Whether you have a rebellious personality or not, most people imagine they are better at overcoming pressure to violate their own principles than they really are, finds a new study.
Researchers found that most individuals think they would be more likely than the average person to disobey an immoral or unlawful order from an authority figure.
This phenomenon, called the "better-than-average effect," reveals that people are fairly resistant to internalizing beliefs that may harm their self-perceptions. In extreme cases, ignoring how everyone is subject to social pressure could leave a person vulnerable to the desires of malicious actors.
"Social pressures are way more powerful and impactful than we give them credit for," said Philip Mazzocco, lead author of the study and an associate professor of psychology at The Ohio State University. "If you fall under the sway of these pressures, you could end up engaging in behavior inconsistent with your values and morals."
The research began as a class project designed by Mazzocco's students, who based it on the Milgram experiment, a 1960s-era study that aimed to understand the link between obedience and authority. In these experiments, participants were asked by an authority figure to deliver what they believed to be painful and, at times, lethal electric shocks to another person.
The Milgram experiment suggested that people would obey authority even in conflict with their own beliefs.
The new study by Mazzocco and colleagues was recently published in the journal Current Psychology.
In this work, Mazzocco's team had more than 400 adults read first-person accounts of the shock study before asking them to predict their responses and those of the average person. Prior to these predictions, half were told that 65% of those in the original study exhibited "complete obedience," whereas the other half were given no additional information about the results.
Participants were asked at what voltage level, if any, they thought they would disobey and end the study. They could choose on a dial which ranged from 1 (which meant quitting the study after the first shock was delivered) to 31 (exhibiting complete obedience throughout the experiment). On average, participants thought they themselves would quit the study around dial 7. In contrast, participants surmised that the average person would not stop the study until approximately dial 12.
Those who were informed of the results of the Milgram study - that 65% of the original participants continued all the way to the final voltage level - did predict that the average person would administer significantly higher voltages than did those who were not told. But those who were informed did not think they themselves would deliver significantly higher shocks than did those who were not told. This was another indication of the better-than-average effect.
These results were almost identical to obedience levels reported by previous studies and correctly fit the team's theory that most would underpredict their likely obedience in a classic Milgram scenario. This suggests that in the absence of real compliance pressures, even fully imagining yourself in a situation can still lead a person to underestimate its influence on them.
"Just reading about a situation is not sufficient, as doing so doesn't really internalize the point that we're all really susceptible to these pressures," said Mazzocco. The study also likens the perceived difference between predicted and actual obedience to watching a horror movie play out from the safety of home versus the certainty of actually being pursued by someone.
Notably, while 65.2% of participants had not heard of the Milgram experiment before, researchers found that prior knowledge of the Milgram experiment didn't alter how participants viewed the likeliness of their participation. Finally, personality and value tests were given to participants to determine what role personal characteristics might play in a real-life situation.
One significant predictor of actual obedience in a Milgram-like scenario was conscientiousness - the personality trait of being responsible and having a tendency to adhere to rules and norms. Those who exhibited this trait were more likely to want to appease the experimenter.
But singular personality traits aside, not every human can be the exception to the rule, said Mazzocco. "Studies like these are relevant to society because if we all assume we're so resistant to obedience, we are not going to immunize ourselves against authority figures who want to take advantage of us," he said.
Such immunization techniques include learning to avoid situations where intense social pressures exist or having a strategy to deal with or escape a potentially negative encounter.
Still, Mazzocco admits removing oneself isn't always possible, and recommends cultivating curiosity to help a person keep true to their values.
Other Ohio State co-authors include Katie Reitler, Lauren Little, John Korte, Monicka Ridgill and Xamina Stalnaker.
