6: Authority
The chapter opens with a description of the Milgram study (EN: Which has become mythical, In that people seem to change or omit details when they mention it, so I'll preserve the abstract)
In this study, subjects were assigned the role of teacher and learner (an actor). The learner was tasked with memorizing word-pairs in a long list and reciting them, and the teacher was given the task of giving them negative reinforcement in the form of electric shocks of increasing intensity.
The key finding of the study is that people assigned the role of "teacher" would continue to increase the intensity of the electric shocks, in spite of the learner's audible pain responses. The subjects complied with the orders of the authority (the observer) in continuing to increase the voltage well past the range that was mentioned as safe. About two-thirds of the subjects did this without any protest at all, even when the "victim" cried out in agony. And not one of the forty participants quit the experiment.
Observers noted the discomfort of the subjects in the study, expressed both verbally and nonverbally. The third who protested asked, even pleaded, to stop the experiment, but when the proctor insisted they continue, they did.
It's mentioned that Milgram had asked groups of colleagues and students to predict how far people in the experiment would go - and they predicted that this would only be in the range or one or two percent. So the results of the experiment was entirely unexpected.
The degree to which ordinary people will comply with the instructions of authority is uncomfortable, to the point that detractors often change or add details to suggest that the study only applies to college-aged males or people with sadistic tendencies - but Milgram's newspaper ad drew a random sample of people from various ages, genders, and walks of life and did not disclose the nature of the study - it applies to ordinary people.
There have been follow-on experiments that modified the situation slightly:
- When the test was not being directly observed, the subject invariably stopped administering shocks after a certain point. There was no authority figure present, nor any instruction to continue.
- When the test subject was put in the victim's chair, they would ask for the experiment to be halted - but they tolerated more shocks of greater intensity when the researcher was at the controls than when it was another random subject
- When the test subject was observed by two researchers, one of them insisting the experiment stop and the other insisting it continue, the subject was confused and asked whose orders they should follow. It was interpreted that they were trying to determine which was "the bigger boss"
In essence, what the original and follow-on experiments effectively demonstrated is a "frightening level of obedience" in ordinary citizens. They will tolerate pain, and inflict pain on others, in deference to authority.
There's a brief mention of an incident outside the laboratory, in which the train conductors who were bringing military equipment to a naval base were ordered not to stop the train, even in civilians tried to block the tracks. And they followed these orders, even when they saw people laying on the tracks to block the train, resulting in severe injuries. One protestor, who lost both his legs, was forgiving of the train crew. "They were just doing what I did in Vietnam," he said. "They were following orders that are part of an insane policy. They are the fall guys."
The Mechanics of Obedience
Whenever a motivator of human action is highly effective, it is often based on a biological reason. Cialdini reckons that it has to do with the social nature of human beings. We recognize that participation in a group requires submission to authority, and that life outside of society is "nasty, brutish, and short." Therefore our inclination to be obedient to authority is closely linked to survival instincts.
Every social organization - political, religious, and even fraternal groups - involves a hierarchy of leadership. There is a "boss" who gives commands for group members to follow - even if he permits them to participate in the decision-making process, it is ultimately his decision and his command. And even when groups of people have no implicit hierarchy, leaders emerge from the group and take functional control.
It is not that men are universally selfless and in need of direction, as we do resist and defy authority, refuse to participate in some groups, and leave others in which we have been participating. But our default setting is clearly to accept authority and acquiesce to demands - we have to pause and question our motives before rejecting authority.
By nature, children are compliant with their parents' demands. Though, beginning at age two, they may test their ability to defy or deny orders, the general tendency is to obey, and this is necessary to survival. In western culture, we are subjected to the authority of parents in the home, then to teachers in school, then to employers in the workplace, and to politicians, police, and other leaders in our public lives. Authority structures are a part of everyday life in society, and we become accustomed to accepting and yielding to anyone who has the appearance of an authority figure.
And in most instances, we learn that compliance to authority is functional. It saves us the trouble of thinking for ourselves, or accepting the blame for the outcome of our actions. And moreover, we generally benefit from working in groups, and credit the success to the leader, reinforcing out inclination to be obedient.
The Use and Abuse of Authority
The source of authority's power is in the expectation of gaining reward for obeying or suffering punishment for disobeying - but as the Milgram experiment demonstrates, these are not necessary factors.
In that instance, the subjects would be compensated for their participation in the study even if the experiment was halted, so the experimenter had no power to grant a reward or inflict a punishment upon the subject. They obeyed authority automatically, without expectations that underlie it.
Naturally, the power of authority can be abused and has routinely been abused by tyrants and despots in pursuing a personal agenda that is detrimental to their followers. Sometimes it is done with false promises of reward (even if such promises have not been honored in the past), and other times it has been simply by asserting that authority exists and that there is an intrinsic duty to obey.
