[crazygringo]

No, because you'd have to show that the participants thought there was a breakdown of the procedure and purpose, and that they continued despite that.

If they think the procedure is to read the next question when the previous one has been completed, and they do, even if the other person is screaming, they think they're "following rules". They're not the ones who came up with the procedure.

Which is the whole point: the participants were trying to follow rules, even if they made mistakes in following those rules. The idea that there was a total "breakdown" of the rules doesn't seem supported at all.

[bluegatty]

Fair point, but there's a logical relationship between 'testing someone' and 'following a set of instructions that don't achieve that effect'.

Your point is fair, but what is really nuanced is that the people who 'stopped' were the best ones at following the rules.

This seems interesting to me - they were conscientious about 'what was happening' - not just blithly following orders.

The 'rule followers' maybe were conscientiously applying the 'spirit of the test' and quit when they realized it was not reasonable.

The others were 'pressing buttons'.

Even then, it's subject to interpretation. There's a perfectly rational reason why people might subject to 'following the rules' if that's what they've been asked to do and have a sense of 'dutiful civic conduct' and 'trust in institutions'.

[radley]

This reevaluation postulates that the participants didn't deviate by mistake, but deliberately. The participant could have waited for the respondent to be in a state in which they could answer. (Reminder: the exercise was officially about answering questions, not enduring shocks).

Instead, most participants rushed through, most likely to end their own negative experience. Which is much more nuanced that "gosh, they told me to do it."

[noobermin]

If I'm not mistaken, they were told the point of the experiment was supposed to be about "memory and learning". If a teacher was doing a "commission" as they put it, they aren't really following the purpose of the experiment any longer.

[f1shy]

Context is important. Maybe that was told in the first 3 minutes of the briefing, and them came 30 minutes about the shocks. I would not assume the briefing was so thorough.