
The report restates what the primary papers actually measured, notes ethical limits, and treats a forty-five-experiment book as a guide back to sources, not as a substitute for them.
The assignment is a reading report on a popular book of forty-five experiments, with Milgram and Harlow as the cases to write in full. It is not a new laboratory study.
Go back from the popular summary to the primary papers before you quote a result.
Milgram asked how far people would go in a laboratory obedience procedure when an authority figure instructed them to continue. The original report and the later book are the places to take numbers from. Variations later changed the rate; say so if you mention a figure.
The ethical problems — distress, limited debriefing by today's standards, and the power of the situation — belong in the same section as the finding.
Harlow's work showed that contact comfort, in his rhesus design, could outweigh a feeding wire mother. It was used in later attachment discussions, but it is not a substitute for Ainsworth's human observational work.
The animal suffering involved is part of the historical record. A course report should say that, not only retell the cloth-versus-wire image.
A popular book can compress, round, or dramatize. If the forty-five-experiment text and a primary paper disagree, prefer the paper and say there was a discrepancy. Do not treat either study as a law about every classroom or every family.
Last updated: November 13, 2026
Refund policy
In the 1963 paper, a high share of participants continued to the highest shock switch under the specified procedure. Quote the paper or the 1974 book for the exact figure
Infant rhesus monkeys preferred a cloth surrogate to a wire one that provided milk, in the conditions he reported. That is evidence about contact comfort in that species and design, not a full theory of human parenting.
No. It is a reading report on historical experiments, including their ethical problems.