Editing Milgram experiment (section)

===Alternative interpretations===
In his book ''Irrational Exuberance'', Yale finance professor [[Robert J. Shiller]] argues that other factors might be partially able to explain the Milgram experiments:

{{Blockquote|[People] have learned that when experts tell them something is all right, it probably is, even if it does not seem so.  (In fact, the experimenter was indeed correct: it {{em|was}} all right to continue giving the "shocks"—even though most of the subjects did not suspect the reason.)<ref>{{cite book |author=Shiller, Robert |title=Irrational Exuberance |publisher=Princeton University Press |location=Princeton NJ |year=2005 |page=158 |edition=2nd}}</ref>}}

In a 2006 experiment, a computerized [[avatar (computing)|avatar]] was used in place of the learner receiving electrical shocks.  Although the participants administering the shocks were aware that the learner was unreal, the experimenters reported that participants responded to the situation physiologically "as if it were real".<ref>{{cite journal  |vauthors=Slater M, Antley A, Davison A, etal |editor1-last=Rustichini |editor1-first=Aldo |title=A virtual reprise of the Stanley Milgram obedience experiments |journal=PLOS ONE |volume=1 |issue= 1|pages=e39 |year=2006 |pmid=17183667 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0000039 |doi-access=free|pmc=1762398|bibcode=2006PLoSO...1...39S }}</ref>

Another explanation of Milgram's results invokes [[belief perseverance]] as the underlying cause.<ref name=":0" /> What "people cannot be counted on is to realize that a seemingly benevolent authority is in fact malevolent, even when they are faced with overwhelming evidence which suggests that this authority is indeed malevolent. Hence, the underlying cause for the subjects' striking conduct could well be conceptual, and not the alleged 'capacity of man to abandon his humanity ... as he merges his unique personality into larger institutional structures."'

This last explanation receives some support from a 2009 episode of the [[BBC]] science documentary series ''[[Horizon (UK TV series)|Horizon]]'', which involved replication of the Milgram experiment. Of the twelve participants, only three refused to continue to the end of the experiment. Speaking during the episode, social psychologist [[Clifford Stott]] discussed the influence that the idealism of scientific inquiry had on the volunteers. He remarked: "The influence is ideological. It's about what they believe science to be, that science is a positive product, it produces beneficial findings and knowledge to society that are helpful for society. So there's that sense of science is providing some kind of system for good."<ref>{{Cite episode|title=How Violent Are You?|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00kk4bz|access-date=May 8, 2013|series=Horizon|series-link=Horizon (BBC TV series)|credits=Presenter: [[Michael Portillo]]. Producer: Diene Petterle.|network=[[BBC]]|station=[[BBC Two]]|date=May 12, 2009|series-no=45|number=18|archive-date=September 24, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170924175633/http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00kk4bz|url-status=live}}</ref>

Building on the importance of idealism, some recent researchers suggest the "engaged [[followership]]" perspective. Based on an examination of Milgram's archive, in a recent study, social psychologists [[Alexander Haslam]], [[Stephen Reicher]] and Megan Birney, at the [[University of Queensland]], discovered that people are less likely to follow the prods of an experimental leader when the prod resembles an order. However, when the prod stresses the importance of the experiment for science (i.e. "The experiment requires you to continue"), people are more likely to obey.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Haslam|first1=S. Alexander|last2=Reicher|first2=Stephen D.|last3=Birney|first3=Megan E.|date=September 1, 2014|title=Nothing by Mere Authority: Evidence that in an Experimental Analogue of the Milgram Paradigm Participants are Motivated not by Orders but by Appeals to Science |journal=Journal of Social Issues|language=en|volume=70|issue=3|pages=473–488|doi=10.1111/josi.12072|issn=1540-4560|hdl=10034/604991|hdl-access=free}}</ref> The researchers suggest the perspective of "engaged followership": that people are not simply obeying the orders of a leader, but instead are willing to continue the experiment because of their desire to support the scientific goals of the leader and because of a lack of identification with the learner.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Haslam|first1=S Alexander|last2=Reicher|first2=Stephen D|last3=Birney|first3=Megan E|date=October 1, 2016|title=Questioning authority: new perspectives on Milgram's 'obedience' research and its implications for intergroup relations|journal=Current Opinion in Psychology|volume=11|pages=6–9|doi=10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.03.007|hdl=10023/10645|url=https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/bitstream/10023/10645/1/Reicher_2016_COP_Questioning_AAM.pdf|hdl-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Haslam |first1=S. Alexander |last2=Reicher |first2=Stephen D. |title=50 Years of "Obedience to Authority": From Blind Conformity to Engaged Followership |journal=[[Annual Review of Law and Social Science]] |date=13 October 2017 |volume=13 |issue=1 |pages=59–78 |doi=10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113710}}</ref> 

A neuroscientific study found that with a VIRTUAL "learner", with subjects informed beforehand that the image they would see receiving shocks was not a real person, watching this virtual learner receive electric shocks did not activate the areas typically activated with empathic response.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Cheetham|first1=Marcus|last2=Pedroni|first2=Andreas|last3=Antley|first3=Angus|last4=Slater|first4=Mel|last5=Jäncke|first5=Lutz|last6=Cheetham|first6=Marcus|last7=Pedroni|first7=Andreas F.|last8=Antley|first8=Angus|last9=Slater|first9=Mel|date=January 1, 2009|title=Virtual milgram: empathic concern or personal distress? Evidence from functional MRI and dispositional measures|journal=Frontiers in Human Neuroscience|volume=3|pages=29|doi=10.3389/neuro.09.029.2009|pmc=2769551|pmid=19876407|doi-access=free}}</ref>