In a May 2025 study published in Current Psychology, Mazzocco et al. revisited one of the most unsettling findings in psychology: the Milgram obedience experiment. In the original 1963 study, 65% of participants were willing to administer potentially lethal electric shocks to another person simply because an authority figure instructed them to do so. The new study asked a simple question: knowing what we know now, would people believe they would behave differently?
Across a sample of 414 adults, participants were asked to imagine themselves in the Milgram scenario and predict at what point they would disobey. Strikingly, most assumed they would resist much earlier than the average person. Even when explicitly told about the 65% obedience rate from the original study, participants still predicted they would behave more ethically than others. This “better-than-average” effect persisted even among those previously familiar with Milgram’s work.
The study sheds light on a common psychological knowledge gap: the tendency to see ourselves as less susceptible to social pressures or bias than those around us. Participants consistently failed to apply well-known research to their own likely behaviour. They underestimated the power of situational forces and overestimated the strength of their personal values.
For inclusive leadership, this insight is deeply relevant. Leaders often see themselves as fair, open-minded and ethical, yet may still overlook how situational dynamics and systemic norms influence their actions. Inclusion isn’t just about knowing the right things, it’s about applying that knowledge in real time, especially under pressure.
This research invites a moment of self-reflection:
- Are there situations where we think we would speak up, but might not?
- Do we overestimate how inclusive our decisions and behaviours really are?
- And crucially, how might we create environments that reduce conformity and encourage constructive challenge?
Organisations committed to inclusive cultures must support leaders in building greater behavioural self-awareness, not just awareness of bias in general. Encouraging honest reflection and creating psychologically safe conditions for dissent are key steps towards bridging the gap between intention and impact.
You can read the original article here.
