Obedience to authority involves a chain of causation whereby one party causes another to act. Theoretical problems of responsibility in chains of command were addressed and responsibility within interpersonal causal chains was investigated among a quota sample of the Boston SMSA (N= 391). Findings replicated prior investigations of attitudes about the My Lai massacre and Calley trial. Most respondents approached the incident in terms of the assertion versus denial of responsibility—assertion on the basis of personal causation, versus denial the basis of superior orders. Judgments of responsibility for other bureaucratic crimes of obedience (Watergate burglary and cover-up) or for wrongdoing in professional settings differed sharply, but tendencies to assign or reject assignment of responsibility to subordinates were consistently observable across incidents. Demographic cleavages supported earlier conclusions: More educated respondents and religious “others” (Jewish, other groups, and none) were more likely to assert individual responsibility, but education's effects were stronger for non-Catholics. The paper concludes by raising the possibility of training individuals to assert individual responsibility in the face of illegal or immoral commands from authority.