Perceived Symbols of Authority and Their Influence on Compliance1

Abstract

There are many variables that influence compliance. With regard to individuals making requests of others, Bickman (1974) found that the apparel of the person making the request significantly influenced whether another person complied with the request. This study evaluates other factors such as sex, age, and altruism in compliance. Subjects were involved in a replication of Bickman's dime and parking meter study. Results showed that the dress of the perceived authority not only affected the number of subjects who complied but also the type of compliance, the type of noncompliance, and the latency between request and compliance. Also, older subjects complied significantly more often than younger subjects in the role authority condition.

Full text

Perceived Symbols of Authority and Their Influence
on Compliance’
BRAD
J.
BUSHMAN’
Weber
State
College
There are many variables that influence compliance. With regard to individuals
making requests of others, Bickman
(1974)
found that the apparel of the person
making the request significantly influenced whether another person complied
with the request. This study evaluates other factors such as
sex,
age, and altruism
in compliance. Subjects were involved in a replication of Bickman’s dime and
parking meter study. Results showed that
the
dress of the perceived authority
not only affected the number
of
subjects who complied but
also
the type
of
com-
pliance, the type of noncompliance, and the latency between request and compli-
ance.
Also,
older subjects complied significantly more often than younger sub-
jects in
the
role authority condition.
Our initial perceptions of an individual’s authority may be largely determined
by apparel. This is especially true when an individual is wearing a uniform be-
cause uniforms make the wearer’s status much more visible (Joseph
&
Alex,
1972). Uniforms have been found to influence honesty (Bickman, 1971), help-
ing behavior (Emswiller, Deaux,
&
Willits, 1971; Raymond
&
Unger, 1971),
political behavior (Suedfeld, Bochner,
&
Matas, 1971
;
Zimbardo, 1971), aggres-
sion (Borden, 1975), and compliance (Bickman, 1974). Bickman (1974) con-
ducted several field studies on the influence
of
uniforms on compliance. Bick-
man’s studies involved individuals with three levels of perceived authority: a
civilian, a milkman, and a guard. Bickman found that when requests were made
from an individual who was perceived as an authority, compliance was indeed
higher.
Bickman’s (1974) study dealt with the variable of perceived symbols of au-
thority. In determining the reasons for compliance one may also wish to con-
sider other variables, besides perceived symbols of authority. In this study, age,
altruism, and how apparel affected compliance, noncompliance, and the latency
to comply were investigated.
‘The author would like to thank Merrill May for his helpful comments on earlier drafts
’Requests for reprints should be sent to Brad
J.
Bushman,
3986
North
900
West, Ogden,
of this article and for providing assistance with the statistical analysis of the data.
Utah
84404.
501
Journal
of Applied
Social
Psychology,
1984,
14,
6.
pp.
501 -508.
Copyright
0
1984.
V.H.
Winston,
&
Sons, Inc.
All
rights reserved.

502
BRAD
J.
BUSHMAN
Method
Subjects
Subjects were 150 adult pedestrians on a major street in downtown Salt Lake
City, Utah. The study was done on a warm, clear Saturday in May to increase
the likelihood of
a
representative sample of the population being available. Sev-
eral pedestrians were present
for
the duration of the experiment. The subject
pool was limited to pedestrians between the ages of
16
and
70.
Because of the
heterogeneity
of
subjects at any given time, a quasi-random stratified sampling
procedure was used. Selection was based on the demographic characteristics
of
age, sex, race, and dress.
Between the selection of one subject and the next there was a delay, such
that the following subject could not have observed the interaction between the
confederate and the previous subject. Overall, 45%
of
the subjects were female
and 55% were male. Seventy-one percent were white,
9%
black, and the race
of
the remainder
(20%)
could not be determined. Most subjects were judged, by
their apparel, as middle-class. Postexperiment analysis of subjects’ demographics
showed no significant differences between subjects within each of the three con-
ditions (no authority, status authority, and role authority).
Design
This experiment was a field study, functional design with three levels
of
the
independent variable
:
no authority, status authority, and role authority. In the
no authority condition the confederate was dressed as a bum, was unshaven, and
wore an old pair
of
greasy coveralls, an old baseball type hat, and old workshoes.
In the status authority condition, the confederate dressed as a business execu-
tive, was shaven, wore a conservative two-piece business suit, white shirt, a con-
servative tie, and dress shoes. In the role authority condition, the confederate
was dressed as a fire fighter, and wore a fire fighter’s uniform that included a
medium blue shirt, dark blue pants, and a black hat. The shirt had a patch on
the sleeve designating the fire department (Ogden City) and a silver fire fighter
badge
on
the pocket. The hat also had
a
silver badge in the center.
The confederate was male,
47
years old, 5ft 11 in. tall
(1.8
m)
and weighed
210 lb (95.45 kg). Bickman’s (1974) experiment used four different confeder-
ates
of
similar physique. This experiment used the same confederate for all three
conditions to control for variables associated with the person making the request.
Bickman’s confederates were between the ages
of
18 and
20.
In this experiment
an older confederate was used to increase ecological validity to be consistent
with the assumption that authority figures are rarely young.
The person in need of a dime was the experimenter, a 23-year-old college

