Thank you to the people who explained why the Milgram results might or might not be an Orne effect. (I'm retiring from the biopsych business, though not enirely from Hist of Psych, so can perhaps get myself an education in Social Psyc and some other fields in which I know very little indeed.) Doug Bernstein's letter, which he said I could post, if I wished, is below. He reveals, what doesn't surprise me at all, that my notion is by no means a new idea. One or two people suggested that the Milgram videos are especially convincing. I haven't seen them, but I will look for them -- mind you, I will harden my tiny heart to Pharoah-like dimensions -- have to learn to do that, they told me in psychology school. Douglas Bernstein wrote: > Hi David, > > Actually, Martin Orne himself suggested this very possibility. Take a look > at Orne, M.T. & Holland, C.H. (1968). On the ecological validity of > laboratory deceptions. International Journal of Psychiatry, 6, 282-293. > > The basic point of this paper is that experimenters and participants > sometimes enter into a "pact of ignorance," in which each agrees to believe > the other, and that participants may then behave in whatever ways they > think will keep their data from being discarded (especially when they have > exerted a lot of effort to participate). In the Milgram studies, then, > some participants might have noticed that the experimenter did not really > need them in order to conduct the experiment. After all, why couldn't the > experimenter have flipped the shock switches himself? Indeed, I would not > be surprised if some aspects of the behavior of some of Milgram's > participants might be explained by demand characteristics. Unfortunately, > the appearance of antisocial behavior in obedience to the orders of an > authority occurs all too often outside the laboratory, so I doubt that > Orne's insights invalidate Milgram's basic findings. The latest examples of > their relevance are being shown on CNN right now. > > Still, Orne performed an important service to researchers by pointing out > that it is the experimenter's responsibility to find ways of discovering > what the participants think about the experiment and of measuring the > extent to which their behavior could be due to the demand characteristics > of the social situation rather than of the independent variable. The > "simulator group" was one of his creative suggestions for doing this. > > Best regards, > > Doug Bernstein > ______________________ > Douglas A. Bernstein, Ph.D. > 16 Fox Dene > Godalming, Surrey > GU7 1YQ > ENGLAND > Phone from USA: 011 44 1483 422 314 > Fax from USA: 011 44 1483 860 765 > Phone from UK: 01483 422 314 > Fax from UK: 01483 860 765 > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ---------- > > From: David Likely <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Subject: Milgram effect as Orne effect? > > Date: Wednesday, March 31, 1999 9:05 PM > > > > Fellow TIPSpersons - > > > > This is a little off-the-cuff, but somebody (maybe everybody!) > > in social psych knows the answer, and I don't. > > > > I was just drafting a web version of George's Miller's "one- > > is-a-bun" mnemonic image demo. It has worked extremely > > well for me (in the 'live' version) for many years. I began to > > wonder if maybe it hadn't worked _too_ well -- perhaps > > my students are responding to the "demand characteristics" > > of the demo (Orne's idea, I think) or they are showing a > > sort of (undramatic version of) Milgram's "obedience to > > authority." I then began to wonder if the Milgram effect > > might not, indeed, be an Orne effect -- that is, if some > > participants were "playing the game" of helping Milgram > > demonstrate what they thought he wanted to find. I > > don't have the Milgram paper(s) here at home, but I did > > peek at some secondary accounts -- Hock's "Forty > > studies..." and a few Intro books. I see descriptions of > > "obedient subjects" and of "defiant subjects," but I see > > not a word about "skeptical subjects." Did no participant > > at all suspect a hoax? Did they really think psychologists > > could do what it seemed Milgram wanted them to do? > > I do wonder, really, if some of the sheep, and maybe > > some of the goats, too, wern't "playing the game" -- > > not saying so being part of the game itself. (This being > > what Orne suggested, although it was "hypnotic effects" > > that he was concerned to debunk. > > > > What say you? > > > > (For those who like these web demo things, my draft > > try at Pavio and Miller on mental images is at > > http://www.unb.ca/psychology/likely/demos/images1.htm > > First draft -- dunno if it's any good.) > > > > -David > > > > =========================================================== > > David G. Likely, Department of Psychology, > > University of New Brunswick > > Fredericton, N. B., E3B 5A3 Canada > > > > History of Psychology: > > http://www.unb.ca/web/psychology/likely/psyc4053.htm > > =========================================================== > > > > -- =========================================================== David G. Likely, Department of Psychology, University of New Brunswick Fredericton, N. B., E3B 5A3 Canada History of Psychology: http://www.unb.ca/web/psychology/likely/psyc4053.htm ===========================================================