Authority is therefore a powerful tool for the compliance artist: if he can position himself as a figure of authority, or suggest that following his suggestions will be pleasing to someone who is an authority, then he can count on people to comply.
The Trappings of Authority
Assessing whether a person actually holds authority is difficult and time-consuming, so we most often respond based on gut feel about whether a person actually has the power to reward or punish us. This makes authority an easy thing to fake.
That is, we assume someone is what they present themselves to be. If you put on a lab coat and carry a clipboard in a hospital setting, people will call you "doctor" and assume you are not only knowledgeable about medicine, but assume that your orders carry authority over patients and staff.
Compliance professionals and con artists alike seem to leverage authority by making themselves appear to be more important than they are - as do people in social situations. They do so by adopting three common symbols of authority: titles, clothing, and ornaments.
(EN: Cialdini omits another element - demeanor. The superficial symbols and badges of authority are more quickly recognized but if they are not accompanied by demeanor, the mark becomes suspicious. And in some instances, merely acting the part of an authority, even without the trappings, can gain compliance.)
Titles
Legitimate titles are one of the most difficult symbols to earn, but among the easiest to fake. No credentials need be presented: simply claiming to have a title of authority has a distinct effect on people.
He mentions a faculty member at a well-known university, who travels quite a bit and chats with strangers he encounters. He notes that the conversation inevitably gets around to them asking him what he does for a living, and when he tells them that he is a professor, the tenor of the interaction changes immediately. "People who had been spontaneous and interesting conversation partners become respectful, accepting, and dull." He now regularly lies about his occupation in such situations.
Cialdini also mentions an experiment at Cambridge university in which the same speaker was represented differently to different classes. To some, he was presented as a fellow student, to another as a lecturer, to another as a senior lecturer, and another as a professor. When the students were asked to estimate his height, it was found that each increase in status caused an increase in their estimate - as a "professor" he was estimated to be about 2.5 inches taller than he had been as a "student."
As an aside, it's mentioned that in the animal kingdom, it works the other way around. Larger animals are seen as more threatening, and receive greater deference within groups. In combat, which is largely ritualistic, the smaller creature generally acquiesces to the larger one. The same is found among humans, though he presents only anecdotal evidence: that men who are small commonly wear lifts in their shoes when attempting to appear more assertive.
An experiment done at three Midwestern hospitals considered the extent to which titles of authority override common sense. When a number of researchers, dressed in lab coats, were presented to staff as doctors, even skilled and highly experienced nurses were obedient to their directives, even when the "doctor" made obvious and exaggerated errors in diagnosis and treatment. The effect was also seen when someone called on the telephone and introduced himself as a doctor: the nurses routinely accepted orders over the phone (which itself was a violation of hospital policy) to administer a significant overdoes of a restricted medication. 95% of the nurses then placed orders with the hospital pharmacy as instructed. (It's noted that in all cases the nurses were stopped before actually administering the drugs to real patients.)
In each of these cases, no credentials were presented nor was there any special effort to dress or act the part - the mere claim to a professional title succeeded in getting people to switch off their intelligence and respond with blind obedience to a person who made a verbal claim to a title of authority.
Costumes
A second kind of authority symbol that can trigger automatic compliance is clothing, which takes only a little more effort than simply speaking a title and has an added benefit: when the mark sees the person's uniform, they decide for themselves that the person is what they are pretending to be, and is less likely to question their authority.
One experiment (Bickman) is mentioned in which an actor was instructed to ask passers-by to perform a simple action - such as pickup up a discarded paper bag or standing in a different spot, or even a truly bizarre request such as giving a dime to a confederate. When dressed in street clothes, few complied - but when dressed in a security guard's uniform, many people obeyed his requests.
Another research experiment involved a researcher who would stand at a crosswalk and cross against the light. This was done wearing a work shirt and trousers, and again wearing a well-tailored business suit. When wearing the suit 3.5 times as many people would follow him when he crossed against the light.
It's mentioned that the files of bunco squads, police units that specialize in investigating in confidence swindles, contain a plethora of evidence that con men use uniforms to gain the compliance of their marks: everything from business suits, priests collars, lab coats, police uniforms, and the like.
Ornaments
Various props and ornamentation can be used to pose as a person of authority or importance. The author mentions that trappings of wealth connote status, such that people who wear expensive-looking clothes and jewelry are regularly treated with deference.
He then speaks about experiments using cars: researchers in San Franscisco used a number of cars to remain stopped in front of a green light and measure the amount of time it would take for motorists to blow heir horn. Sure enough, people sounded their horns faster and more often when they used an economy car than a prestige brand - in fact, the prestige vehicle was able to wait through a complete cycle of the light 50% of the time without anyone sounding their horn.