PERCEIVED SYMBOLS
OF
AUTHORITY
AND
COMPLIANCE
503
male student, 5 ft 10 in. tall
(1.78
m) and 135 lb (61.36 kg), who was dressed in
blue jeans and a casual shirt during the data collection.
The dependent variable, compliance, was defined as the subject giving the ex-
perimenter a dime
(or
other change if the subject did not have a dime). The
type of compliance was determined by a posttest interview conducted by the
experimenter. The behavior of those who complied was divided into four cate-
gories: altruism, compliance, unquestioned obedience,
or
ambiguous.
1.
AZtruism.
The subject complied because he or she wanted to help some-
one in need.
2.
Compliance.
The subject complied because he or she hoped to achieve a
favorable reaction from the experimenter, the confederate, or both. The sub-
ject’s response could have been dual in nature; that is, the subject wanted to
comply to the confederate’s request and help someone at the same time.
3.
Unquestioned obedience.
The subject complied because “He [the confed-
erate] told me to.”
4.
Ambiguous.
The experimenter could not determine why the subject com-
plied because his or her response was vague.
The reasons for noncompliance were divided, by the confederate, into four
categories: no change, questioned perceived authority, silent, and hostile.
1.
No
change.
The subject said he
or
she did not have any change.
2.
Questioned perceived authority.
The subject asked the confederate such
3.
Silent.
The subject did no* rcply to the confederate’s request.
4.
Hostile.
The subject responded to the confederate’s request in a hostile
manner (e.g., “Are you kidding? There’s no way I’m going to give him any
change
!
”)
questions as, “Why don’t you give him a dime?”
Procedure
The general procedure used was similar to Bickman’s
(1974)
study. The con-
federate stopped the chosen subject and pointed to the experimenter who was
standing beside a car, parked at an expired parking meter, searching in his pock-
ets for change. After pointing at the experimenter, the confederate said, “This
fellow is overparked at the meter but doesn’t have any change. Give him a
dime!” If the subject did not immediately comply, the confederate added that
he had no change either.
If
the subject did not comply after the explanation,
the confederate left.
To ensure an accurate and reliable recording of the data, the confederate re-
corded specific information about each subject after he
or
she left the vicinity.
This was accomplished by using the checklist in Figure
1.
If the subject did comply, the experimenter debriefed
him
or
her. The de-
briefing procedure went as follows: The experimenter asked the subject “Why

N-r
PQ,
NQ)
-
~lnl
Gender
Subject
Number
Estimated
Aae
t
II
No Change
White-W
Unknown-U
Race
(
Black-B
g2
Work
Clothes
Casual
Clothes
Semiformal
Clothes
Formal
Clothes
t
t
Color of Ss
Blouse or
Shirt
Questioned
Perceived Authority
Silent
Hostile
Latency (Fast-F,
Medium-M,
Slow-S)
t
Complied

A
Q)
Q)
n
s
1
11
Altruistic
I
Subject
Number
Estimated
~Zi?
5
zz
Age
20
43
Gender
g7J
n
White-W
Race
(
Black-B
Unknown-U
W
0
Casual
2.
D
CW
~
(DW
Work
Clothes
4
Semiformal
a4
Clothes
9'0
3
Formal
Clothes
v
Clothes
C
cn
Compliance
Unauestioned
Obedience
Ambiguous
Color
of
Ss
Blouse or
Shirt

