Milgram shock-study imaginal replication: how far do you think you would go?

Mazzocco, P. J., Reitler, K., et al. (2025).

Current Psychology.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-025-07962-1

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.

Examining the asymmetry in judgments of racism in self and others

Angela C. Bell, Melissa Burkley, & 

Jarrod Bock (2019)

The Journal of Social Psychology, 159:5, 611-627.

DOI: 10.1080/00224545.2018.1538930

Abstract

Across three experiments, participants were provided with a list of racist behaviors that purportedly were enacted from a fellow student but in fact were based on the participants’ own behaviors. People consistently evaluated themselves as less racist than this comparison other, even though this other’s racist behaviors were identical to their own. Studies 2a and 2b demonstrate this effect is quite robust and even occurs under social pressure and social consensus conditions in which participants were free to express their racial biases. Thus, it appears that people are less likely to base their racist trait ratings on behavioral evidence when evaluating themselves compared to when they are evaluating another. Taken together, this work provides evidence for the consistency and robustness of self-enhanced social comparisons as applied to the trait domain of racism. Further, this work sheds insight into why people deny they are racist when they act racist.

General discussion

The present work provides evidence for the consistency and robustness of the biased self-enhanced evaluations of racism. Across three experiments, participants received a list of racist behaviors that purportedly were enacted from a fellow student but in fact were based on the participants’ own behaviors. People consistently evaluated themselves as less racist than this comparison other, even though this other’s racist behaviors were identical to their own. Studies2a and 2b demonstrate this effect is quite robust and even occurs under conditions in which participants feel free to express their racial biases. Taken together, this work suggests that people are less likely to base their racist trait ratings on behavioral evidence when evaluating themselves compared to when they are evaluating another. By doing so, people are able to maintain the self-perception that they are not racist even in the face of contradictory behavioral evidence (i.e., people are less racist than themselves).

(I emphasized this last sentence.)

A pdf of the research can be found here.

65% of Americans believe they are above average in intelligence: Results of two nationally representative surveys

Patrick R. Heck, Daniel J. Simons, Christopher F. Chabris
PLoS One
Originally posted July 3, 2018

Abstract

Psychologists often note that most people think they are above average in intelligence. We sought robust, contemporary evidence for this “smarter than average” effect by asking Americans in two independent samples (total N = 2,821) whether they agreed with the statement, “I am more intelligent than the average person.” After weighting each sample to match the demographics of U.S. census data, we found that 65% of Americans believe they are smarter than average, with men more likely to agree than women. However, overconfident beliefs about one’s intelligence are not always unrealistic: more educated people were more likely to think their intelligence is above average. We suggest that a tendency to overrate one’s cognitive abilities may be a stable feature of human psychology.

The research is here.