https://www.youngju.dev/blog 천천히 올바르게. AI Researcher & DevOps Engineer Youngju's blog. GPU/CUDA, LLM, MLOps, Kubernetes AI workloads, and data engineering — plus mindset essays on confidence, routines, health, and sport psychology. ko fjvbn2003@gmail.com (Youngju Kim) fjvbn2003@gmail.com (Youngju Kim) Sun, 26 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT https://www.youngju.dev/blog/psych-papers/milgram-obedience-reexamined.en https://www.youngju.dev/blog/psych-papers/milgram-obedience-reexamined.en The Milgram experiment, begun at Yale in 1961, has been summarized in one sentence for decades: 65 percent of participants went all the way to the maximum voltage. But that figure is the value from one of some 24 variations, and changing the conditions moved obedience anywhere from 0 percent to 92.5 percent. What Gina Perry confirmed in the Yale archives is evidence that the experimenter repeatedly applied pressure that was not in the script and that a substantial share of participants suspected the deception. Haslam and Reicher offer an alternative account — identification with the cause of science rather than blind obedience — and the 2009 partial replication by Burger obtained a comparable rate with a design that stopped at 150 volts. Here is what survives and what has to go. Sun, 26 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT fjvbn2003@gmail.com (Youngju Kim) psychologypaper-reviewsocial-psychologyobedienceresearch-ethics https://www.youngju.dev/blog/psych-papers/milgram-obedience-reexamined.ja https://www.youngju.dev/blog/psych-papers/milgram-obedience-reexamined.ja 1961年にイェールで始まったミルグラム実験は、参加者の65パーセントが最大電圧まで進んだという一文に要約されてきました。ところがその数字は24個にのぼる変形実験のうちひとつの値にすぎず、条件を変えると服従率は0パーセントから92.5パーセントまで動きました。ジーナ・ペリーがイェールの記録保管庫で確認したのは、実験者が台本にない圧力を繰り返しかけていたこと、そして相当数の参加者が仕掛けを疑っていたという証拠です。ハスラムとライヒャーは盲目的な服従の代わりに、科学という大義への同一視という代替説明を出し、2009年のバーガーによる部分再現は150ボルトで止める設計で近い比率を得ました。残るものと捨てるものを分けて整理します。 Sun, 26 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT fjvbn2003@gmail.com (Youngju Kim) psychologypaper-reviewsocial-psychologyobedienceresearch-ethics https://www.youngju.dev/blog/psych-papers/milgram-obedience-reexamined https://www.youngju.dev/blog/psych-papers/milgram-obedience-reexamined 1961년 예일에서 시작된 밀그램 실험은 참가자의 65퍼센트가 최대 전압까지 갔다는 한 문장으로 요약되어 왔습니다. 그런데 그 숫자는 24개에 이르는 변형 실험 중 하나의 값일 뿐이고, 조건을 바꾸면 복종률은 0퍼센트에서 92.5퍼센트까지 움직였습니다. 지나 페리가 예일 기록보관소에서 확인한 것은 실험자가 대본에 없는 압박을 반복했고 상당수 참가자가 속임수를 의심했다는 증거입니다. 하슬람과 라이커는 맹목적 복종 대신 과학이라는 대의에 대한 동일시라는 대안 설명을 내놓았고, 2009년 버거의 부분 재현은 150볼트에서 멈추는 설계로 비슷한 비율을 얻었습니다. 남는 것과 버릴 것을 나눠 정리합니다. Sun, 26 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT fjvbn2003@gmail.com (Youngju Kim) psychologypaper-reviewsocial-psychologyobedienceresearch-ethics https://www.youngju.dev/blog/psych-papers/milgram-obedience-reexamined.zh https://www.youngju.dev/blog/psych-papers/milgram-obedience-reexamined.zh 1961年始于耶鲁的米尔格拉姆实验，长期被压缩成一句话：65%的参与者一路加到了最高电压。可那个数字只是多达24个变式实验中某一个条件的值；换个条件，服从率会在0%到92.5%之间大幅摆动。吉娜·佩里在耶鲁档案室查到的，是实验者反复施加剧本之外的压力、且相当多参与者其实怀疑这是骗局的证据。哈斯拉姆与赖歇尔提出了另一种解释：不是盲目服从，而是对科学这一大义的认同；2009年伯格用只做到150伏就停下的设计做了部分重现，得到了接近的比例。