The Milgram Experiment: Ethical Issues and Lasting Impact on Psychology

The Milgram obedience studies, conducted by Stanley Milgram in the early 1960s, remain among the most discussed and contested research programs in psychology. The core finding, that a substantial majority of participants were willing to deliver what they believed were severe electric shocks to another person when instructed by an authority figure, raised immediate and enduring questions about research ethics. This article examines the specific ethical controversies, including deception, informed consent, and psychological harm, and traces how the study shaped the ethical standards that now govern psychological research. The analysis is intended for students, researchers, life-science professionals, and informed general readers who want a structured comparison of ethical expectations then and now, using the Milgram study as a case example.

The Original Study and Its Ethical Context

Stanley Milgram's experiments measured the willingness of participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that appeared to harm another person. Participants were assigned the role of teacher and believed they were delivering electric shocks to a learner in another room whenever the learner made an error on a memory task. The learner was actually a confederate who did not receive shocks, but the participant heard scripted protests and expressions of distress. The experimenter, dressed in a laboratory coat, issued a series of standardized prods when participants hesitated, including statements that the experiment required continuation.

The design created a powerful conflict between the participant's inclination to stop and the authority figure's insistence that the procedure continue. Milgram's findings showed that many participants continued to the maximum voltage on the shock generator, a result that was unexpected to both the researchers and to expert panels who had predicted very low obedience rates. The study was later described as a foundational demonstration of how ordinary people can commit harmful acts under coercion, and it has been used extensively in bioethics and social psychology as a paradigm case of problematic research [13].

The ethical context of the early 1960s differed substantially from current standards. Formal institutional review boards were not yet established, and the regulatory framework that now governs human subjects research emerged only after a series of scandals and policy developments. The Nuremberg Code and the Declaration of Helsinki provided early guidance, but enforcement and oversight were inconsistent [20]. Milgram's study was conducted in this period, and its ethical problems became a catalyst for change.

Deception as a Core Ethical Problem

Deception was central to the Milgram design. Participants were told the study examined memory and learning, when the actual purpose was to measure obedience to authority. They were also misled about the identity of the learner, the nature of the shocks, and the risks involved. Critics have argued that deception in psychology experiments is unjustified and frequently cite the Milgram studies as evidence that deceptive research downplays risks and overstates benefits [11].

The ethical problem with deception is not simply that participants were misinformed. It is that deception prevented participants from giving meaningful informed consent. A person cannot consent to participate in a study when the risks and purposes are concealed. In the Milgram study, participants could not know that they would be placed in a situation designed to induce severe internal conflict, nor could they anticipate the distress that followed.

Defenders of the study have noted that stating a priori how beneficial a given experiment will be is difficult for any researcher, and that critics have struggled to show precisely what harm participants suffered [11]. This debate remains unresolved. What is clear is that the Milgram study forced the field to confront the tension between producing valuable scientific knowledge and protecting the welfare of research participants.

The legacy of this tension is visible in modern research ethics guidance. The EQUATOR Network provides reporting guidelines for health research, and the NC3Rs Experimental Design Assistant supports researchers in planning studies that are methodologically sound and ethically responsible [2][3]. These resources reflect a research environment in which deception is subject to strict scrutiny and must be justified by the scientific value of the study and the absence of feasible alternatives.

Psychological Harm and Participant Welfare

The most serious ethical criticism of the Milgram study concerns the psychological distress experienced by participants. Many showed signs of extreme tension, including sweating, trembling, and verbal expressions of anguish. Some participants believed they had seriously harmed another person, and the experience of discovering that they had been deceived could itself be distressing.

Milgram reported that participants were debriefed after the study and that follow-up questionnaires indicated most did not regret their participation. However, these assurances have been questioned. The long-term effects of participation were not systematically measured, and the methods used to assess participant reactions were not designed to detect lasting harm. Critics have argued that the study exposed participants to risks that were not adequately disclosed or managed.

The question of harm is complicated by the fact that participants were not actually harmed in a physical sense. The shocks were not real, and the learner was an actor. But the psychological experience of believing one had caused pain to another person is a genuine harm, and the intensity of the distress observed during the sessions suggests that the experience was deeply unsettling for many participants.

Modern ethical standards would require a researcher to anticipate these risks and to implement safeguards. The Belmont Report and the Common Rule, which now govern human subjects research in the United States, require that risks to participants be minimized and that the benefits of the research justify those risks [20]. A study that produced the level of distress observed in the Milgram sessions would face substantial scrutiny from an institutional review board.

