Content uploaded by Gina Perry
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gina Perry on Jun 27, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Deception and Illusion in Milgram’s Accounts of the Obedience
Experiments
Gina Perry
Theoretical & Applied Ethics, Volume 2, Number 2, Winter 2013, pp.
79-92 (Article)
Published by University of Nebraska Press
For additional information about this article
Access provided by your local institution (14 Feb 2014 04:10 GMT)
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/tha/summary/v002/2.2.perry.html
Gina Perry
Deception and Illusion in
Milgram’s Accounts of the
Obedience Experiments
Milgram’s obedience research is as renowned for its elaborate decep-
tion as it is for its startling results and subsequent ethical controversy.
is paper argues that deception and illusion were used not just in the
conduct of Milgram’s obedience experiments but in accounts of the re-
search itself. It will demonstrate that the story of the obedience research
presented by Milgram was constructed, cra ed, shaped, and edited to
portray a particular view of Milgram himself and his ethical practices.
rough a comparison of published accounts, interviews with former
subjects, and unpublished archival materials, signi cant discrepancies
will be shown between Milgram’s accounts of his ethical practices in de-
brie ng and follow- up of experimental subjects.
I rst became aware of inconsistencies in accounts of Milgram’s debrief-
ing of his subjects in an interview I conducted with one of Milgram’s for-
mer subjects. Bill Menold took part in either condition or of Milgram’s
twenty- four variations of the experiment, conducted in October .
Menold went to maximum voltage on the shock machine. He told me that
on the night of the experiment he had gone straight to the home of his
neighbor, an electrician, for reassurance about what harm he might have
caused the learner. is detail troubled me, since it contradicted Milgram’s
account of post- experimental debrie ng, but I was inclined to dismiss it as
evidence of faulty recall, automatically privileging Milgram’s account over
those of people who took part.
But when a second subject, Herb Winer, told me that he had le the
lab “furious” about what he’d been asked to do and very concerned for the
health of the learner, and a third, Bob Lee, told me that he still did not fully
80 Theoretical & Applied Ethics 2:2
understand what the experiment was about, I had to acknowledge that
Milgram’s version of what transpired a er the experiment was over needed
checking. It was something that until then I had no reason to question.
In fact, I started my research into the story of the obedience experiments
with no intention of reexamining the story of the science or the results. My
intention was to tell the human story of the research, to nd and interview
people who had taken part Milgram’s sta and subjects to nd out
what impact the experiment had had on them back then, and ever since.
In the process of fact- checking and comparing Milgram’s accounts of
his research and, in particular, what subjects were told when the experi-
ment was over, I uncovered a number of instances where Milgram’s use
of deception and illusion extended beyond the experimental set- up to in-
clude the wri en accounts of the experiments and his presentation of his
ndings. My focus here is on the issue of debrie ng and how Milgram’s
account of this evolved over time. So, back to those subjects I interviewed
and the troubling mismatch between their accounts of what happened
when the experiment ended, and Milgram’s.
First, I went back to the Stanley Milgram Papers in the Manuscripts
and Archives section of Yale’s Sterling Memorial Library and began com-
paring the accounts of subjects I interviewed with audiotapes of the ex-
periment. Milgram recorded almost all of the experiments conducted
between August and May . e tape recorder was switched on
just before the subject entered the lab and was le running until each sub-
ject had le . e recordings captured three kinds of exchanges: those be-
tween John Williams (who played the role of the experimenter) and the
subjects before, during, and a er the experiment; three- way conversations
when Milgram joined Williams and the subject a er the experiment was
over; and conversations between Williams and Milgram a er the subject
had gone.
Second, I reviewed the report that Milgram sent out to all subjects in
the summer of . ird, I checked comments subjects wrote on the ques-
tionnaires that had accompanied Milgram’s report. Finally, I checked with
Alan Elms, who had been Milgram’s research assistant during the rst three
of the twenty- four experimental conditions. All sources con rmed the same
version of events both in terms of what the debrie ng involved and when it
occurred. e version of events provided by recordings, questionnaires, and
Perry: Deception and Illusion in Milgram’s Accounts 81
interviews presented a picture of the debrie ng o ered to subjects that was
very much at odds with Milgram’s published version of events.
What Did Debriefi ng Involve?
