Editing Milgram experiment (section)

===Milgram's variations===
In ''[[Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View]]'' (1974), Milgram describes 19 variations of his experiment, some of which had not been previously reported.

Several experiments varied the distance between the participant (teacher) and the learner. Generally, when the participant was physically closer to the learner, the participant's [[Compliance (psychology)|compliance]] decreased. In the variation where the learner's physical immediacy was closest—where the participant had to hold the learner's arm onto a shock plate—30 percent of participants completed the experiment. The participant's compliance also decreased if the experimenter was physically farther away (Experiments 1–4). For example, in Experiment 2, where participants received telephonic instructions from the experimenter, compliance decreased to 21 percent. Some participants deceived the experimenter by pretending to continue the experiment.

In Experiment 8, an all-female contingent was used; previously, all participants had been men. Obedience did not significantly differ, though the women communicated experiencing higher levels of stress.

Experiment 10 took place in a modest office in [[Bridgeport]], [[Connecticut]], purporting to be the commercial entity "Research Associates of Bridgeport" without apparent connection to Yale University, to eliminate the university's prestige as a possible factor influencing the participants' behavior. In those conditions, obedience dropped to 47.5 percent, though the difference was not statistically significant.

Milgram also combined the effect of authority with that of [[conformity]]. In those experiments, the participant was joined by one or two additional "teachers" (also actors, like the "learner"). The behavior of the participants' peers strongly affected the results. In Experiment 17, when two additional teachers refused to comply, only four of 40 participants continued in the experiment. In Experiment 18, the participant performed a subsidiary task (reading the questions via microphone or recording the learner's answers) with another "teacher" who complied fully. In that variation, 37 of 40 continued with the experiment.

In addition to these procedural variations, Milgram’s work also illuminates the psychological processes highlighting obedience. Participants were observed frequently entering an “agentic state,” considering themselves as mere instruments executing the experimenter’s will and therefore weakening personal responsibility.
This shift was coupled with marked psychological evidence by nervous laughter, sweating, and internal conflict—which emphasizes the tension between hierarchical compliance and individual ethical standards. Such theoretical insights laid the basement for contemporary models of destructive obedience by revealing how authoritative contexts can reshape perceptions of agency and culpability.
<ref name=old>[http://www.stanleymilgram.com/oldanswers.html Milgram, old answers.] Accessed October 4, 2006.  {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090430145531/http://www.stanleymilgram.com/oldanswers.html |date=April 30, 2009 }}</ref>