The 150-Volt Solution and Partial Replication

Because the ethical concerns make a direct replication of the Milgram study untenable, researchers have developed modified procedures that preserve the essential features of the paradigm while reducing the risk to participants. The most influential of these is the 150-volt solution, introduced by Jerry M. Burger in a 2009 partial replication [6].

Burger's procedure stopped the experiment at the point where participants first heard the learner's verbal protest, which occurred at 150 volts. This decision was based on the observation that 79 percent of Milgram's participants who continued past this point went on to the end of the shock generator's range. By stopping at 150 volts, Burger could estimate what participants would have done if allowed to continue, without exposing them to the full intensity of the procedure [6].

The 150-volt solution was designed to gain institutional review board approval while preserving the scientific value of the obedience paradigm. Burger's replication found that obedience rates were only slightly lower than those observed by Milgram 45 years earlier [6]. This finding suggested that the basic phenomenon of obedience to authority remained robust, even in a contemporary sample.

However, the modified procedure has been criticized. One commentator who witnessed the original experiments argued that Burger's replication succeeded in gaining ethical approval by removing a large portion of the stressful circumstances that made Milgram's findings psychologically interesting and broadly applicable to real-world destructive obedience [7]. Another commentary noted that Burger's intensive efforts to improve the ethics of the study may be exaggerated, uncertain in their effectiveness, and pose impractical demands [8].

The debate over the 150-volt solution illustrates a broader tension in obedience research. The very features that make the paradigm powerful, the intense conflict, the distress, the sense of personal responsibility, are the features that make it ethically problematic. Removing those features to protect participants may also remove the conditions that produce the phenomenon under study.

The Rhetorical and Interactional Dimensions of Obedience

A different line of criticism focuses on the interaction between participants and the experimenter. Rhetorical analysis of audio recordings and transcripts from Milgram's experimental conditions has shown that participants could draw the experimenter into a process of negotiation over the continuation of the session [10]. These negotiations could lead to radical departures from the standardized experimental procedure, and the analysis points to the ineffectiveness of Milgram's fourth prod, which stated that the participant had no other choice and must go on [10].

This finding complicates the standard interpretation of the Milgram study as a demonstration of blind obedience. Participants were not passive recipients of authority. They actively engaged with the experimenter, raised objections, and attempted to negotiate the terms of their participation. The experimenter's responses were not always scripted, and the course of the session depended in part on the participant's own behavior.

The rhetorical perspective also raises questions about the concepts of choice and agency. Participants in the Milgram study were not physically compelled to continue. They chose to continue, albeit under conditions of strong social pressure. Understanding how participants understood their own choices, and how they accounted for their actions, is essential to interpreting the ethical significance of the study.

This perspective has implications for the ethics of replication. If the standardized procedure was not actually standardized, then the comparability of different versions of the experiment is questionable. The differences between Milgram's and Burger's procedures in the modeled refusal condition, for example, preclude a clear explanation for the results and challenge the emphasis on comparability between the two experiments [8].

Agency, Coercion, and the Neuroscience of Obedience

The Milgram study has also generated interest in the mechanisms that explain how coercion influences moral behavior. One proposal is that obedience induces an agentic shift, a state in which the individual perceives themselves as an instrument of another person's will instead of as an autonomous agent [16].

Research on temporal binding has provided evidence for this idea. Temporal binding refers to the perceived compression of time between an action and its outcome, which is thought to be a marker of the sense of agency. Studies have shown that forced choices reduce temporal binding compared to free choices, meaning that participants perceive a longer interval between their actions and the outcomes when they are coerced [16]. This effect has been replicated in online settings where participants served only as agents, similar to the original Milgram studies [16].

The neuroscience of consciousness has been proposed as a framework for understanding how coercion modifies moral behavior [9]. The idea is that consciousness plays a role in moral decision-making, and that coercion may alter the conscious experience of agency in ways that facilitate harmful actions. This perspective remains speculative, but it suggests that the ethical issues raised by the Milgram study are connected to fundamental questions about the nature of human agency.

The agentic shift concept has also been examined in the context of virtual reality. A study using a VR version of the Milgram obedience scenario found that participants who had previously experienced a virtual reality scenario of sexual harassment from the perspective of the victim gave about half the number of shocks compared to those who had been embodied as one of the harassers [12]. This finding suggests that embodiment and perspective-taking can influence obedience, and it raises important ethical issues about the use of VR in research [12].

