The concept of authority bias has its roots in social psychology and can be traced back to the work of Stanley Milgram in the 1960s. Milgram’s obedience experiments demonstrated the powerful influence that perceived authority figures can have on individual behavior. In these experiments, participants were willing to administer what they believed to be dangerous electric shocks to others simply because an authority figure instructed them to do so.
Frightening!
The authority bias is closely related to the broader concept of social influence, which has been studied extensively by psychologists such as Robert Cialdini. Cialdini identified authority as one of the six key principles of persuasion in his book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. In it, he argued that people are more likely to comply with requests made by individuals they perceive as having legitimate authority or expertise.
Throughout history, we can see many examples of people following leaders. Religious leaders, politicians, and other important people have shaped how societies work by influencing what people think and do.
The concept of authority bias has evolved in interesting ways over the last 20 years. While traditional forms of authority, like academic credentials or institutional positions, still hold sway, new forms of perceived authority have become more common. Social media influencers, online experts, and even AI-powered chatbots now have considerable influence over public opinion and individual decision-making.
In the corporate world, the authority bias has been examined through the lens of organizational psychology. Studies have shown that hierarchical structures in companies can reinforce this bias, leading to situations where employees may hesitate to question decisions made by superiors, even when those decisions may be obviously flawed.
The tech industry, in particular, has grappled with the downsides of authority bias. High-profile tech CEOs are often viewed as “visionaries,” and their opinions can carry significant weight, sometimes overshadowing objective data or user feedback to the contrary. Thankfully, this has led to discussions about the need for more diverse leadership and decision-making processes.
In UX design and software engineering, authority bias can manifest in several ways. Design teams might overly rely on established design patterns or frameworks promoted by big tech companies like Google or Apple, potentially missing opportunities to create something new or failing to address unique needs.
From a discovery perspective, the authority bias can influence how user feedback is interpreted and prioritized. Teams might give more weight to feedback from high-profile users, potentially overlooking valuable insights from the broader user base. This can lead to product decisions that cater to a vocal minority rather than addressing the needs of the majority.
In team dynamics, the authority bias can stifle creativity and open communication. Junior team members might hesitate to share innovative ideas or raise concerns about potential issues if they conflict with the views of senior team members or leaders. This can result in missed opportunities for improvement and can even lead to the perpetuation of flawed processes or decisions.
If you’re a leader, before throwing out your ideas, it might be right to ask your team if they need or want your feedback first. If you’ve assembled the right team, the chances are good they’ve got it covered!