The same researchers also surveyed college students about how long they will wait before sounding their horn at a car that was stopped at a green light. The responses of the students to the imaginary situation were significantly faster than those in the actual experiment - and male students particular indicated they would show less patience when a prestige brand was mentioned. The author suggests this shows that people are not aware, or may be ashamed to admit, the degree of deference they show to the trappings of success and authority.
Examples and Anecdotes
Cialdini mentions a pair of swindlers who were very successful in getting people to hand over their money. One would dress in an expensive suit, and claim to be a bank examiner who could catch a person who was entering a bank near closing time and indicate that he suspected some malfeasance -he would ask them to withdraw the entire balance of their savings account so he could track the transaction. They did so, and met him at a location not far away, at which time he would thank them for their assistance and summon a confederate who was dressed as a security guard, indicating that since the bank was closed the guard would return their money to the account the following day. No specifics are given on the percentage of people who fell for this or the amount of cash the swindlers netted, but it is hinted that it was substantial.
A second example seems to have nothing to do with authority: a young man sold his car through a consignment lot. He told him the price that he wanted and they suggested he increase it - arguing in his interest really impressed him that they were helpful. After a few days they called, indicating there was an interested buyer, but who wanted a lower price, so he lowered it. He was told the customer's financing fell through. Then, they mentioned a second buyer who wanted an even lower price, and he agreed but the deal fell through. The third time, an even lower price was offered, and he accepted. As it turned out the consignment lot was operated by a used car dealership: there had been no real buyers and it was a scam to get him to lower his asking price so the dealership would make bigger profits when they sold the car.
There's a rather long passage about the tricks that waiters use to improve their tips - aside of providing basic service, the best servers use certain tricks to get patrons to order more (increasing the bill) or tip better (increasing the percentage). Related to authority, he mentions that a waiter will hesitate when someone orders a cheap entree and suggest a better one, which also happens to be more expensive. A waiter will also recommend wine pairings. While they are legitimately in the role of a waiter, they pose as culinary experts, which they simply are not - they are merely attempting to pad the bill and increase their tips.
It's also suggested that those who leverage authority often cleverly attempt to appear objective by doing some things that are in the interest of their victims and other things that are in their own interest. The waiter, for example, might recommend a less expensive wine but a more expensive entree, or an inexpensive appetizer and an expensive entree, etc. They cannot be completely self-serving or they will arouse suspicion.
Defending Against the Authority Scheme
As with all weapons of influence, there is a functional benefit to yielding to authority: some of the people who have it have earned it. Genuine authority figures know what they are talking about: doctors know more about health and wellness, and it is generally a good idea to accept their judgment. So the approach of ignoring all authority I not recommended.
Instead, question the validity of a given individual's authority. Be aware of the tendency to yield to figures of authority, and of how easily the semblance of authority is faked.
First, be aware of when a person is attempting to pose as an authority. A real expert seldom identifies himself as such and has confidence in his knowledge and abilities in themselves. A fake expert will be eager, even desperate, for you to recognize their authority - to present tokens of proof that they are an authority - because authority is a means to an end. This is true of people who simply want deference in social situations as well as confidence professionals who have a specific reason for seeking your compliance.
Also, beware of the halo effect: a doctor might know a great deal about medicine, but has no particular expertise in other topics. This is particularly important in regard to advertising, which will often leverage the recognition power of athletes and actors to shill product. An example of this is when actor Robert Young was asked to endorse Sanka coffee - because he played a doctor in a well-known television show, people had the impression that decaffeinated coffee was healthy - even though the actor had no medical credentials, and even though the claim of health benefits was never made. (EN: Even more interesting: many people still have the impression that caffeine is bad for health, in spite of the fact that neither the commercials nor the television program have been on the air for decades.)
Finally, ask yourself is whether the person has a vested interest in influencing your behavior. An excellent example of this is scientific research: many universities struggle for funding and professors are not well compensated, so a grant from a company or a political group can buy research that supports the use of their product or the validity of their political agenda. Even if the money is given with no strings attached, academics are wary of offending (and desire to please) their patrons. So even legitimate authorities can be manipulated into manipulating others.
Compliance professionals generally choose to present themselves as a relevant authority and prepare in advance, so unless you are a target of opportunity for a con artist, chances are that the nature of authority will align with the nature of the request. But you can also consider the situation in which you find yourself. A doctor who is dispensing advice when you are paying for an examination is legitimate, but a "doctor" whom you meet in a coffee shop or on the street is not in a situation where he normally gives medical advice - and many professionals refrain from giving away their expertise for free to passing strangers.
Both of these questions can, and should, be raised at the point where another person is asking or implying that you should make a decision to take an action that has a cost to you and a potential benefit to them. There's no harm in listening to their patter as they set the trap - but at the point where a specific suggestion is raised, consider whether they really are what they claim to be, whether their authority is valid to the suggestion, and whether they might stand to benefit personally from your choice.