Ethical Standards Then and Now

The Milgram study is often used as a benchmark for evaluating the progress of research ethics. A comparison of ethical standards then and now reveals significant changes in the expectations placed on researchers.

Informed Consent

In the 1960s, informed consent was not consistently required or enforced. Milgram's participants were told they could withdraw at any time, but the deception inherent in the study meant that they could not make a fully informed decision about participation. Modern standards require that participants be given accurate information about the purpose of the research, the procedures involved, the risks and benefits, and their right to withdraw. The Belmont Report and the Common Rule codify these requirements [20].

Institutional Review

The most significant institutional change is the establishment of institutional review boards. These committees review research protocols to ensure that they meet ethical standards before participants are enrolled. Burger's replication was approved by his local institutional review board, and the approval process was a central consideration in the design of the 150-volt solution [7][8]. The existence of IRBs represents a fundamental shift in the governance of research, from a system based on the discretion of individual researchers to a system based on collective oversight.

Risk-Benefit Analysis

Modern research ethics requires a formal assessment of the risks and benefits of a study. Risks to participants must be minimized, and the anticipated benefits must justify the risks. In the Milgram study, the risks of psychological distress were substantial, and the benefits were primarily scientific. Whether the benefits justified the risks remains a matter of debate [11][27]. Modern standards would require a more rigorous and transparent analysis of this tradeoff.

Debriefing

Debriefing is now a standard requirement in research involving deception. Participants must be informed of the true purpose of the study and given the opportunity to ask questions. Milgram did debrief his participants, but the adequacy of the debriefing has been questioned. Modern standards require that debriefing be designed to address any distress or misconceptions that may have arisen during the study.

Data Sharing and Transparency

Contemporary research ethics also emphasizes transparency and data sharing. The Research Data Framework developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology provides a structure for managing research data throughout its lifecycle [1]. The NCBI Literature Resources and PubMed provide access to the scientific literature, enabling researchers to build on prior work and to evaluate the replicability of findings [4][5]. These resources reflect a research environment in which transparency is valued as an ethical principle.

At a Glance

Practical Assessment of Research Ethics

For researchers and students evaluating the ethics of a study, whether historical or contemporary, a structured assessment can be useful. The following steps provide a framework for evaluating whether a study meets contemporary ethical standards.

Step 1: Identify the Risks

Begin by identifying all potential risks to participants. These include physical risks, psychological risks, social risks, and economic risks. In the Milgram study, the primary risk was psychological distress resulting from the belief that one had harmed another person. In a contemporary study, the risks may be different, but the same principle applies: all foreseeable risks must be identified.

Step 2: Assess the Informed Consent Process

Evaluate whether participants can give meaningful informed consent. Consider whether the information provided is accurate and complete, whether participants understand the risks, and whether they have the freedom to decline or withdraw. Deception is a red flag, but it is not automatically disqualifying. The key question is whether the deception prevents participants from making an informed decision about their participation.

Step 3: Evaluate the Risk-Benefit Ratio

Weigh the risks against the anticipated benefits. Benefits can be scientific, clinical, or social. The question is whether the benefits justify the risks. In the Milgram study, the scientific benefit was a better understanding of obedience to authority. Whether this benefit justified the psychological distress experienced by participants is a judgment that depends on one's values and priorities.

Step 4: Consider the Debriefing Plan

Examine the debriefing plan. Will participants be informed of the true purpose of the study? Will they be given the opportunity to ask questions? Will the debriefing address any distress or misconceptions that may have arisen? A weak debriefing plan is a sign that the study may not meet contemporary ethical standards.

Step 5: Review the Oversight Process

Consider whether the study has been reviewed by an appropriate oversight body. In a contemporary context, this means an institutional review board. In a historical context, the absence of such review is itself a finding. The question is whether the oversight process was adequate to protect participants.

Records and Measurements in Obedience Research

The Milgram study and its replications provide a useful case for understanding how records and measurements are used in psychological research. The original study produced audio recordings and transcripts, which have been analyzed using rhetorical methods [10]. These records are essential for understanding what actually happened during the sessions, as opposed to what the standardized procedure was supposed to produce.

In Burger's replication, the primary measurement was whether participants continued past the 150-volt point. This binary measure was used to estimate obedience rates, based on the observation that most of Milgram's participants who continued past this point went on to the maximum voltage [6]. The measurement was simple, but it was sufficient to test the hypothesis that obedience rates had changed over time.

