Behind the Shock Machine (45 page)

11. Group choice

Milgram noted that this was an experiment in conformity, rather than obedience. Three teachers, two of whom are actors, are told that they can determine what level of shock to give the learner with each
wrong answer. Each teacher puts in a bid for voltage level, with the lowest-voltage shock to be given. The two actors give their bids first, with the subject the last to suggest a shock level. The actors increase the suggested amount each time and pressure the unwitting teacher to follow their lead.

Number of subjects: 40

Number who went to 450 volts: 16 percent

12. Role reversal
*

This variation tests the experimenter’s authority as the victim. The learner states that he will only take on the role if the experimenter tries it first. The experimenter agrees and is strapped into the chair and given the shocks while the learner takes on the role of the experimenter, urging the teacher to continue.

Number of subjects: 20

Number who went to 450 volts: 100 percent. Milgram’s notes read: “An obedient subject is one who obeys the exptr. and does not go on, after the experimenter demands to be let out.”

13. Non-trigger position

This is identical to condition 7 in the allocation of tasks to three teachers, except that the subject simply reads the word pairs instead of administering the shocks. The shocks are given by one of the two actors.

Number of subjects: 40

Number who went to 450 volts: 92 percent

14. Carte blanche

In this variation, the teacher can choose any shock level he wishes in order to test how far a person would go without the experimenter’s commands. It is akin to a control condition, designed to test the “sadistic and bestial in man.”

Number of subjects: 40

Number who went to 450 volts: 2 percent

15. Good experimenter, bad experimenter
*

In Part A, two experimenters conduct the experiment, and each
gives the teacher conflicting orders—one tells him to stop, while the other tells him he must continue. In Part B, the “good” experimenter, who urged the subject to stop, leaves the room and the “bad” experimenter insists that the teacher continue.

Number of subjects: 20

Number who went to 450 volts: 0 percent (Part A); 20 percent (Part B)

16. Experimenter becomes learner

Again, two experimenters conduct the experiment, but one answers a rigged phone call announcing that the learner won’t be coming. One experimenter volunteers to become the learner. The second experimenter conducts the experiment as per the script in condition two, urging the teacher to continue giving shocks despite the learner’s protests.

Number of subjects: 20

Number who went to 450 volts: 65 percent

17. Teacher in charge
*

This variation involves two teachers, one of whom is an actor. The experimenter is called away, but before leaving he asks one teacher (the actor) to plan the number and voltage of shocks to be given at each incorrect answer, which the second teacher must follow. In Part A, the actor instructs the subject to increase the voltage with each wrong answer. In Part B, the experimenter returns soon after leaving and urges the subject to follow the actor’s plan.

Number of subjects: 20

Number who went to 450 volts: 55 percent (Part A); 15 percent (Part B)

18. No experimenter
*

The experimenter is called away from the lab by a rigged phone call. Before leaving, he tells the teacher to conduct the experiment alone and leaves a phone number on which he can be reached. In Part A, if the teacher calls him, the experimenter says that he must continue. In Part B, the experimenter returns soon after leaving and urges the teacher to continue.

Number of subjects: 40

Number who went to 450 volts: 25 percent (Part A); 33 percent (Part B)

19. Authority from afar

To test the relationship between authority and proximity, the teacher arrives and has the experiment explained to him, after which the experimenter tells him that he has to leave but the teacher should follow the instructions prerecorded on tape. A phone in the room allows the teacher to call the experimenter if needed.

Number of subjects: 40

Number who went to 450 volts: 37 percent

20. Women

The only variation to use female subjects, this is the same as condition 5 except for the gender of participants.

Number of subjects: 40

Number who went to 450 volts: 65 percent

21. Educated opinion

In this variation, no questions or shocks are administered. Rather, a group of psychiatrists and students have condition 2 described to them and are asked to predict the overall levels of obedience.

Number of subjects: 110 (Yale psychiatrists, graduate students, and undergraduates and North Carolina high school students)

Obedience rate predicted: The groups combined predicted that only 1 or 2 percent of people would reach the maximum voltage. The psychiatrists predicted that most would not go beyond the tenth shock (150 volts), the point at which the learner first demands to be let out. They thought that only 4 percent would reach the twentieth shock (300 volts), and one in a thousand would go to the maximum voltage
.

22. Peer authority
*

This variation involves two teachers, one of whom is an actor. In Part A, the experimenter is called away by a rigged phone call and asks the actor to take over his role. Part B occurs if the subject refuses to continue; the actor then takes over at the shock machine, and the experiment concludes when the subject performs a physical action, such as switching off the machine or restraining the actor.

Number of subjects: 20

Number who went to 450 volts: 20 percent (Part A); 50 percent (Part B)

23. Bridgeport

To test the influence of the Yale setting on subjects, this variation was conducted in the nearby town of Bridgeport, an industrial area. The condition is otherwise the same as condition 5.

Number of subjects: 40

Number who went to 450 volts: 47 percent

24. Intimate relationships

In this highly controversial and little-known variation, subjects are asked to bring a friend or relative. One is allocated the role of the teacher, while the other is the learner. In the adjoining room, after being strapped in, the learner is clued in to the situation by Milgram and coached on what noises and shouts to give at which points.

