oreof Information in a Novel It is a fair assumption that Milgram's participants had neve re been in a situation like that in the obedience studie no one would continue to the end of the shockge rator' stiga proce ose in the he information about hoy off the ma search fo am's particinants to act in such unex cted ways?Below VIOU ants.Althouh he heard the Obedience to Authority chesadcomplaint d the (1070 moin hat th ous and that continuin follow an authority figure's nter's mate.Moreover,our culture socializes individuals to obey variation of the basic cnsowgur od the I ala consistent eeduneych M (1974)use ed the e.but mente onc ot the e had onl the s be of othe Medge about the po behavior of othe wealth ed to norms edged this confou (Cialdini. Reno 1991 reas Gradual Increase in Demands that the vast majority o Another feature of the situation Milo ated that One of Milgram's(1974)variations rovides support fo likely contributed to th this on. onfed ead the wheth the mild ith no le effe ing th ing the 150-vol is type of gradu rease in the s size of demand The tes continued until r 2 also refus n a dra 10-vo old th processes set n with this procedure e a nee the study by himself.Milgram found that 75%of the car in a cons tent ma 306eS diate afer the wou er quit,and only 10%continued to the end of the switch.Moreover,agreeing to small requests such as study tage swi the way Responsibility Not Assigned or Diffused s as the kind of persons January 2009.American Psychologist individuals typically underestimate the power of situational forces when explaining another person’s behavior. Prior to conducting his research, Milgram (1974) asked Yale stu￾dents and 40 psychiatrists to predict the outcome of the studies and found nearly universal agreement that virtually no one would continue to the end of the shock generator’s range. It should be noted that subsequent investigations found that individuals provided with more details about the procedures still gave estimates of obedience lower than those in the actual findings but not as far off the mark as Milgram’s data suggested (Blass, 2000). What caused Mil￾gram’s participants to act in such unexpected ways? Below I briefly describe four features of the situation that likely contributed to the high rates of obedience. Obedience to Authority Milgram (1974) maintained that the key to obedience had little to do with the authority figure’s manner or style. Rather, he argued that people follow an authority figure’s commands when that person’s authority is seen as legiti￾mate. Moreover, our culture socializes individuals to obey certain authority figures, such as police officers, teachers, and parents. Milgram’s experimenter was granted the le￾gitimacy of authority by virtue of his association with the experiment, the university, and perhaps even science. Sub￾sequent discussions have raised questions about the nature of the experimenter’s authority. In particular, it seems likely that the perceived expertise of the experimenter contributed to the participants’ decision to follow the in￾structions (Morelli, 1983). The experimenter presumably had knowledge about the procedure and had gone through many previous sessions, and so participants deferred to his judgment. Milgram (1983) acknowledged this confounding of position and expertise in his studies but pointed out that this is often the case in real-life examples of obedience. Gradual Increase in Demands Another feature of the situation Milgram created that most likely contributed to the high rates of obedience was the incremental nature of the task (Gilbert, 1981). Participants always started with the lowest voltage switch, a relatively mild 15 volts with no noticeable effect on the learner, and proceeded in 15-volt increments up the shock generator’s range. We know from a great deal of subsequent research that this type of gradual increase in the size of demands is an effective tactic for changing attitudes and behavior (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). Among the psychological processes set in motion with this procedure are a need for consistency and a self-perception process. The well-dem￾onstrated need to act and appear in a consistent manner would have made it difficult for a participant to refuse to press the 195-volt switch after just pressing the 180-volt switch. Moreover, agreeing to small requests, such as pressing the low-voltage switches, can change the way people think about themselves (Burger, 1999). Participants may have come to see themselves as the kind of persons who follow the experimenter’s instructions. Limited Sources of Information in a Novel Situation It is a fair assumption that Milgram’s participants had never before been in a situation like that in the obedience studies and that they had not given any thought to how they might or should act if they ever found themselves in this kind of setting. It can also be assumed that once participants real￾ized the difficult position they had gotten themselves into, they began an immediate search for information about how they ought to respond. However, relevant information was quite limited. The primary source of information was the experimenter, who presumably knew all about the experi￾ment and had gone through the procedure with many pre￾vious participants. Although he obviously heard the learn￾er’s cries and complaints, the experimenter acted as if nothing was wrong and continually reassured the partici￾pant that the shocks were not dangerous and that continuing with the procedure was appropriate. In the absence of additional information, it was not unreasonable for partic￾ipants to defer to the experimenter’s expertise, at least for a while. Data consistent with this analysis can be found in one variation of the basic procedure in which Milgram (1974) used two experimenters. When the learner first protested at the 150-volt level, one experimenter encour￾aged the participant to continue, but the other experimenter expressed concern and asked the participant to discontinue. In this situation, obedience virtually disappeared. Although Milgram’s participants typically had only the experimenter’s behavior to rely on, individuals making these kinds of decisions often have one other source of information—the behavior of other people. A wealth of studies demonstrates that people often rely on perceived norms when making decisions about their own behavior (Cialdini, Kallgren, & Reno, 1991). It is reasonable to speculate that obedience rates would have dropped consid￾erably if Milgram’s participants had been informed before the study that the vast majority of previous participants refused to continue when they heard the learner’s protests. One of Milgram’s (1974) variations provides support for this interpretation. In Experiment 17, three “teachers” were used, one real participant and two confederates. Teacher 1 read the word pairs, Teacher 2 announced whether the answer was right, and Teacher 3 (the real participant) administered the shock. After hearing the learner’s protests following the 150-volt shock, Teacher 1 dramatically re￾fused to participate and moved to the other side of the room. The test continued until Teacher 2 also refused to continue in a dramatic fashion at the 210-volt level. At this point, the experimenter told the real participant to continue the study by himself. Milgram found that 7.5% of the participants refused to go on as soon as Teacher 1 quit, 30% refused to continue immediately after the second teacher quit, and only 10% continued to the end of the study. Responsibility Not Assigned or Diffused Absence of responsibility has often been cited by psycholo￾gists as a contributing factor to aggressive and abhorrent January 2009 ● American Psychologist 3