Mazzocco, P. J., Reitler, K., et al. (2025).
Current Psychology.
Abstract
Online adult participants (N = 414) read a gripping first-person account of the classic 1963 Milgram shock study and were asked to predict the responses of both themselves and “the average person”. Prior to making predictions, half were told that 65% of participants exhibited complete obedience throughout the duration of the original study, whereas another half were given no information about the results. In general, participants predicted much less obedience than was shown in the actual Milgram study. In addition, consistent with the better-than-average effect, participants predicted significantly more personal disobedience in response to the scenario compared to their average person predictions. Prior knowledge of the Milgram study did not significantly impact participants’ predictions about their own behavior in an identical scenario. These results suggest that adults are unable or unwilling to incorporate social scientific research, specifically the Milgram obedience findings, into perceptions of their own likely behavior.
Here are some thoughts:
This research is an extension of Milgram’s classic obedience experiments, focusing on how individuals predict their own and others’ behavior in morally challenging situations involving authority. It is relevant to the practice of psychology because it explores core concepts such as obedience, moral decision-making, and social influence, which are central to understanding human behavior in social contexts.
The study investigates how people perceive their susceptibility to situational pressures and highlights cognitive biases such as the better-than-average effect, where individuals believe they are more likely to resist harmful obedience than the average person. This has implications for ethics training and interventions aimed at promoting moral courage and resistance to undue authority. Furthermore, the research contributes to understanding individual differences—such as personality traits and authoritarian tendencies—that may moderate responses to authority figures.
