In the Milgram studies of obedience we can see evidence of strong pressure in our society for compliance with the requests of an authority. Acting contrary to their own preferences, many normal psychologically healthy individuals were willing to deliver dangerous and severe levels of pain to another person because they were directed to do so by an authority figure. The strength of this tendency to obey legitimate authorities comes from systematic socialization practises designed to instil in members of society the perception that such obedience constitutes correct conduct. In addition, it is frequently adaptive to obey the dictates of genuine authorities because such individuals usually possess high levels of knowledge, wisdom and power. For these reasons, deference to authorities can occur in a mindless fashion as a kind of decision-making shortcut.
When reacting to authority in an automatic fashion, there is a tendency to do so in response to the mere symbols of authority rather than to its substance.
Three kinds of symbols that have been shown by research to be effective in this regard are:
1. Titles
2. Clothing
3. Automobiles
In separate studies investigating the influence of these symbols, individuals possessing one or another of them (and no other legitimizing credentials) were accorded more deference or obedience by those they encountered. Moreover, in each instance, individuals who deferred or obeyed underestimated the effect of authority pressures on their behaviours.
It is possible to defend ourselves against the detrimental effects of authority influence by asking two questions:
1. Is this authority truly an expert?
2. How truthful can we expect this expert to be?
The first question directs our attention away from symbols and toward evidence for authority status. The second advises us to consider not just the expert’s knowledge in the situation, but also his or her trustworthiness. With regard to this second consideration, we should be alert to the trust-enhancing tactic in which communicators first provide some mildly negative information about themselves. Through this strategy they can create a perception of honesty that makes subsequent information seem more credible to observers.
Posted by Jonathan in Psychology