Even though the authors point to a number of situational variables that contributed to the destructive obedience of Stanley Milgram's participants (e.g., normative and informational conformity pressures, conflicting norms), it might still be argued that people have, lurking deep within them, sadistic tendencies that can easily be elicited by situational variables. What experimental findings by Milgram call this "personal attribution" into question?
a. When participants could choose the level of shock, they administered very low levels.
b. Violent prisoners administered lower shocks than non-prisoner participants.
c. There are cultural differences in the amount of shock participants administer.
d. When the learner was introduced as a minister, participants gave lower shocks.

These experiments measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts conflicting with their personal conscience. The participants of this study were led to believe that they were administering electric shocks to other people and the person they were supposed to obey made them believe that these shocks were increasing in intensity, until they were so intense that they could've been mortal if they had been real.

The findings of these studies was that most of the people unreluctantly followed the instructions given (even when the people supposedly receiving the shocks were screaming because of the pain they were feeling)

The authors have pointed to a number of variables who might have contributed to these results, however, some people still think that human beings have some sadistic tendencies.

However, there were some replicas of the original experiment in which the participants could actually choose the level of shock they were going to administer and when they were given the choice, participants chose very low levels of shock. This situation contradicts the statement that people have sadistic tendencies.

Thus, the correct answer is a)