Maybe it was necessary for Milgram to detach himself from the experiment. I think humans have a tendency to want to justify people's actions and give explanations for the sometimes unexplainable ways we act. If Milgram took a more emotional stance, it would be difficult to analyze the results of the study without wanting to impose some meaning behind the subjects' actions.

The idea that a more common/familiar setting might produce different results reminds me of the TV show "What Would You Do". Hidden cameras are set up in stores, restaurants, etc. and actors act out scenarios that cause bystanders to decide to help the situation or mind their own business. The show doesn't necessarily observe levels of obedience but it does comment on how people behave when presented with morally-compromising dilemmas. I think the show also does a good job of eliminating gender/racial bias, because they often have multiple actors/actresses perform the same scene to see how different people react. Also, similar to how the subjects talked to the experimenter after Milgram's experiment, the host of the show always comes out, revealing the hidden cameras/actors and asks the ordinary people why they acted the way they did. I've seen episodes where because of their inability to act, the faces of the people are blurred or they refuse to comment. Usually, however, those who stepped in to act as a hero are shown expressing signs of relief and explaining that they had to do something to help the situation, regardless of repercussions.

In Milgram's obedience experiment, I don't think the subjects ever felt a threat to their security (because they were "the teacher" and not the learner), but it is possible their self-esteem was quickly affected. Since the subjects felt obliged to obey the experimenter, it would make sense that they ignore their own moral values (lack of self-respect).

I believe having trust in the organization/authority giving commands is a key factor in whether or not someone is obedient. This could explain many instances of obedience: why soldiers submit to authority, why students listen to teachers, etc. Although fear of consequences can be a reason too, I feel the complete trust in the authority figure and feeling that "they know what's best" is very signigicant

I think it's interesting that some subjects felt the need to justify their actions while others didn't. I'm sure it was expected that some subjects might laugh nervously as a response to the uncomfortable situation (not an unusual reaction to stressful environments), but they still felt the need to defend themselves

I think the subjects may have exhibited an implicit bias in knowing who the victim was. It would be interesting to see the results of an experiment where the participants were less aware of who was on the receiving end of their power. I think this can happen a lot in today's society with politicians, for example, who are so disconnected from the people they represent that they don't witness the immediate effects of their actions.

I think the occupation of the subjects could also play a role in how obedient they were. It's possible that a CEO, owner of a business, supervisor, etc. would be accustomed to giving orders and tend to be not as compliant as someone who follows orders on a daily basis.