Free Behind the Shock Machine by Gina Perry

the issue of debriefing in his original application to the NSF:
A final but important note must be added concerning the investigator’s responsibility to persons who serve in the experiment. There is no question that the subject is placed in a difficult predicament and that strong feelings are aroused.
Under these circumstances it is highly important that measures be taken to insure the subject’s wellbeing before he is discharged from the laboratory. Every effort will be made to set the subject at ease and to assure him of the adequacy of his performance. 9
    The NSF, however, continued to be concerned about the effect of the experiment on those whom Milgram had recruited as subjects. On July 5, 1961, Milgram rang the NSF to see why the letter confirming his grant had not yet arrived. To his dismay, he was told by a Mrs. Rubinstein that approval had hit a snag: the NSF’s director was still undecided about “possible reactions from persons who had been subjects in the experiments and whether the NSF should support research of this sort.” 10
    It was the first of many signs of the uneasiness that his research would cause, and thereafter Milgram repeatedly mentioned his debriefing procedures and their effectiveness in alleviating subjects’ stress in his dealings with the NSF. 11 But Milgram’s intention was to make reassuring, soothing noises to his subjects without revealing the truth, probably because he didn’t want word to spread in the New Haven community about the real purpose of his research.
    Now I understood why Bill Menold had gone straight to his electrician neighbor for reassurance. I spoke to Bill again, this time asking when it was that he found out that the experiment was a setup. It’s something that still makes him angry. “One of the things that really disturbed me is what they’ve told people—they said it was about six months later that they explained what happened. In my recollection it was a lot longer than six months . . . and then I get this letter, this form letter!” He clenched his fists. “I don’t have much regard for Milgram . . . because I think that was terribly unethical—and I’m not just saying that because I did all this stuff. I think it’s immoral to use people. They might say, ‘Well, it’s for the greater good,’ but that doesn’t make it right!”
    The report that Milgram sent out to subjects in July 1962—eleven months after the experiments began—was the first time they were told the full story. 12 The comments that Milgram’s participants wrote in their questionnaires show that, far from being a systematic and detailed process, debriefing varied across time, and in most cases was not a debriefing in the sense that I had understood it at all. Subjects in conditions 1 to 18—around six hundred people—left the lab believing they had shocked a man.
    After people received Milgram’s report and questionnaire, many wrote back describing how they had left the lab mystified, trying to work out afterward what had actually gone on by talking to wives, neighbors, and workmates. Some worked it out for themselves, either immediately or in the months that followed. Subject 629 wrote: “As I left the laboratory and walked to my car, I reflected [on] the situation and felt certain at that time I was the one who had been observed. On the few occasions I’ve thought about the experiment I’ve wondered about its purpose, and appreciate knowing your true motive now.”
    And Subject 805 noted, “About a week after 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.”
    Many expressed their relief at receiving the report and described how worried they’d been about the learner. Subject 716 recorded, “Iactually checked the death notices in the New Haven Register for at least two weeks after the experiment to see if I had been involved and a