Contemporary obedience research has used more sophisticated measurements. The temporal binding paradigm measures the perceived time between actions and outcomes, providing an indirect measure of the sense of agency [16]. Virtual reality studies can measure the number of shocks administered, the latency of responses, and other behavioral variables [12]. These measurements allow researchers to examine the mechanisms of obedience, beyond the rates.

The choice of measurements has ethical implications. A measurement that requires participants to continue to the maximum voltage is ethically problematic because it exposes them to the full intensity of the procedure. A measurement that stops at 150 volts is less informative but more ethical. The tradeoff between scientific value and participant welfare is inherent in the design of any obedience study.

Common Failure Patterns in Research Ethics

The Milgram study illustrates several failure patterns that recur in research ethics. Recognizing these patterns can help researchers and reviewers identify problems before they occur.

Failure to Anticipate Distress

The most obvious failure in the Milgram study was the failure to anticipate the level of distress that participants would experience. Milgram and his colleagues did not predict the high rates of obedience, and they did not anticipate the intensity of the participants' reactions. This failure is common in research that involves deception or that places participants in unfamiliar situations.

Overstatement of Benefits

Critics have argued that Milgram exaggerated the scientific significance of his own work [11]. This pattern, in which researchers overstate the benefits of their research to justify ethically problematic procedures, is a recurring concern. The difficulty is that stating a priori how beneficial a given experiment will be is a tall order for anyone [11]. Researchers may be genuinely uncertain about the value of their work, and this uncertainty can lead to overstatement.

Understatement of Risks

Just as researchers may overstate benefits, they may understate risks. In the Milgram study, the risks of psychological distress were not fully appreciated. This pattern is particularly dangerous when the risks are psychological, because they are less visible than physical risks and may not be apparent until the study is underway.

Inadequate Debriefing

Debriefing is often treated as an afterthought, but it is a critical component of ethical research. In the Milgram study, the debriefing was conducted, but its adequacy has been questioned. A debriefing that does not address the participant's distress or that does not provide a clear explanation of the deception may leave participants confused or upset.

Overreliance on Researcher Judgment

The Milgram study was conducted in an era when researcher judgment was the primary safeguard against unethical research. This approach failed because researchers are not always the best judges of the risks and benefits of their own work. The establishment of institutional review boards was a response to this failure.

Limitations of the Milgram Evidence

The Milgram study has been criticized on both ethical and methodological grounds. Some scholars have argued that the study is so ethically and methodologically problematic that it does not deserve the enormous attention it receives [27]. Others have argued that there is still much to be learned from the experiments [27]. A balanced assessment must acknowledge both the strengths and the limitations of the evidence.

One limitation is the lack of standardization in the original procedure. Rhetorical analysis has shown that participants could draw the experimenter into negotiations over the continuation of the session, leading to departures from the standardized procedure [10]. This finding complicates the interpretation of the results, because the behavior of the experimenter was not consistent across sessions.

Another limitation is the uncertainty about the long-term effects of participation. Milgram reported that most participants did not regret their participation, but the methods used to assess participant reactions were not designed to detect lasting harm. The absence of evidence of harm is not evidence of the absence of harm.

A third limitation is the question of generalizability. The original study used a specific sample, a specific procedure, and a specific historical context. Whether the findings apply to other populations, other procedures, and other contexts is an empirical question. Burger's replication suggested that obedience rates were similar in a contemporary sample [6], and a 2025 study found that obedience levels closely mirrored those observed by Milgram in the 1960s, even when participants were recruited online and used a smaller, computer-connected device [14]. However, the comparability of these different versions of the experiment is a matter of debate [8].

The Role of Replication in Ethical Research

The Milgram study has been the subject of multiple replication attempts, each of which has had to address the ethical challenges posed by the original paradigm. The 150-volt solution is the most influential approach, but it is not the only one. Virtual reality has been used to create versions of the obedience scenario that do not involve deception or the belief that one is harming another person [12][15]. These approaches allow researchers to study obedience without exposing participants to the full intensity of the original procedure.

Replication is essential to the scientific enterprise, but it is also ethically complex. The replication crisis in social psychology has raised fundamental concerns about the replicability of findings [18]. The lack of incentives to perform replication studies is one reason why concerns about failed replications have received more attention in recent years [18]. Large-scale research projects have been proposed as a way to instigate change [18].

