Interesting article. >Refusing to administer a shock of 225 volts would be an implicit admission that they had been wrong to deliver 210. This aligns with my

Interesting article. >Refusing to administer a shock of 225 volts would be an implicit admission that they had been wrong to deliver 210. This aligns with my suspicion around why we fall for cons, whether it's similar to the Köpenick caper, the above experiments or even some to the "Prince of Nigeria" type cons - it's the cost of being wrong. In the story with Captain Voigt, the cost of being wrong started off quite high and rose with every order acquiesced to. In the experiments, it started off low but rose with every iteration. With a "large windfall" type con, the cost of being wrong is, at least naively, missing out on an entirely new life. Combine that with a figure of presumed valid authority - a scientist at a research institute, an army Captain, or a Prince with access to means - and it's not difficult to see how people become entrapped.