eacher" thought that he was administering shocks to the "learner", the "learner" was actually a student or an actor who were never actually harmed.
             Conflict arises when the man receiving the shock begins to indicate that he is experiencing discomfort. At 75 volts, the "learner" grunts. At 120 volts he complains verbally; at 150 he demands to be released from the experiment. His protests continue as the shocks escalate, growing increasingly vehement and emotional. At 285 volts, his response can only be described as an agonized scream. At times, the worried "teachers" questioned the experimenter, asking who was responsible for any harmful effects resulting from shocking the learner at such a high level. Upon receiving the answer that the experimenter assumed full responsibility, teachers seemed to accept the response and continue shocking, even though some were obviously extremely uncomfortable in doing so. For the subject, conflict is intense and obvious. On one hand, the suffering of the learner presses him to quit. On the other, the experimenter, a legitimate authority to whom the subject feels some com!
             mitment, enjoins him to continue. Each time the subject hesitates to administer shock, the experimenter orders him to continue.
             Findings show that, "two-thirds of this studies participants fall into the category of 'obedient subjects, and that they represent ordinary people drawn from the working, managerial, and professional classes." Ultimately 65% of all of the "teachers" punished the "learners" to the maximum 450 volts. No subject stopped before reaching 300 volts!
             Hence, Milgram concluded that a person who obeys authority does not see himself responsible for his own actions, but as an agent executing the wishes of another person. In the experiment subjects frequently asked the experimenter "Am I responsible?" As soon as he said they were not, they could proceed more easily.
             The reviews ...