According to the questionnaire Milgram sent to the participants, 84% said they were pleased that they had participated in the experiment, roughly 15% were neither pleased nor regretful, and approximately 1% of participants regretted their involvement (Baumrind 95). With these results, Milgram would also likely refute Baumrind’s claims by retorting that either the experiment was not emotionally damaging in the first place, or that the reconciliation he arranged between the participant and actor was sufficient to alleviate the emotional damage. Based on his article “Experimental Ethics,” Ph.D. Alan C. Elms would agree with Milgram, and claims the additional measures Milgram took to ensure the participants’ welfare were unprecedented in most other psychological experiments: Milgram arranged for a psychiatrist to meet with the participants a year later, and no signs of harm were reported (Elms). If Baumrind’s claim that Milgram’s efforts to alleviate emotional damage were not sufficient, then the survey Milgram sent to participants would reveal that a significantly larger percentage of participants regretted their involvement; however, the results prove otherwise, rendering Baumrind’s argument invalid and therefore ineffective while Milgram’s claims are effective with Elms and the survey results supporting his…