Credibility and Incredulity in Milgram’s Obedience Experiments: A Reanalysis of an Unpublished Test

Abstract

This article analyzes variations in subject perceptions of pain in Milgram’s obedience experiments and their behavioral consequences. Based on an unpublished study by Milgram’s assistant, Taketo Murata, we report the relationship between the subjects’ belief that the learner was actually receiving painful electric shocks and their choice of shock level. This archival material indicates that in 18 of 23 variations of the experiment, the mean levels of shock for those who fully believed that they were inflicting pain were lower than for subjects who did not fully believe they were inflicting pain. These data suggest that the perception of pain inflated subject defiance and that subject skepticism inflated their obedience. This analysis revises our perception of the classical interpretation of the experiment and its putative relevance to the explanation of state atrocities, such as the Holocaust. It also raises the issue of dramaturgical credibility in experiments based on deception. The findings are discussed in the context of methodological questions about the reliability of Milgram’s questionnaire data and their broader theoretical relevance.

Are Milgram’s Obedience Studies Internally Valid? Critique and Counter-Critique

“…Milgram believed that deceiving most of his subjects into believing they were inflicting real shocks on the learner was of critical importance to the internal validity of the obedience studies. Recently published work argues that most obedient subjects completed the experiment because they did not believe that the learner was being harmed (Perry et al, 2020;Hollander & Turowetz, 2017). Perry et al claim that if it were true that Milgram failed to deceive most obedient subjects into believing they were inflicting real shocks, the trust ambiguity-expertise nexus undermines the internal validity of the obedience studies.…”

“…

This article challenges the most significant methodological criticism directed at Milgram's obedience studies, namely, that they lack internal validity because most obedient subjects probably did not believe that the "learner" was actually receiving dangerous electric shocks (Orne & Holland, 1968). This criticism has been bolstered recently by data that claims to show that this was indeed the case (Perry et al, 2020;Hollander & Turowetz, 2017). We argue instead that while Milgram's experimental paradigm has minor methodological flaws, the resilient issue of believability is actually a red herring, because Milgram's procedure ensured subjects remained uncertain about the reality of the shocks they were ostensibly delivering.

…”

“…What are the consequences of Perry et al's argument? Alluding to the contemporary research critical of the obedience studies-of which their article is the latest addition-they argue "the current series of critiques may be serious enough to warrant the reconsideration of the studies in toto" (Perry et al, 2020: p. 103). Perry et al (2020: p. 90, 105) also caution against the "many current scholarly narratives" that "accept Milgram's assumption that we are all capable of torture and murder at the behest of an authority figure", here singling out the first author's 2018 books "Understanding Willing Participants: Milgram's Obedience Experiments and the Holocaust, 2 vols" (Russell, 2018a(Russell, , 2018b Russell and Gregory (2011) argue that most "obedient" participants knew they were engaged in wrongdoing, but that (after 150 V) it was psychologically easier to continue than to stop.…”

Welcome to the Real World: Escaping the Sociology of Culture and Cognition

“…Here, I will simply state that values (along with attitudes, intentions, and so on) generally predict behavior more accurately than most of the things sociologists study (e.g., parental SES). The studies sociologists typically cite to support these claims (e.g., LaPiere, Milgram, Myrdal; see Martin and Lembo 2020) are very old, methodologically weak, highly specific, and often contested (see, e.g., Blass 1991;Perry et al 2020). Although evocative, they cannot be used to support an overall claim that values are irrelevant to behavior.…”

“We must continue.” The strange appearance of “we” instead of “you” in the prods of the Milgram experiment

“…These "we"s, which appear rarely but regularly, shatter the apparent dualism of the obedience to authority staged by Milgram and they reveal incompatibilities with Milgram's theory (cf. Gibson, 2019;Kaposi, 2017;Lutsky, 1995;Perry et al, 2020;Reicher & Haslam, 2011;Russell & Gregory, 2011). They can reveal a different logic of the giving of orders.…”