Let’s go back to Milgram’s descriptions, both published and unpublished,
about the measures he took to protect his subjects from harm and to en-
sure their well- being. First, a debrie ng was conducted in the lab when the
experiment was terminated either because subjects refused to continue
or a er they had gone to maximum voltage. Second, a detailed question-
naire was distributed to all subjects in August , three months a er the
experiments ended, and a year a er the experiments began. And nally,
follow- up interviews were conducted with those subjects who had indi-
cated in their questionnaire that they had been particularly bothered by
taking part. All of these measures were instituted, Milgram argued, to en-
sure that no subjects were harmed as a result of their participation in his
experiments.
In his rst journal article about his obedience experiments (Milgram,
a), which presented results of the rst of his twenty- four variations,
Milgram described what subjects were told at the end of the experiment
under the heading “Dehoax.” is term implies a truth- telling in which the
hoax is revealed and the true purpose of the experiment is explained. But
in fact, his dehoax involved substituting one untruth for another. Here is a
more accurate description of what was involved in Milgram’s dehoax pro-
vided by Milgram in a le er to the National Science Foundation ()
just eight days a er the experiments began:
We have given a lot of thought to ways of ensuring the subject’s
well- being during the experiment, and a er he leaves. We ar-
range for a friendly meeting between the victim and the subject.
e victim spontaneously announces that the pain was not very
severe, but that he became unnecessarily nervous because he saw
the “Danger” designation on the generator. e experimenter then
interjects the remark that the shock generator is designed for use
with very small animals and that the designation “Danger: severe
shock” is totally inapplicable to humans. e victim apologises for
his unnecessary display of histrionics, and shakes hands with the
subject. All sessions have ended amicably. (Milgram, a)
82 Theoretical & Applied Ethics 2:2
Milgram argued that he instituted these practices “a er much thought”
and that his intention was to make sure that people le the lab with their
well- being restored. But these practices did not involve dehoaxing. First,
as this le er indicates and audiotapes reveal, subjects were told the ma-
chine had been developed for use on small animals, that the learner had
overreacted, and that the shocks were not nearly as dangerous as the la-
bels may have indicated. Second, they were reassured that their behavior,
whether they had broken o early or continued to maximum voltage, was
entirely normal and understandable. Lastly, Jim McDonough, the learner,
came into the lab and joked with the subject to show no harm was done.
While the replacement cover story that was given to subjects changed over
time, Milgram’s apparent intention was the same: to defuse their distress
by telling them that things were not as bad as they might have seemed
while withholding the truth of the experimental setup. My research in the
archives, which included comparing audio recordings of the debrie ng
o ered to subjects under a range of conditions, noting subject responses
to questionnaires, and analyzing follow- up interviews, reveals that three
quarters of Milgram’s subjects, those in conditions to out of a total of
twenty- four conditions, or of people, le the lab believing they
had shocked a man. e evidence indicates that most of Milgram’s subjects
were not told at the end of the experiment that the machine was a prop,
that the pain was faked, or that McDonough and Williams were actors.
Technically, Milgram was still complying with what were then the cur-
rent ethical guidelines for debrie ng. In his history of the use of the term
debrie ng in psychological research, Harris () points out that at the
time of Milgram’s research, the American Psychological Association’s
Ethical Standards for Psychologists de ned debrie ng as the reduction
of distress. While researchers were required to alleviate subject distress
by the end of the experiment, the guidelines made no reference to tell-
ing subjects the true purpose of the experiment or interviewing them for
their reactions. Milgram had complied with the professional guidelines for
debrie ng at that time. But his use of the term dehoax in describing what
occurred at the end of the experiment, as well his use of the phrase “care-
ful post- experimental treatment” implied that Milgram had informed sub-
jects of the deception. From now on I will refer to what Milgram actually
told subjects as “deceptive debrief.”
Perry: Deception and Illusion in Milgram’s Accounts 83
Who Conducted the Debriefi ng?
Alan Elms described to me (Perry, ) how, in the summer of ,
Milgram observed each experiment behind the one- way mirror, joining
experimenter John Williams in the lab when the experiment was over if
a subject seemed particularly distressed or upset. But probably because
of the impracticality of Milgram being present at every experiment once
the academic year resumed, Williams, a high school biology teacher who
played the role of experimenter, was delegated the role of conducting the
deceptive debrief as well as overseeing the experiment itself. As Milgram
told one subject in a group meeting with Dr. Paul Errera, “I watched many
of the experiments, perhaps a third of them, but about two thirds I did not
see” (Milgram, b). Williams, recruited for his stern and authoritative
demeanor, played two roles: the role of the experimenter conducting the
experiment and the role of psychologist a empting to defuse people’s dis-
tress and anger once the experiment was over. Across almost all conditions,
and with about seven hundred subjects, Williams was le to handle what-
ever version of the debrie ng Milgram had speci ed was to be delivered.
