Most People Think They’d Resist Authority—They’re Wrong

When faced with an authority figure demanding harmful actions, most Americans believe they’d be the exception who says no.

New research from Ohio State University reveals this confidence is dangerously misplaced. Even when people know about the infamous Milgram shock experiments—where 65% of participants delivered potentially lethal electric shocks to strangers—they still can’t imagine themselves succumbing to the same pressures.

The study, published in Current Psychology, asked over 400 adults to predict their behavior in a detailed recreation of Stanley Milgram’s controversial 1960s obedience experiments. What happened next was striking: participants consistently underestimated their own susceptibility to authority while correctly recognizing that others would be more compliant.

The Better-Than-Average Trap

“Social pressures are way more powerful and impactful than we give them credit for,” said Philip Mazzocco, the study’s lead author and an associate professor of psychology at Ohio State. “If you fall under the sway of these pressures, you could end up engaging in behavior inconsistent with your values and morals.”

Participants predicted they would quit the hypothetical shock experiment around voltage level 7 out of 30 possible levels. Yet they estimated the average person would continue until level 12—still far below the actual compliance rates observed in real Milgram studies.

This pattern held even when researchers explicitly told half the participants that 65% of original Milgram subjects showed “complete obedience” throughout the experiment. Armed with this knowledge, people adjusted their predictions about others but remained confident in their own resistance.

Knowledge Doesn’t Equal Immunity

Perhaps most surprisingly, prior familiarity with the Milgram experiments made virtually no difference. Among the 34.8% of participants who had heard of the study before, predictions about personal behavior remained just as unrealistic as those who learned about it for the first time.

The research team used Amazon’s Mechanical Turk platform to recruit participants, implementing careful quality controls to ensure legitimate responses. After reading a gripping first-person account of the Milgram scenario, participants made predictions using the actual voltage machine photo from the original experiments.

The Personality Paradox

When researchers examined personality traits, they uncovered a fascinating contradiction. People scoring high on conscientiousness—typically associated with rule-following and responsibility—predicted they would be less obedient in the scenario. However, previous actual Milgram replications found that conscientious people were more likely to comply with the experimenter’s demands.

This disconnect suggests that even understanding our own personality doesn’t help us predict how we’ll behave under intense social pressure. The researchers found that female participants and older adults predicted less obedience for both themselves and others, while education level showed no significant relationship to predictions.

Beyond Simple Obedience

The study also revealed important nuances in how people process authority scenarios. Age emerged as a significant factor, with older participants predicting less compliance across the board. Gender differences appeared as well, with women anticipating greater resistance than men.

Interestingly, right-wing authoritarianism scores—measuring tendency to submit to authority figures—didn’t correlate with self-predictions of obedience. This suggests that even people who generally respect authority don’t see themselves as blindly compliant in harmful situations.

Real-World Implications

“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,” Mazzocco explained.

The research team compared the disconnect between predicted and actual behavior to “watching a horror movie versus actually being pursued by a murderer.” Without experiencing real compliance pressures, people consistently fail to grasp how situations can override personal values.

What’s the solution? Mazzocco suggests developing “immunization techniques” like learning to avoid high-pressure situations or having escape strategies prepared. When removal isn’t possible, he recommends cultivating curiosity as a tool for staying true to personal values.

This research serves as a sobering reminder that good intentions and moral clarity may not be enough when facing real authority pressure. The first step toward resistance might be acknowledging that none of us are as immune to influence as we’d like to believe.