Number of subjects: 20

Number who went to 450 volts: 15 percent

*
A particularly complicated variation. For example, a variation in which the experiment is divided into Parts A and B or definitions of obedience and defiance are reversed.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I’d like to thank Dr. Thomas Blass, whose enthusiasm sparked the idea for this book, and New Zealand scholar Nestar Russell, whose friendship and encouragement kept me going. Both generously shared their research with me and offered sound advice and practical help at many critical points in the research and writing of this book.

I’m very grateful to Mrs. Alexandra Milgram for permission to quote from material held in the Stanley Milgram Papers. I’m also indebted to the people who shared their experiences of the experiment and allowed me to tell their stories. Some, such as Bob McDonough and Keith Williams, helped by tracking down information for me between trips and tapping their own networks to locate people for me to interview.

I’d also like to thank the people whose experiences did not make it into these pages but whose memories added so much to my research: Lenore Mendes, Alex Bozzi III, Sharon Presley, and Professor Leon Mann.

Others who have shared their expertise and helped my thinking include Don Mixon, whose continued conversations with me by letter prompted me to consider things from a different perspective; Justin Oakley of Monash University; Rod Buchanan of the University of Melbourne; Ian Nicholson of St. Thomas University in New Brunswick; Stephen Gibson of York St. John University; Sue Hampel of Monash University; and Hank Stam of the University of Calgary.

David Baker and the staff at the Archives of the History of American
Psychology in Akron ensured my visits were both productive and enjoyable. Diane Kaplan, Cynthia Ostroff, Stephen Ross, and the rest of the staff at the Manuscripts and Archives Collection at Yale provided a wonderful service to me, both face-to-face and long distance.

Thanks to Dr. Tony Birch and Jenny Lee at the University of Melbourne, who saw the germ of a good book in my academic research, and to others who provided insightful comments on early drafts: Ming Ding, Vin Maskell, and Bob Gregory from Victoria University in Wellington, New Zealand. Thanks also to Sharon Davis and Sydelle Kramer, who in different ways helped me to sharpen my focus.

I’m grateful to those scholars and historians whose books and articles I have read in the course of my research. Without their scholarship it would have been impossible for me to write this book.

My American cousins made me feel at home with their hospitality and friendship. Melissa and Carl Shultz were extremely generous and responded each of the many times I asked for help with research details and my Weideman cousins went out of their way to welcome me. Closer to home, I am fortunate to have a bevy of friends and colleagues who kept me motivated; those in particular who helped me in the writing include Sherryl Clark, Chris Beck, and Deb Withers. My good friend Janey Runci provided invaluable feedback on later drafts, as well as encouragement during those times when I felt dejected or overwhelmed.

Henry Rosenbloom and the staff at Scribe welcomed me to their stable and took a great deal of care and thought with the Australian edition of this book. My editor at Scribe, Julia Carlomagno, offered inspired suggestions for improving the shape and pace of this story and patiently guided me through the process of redrafting and editing.

I’m very pleased to have worked with editor Sarah Fan and assistant editor Ben Woodward at The New Press. Their insightful feedback helped me shape the book for an American audience and their enthusiasm for this book made the editing process a pleasure. Thanks also to George Lucas of Inkwell Management and my Australian agent Clare Forster of Curtis Brown whose advice throughout this process was invaluable.

Lastly, I could never have finished this book without my loving family. Thanks to my sister, Jane, and my daughter, Georgia, for all their help with the fine detail, and to my husband, Dan, for his unflagging support, for putting up with my frequent absences, and for living with things Milgram for so long and with such good grace and humor.

NOTES

SMP = Stanley Milgram Papers, Manuscripts and Archives, Yale University Library

INTRODUCTION

1.
     
Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View
(London: Tavistock, 1974), 26.

2.
     SMP, box 46, folder 163.

3.
     See Hannah Arendt, “Eichmann in Jerusalem,”
New Yorker
, serialized in five issues, February 16, 1963–March 16, 1963; and
Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report into the Banality of Evil
(New York: Penguin, 1963).

4.
     Milgram,
Obedience to Authority
, 6, 188–89.

5.
     Milgram argued that his results gave an insight into Nazi behavior and the My Lai massacre (ibid., 176). Thomas Blass made the link to events at Abu Ghraib prison in
The Man Who Shocked the World: The Life and Legacy of Stanley Milgram
(New York: Basic, 2004), 296.

6.
     See James H. Korn,
Illusions of Reality: A History of Deception in Social Psychology
(Albany: State University of New York Press, 1997).

7.
     Caryl Marsh reported that Roger Brown described the experiments as among the most important psychological research in the twentieth century in “A Science Museum Exhibit on Milgram’s Obedience Research,” in
Obedience to Authority: Current Perspectives on the Milgram Paradigm
, ed. Thomas Blass (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000), 147. Hans Askenasy quoted Bruno Bettelheim’s description of the experiments as “vile” and linked Milgram’s research and Nazism in
Are We All Nazis?
(Secaucus, NJ: Lyle Stuart, 1978), 131.

8.
     SMP, box 44.

9.
     SMP, box 62, folder 162.

10.
    In the Stanford study, which took place in a mock prison, volunteers were randomly assigned the role of either prisoner or guard. Guards took their roles seriously, taunting, harassing, and abusing the prisoners in their charge.

11.
    Philip Zimbardo et al., “Reflections on the Stanford Prison Experiment: Genesis, Transformations, Consequences,” in
Obedience to Authority
, 197.

12.
    Stanley Milgram, “
Candid Camera
,” in
The Individual in a Social World: Essays and Experiments
(Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1977), 324–32.