The Milgram study illustrates the importance of replication, but it also illustrates the ethical constraints on replication. A direct replication of the original study is no longer possible, because the ethical standards that now govern research would not permit it. Researchers who want to study obedience must therefore find ways to preserve the scientific value of the paradigm while protecting participants.

Welfare and Safety Context

The ethical issues raised by the Milgram study are not confined to psychology. They have implications for any research that involves deception, coercion, or the potential for psychological harm. The study has been used as a paradigm case in bioethics, alongside the Tuskegee syphilis study, to illustrate the problems that can arise when research is conducted without adequate oversight [13].

The use of these studies as paradigms of problematic research relies on a reduction of their complexity [13]. What is discussed is often constructions of these studies that are closer to hypothetical examples than to the real studies [13]. This observation is important because it suggests that the ethical lessons drawn from the Milgram study may be oversimplified.

The welfare and safety of research participants is now a central concern in research ethics. The Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts includes specific items covering the protection of human participants in research activities [20]. The Nuremberg Code, the Declaration of Helsinki, the Belmont Report, and 45 CFR Part 46 provide the foundational documents that have resulted in contemporary research ethics policies and practices [20]. These documents codify requirements such as informed consent and institutional review board oversight [20].

The Milgram study played a role in the development of these standards, but it was not the only influence. The Tuskegee syphilis study, the Nuremberg trials, and other historical events also contributed to the codification of research ethics [20]. The Milgram study is one example of the kind of research that the current standards are designed to prevent.

Professional Escalation Criteria

For researchers, students, and professionals who encounter ethical concerns in research, it is important to know when to escalate the issue to a higher authority. The following criteria indicate that a concern should be raised with an institutional review board, a research ethics committee, or another appropriate authority.

Unanticipated Distress

If a study produces distress that was not anticipated in the protocol, the researcher should stop the study and consult with the institutional review board. The Milgram study is an example of a study in which distress was observed but not adequately anticipated or managed.

Inadequate Informed Consent

If participants are not able to give meaningful informed consent, the study should be reviewed. This includes situations in which deception prevents participants from understanding the risks of participation.

Unjustified Deception

If deception is used without adequate justification, the study should be reviewed. The justification should include a clear explanation of why deception is necessary and why no feasible alternative exists.

Risk-Benefit Imbalance

If the risks of a study appear to outweigh the benefits, the study should be reviewed. This assessment should be made by an independent body, not by the researcher alone.

Inadequate Debriefing

If the debriefing plan is inadequate to address the distress or misconceptions that may arise during the study, the study should be reviewed. The debriefing should be designed as an integral part of the protocol.

Concerns About Data Integrity

If there are concerns about the integrity of the data, including questions about the standardization of the procedure or the accuracy of the records, the study should be reviewed. The rhetorical analysis of the Milgram transcripts illustrates the importance of examining the actual records of a study, beyond the standardized procedure [10].

Frequently Asked Questions

Was the Milgram experiment ethical?

The Milgram experiment is widely considered unethical by contemporary standards. The study involved deception, prevented meaningful informed consent, and exposed participants to significant psychological distress. Critics have argued that the risks were downplayed and the benefits overstated [11]. Some scholars have concluded that the study is highly unethical, even while acknowledging that it remains methodologically valid [27]. The study was conducted in an era before institutional review boards were established, and it played a role in the development of modern ethical standards.

What were the main ethical issues in the Milgram experiment?

The main ethical issues were deception, lack of informed consent, and psychological harm. Participants were told the study was about memory and learning, when the actual purpose was to measure obedience. They were also misled about the identity of the learner and the nature of the shocks. The deception prevented participants from making an informed decision about participation, and the study produced significant psychological distress in many participants.

How did the Milgram experiment change ethical guidelines in psychology?

The Milgram experiment contributed to the development of institutional review boards and the codification of informed consent requirements. The study is often cited as an example of the kind of research that current ethical standards are designed to prevent. The Belmont Report and the Common Rule, which now govern human subjects research in the United States, were developed in response to a series of ethical failures, including the Milgram study [20].

Could the Milgram experiment be replicated today?

A direct replication of the Milgram experiment is not possible under current ethical standards. The high levels of stress imposed on participants make a direct replication untenable [14]. However, modified versions of the paradigm have been developed. The most influential is the 150-volt solution, which stops the procedure after participants administer a 150-volt shock [6]. Virtual reality has also been used to create versions of the obedience scenario that do not involve deception [12].

What is the 150-volt solution?