本文把留得下的和该丢掉的分开来讲。 Sun, 26 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT fjvbn2003@gmail.com (Youngju Kim) psychologypaper-reviewsocial-psychologyobedienceresearch-ethics https://www.youngju.dev/blog/psych-papers/stanford-prison-experiment-collapse.en https://www.youngju.dev/blog/psych-papers/stanford-prison-experiment-collapse.en The 1971 prison experiment run by Philip Zimbardo entered textbooks and feature films as the story of ordinary students who became brutal guards in six days. Yet the original data appeared not in a top-tier journal but in a small one, the sample was 24 people, and a 2007 test showed that the recruitment ad itself pulled in applicants of a particular disposition. What Thibault Le Texier found in the Stanford archives in 2018 is more decisive still: the guards were coached to behave coercively, and the participant whose breakdown became the symbol of the study later said he had been acting. And yet the power of the situation has not been discarded — only the address of the evidence has moved. Sun, 26 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT fjvbn2003@gmail.com (Youngju Kim) psychologypaper-reviewsocial-psychologyreplicationresearch-ethics https://www.youngju.dev/blog/psych-papers/stanford-prison-experiment-collapse.ja https://www.youngju.dev/blog/psych-papers/stanford-prison-experiment-collapse.ja 1971年のジンバルドーの監獄実験は、ごく普通の大学生が6日で残酷な看守になったという物語として、教科書にも映画にも載りました。ところが元データは最上級の学術誌ではなく小さな雑誌に載り、標本は24人で、募集広告そのものが特定の傾向をもつ応募者を引き寄せていたという検証が2007年に出ています。2018年にティボー・ル・テクシエがスタンフォードの記録保管庫で確認したことは、さらに決定的です。看守たちは強圧的にふるまえというコーチングを受けており、精神的崩壊の象徴となった参加者は後年、自分は演技をしていたと語りました。それでも状況の力というテーマが廃棄されたわけではありません。ただし、その根拠はこの実験ではなく別のところにあります。 Sun, 26 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT fjvbn2003@gmail.com (Youngju Kim) psychologypaper-reviewsocial-psychologyreplicationresearch-ethics https://www.youngju.dev/blog/psych-papers/stanford-prison-experiment-collapse https://www.youngju.dev/blog/psych-papers/stanford-prison-experiment-collapse 1971년 짐바르도의 감옥 실험은 평범한 대학생이 6일 만에 잔혹한 교도관이 됐다는 이야기로 교과서와 영화에 실렸습니다. 그런데 원 자료는 최상급 학술지가 아니라 작은 저널에 실렸고, 표본은 24명이었으며, 모집 광고 자체가 특정 성향의 지원자를 끌어들였다는 검증이 2007년에 나왔습니다. 2018년 티보 르 텍시에가 스탠퍼드 기록보관소에서 확인한 것은 더 결정적입니다. 교도관들은 강압적으로 굴라는 코칭을 받았고, 정신적 붕괴의 상징이 된 참가자는 훗날 자신이 연기했다고 말했습니다. 그럼에도 상황의 힘이라는 주제는 폐기되지 않았습니다 — 다만 그 근거는 이 실험이 아니라 다른 곳에 있습니다. Sun, 26 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT fjvbn2003@gmail.com (Youngju Kim) psychologypaper-reviewsocial-psychologyreplicationresearch-ethics https://www.youngju.dev/blog/psych-papers/stanford-prison-experiment-collapse.zh https://www.youngju.dev/blog/psych-papers/stanford-prison-experiment-collapse.zh 1971年津巴多的监狱实验，以“普通大学生6天就变成残暴狱警”的故事写进了教科书，也拍成了电影。可原始资料并没有发表在顶级学术期刊上，而是登在一本小刊物里；样本只有24人；2007年的一项检验更发现，招募广告本身就把某类倾向的应募者吸引了过来。2018年蒂博·勒·特克西耶在斯坦福档案室查到的东西还要致命：狱警事先被指导要表现得强硬，而那位象征着精神崩溃的参与者，多年后自己说那是演的。即便如此，情境的力量这一主题并没有被废弃——只是它的证据不在这个实验里，而在别处。 Sun, 26 Jul 2026 00:00:00 GMT fjvbn2003@gmail.com (Youngju Kim) psychologypaper-reviewsocial-psychologyreplicationresearch-ethics