Abstracts

Rationale: Stanley Milgram reported seizures (SZ) in 15 (9.4 %) of 160 male subjects (S) recruited to participate in 4 configurations of obedience experiments (EXP I-IV) as teacher under direction of experimenter (E) (1965). Learner was third (confederate) participant. SZ were likely dissociative behavior in Ss, and loss of affect control can be hypothesized. Published reports do not specify whether completers or non-completers exhibited SZ, but many experiments were audiotape-recorded.Methods: EXP I (40 S) had 26 completers, and no audiotapes were available. EXP II (40 S) had 25 completers, and 40 audiotapes were available. EXP III (40 S) had 16 completers, and 32 audiotapes were available. No audiotapes were available from EXP IV (40 S, 12 completers). Because 3 SZ were reported from EXP I in 1963, there must have been 12 SZ distributed among 3 other experiments. One investigator extracted data by listening to a total of 50 of the available 72 audiotapes (40 from EXP II and 10 from EXP III). The objective was to determine the point in time when and how experiment was terminated, if it was, and to assess S’s affect associated therewith.Results: Experiments were approximately 45 min in duration, of which more than 50 % was spent in preparation and protocol practice. S was steadily engaged in multiple protocol tasks, repeatedly prompted by E. Of 40 S reviewed from EXP II, 15 reached maximal level of punishment, as reported (1963 and 1965), while 3 of 10 S from EXP III did, compatible with report. Altered behavior could be inferred from audible signs, consisting of changes in vocal output (voice intensity, pitch and rhythm), giggling, sniffing, and irregularly recurrent pauses as well as articulation of uncertainty and protest. Some pauses were prolonged but not interrupted by E, as E did diligently when S voiced uncertainty. E did not comment on disordered behavior, but published reports emphasized inappropriate laughter occurring more often than SZ. Altered behavior was also encountered in many completers with wide variation, including articulation of refusal and repeated hesitation, followed by eventual completion. Some completers’ behavior was in sharp contrast, because they delivered punishment without delay in response to visual cue (learner’s mistake in memory task), not pausing to hear vocal protest. This can be considered subtle dissociative behavior.Conclusions: The wide-spread popular interest Milgram’s experiments have attracted for past 50 years can assure us that SZ in his S have not been recurrent, and were non-epileptic. Data did not allow determination of onset and end of disordered behavior and SZ, and their quantitation. SZ in his reports are relevant in understanding of psychogenic non-epileptic seizures (PNES), even though they were not subjected to clinical neurophysiological scrutiny. Milgram demonstrated that manipulation of social-psychological factors could generate certain affect states, which in turn, can lead to loss of affect control and epileptic SZ-like events. It is suggested that factors leading to chronic recurrences and refractoriness of PNES can be identified.