When Did Dehoaxing Occur?
Recordings of the experiments and comments from subject questionnaires
show that it was in conditions , , and , in the last two months of the
research (April and May ), that subjects were told the true nature of
the experiment at the end of the lab session. Why Milgram decided to sub-
stitute the deceptive debrief with the full dehoax at this point is not clear. It
was not as if he had recruited enough subjects and therefore did not have to
worry about keeping the purpose of the experiment secret to ensure a naive
subject pool. Milgram can be heard on tape in condition asking subjects
to give him the phone numbers of their friends so he could phone and ask
them along to participate in his research (Milgram, e).
Keeping the
experiments secret was still critical to the success of the project. So why
did Milgram institute full dehoaxing at this late stage? A month before he
instigated this new practise, Milgram had submi ed a second application
to the for ,, half again as much as he had received in the origi-
nal grant of , (Milgram, d). He made particular mention in this
second grant application of his success in relieving the stress of his subjects,
noting that Yale had received only four complaints, all of which had been
84 Theoretical & Applied Ethics 2:2
resolved satisfactorily (Milgram, a). is suggests that Milgram sensed
that the required additional reassurance about the welfare of people
who took part in his research. If so, the was not the only one expressing
its concern for the subjects in Milgram’s research. Milgram’s rst journal
article about the experiments had just been rejected by a second journal
editor, who expressed his distaste for the research (Milgram, c), add-
ing to what was by then a growing chorus of concern about the ethics of his
research (Blass, ). It is likely that these criticisms and complaints had
some bearing on his abandonment of deceptive debrie ng and the adop-
tion of full dehoax for the remaining one hundred subjects who took part
in the experiments during April and May .
e revised debrie ng process, or full dehoax, was once again con-
ducted by Williams. e following exchange is typical of debrie ng con-
ducted by Williams at this point in the research:
Williams: Let me tell you this, Mr. Wallace was not really being
shocked. In fact his name is McDonough and he’s a member of our team
here. We are actually observing how people obey orders.
Subject 2316: Hmmm.
Williams: Actually the research here is very important and we feel
the results will be very interesting and so we had to set it up this way to
make you think you were shocking someone and taking orders.
Subject 2316: Laughs.
Williams: [It’s] very similar to a situation a guy nds himself in the
army a lot of times. So we’re not trying [calls out to “victim” Mc-
Donough] Jim, why don’t you come in and say hello to Mr. X now that
he’s in be er spirits. Ah, we don’t like to fool people but we have to set it
up this way.
McDonough: Hi.
Subject 2316: I thought I was really hurting you.
McDonough: Feel be er now, don’t you?
Subject 2316: Oh, sure.
Williams: You’re going to get a report on the project in a li le over
two months. We’ve been running it now for about a year and we’ve done
over men and I think you’ll nd the report very interesting when you
do get it.
Subject 2316: Hmm.
Perry: Deception and Illusion in Milgram’s Accounts 85
Williams: I think you’ll be very happy you participated. I’d like to ask
you not to speak about it to anyone other than your wife of course
because you may unknowingly speak to someone who’s going to be in the
experiment.
Subject 2316: Oh, I see.
Williams: So if they know ahead of time then they won’t be... it
wouldn’t be of any value. So until you get the report don’t say anything...
Of course when you get the report, you can talk to as many as you want.
Subject 2316: Uh huh.
Williams: ere is one more thing, could you indicate on this scale
how you felt about participating, from very sorry, very glad, and so on.
Subject 2316: Now that I know the circumstances [laughs].
Williams: Let me say one more thing. We’re very appreciative of...
appreciate you giving us your time and it certainly was a pleasure having
you here.
Subject 2316: Well, it was a pleasure being here.
Williams: Good. I think you’ll enjoy the report when you get it.
ank you again for coming down tonight.
Subject 2316: ank you for having me. [To McDonough] I’m sorry I
didn’t hurt you. [Laughter.]
Williams: [Into microphone] at was subject , next. (Wil-
liams, )
What is both typical and striking about this excerpt is that Williams deliv-
ers the debrie ng very much in role; it is a monologue, and it does not
invite questions or discussion with the subject. Subject was a de ant
subject, stopping the experiment at volts when the learner demanded
to be set free. But the pa ern of debrie ng across obedient and disobedi-
ent subjects from condition onward is the same. Williams followed a
standard script for the debrie ng that is independent of subject reactions.
