onse options were identical to thos used in Milgram's numbered d tha Again following Milg tam's p experimenter also said. ves the wrong answer.you ent.read him ze from the shocks.the then goontothe experimenter said. chon the K erator.It's importan /hether the likes it or not,you must go asked who was sponsiblefor any harm to the eamer.the com system (wn was uld he m res e pa the e ho had To make the vise limited co omments to and to keep from sounding repetitive.the rimente ad t st item by that the shock generat ans adjacent the co the lab roon same schedule used in Milgram'? that hes tached to the wal on.the parti soun Participants as ing to signed to the modeled refusal cor went through th fe “ug pants theOne of th the be thar the previous one ate,also posing as a par cipant was o pother me.I refuse to go on.Let me arting to out 2 and the when he new confed che Bou the and both w vere given a sample electric shock (the confed ing the lea task the participant expre od eith with the and the ds in this orde inar continue”or asked wha wa and You have no other choice,you must tinue The erate posing as Teacher read the list of prods were given in sequence ead time the participant hesi began administering the test and pressing the swi es. January 2009.American Psychologist then handed the participant a list of word pairs and re￾viewed the instructions with him or her. The word pairs and response options were identical to those used in Milgram’s studies. The experimenter then turned the page over to reveal the response options. Each of the 25 words that began the word pairs was presented with four numbered response options. The experimenter explained that the par￾ticipant should read the first word and the four options. The experimenter also said, “If he gives the wrong answer, you say, ‘wrong’ and then tell him the number of volts you are going to administer. Administer the punishment, read him the correct word pair once, and then go on to the next line.” After reviewing the procedure one more time, the experi￾menter said, “Each time he gives a wrong answer, you move up one switch on the shock generator. It’s important that you follow the procedure exactly.” The experimenter then pretended to turn on the inter￾com system (which was always on). He explained that it was a one-way system such that the confederate could hear what the participant said but could not respond through the intercom. The experimenter sat at a table approximately four feet (1.2 m) behind and a few feet to the right of the participant. The experimenter assisted participants who had difficulty with the procedures (which was often the case with the first few items) but otherwise limited comments to those described below. The confederate responded to each test item by press￾ing one of the buttons on the switch box that lit up either 1, 2, 3, or 4 on the answer box in the adjacent room. The confederate gave correct and incorrect responses according to the same predetermined schedule used in Milgram’s research. A computer inside the shock generator was at￾tached to a speaker on the confederate’s side of the wall. The computer was programmed so that prerecorded sounds emanated from the speaker when certain switches were pressed. The effect was that participants thought they were listening to the confederate’s slightly muffled but clear voice through the wall. After participants pressed the 75- volt switch, they heard a small grunt (what Milgram de￾scribed as “ugh”). Participants heard the confederate grunt after each successive shock, and each grunt was a little louder than the previous one. When the participant pressed the 150-volt switch, he or she heard the confederate yell through the wall, “Ugh. That’s all. Get me out of here. I told you I had heart trouble. My heart’s starting to bother me now. Get me out of here, please. My heart’s starting to bother me. I refuse to go on. Let me out.” The experimenter was instructed to end the experiment when the participant either (a) refused to continue after hear￾ing all the experimenter’s prods or (b) read the next item on the test after hearing the confederate’s protests following the participant’s press of the 150-volt switch. If at any point during the learning task the participant expressed either ver￾bally or nonverbally a reluctance to continue the study, the experimenter gave one of four prods, in this order: “Please continue” or “Please go on”; “The experiment requires that you continue”; “It is absolutely essential that you continue”; and “You have no other choice, you must continue.” The prods were given in sequence each time the participant hesi￾tated to continue, beginning with the first prod. Thus, if the participant responded to the first prod with more reluctance to continue, the experimenter gave the second prod, and so forth. If the participant continued to express reluctance after the fourth prod, the experimenter ended the study. No participant was allowed to press any more switches after pressing the 150-volt switch. Again following Milgram’s procedures, the experi￾menter gave predetermined answers to specific questions by the participant. If the participant asked whether the learner would suffer physical damage from the shocks, the experimenter said, “While the shocks may be painful, there is no permanent tissue damage.” If the participant said that the learner did not want to continue, the experimenter said, “Whether the learner likes it or not, you must go on until he has learned all the word pairs correctly.” If the participant asked who was responsible for any harm to the learner, the experimenter said, “I am responsible.” If the participant asked about the money he or she was given for participa￾tion or wanted to give back the money, the experimenter said, “The money is yours to keep regardless.” Any of these specific questions also was considered an indication that the participant did not want to continue. To make the answer a response to the participant’s question or comment and to keep from sounding repetitive, the experimenter sometimes varied the wording of these statements slightly. As soon as the experimenter announced that the study was over, he told the participant that the shock generator was not real and that the confederate was not receiving electric shocks. The confederate entered the lab room at that point to assure the participant that he was fine. After the experimenter determined that the participant under￾stood the situation, the participant was escorted to a nearby room, where the principal investigator conducted a thor￾ough debriefing. Modeled refusal condition. Participants as￾signed to the modeled refusal condition went through the same procedures as participants in the base condition, with a few exceptions. First, two confederates were used in the modeled refusal condition. One of the confederates was the same man who played the learner in the base condition. The other confederate, also posing as a participant, was of the same gender as the real participant. For the women, this second confederate was a White Caucasian woman in her late 20s. For the men, the confederate was a White Cau￾casian man in his mid-30s. The drawing was rigged so that the participant was assigned the role of Teacher 2 and the new confederate was assigned the role of Teacher 1. Both teachers watched the learner being strapped into the chair, and both were given a sample electric shock (the confed￾erate went first). Second, the experimenter instructed both teachers to sit next to one another in front of the shock generator, with the confederate on the left and the real participant on the right. The experimenter explained that Teacher 1 would begin the procedure. If the participant asked what Teacher 2 was supposed to do, the experi￾menter said he would explain that later. Third, the confed￾erate posing as Teacher 1 read the list of word pairs and began administering the test and pressing the switches. The January 2009 ● American Psychologist 7