behavior ().Indeed,when Milgram's cled leamer.Milgram(1974) ported that many of his phys cally moved away from the shock generator.Mo pla own ac e me behavior.Befor witnessing the pe ng th ent I 5).only cipan fused to be learner's demand As de er to the to stop hich thereby allowed them to Gender Differences Hypotheses Milgram relied almost exclusively on male participants in Would People Still Obey Today? cipants. the A ne question asked about Milgram's research i whether his findings w B1as,2000 in the comparable condition with men Howe ver,th ing auth than they omen reported hih e in the early 1960 Bla (2004)found nd men.Milgram (speculated that the similaritybe studies pattemed on Milgram's pro n men s women's attribut any d ces in leamer's sufferi s (Milg 1963)an the0 th have e toward th minimal.Alt ould have ar othe ot th ace of the at is.rather than ac edging the pow occasion in obedience research Blass (2000)found no h time de e of a gender in eight out of nine cor sed on still be operating 45 years after Milgram's investigations. Norm Informo Perso If particinants in obedience studies seek out infon Although the Milgram studies demonstrate the power of about appropriate response their situa it is also the case hat some partic made that ast some of the rance nb inomed ate had refused sonality measures,a handful But int if any participants personali some good obedience behavior refu to shock the lea useful infor m ional pathy (Davis.1994)Particin nts in Milgram's tion abo what participants are suppo sed to do in dies were torn be een he the athy for the le eas might eageny rely on rimenter' s instructions is alient (Gilo vich Savitsky.2002) January 2009.American Psychologistbehavior (Bandura, 1999). Indeed, when Milgram’s partici￾pants asked about responsibility, the experimenter specifically stated that he himself was responsible for any harm to the learner. Milgram (1974) reported that many of his participants placed responsibility for their own actions on the experi￾menter, taking a “just following orders” position in explaining why they continued the shocks. When Milgram arranged the situation so that a confederate delivered the shocks while participants performed “a subsidiary act” in carrying out the study (Experiment 18), only 3 of 40 participants refused to be a part of the study. The participants in this condition presum￾ably attributed responsibility for hurting the learner to the person pressing the switches, which thereby allowed them to continue their roles as assistants. Hypotheses Would People Still Obey Today? A persistent question asked about Milgram’s research is whether his findings would be replicated today (Blass, 2000). Some people have argued that individuals these days are more aware of the dangers of blindly following authority than they were in the early 1960s. However, Blass (2004) found no evidence for a change in obedience over time when reviewing studies patterned on Milgram’s procedures. I predicted that any differences in obedience between the 1961–1962 partic￾ipants (Milgram, 1963) and the 2006 participants would be minimal. Although changes in societal attitudes could have an impact on obedience, I argue that the question about changes over time may represent another example of the fundamental attribution error. That is, rather than acknowledging the power of the situational forces set in motion in Milgram’s procedure, those who suggest changes in obedience-proneness over time may be too focused on the individual. There is no reason to think that the situational features described earlier would not still be operating 45 years after Milgram’s investigations. Norm Information If participants in obedience studies seek out information about appropriate responses to their situation, then infor￾mation about how others behave in the situation should influence their decisions about whether to continue. But how much norm information is sufficient to overcome the forces pushing participants toward obedience? Certainly if informed that 40 out of 40 participants to date had refused to press the switches, few if any participants would con￾tinue. But I was more interested in a situation in which some degree of ambiguity about appropriate behavior re￾mained. I speculated that seeing just one other person refuse to shock the learner might provide useful informa￾tion about what participants are supposed to do in this setting. Because participants are torn between doing what the experimenter tells them and not wanting to hurt the learner, I reasoned that they might eagerly rely on this limited norm information to conclude that refusing the experimenter’s instructions is appropriate. Researchers find that people often rely on single examples when drawing inferences, particularly when the example is salient (Gilo￾vich & Savitsky, 2002). I also wanted to create a situation in which the mod￾eled refusal was less dramatic than Milgram’s variation in which two confederates boldly announced their refusal and physically moved away from the shock generator. More￾over, I wanted to examine people’s reactions to the mod￾eled refusal before they themselves engaged in the ques￾tionable behavior. Before witnessing the peer refusal, Milgram’s participants had already pressed the shock switches 14 times, including several times after hearing the learner’s demand to be released. As described earlier, these decisions to continue make it increasingly difficult for the participant to stop. Gender Differences Milgram relied almost exclusively on male participants in his obedience studies. The one exception was a replication of the basic procedure in which women were used as participants. The women complied fully with the experi￾menter’s commands 65% of the time, a rate identical to that in the comparable condition with men as participants. However, the obedient women reported higher levels of nervousness during the procedures than did the obedient men. Milgram (1974) speculated that the similarity be￾tween men’s and women’s behavior could be attributed to two opposing tendencies. On the one hand, women may have been more empathic toward the learner’s suffering, which would have led them to end the procedure. On the other hand, women may have had a more difficult time asserting themselves in the face of the pressure exerted by the experimenter. Although gender differences do surface on occasion in obedience research, Blass (2000) found no evidence of a gender difference in eight out of nine con￾ceptual replications of Milgram’s studies he reviewed. Thus, although it seemed important to examine the effect of gender in this situation, I did not anticipate finding a gender difference. Personality Although the Milgram studies demonstrate the power of situational variables, it is also the case that some partici￾pants went along with the instructions whereas others did not. What can account for this difference? A case can be made that at least some of the variance in obedience can be explained by personality variables. Although few obedi￾ence studies have included personality measures, a handful of findings suggest personality may play a role (Blass, 1991). I identified two personality variables that seemed good candidates to affect obedience behavior. First, I looked at individual differences in disposi￾tional empathy (Davis, 1994). Participants in Milgram’s studies were torn between wanting to follow the experi￾menter’s orders and not wanting to harm the learner. It is reasonable to argue that when empathy for the learner’s suffering is more powerful than the desire to obey the experimenter, participants are likely to refuse to continue. If that is the case, then individuals with a strong tendency to empathize with the suffering of others should be less likely to obey the experimenter’s commands than should those low on this personality trait. 4 January 2009 ● American Psychologist