Typically it involved a minute and a half of delivery, the introduction of
McDonough, and a handshake, before the subject was shown the door.
e full debrie ng, when it was nally o ered, was perfunctory at
best, yet Milgram was sensitive to the potential ethical objections to his
research from the outset and had been intent on addressing them, par-
ticularly when they were expressed by the organization that funded his
research. e original check from the was held up because of their
86 Theoretical & Applied Ethics 2:2
hesitation about the ethics of Milgram’s research. On July , , Milgram
called the to see why the le er con rming his grant had not yet ar-
rived at Yale. Probably to his dismay, he was told by a Mrs. Rubinstein that
the grant approval had hit a snag. e director of the was still unde-
cided over “possible reactions from persons who had been subjects in the
experiments .. . (and) whether the would support research of this
sort.” Milgram wrote in his notebook that the holdup had come out of the
blue: “ e call of July was the rst indication that the grant processing
would be anything but routine” (Milgram, b).
During the course of his experiment, from August until May ,
Milgram wrote regularly to the to update them on progress, and he
regularly returned to the topic of the steps he was taking to protect his
subjects from harm. Despite his e orts, and despite their initial funding,
the remained unconvinced. In May , a er a eld visit by three
o cials who watched the experiments in progress, the refused further
funding of the research, on ethical as well as methodological grounds. In-
stead of approving a grant of , to continue the experiments, they
o ered a small amount of money for Milgram to wind up the research and
complete his data analysis (Milgram, g).
Milgram’s desire to keep news of the experiment’s real purpose secret
was likely a driving factor in not dehoaxing subjects and conducting a de-
ceptive debrief. And there were times when Milgram clearly felt uncom-
fortable about it. At the same time that he was con dently reassuring the
about subjects’ well- being, Milgram was con ding private doubts in
his own notebook:
Several of these experiments, it seems to me, are just about on the
borderline of what ethically can and cannot be done with human
subjects. Some critics may feel that at times they go beyond accept-
able limits. ese are ma ers that only the community can decide
on, and if a ballot were held I am not altogether certain which way
I would cast my vote. (Milgram, b)
Perhaps Milgram’s discomfort was also a result of the mismatch between
his public statements about this careful and thorough debrie ng and
the rather cursory process enacted by Williams. But over time, Milgram
seemed to forget that he had had any such doubts when he wrote about
the ethics of his research, or that his had been a largely deceptive debrief.
Perry: Deception and Illusion in Milgram’s Accounts 87
e following description, wri en in , implies that his subjects were
deceived only while the experiment was taking place, that all was revealed
at the end, and that this was a regular feature of his research. e implica-
tion was that criticism of what he had put his subjects through was unfair
and ill- informed.
Typically, the subject is informed of the experiment’s true charac-
ter immediately a er he has participated in it. If for thirty minutes
the experimenter holds back on the truth, at the conclusion he re-
a rms his con dence in the subject by extending his trust to him
by a full revelation of the purpose and procedures of the experi-
ment. It is odd how rarely critics of social psychology experiments
mention this characteristic feature of the experimental hour. (Mil-
gram, , p. )
In fact, the roughly six hundred people who were deceptively debriefed
and not dehoaxed at the end of the experiment had to wait from six
months to a year for their “full revelation.” And then it was done by le er.
Milgram sent out a report on the experiments in August .
At the time you were in the experiment it was not possible to tell
you everything about the study. Many questions probably remain
in your mind which we now would like to clear up for you... Actu-
ally, the other man did not receive any shocks. Indeed, he was an actor
employed by the project to play the part of the learner. (Milgram,
h)
is dehoaxing report was sent to all subjects in the summer of and
was a ached to the questionnaire that Milgram asked subjects to ll out
and return. Some subjects were critical of the fact that Milgram did not de-
brief them as the following notes on the returned questionnaires indicate:
From what I’ve learned from others who’ve taken part, it would
seem you have been somewhat irresponsible in permi ing dis-
turbed subjects to leave without informing them that they didn’t
half kill the shockee. (Subject , Milgram f)
I seriously question the wisdom and ethics of not dehoaxing each
subject immediately a er the session.... Allowing subjects to re-
88 Theoretical & Applied Ethics 2:2
main deceived is not justi ed, in my opinion, even if such contin-
ued deception was thought necessary “to avoid contamination.”
