Authority bias is a cognitive bias that influences individuals to attribute greater accuracy to the opinion of an authority figure, regardless of the content. It is rooted in a deep-seated psychological response that equates authority with correctness. In many cases, people trust the judgments of an expert or leader, even when they have knowledge or logical reasoning to question the given opinion.
Key elements of authority bias include:
- Trust in Authority: People often have an inherent belief that someone with perceived authority, such as a doctor or political leader, has a more accurate knowledge base and thus is more trustworthy.
- Cognitive Convenience: Relying on an authority figure’s guidance can be seen as a cognitive shortcut. Rather than analyzing complex information on their own, individuals rely on the authority figure to simplify decision-making processes.
- Psychological Comfort: Accepting the word of an authority can provide emotional reassurance. When facing uncertainty, following a recognized leader can reduce anxiety and provide a sense of security.
The opposite of authority bias is outright resistance to authority, dismissing their knowledge and believing authoritative individuals to make essentially erroneous statements. This relates to the anti-authoritarian viewpoint.
Psychological Roots and Research
Prior to psychology studies, the most prominent example of this phenomenon was when people in Germany unquestioningly obeyed Hitler during World War II, although similar effects have been observed throughout history. This is similar to pluralistic ignorance, in which authoritative figures are obeyed regardless of morals.
The first time authority bias was mentioned in literature as a cognitive bias was in Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram’s controversial obedience experiment, which was used to investigate loyalty to authority figures. While Milgram did not use the phrase “authority bias” in his 1963 work, the obedience effect discovered during his research became the fundamental example of authority bias.
The reality was that no shocks were given in the experiments, but participants, under the supervision of an authority figure, were willing to administer what they thought were increasingly painful shocks. This experiment underscored the tension between obedience and moral beliefs, illustrating how the presence of an authoritative figure can dramatically sway individual actions.
Milgram’s findings suggested one reason people obeyed Hitler during World War II was that individuals voluntarily submitted to the authority figure (the experimenter wore a white lab coat to indicate professionalism). The employment of uniforms to indicate authority, which was initially explored in Milgram’s situational variable, significantly strengthens authority bias.
Obedience decreased when the uniform of the experimenter was changed from a lab coat to everyday clothes. The results were further replicated through Leonard Bickman’s infamous research into obedience, where security guards are more likely to be obeyed without question and thus contributing directly to authority bias.
Authority Bias in Social Contexts
Parents and teachers often serve as the primary authority figures for children. Within the family unit, respect for authority is typically established early on, as children may be more likely to accept information from parents without question.
In the educational setting, students may rely heavily on the judgments of their teachers, which can impact their learning process and decision-making abilities. For instance, children may choose a certain academic path or develop specific attitudes based on their educators’ suggestions, highlighting social influence at play.
Medicine
The expert halo effect is synonymous with authority bias in medicine, in which the expert is regarded as infallible. Issues develop in pharmaceutical settings when non-experts blindly obey expert directives, leading in the dispensing of hazardous medications and incorrect healthcare procedures.
In wrongful conviction cases like Willie Jackson’s, there is also the question of whether an authoritative figure is seen to be presenting truthful information. Forensic dentistry wrongly proved Jackson’s guilt, but the doctor’s expert authority bias helped their case in court. DNA evidence exonerated Jackson of the crime 17 years later.
Advertising
Authority bias is used in marketing approaches that seek to increase the credibility of product claims. A classic example in advertising is toothpaste firms such as Sensodyne promoting the authenticity of their claims by having dentists (or actors posing as dentists) wearing lab coats appear in their ads, making the consumer more trusting of the product and hence more likely to purchase it.
Personalised advertising in relation to political voting attitudes (particularly in the US election) relies on authority bias. Political campaigns are targeted specifically towards female voters (who are more susceptible to the bias), amplified through the use of social media, in which political leaders and other figures of authority are used in ad-campaigns to increase the effectiveness of their claims.
