Moral Humility and the BTAE in the Imagined Milgram Scenier

Recent research (e.g., Zdunek et al., 2022; Mazzocco et al., 2025) shows that individuals imagining themselves in Milgram’s scenario often believe they would act more morally than the average person—a bias known as the better-than-average effect (Zell et al., 2020). This self-serving bias persists even when participants are informed that most people in the original studies obeyed, suggesting that knowledge of psychological research does not necessarily lead to accurate self-assessments. While these studies highlight the robustness of the better-than-average effect in moral forecasting, they have not tested whether awareness of the bias itself can reduce it, nor have they explored potential moderating factors. The present study addresses this gap by examining whether explicitly highlighting the better-than-average bias can reduce the disconnect between knowledge and predicted moral behavior. We also investigate whether Moral Humility—the recognition that one’s moral judgments may be fallible—moderates this effect. We predict that individuals high in Moral Humility will adjust their self-assessments when made aware of the bias, whereas those low in Moral Humility will continue to overestimate their moral resistance. By identifying factors that influence moral forecasting, this research builds on prior work and offers insights into self-perception, ethical decision-making, and potential interventions to promote more accurate moral self-awareness.