Online adult participants (N = 414) read agripping first-person account of the classic 1963 Milgram shock study and wereasked to predict the responses of both themselves and “the averageperson”. Prior to making predictions,half were told that 65% of participants exhibited complete obedience throughoutthe duration of the original study, whereas another half were given noinformation about the results. Ingeneral, participants predicted much less obedience than was shown in theactual Milgram study. In addition,consistent with the better-than-average effect, participants predictedsignificantly more personal disobedience in response to the scenario comparedto their average person predictions. Priorknowledge of the Milgram study did not significantly impact participants’predictions about their own behavior in an identical scenario. These resultssuggest, in part, that being exposed to the findings of classic socialpsychology studies may not have the intended impact in terms of changingaudience perspectives.

Online adult participants (N = 414) read agripping first-person account of the classic 1963 Milgram shock study and wereasked to predict the responses of both themselves and “the averageperson”. Prior to making predictions,half were told that 65% of participants exhibited complete obedience throughoutthe duration of the original study, whereas another half were given noinformation about the results. Ingeneral, participants predicted much less obedience than was shown in theactual Milgram study. In addition,consistent with the better-than-average effect, participants predictedsignificantly more personal disobedience in response to the scenario comparedto their average person predictions. Priorknowledge of the Milgram study did not significantly impact participants’predictions about their own behavior in an identical scenario. These resultssuggest, in part, that being exposed to the findings of classic socialpsychology studies may not have the intended impact in terms of changingaudience perspectives.