(Subject , Milgram f )
Others expressed their relief and described their anxiety since the
experiment:
I actually checked the death notices in the New Haven Register for
at least two weeks a er the experiment to see if I had been involved
and a contributing factor in the death of the so- called “learner” I
was very relieved that his name did not appear in such a column.
(Subject , Milgram f )
I’ve been waiting very anxiously for this report to really put my
mind at ease and [have my] curiosity satis ed. Many times I want-
ed to look up a Mr. Wallace who was my student. I was just that cu-
rious to know what had happened. Believe me when no response
came from Mr. Wallace with the stronger voltage I really believed
the man was probably dead. (Subject , Milgram f)
e experiment le such an e ect on me that I spent the night in
a cold sweat and nightmares because of the fear that I might have
killed that man in the chair. is fear was aroused from the fact
that I had to sign papers that I would bring no charges against Yale.
(Subject , Milgram f)
About a week a er the test, while discussing it with friends, it
dawned on me that I was probably the one who was being tested,
although I didn’t suspect that the “student” was an actor. (Subject
, Milgram f)
Several subjects had objected to Milgram about their treatment. But
one former subject, a New Haven alderman, who “felt responsibility to-
wards my fellow citizens,” described how he took his complaint to the uni-
versity’s administration. “I a empted to get information from someone
in the Psychology Department as to the legitimacy of the experiment....
I wanted to know whether this was authorized by Yale University. Well
this caused quite a from what I understand quite a bit of quite a few
rami cations and rumblings” (Errera, a). ese complaints, in combi-
Perry: Deception and Illusion in Milgram’s Accounts 89
nation with complaints to the , which resulted in their review of Mil-
gram’s application for membership and disquiet from some of Milgram’s
colleagues, is likely what prompted Yale in February to instigate an
independent review of former subjects to establish whether any had been
harmed.
Nine months a er the experiments ended, Dr. Paul Errera was brought
in from Yale’s psychiatry department to conduct a series of follow- up
group interviews with former subjects. In his description of these meet-
ings, Milgram took credit for this review. In his book and in an earlier
journal article, he described himself as the instigator of these group meet-
ings, and this fact seemed to provide evidence that he was unusually sensi-
tive to the ongoing welfare of his subjects. However, as the le er of invita-
tion to subjects on Yale le erhead made clear, Errera was being brought in
over Milgram as an independent assessor who would gather feedback for
policy on experimentation. In recorded conversations between Milgram
and Errera, Errera describes an important feature of these group meetings
as “the public relations aspect” (Errera, b). Errera’s son Claude told
me that it was Milgram who was under review and that his father’s involve-
ment was a result of a “scandal” at Yale (Perry, ). Errera was presum-
ably selected by Yale not just for his objectivity and clinical training but
perhaps also because his experience in working with traumatized war vet-
erans would be invaluable in talking with subjects distressed by their expe-
rience in Milgram’s research.
In Milgram’s hands, the Errera review was transformed from what
must have been a humiliating episode into one that demonstrated his sen-
sitivity to the emotional consequences of the experiment for his subjects.
In his summary of Errera’s follow- up (Milgram, ) with a sample of
subjects from the obedience research, Milgram wrote that he had selected
the “forty worst cases” for Errera to interview. By this Milgram meant that
the forty people most troubled by the experiment, as indicated in their
responses to Milgram’s questionnaire, had been selected for interview. Er-
erra, Milgram reported, had subsequently given all the subjects he inter-
viewed a clean bill of mental health.
Errera did write a report about the interviews, but he was unhappy
with the report’s title. Presumably dra ed by Milgram, the report was
called “A Statement Based on Interviews with ‘Forty Worst Cases’ in the
90 Theoretical & Applied Ethics 2:2
Milgram Obedience Experiments.” e title implied that Errera had in-
terviewed the people most troubled by the experiment. Papers in the
archives throw some light on Errera’s uneasiness. Instead of targeting and
inviting the most troubled subjects, more than people were ran-
domly selected and invited to group meetings with Errera. Of those, only
actually showed up to keep the appointment. Transcripts of the meet-
ings show that these people demonstrated a whole range of reactions to
the experiment. Among those who took part in the group meetings were
those who were skeptical, curious, and even amused by the research as
well as a small number still troubled by the experiment.
Errera distanced himself from this misrepresentation of the report’s
title in his opening paragraphs, in which he notes that the report does not
detail how the forty had been selected, how they compared with the total
sample, or why many of those invited did not a end. Errera’s report and
his disclaimer about the selection process was not published until .