Workplace Dynamics
The workplace environment presents a different facet of authority bias, where employees may defer to the opinions of their boss or management without critical assessment. This can lead to groupthink, where the desire for conformity within a group results in irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcomes.
An individual’s appearance, such as uniform or professional clothing, can also amplify perception of position of authority, affecting how workplace decisions are made and how respect for authority is manifested among peers.
Causes
Human evolution has produced a dominance hierarchy in which it is advantageous to obey authority figures because they have access to more resources and other means of survival. The logical fallacy of ad verecundiam is evolutionary, implying that experts are more trustworthy because to a lack of competing information.
A diversified and broadly accepted system of authority in any society enables the formation of sophisticated systems for resource extraction, trade, expansion, and social control. Obedience and allegiance to others’ rightful rule are often valued in schools, the law, the military, and political systems.
The strength of the tendency to obey a legitimate authority person stems from systemic socialization procedures that aim to implant the belief that such obedience is correct conduct, and that authentic authority figures typically have higher levels of knowledge, wisdom, and power. The phrases used to describe this dimension vary by society.
Individuals who show authority bias may also experience confirmation bias, which is the inclination to seek information that confirms one’s own pre-existing ideas. According to research, financial counselors who affirm one’s previous ideas are accorded more authority, meaning that authority prejudice is exacerbated when it occurs in conjunction with confirmation bias.
Counterstrategies to Authority Bias
To mitigate the effects of authority bias, it’s important to embrace methods that foster independent thinking and reduce undue influences. These techniques involve a direct engagement with logic and critical thinking while promoting an environment that encourages autonomy and robust debate.
Critical Thinking and Questioning
One effective approach to countering authority bias is to cultivate critical thinking skills. This includes teaching individuals how to systematically analyze information and to ask questions that challenge the status quo. For example, in educational settings, students should be encouraged to engage in peer review and to question the validity and reasoning behind authoritative statements.
- Teach logic to dismantle arguments
- Provide tools to differentiate between evidence-based conclusions and assumptions
- Emphasize the value of asking “why” to uncover motivations behind assertions
Encouraging Autonomy and Debate
Another significant strategy is fostering autonomy in decision-making. This not only involves allowing individuals the freedom to form their own opinions but also creating spaces where debate is welcomed. Open discussions can reveal the potential for conformity pressures and encourage participants to think more independently rather than blindly following authority figures.
- Promote environments where differing opinions are heard and respected
- Implement systems that reward independent thinking over hierarchical command
- Encourage the expression of diverse viewpoints to challenge conventional wisdom
References:
- Austin, Jared P.; Halvorson, Stephanie A. C. (2019-02-05). Reducing the Expert Halo Effect on Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committees. JAMA. 321 (5): 453–454. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.20789
- Austin, Jared P.; Foster, Byron A. (2019-07-01). How Pediatric Hospitalists Must Contend With the Expert Halo Effect. Hospital Pediatrics. 9 (7): 560–562. doi: 10.1542/hpeds.2019-0053
- Bickman, Leonard (1974). The Social Power of a Uniform. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 4 (1): 47–61. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1974.tb02599.x
- Howard, Jonathan (2019), Howard, Jonathan (ed.), Bandwagon Effect and Authority Bias, Cognitive Errors and Diagnostic Mistakes: A Case-Based Guide to Critical Thinking in Medicine, Cham: Springer International Publishing, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-93224-8_3
- Kruikemeier, Sanne; Sezgin, Minem; Boerman, Sophie C. (June 2016). Political Microtargeting: Relationship Between Personalized Advertising on Facebook and Voters’ Responses. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking. 19 (6): 367–372. doi:10.1089/cyber.2015.0652
- Milgram, Stanley (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 67 (4): 371–378. doi: 10.1037/h0040525
- Zaleskiewicz, Tomasz; Gasiorowska, Agata (2020). Evaluating experts may serve psychological needs: Self-esteem, bias blind spot, and processing fluency explain confirmation effect in assessing financial advisors’ authority. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied. 27 (1): 27–45.