The 150-volt solution is a modified version of the Milgram obedience paradigm developed by Jerry M. Burger. The procedure stops at the point where participants first hear the learner's verbal protest, which occurs at 150 volts. This design is based on the observation that 79 percent of Milgram's participants who continued past this point went on to the end of the shock generator's range [6]. The 150-volt solution allows researchers to estimate obedience rates without exposing participants to the full intensity of the procedure.

Did participants in the Milgram experiment suffer lasting harm?

The long-term effects of participation in the Milgram experiment are not well documented. Milgram reported that most participants did not regret their participation, but the methods used to assess participant reactions were not designed to detect lasting harm. The absence of evidence of harm is not evidence of the absence of harm. The question of whether participants suffered lasting harm remains a matter of debate.

What is the agentic shift in the context of the Milgram experiment?

The agentic shift is a concept introduced by Stanley Milgram to describe the state in which an individual perceives themselves as an instrument of another person's will instead of as an autonomous agent. Research on temporal binding has provided evidence for this idea. Studies have shown that forced choices reduce temporal binding compared to free choices, meaning that participants perceive a longer interval between their actions and the outcomes when they are coerced [16].

How do modern obedience studies differ from the original Milgram experiment?

Modern obedience studies differ from the original in several ways. They use modified procedures that stop before participants experience the full intensity of the paradigm, such as the 150-volt solution [6]. They may use virtual reality instead of deception [12]. They are subject to institutional review board oversight and must meet contemporary ethical standards. Despite these differences, modern studies have found obedience rates that are similar to those observed by Milgram [6][14].

Related Articles

• biology study guide
• The Study of Ants: What Is Myrmecology?
• The Study of Bees: What Is Apiology?
• Observational Vs Experimental Study
• Observational Vs Experimental Study

References and Further Reading

• Research Data Framework. National Institute of Standards and Technology.
• EQUATOR Network. EQUATOR Network.
• Experimental Design Assistant. NC3Rs.
• NCBI Literature Resources. National Center for Biotechnology Information.
• PubMed. National Library of Medicine.
• Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today?. The American psychologist, 2009.
• Obedience lite.. The American psychologist, 2009.
• Reflections on "Replicating Milgram" (Burger, 2009).. The American psychologist, 2009.
• [Coercion and loss of agency].. Medecine sciences : M/S, 2017.
• Milgram's obedience experiments: a rhetorical analysis.. The British journal of social psychology, 2013.
• Ethics, deception, and 'Those Milgram experiments'.. Journal of applied philosophy, 2001.
• An Embodied Perspective as a Victim of Sexual Harassment in Virtual Reality Reduces Action Conformity in a Later Milgram Obedience Scenario.. Scientific reports, 2020.
• Milgram and Tuskegee--paradigm research projects in bioethics.. Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy, 2003.
• Doubting the power of prestige: obedience to authority beyond institutional and research justifications.. 2025.
• An elephant in the room amplifies discomfort when the virtual reality space matches physical reality. 2026.
• Obedience induces agentic shifts by increasing the perceived time between own action and results.. 2024.
• Ellen P. Reese: Always Give the Learner the Opportunity to be Right.. 2025.
• Concerns About Replicability Across Two Crises in Social Psychology.. 2025.
• Training SONAR spatial interpretation using virtual reality.. 2025.
• Contextualizing Contemporary Research Ethics Policies and Practices in Significant Historical Events.. 2025.
• Ethical and methodological issues involved in the replica of Stanley Milgram's experiment - 45 years later. 2009.
• Applying Milgram's Obedience Paradigm to Television: Issues, Results, and Perspectives. 2011.
• Methods in behavioral research. 1977.
• A best-worst scaling experiment to prioritize concern about ethical issues in citizen science reveals heterogeneity on people-level v. data-level issues. Scientific Reports, 2021.
• Study on an Educational Model for Solving Cyber Ethical Issues in eSports Environments: Application of Dewey's Exploratory Learning. Convergence Education Research Institute, Korea National University of Education, 2025.
• Exploring the ethical issues posed by AI and big data technologies in drug development. Frontiers in Public Health, 2025.
• Stanley Milgram’s Obedience Studies: An Ethical and Methodological Assessment. Revisiting Stanley Milgram’s Experiment, 2024.
• Milgram and Spaemann: An Ethical Approach to the Responsibility of the Participants in the Experiment on Destructive Obedience. Analiza I Egzystencja, 2026.

This article is educational and does not replace institutional policy, professional advice, or applicable safety and regulatory requirements.