In the meantime, Milgram published descriptions of Errera’s conclusion
that none of the “worst cases” had been psychologically damaged by tak-
ing part gained currency and became a powerful rebu al to accusations
of carelessness about the subjects’ welfare and of notions of lasting harm.
Conclusion
In this paper I have argued that Stanley Milgram shaped, edited, and
constructed a powerful and compelling narrative about his research. By
comparing subject accounts, unpublished papers, and recordings of the
experiments themselves, I have presented an alternative view of Milgram’s
debrie ng process that sheds new light on the measures he took to protect
his subjects. I have concluded that evidence from Milgram’s unpublished
papers and original recordings and transcripts cast doubt on Milgram’s re-
liability as a narrator of the obedience research and of his role in safeguard-
ing the welfare of his subjects.
Notes
. My conclusion that Menold took part in condition or is based on his descrip-
tion of the particular experimental scenario. Each of the conditions has a particular
script, and Menold’s description most closely matches the descriptions of conditions
and .
Perry: Deception and Illusion in Milgram’s Accounts 91
. On occasion, Milgram cast Emil Elgiss in the role of experimenter, most notably
in condition , where Milgram wanted to test if Elgiss’s friendly demeanor in contrast to
Williams’s stern and authoritative one would in uence subjects’ obedience. Elgiss also
played the experimenter role in conditions, , and , all of which required more than
one experimenter.
. Milgram to subject : “We’re desperately short of subjects, is there anyone you
know? . . We need to nish the experiments by Wednesday. We need nine by Wednes-
day... Just give me a name or two...”
References
Blass, T. (). e man who shocked the world: e life and legacy of Stanley Milgram.
New York: Basic Books.
Errera, P. (a). Long interviews. Meeting conducted by Dr. Paul Errera, April ,
. Box , folder , Stanley Milgram Papers, Yale University Archives, New
Haven.
Errera, P. (b). Long interviews. Meeting conducted by Dr. Paul Errera, February
, . Box , folder , Stanley Milgram Papers, Yale University Archives, New
Haven.
Errera, P. (). Statement based on forty “worst cases” in the Milgram obedience
experiments. In J. Katz (Ed.), Experimentation with human beings (p. ). New
York: Russell Sage.
Harris, B. (). Key words: A history of debrie ng in social psychology. In
J. Morawski (Ed.), e rise of experimentation in American psychology (pp. – ).
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Milgram, S. (a). Le er to National Science Foundation, August , . Series II,
Correspondence, , box , folder , Stanley Milgram Papers, Yale University
Archives, New Haven.
Milgram, S. (b). Obedience Notebook. Box , folder , Stanley Milgram Papers.
Yale University Archives, New Haven.
Milgram, S. (a). Le er to National Science Foundation, January , . Box ,
folder , Stanley Milgram Papers. Yale University Archives, New Haven.
Milgram, S. (b). Obedience: Ethics of experimentation. January . Box ,
folder , Stanley Milgram Papers, Yale University Archives, New Haven.
Milgram, S. (c). General les, – . Box , folder , Stanley Milgram Papers,
Yale University Archives, New Haven.
Milgram, S. (d). Application to National Science Foundation. Box , folder ,
Stanley Milgram Papers, Yale University Archives, New Haven.
Milgram, S. (e). Milgram in conversation with subject . Box , Stanley Mil-
gram Papers, Yale University Archives, New Haven.
Milgram, S. (f). Coded comments of subjects , , , , , . Box ,
Stanley Milgram Papers, Yale University Archives, New Haven.
92 Theoretical & Applied Ethics 2:2
Milgram, S. (g). Le er from National Science Foundation. Obedience corre-
spondence, – , box , folder , Stanley Milgram Papers, Yale University
Archives, New Haven.
Milgram, S. (h). Report to subjects. Forms, mailing n.d., box , folder , Yale
University Archives, New Haven.
Milgram, S. (a). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 67, – .
Milgram, S. (b). Long interviews. Meeting conducted by Dr. Paul Errera, March
, . Box , folder , Stanley Milgram Papers, Yale University Archives, New
Haven.
Milgram, S. (). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. London: Tavistock
Publications.
Milgram, S. (). e individual in a social world: Essays and experiments. Reading :
Addison- Wesley.
Perry, G. (). Behind the shock machine: e untold story of the notorious Milgram psy-
chology experiments. Melbourne: Scribe.
Williams, J. Conversation with subject . Box , Stanley Milgram Papers, Yale
University Archives, New Haven.
