Gina Perry

• Behind the Shock Machine: The Untold Story of the Notorious Milgram Psychology Experiments
• Claims Milgram manipulated his research, his famous study, 65% (40 participants) fully obeyed; this was only in one variation (the first of 24) and in over half of these 24 variations, 60% disobeyed instructions
• Also, methodological problems: experiment involved improvisation, leading to variation between participants, ‘researcher’ deviated significantly from his script, with Milgram's approval - said to exert pressure on the participant to keep shocking
• The ‘researcher’ would leave the lab to check on the learner and assure the participant he was fine, sometimes abandoned the script entirely (command 25 times or more to continue) also teachers were blocked in efforts to swap or check themselves
• She discovered many of the participants had been sceptical about the veracity of the shocks as unpublished papers at Yale show many participants thought it was fake and were kind of expecting to see a TV crew after
• Participants were divided into 'doubters' and 'believers' (more likely to disobey) by research assistant Taketo Murata, implies that the lack of mundane realism, meant many simply went along with it as they didn’t believe in the shocks
• Participants reported suspicion because 'Learner's' cries sounded from a speaker, dog-eared cheque, experimenter's lack of concern, intensified screams at lower voltage, and despite emphasising the correct answer no improvement
• Scepticism is crucial to the validity of the experiment and is often downplayed when discussing results, milgram maintained they were visibly stressed so they must have believed in the experiment at least to some degree (internally valid)
• During the debriefing only 2 participants claimed to believe it was a hoax; Milgram said they were defending/mitigating their behaviour to seem less cruel
• The zombie-like obedience to authority associated with Milgram seems more like bullying/coercion when you scrutinise the recordings, perry argues the participants are bargaining, concerned, worried and distressed, not slavishly obedient
• It seems to offer a way to understand why the ordinary commit destructive obedience, and finds new resonance with each generation so many still maintain despite Perry’s findings, it demonstrates a fundamental truth about human behaviour
• It shows how people are capable of committing very cruel acts when in certain situations and Milgram’s results have been replicated, increasing reliability and credibility despite the weaknesses identified by Perry (e.g. Burger 2009 - 70% obedience)
• Gina Perry


  2012