Behind the Shock Machine by Gina Perry Page B

psychiatric hospital had damaged her memory. A significant number—at least a third—came not because they had volunteered but because their husbands had returned the coupon on Milgram’s ad. These men had presumably been contacted by Milgram and his staff, who had explained that they were now seeking women and asked if their wives would participate. This was not unusual at the time, and Milgram would have observed how Solomon Asch had recruited new subjects by asking former subjects to recommend their friends. 12
    As soon as a woman either refused to continue or reached 450 volts, Williams asked her to answer some questions—about her feelings about the experiment, how painful the sample shock had felt, how upset she had felt during the experiment, and how painful she thought the shocks were—and recorded her answers on another sheet. I found these sheets in several of the folders. Some also had a completed copy of the questionnaire that Milgram had sent some months after the experiment was over. Also included was a two-page form upon which Williams recorded how far each subject went, as well as his observations of her. Sometimes he recorded comments the woman made, or how often she laughed; other times, he noted something about her behavior or appearance. For example, Williams wrote thatSubject 2021, a twenty-three-year-old home economics teacher, was “a beautiful blond, young, luscious.” He described Subject 2025, a thirty-four-year-old Swedish clerk, as “lovely.” Another woman, a forty-nine-year-old housewife, was described as “big” with a “little girlish” voice and “mincing steps.” Before the experiment had begun, she had asked Jim McDonough what he did for a living and Williams had written, “Is she looking for a man?” 13
    Milgram made notes on the first two female subjects from his spot behind the one-way mirror. His notes, like Williams’s, described the woman’s appearance, but were more factual than evaluative, such as “a nurse—dressed in a nurse’s uniform.” However, they included statements about her physical and emotional reactions, such as “squirming in seat,” “exceedingly nervous,” and “shaking all over.” He may well have been making notes for a future work, as comments about the nurse as “high compliance, low aggression” suggest he was relating her performance to a theory. 14 Some of the women would feature later in his book Obedience to Authority , although the one-page summary of this condition was measly in comparison to the space allocated to his male subjects.
    Still, these kinds of detailed records brought me closer to any of the subjects than I had been before. By reading a complete file, I could listen to the experiment as it unfolded and read Williams’s and Milgram’s observations of it, as well as the woman’s reflections about what had occurred. On my next visit to the library, I looked through the forty women’s files, searching for Hannah—a forty-year-old housewife, married—and I found her, the name replaced by a subject number. As soon as I heard the tape, I recognized her voice, which had changed very little in almost fifty years. On the recording, a much younger Hannah sounded perky and confident as she talked to Williams at the beginning of the experiment. But you could hear her confidence getting shakier once the learner started to give incorrect answers, and it became clear that his memory was not reliable. By the third shock, 45 volts, she was stumbling over the words. At the fifth shock, 75 volts, when the learner made his first sound of discomfort, there was a pause. Then I heard the following exchange.
Hannah: [to Williams] Is he all right? [into the microphone] The correct one was “hair.” [to Williams] Is he all right?
Williams: Yes, please continue.
Hannah: All right. Cool: day, shade, water, cave. [learner buzzes incorrect answer] That is incorrect. I will now . . . give . . . you . . . a shock . . . of 90 volts. [gives