out of the learner’s view. The teacher was given a list of word pairs that he would have to “teach” the learner. The teacher would begin by reading the list of word pairs to the learner. Afterward, the teacher would read the first word of each pair and give the learner four choices for the correct word pair. The learner would then press a button for his choice, and the teacher would see a corresponding light illuminate on his console. If the learner guessed the correct word, the teacher would go on to the next one. If the learner guessed incorrectly, the teacher would administer a shock to the learner. The shock starting at 15 volts and increased in intensity in 15-volt increments, up to a maximum of 450 volts (with the words “Danger – Severe Shock” written on the panel next to the high voltage!).

The experiment was rigged to ensure the volunteer subject was always the teacher. Other than the volunteer, the other “subject” in the room was actually an actor.

Although the teachers believed that for each wrong answer the learner was receiving shocks in increasing voltage, in reality there were no shocks. After each shock was administered, the teacher would hear recorded sounds for each shock level. After a number of voltage increases, the actor would start to bang on the wall that separated him from the subject. After several times banging on the wall and complaining about his heart condition, the actor would provide no further responses.

At that point, many subjects indicated their desire to stop the experiment and check on the learner. Some test subjects paused at 135 volts and began to question the purpose of the experiment. Most of them continued after being assured that they would not be held responsible. A few subjects began to laugh nervously or exhibit other signs of extreme stress once they heard the screams of pain coming from the learner.

In Milgram’s experiment, 65 percent (26 of 40) of the experiment’s subjects administered the final massive 450-volt shock, even though many of them were uncomfortable doing it.

Milgram showed that ordinary, well-intentioned people simply “doing their jobs,” can become agents in a terribly destructive process. Even though the destructive effects of the their actions were incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people had the resources needed to resist authority.

What can we do to ensure similar results don’t occur in aviation maintenance? I’m not suggesting that electric shock experiments may be secretly going on in hangars or break rooms. But are DOMs and mechanics being placed in situations where they are forced to make decisions contrary to their training and moral compasses? How many times has a new mechanic been told, “I know that’s what the maintenance manual says, but THIS is the way we do it here”? How many times are mechanics pressured to look the other way because the boss needs to get the plane out RIGHT NOW? How many times have we heard of people falsifying maintenance records, a.k.a. pencil whipping, because their supervisor told them to? Remember, although the subjects in Milgram’s experiments all knew what they were doing was wrong, and many stopped to question the experiment, 65 percent of them ended up administering the 450-volt shock.

Don’t allow yourself or your employees to be placed in situations where they may become the 65 percent.

Thanks for reading!  

Joe Escobar