Abstract
114 psychology students at SUNY-Fredonia read scenarios based upon Milgram's heart disturbance studies with the altered outcome that the learner suffered a heart attack and died. Scenarios involved an experimenter and obedient teacher or an experimenter alone. Students read scenarios with and without exposure to the Obedience film. While students who had not seen the film held the experimenter significantly more responsible for the events than the obedient teacher, those who had seen the film believed the two shared the responsibility more equally. Despite the effects of the film upon attributions of responsibility, subjects persisted in responding more harshly to the experimenter than the obedient teacher when recommending punishment, even after viewing the film. Results are discussed in relation to Kelman and Hamilton's 1989 distinction between ‘role-based motives’ and ‘deed-based consequences.’