"Ordinary people simply doing their jobs without any particular hostility can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority."
This quote is from an article I just read reviewing a recent film, Compliance. The film is a fictionalized retelling of one incident in a series of crimes committed in the decade leading up to 2004. A man would call a fast food restaurant, pretending to be a police officer, and instruct the manager to strip search and sexually assault one of their employees, claiming the employee had been accused of stealing and these actions were necessary to find the stolen merchandise/money.
The article highlights a very interesting psychological phenomenon: the fact that, in certain circumstances, people will act completely opposite to their perceived moral code. This has been examined multiple times, for example, in the Stanford Prison Experiment and the Milgram Obedience Study (mentioned in the article). The basic idea is simple. When asked about certain circumstances in which people act savagely toward others, most individuals are adamant that they would never commit such actions. However, when put into similar conditions, a large percentage of people react contrary to their beliefs.
I find this interesting because it makes you really question what you are capable of. It's very easy to make a broad statement of your moral code when talking in purely hypothetical terms. But evidence has shown that people tend to deviate when given the opportunity. Think about how somebody acts when placed in a position of power. It is the rare person that will not want more and use their power to the extent of it's reach.
The other interesting aspect of the situation depicted in the movie is the fact that most people do not question an authority figure when they are asked to do something. How many people would actually question whether or not the man on the other line is a police officer? I like to think I would, knowing that there must be protocol in place to regulate how things like that are done. But for an adult working in a fast food restaurant, what experience or education are they working off of? What would prompt them to question somebody claiming to be a police officer? At my place of business, I answer the phones regularly and when judges, other attorneys, or courts call, I don't question who they are. Often times, calls get put through and I am later told it was a sales call to which my only defense is "well, they sounded like they knew you." People can be deceptive and, as the article states, it isn't in our nature to question claims to authority.
Like most odd psychological questions, I think this particular facility is one of the many put in place to make our cognitive functions run more smoothly. The same applies for ideas of stereotypes. We are wired to recognize patterns and base our judgments off of them. If we had to analyze every situation from the ground up, we would never get anything done. To be more efficient, our brain store general concepts and when we are faced with a situation, we assess what area it belongs and act accordingly. This can help as well as hurt us but it would be near impossible to function smoothly without it.
This article and the ideas behind it call into question our very ability to understand ourselves. I just thought I would share this because psychology is one of my main interests. I find human action and interaction fascinating. Enjoy.
