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 Based on an unpublished study by Milgram’s assistant, Taketo Murata, we report the relationship between the subjects’ belief that the learner was actually receiving painful electric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.

中文翻译：

---

米尔格拉姆的服从实验中的可信度和不可置信性：对未发表测试的重新分析

本文分析了米尔格拉姆的服从实验中受试者对疼痛的感知变化及其行为后果。根据Milgram的助手Taketo Murata的未发表研究，我们报告了受试者对学习者实际上正在遭受痛苦的电击的信念与他们选择的电击水平之间的关系。该档案材料表明，在23个实验的变化中，有18个完全相信自己会造成疼痛的人的平均电击水平低于没有完全相信自己会造成疼痛的人的平均电击水平。这些数据表明，对疼痛的感知加剧了受试者的反抗，而受试者的怀疑则加剧了他们的服从。这种分析改变了我们对实验的经典解释的认识，并改变了它对诸如大屠杀之类的国家暴行的解释的相关性。这也提出了在基于欺骗的实验中戏剧性可信度的问题。在关于米尔格拉姆问卷数据的可靠性及其更广泛的理论相关性的方法论问题中讨论了这些发现。