Incredulity Hypothesis
The proposal that participants in the obedience experiments generally did not believe the shocks were real.
What it is
An analysis of an unpublished test from the programme found that, in 18 of 23 variations, participants who fully believed they were causing pain chose lower shock levels, and its authors discuss what this means for the classical interpretation. A 2024 paper examined the hypothesis and argued that it is not generally applicable, since it does not easily explain behaviour in the original experiments and replications and fits poorly with participants' own accounts.
In effect
In the article on the Milgram experiment, it is the second strand of recent work, beside engaged followership.
What it does not say
It concerns how participants understood the procedure. It says nothing about anyone's honesty, and the papers on it reach different conclusions about how far it applies.
Sources
- Perry, G., Brannigan, A., Wanner, R. A., & Stam, H. J. (2019). Credibility and incredulity in Milgram's obedience experiments: A reanalysis of an unpublished test. Social Psychology Quarterly, 83(1), 88-106.
- Doris, J. M., Niemi, L., & Machery, E. (2024). True believers: The incredulity hypothesis and the enduring legacy of the obedience experiments. Philosophia Scientiae, 28(2), 53-89.