506
BRAD
J.
BUSHMAN
would you just come over here and give me a. dime?” If the subject did not
respond clearly, the experimenter attempted to clarify the response. The experi-
menter then returned the subject’s dime and briefly explained the nature of the
experiment. After the subject left, the experimenter completed the checklist in
Figure 2.
After collecting the data for each condition, the experimenter and the con-
federate compared descriptions
of
the subjects in terms of estimated age, race,
and status
(as
indicated by apparel).
Results
The results indicate that compliance significantly increased as perceived au-
thority increased, x2(2,
N
=
150)
=
17.10,
p
<
.001.
Forty-five percent of the
subjects obeyed the bum,
50%
the business executive, and
82%
the fire fighter.
As
judged by the subject’s verbal responses, altruistic reasons given for com-
plying were significantly less as perceived authority increased,
xz
(6,
N
=
88)
=
26.60,
p
<
.001.
Although
50%
of
the reasons given for obeying were altruistic
in the
no
authority condition, 16% were altruistic in the status authority condi-
tion, and
10%
were altruistic in the role authority condition. Furthermore, 64%
of the reasons given for compliance were classified as “unquestioned obedience”
in the role authority condition,
48%
were classified as unquestioned obedience
in the status authority condition, and
23%
were classified as unquestioned obedi-
ence in the
no
authority condition.
Noncomplying subjects offered significantly fewer hostile reasons for
non-
compliance as perceived authority increased, ~’(4,
N
=
62)
=
14.66,
p
<
.05.
Twenty-nine percent of the subjects gave hostile responses in the
no
authority
condition, whereas
11%
gave hostile responses in the role authority condition.
Thirty-two percent of the subjects said they would have given the experimenter
a dime if they had change
in
the
no
authority condition, whereas
89%
of the
Table
1
Percentage
of
Subjects Complying
in
Each
Condition
Condition Compliance
N
%
Noncompliance
N
%
No authority
22
44
28 56
Status authority
25
50 25 50
Role authority 41
82
9
18

PERCEIVED SYMBOLS
OF
AUTHORITY AND COMPLIANCE
507
subjects said they would have given the experimenter
a
dime if they had change
in the role authority condition. In addition, not one subject questioned the con-
federate in the role authority condition.
The latency between request and compliance was significantly affected by the
apparel of the perceived authority, ~’(4,
N=
150)
=
44.37,
p
<
.05.
In the no
authority and status authority conditions, 23%-24% of the subjects complied
quickly (under
30
s),
whereas in the role authority condition,
85%
of the sub-
jects complied quickly. Thirty-six percent complied moderately quickly
(30
s
to
1
min) in the no authority condition, 64% in the status authority condition, and
15%
in the role authority condition, Fortyane percent complied slowly (over 1
min) in the no authority condition, 12% complied slowly in the status authority
condition, and not one subject complied slowly in the role authority condition.
Older subjects (over
30
years) complied significantly more than younger sub-
jects (16-30 yrs) in the role authority condition. One hundred percent of older
subjects and
57%
of
the younger subjects complied in the role authority condi-
tion. Significant age differences were not found
in
either the status authority or
no authority conditions.
There was no significant gender difference with regard to female/male com-
pliance rates. In addition, no significant difference was found between the sub-
ject’s apparel and the subject’s willingness to comply.
Discussion
As
did Bickman’s
(1
974) experiment, this experiment showed a significant
relation between the apparel the confederate wore and the number of subjects
who complied to the confederate’s request. In addition, several other interesting
differences were noticed between the subjects’ responses and the confederate’s
request. For example, in the role authority condition, the confederate noted
that the subjects responded quite differently. The confederate would say, “Give
him a dime!” and the majority of subjects would look at his badge and say,
“sure.”
Altruism, as defined
by
the subjects’ verbal reason given for complying, was
also significantly affected by the presence of a perceived authority. It seems
that compliance, when requested by an authority, may be less charitable. Dur-
ing the experiment, only one person gave the experimenter a dime without the
confederate requesting them to do
so
(a nun).
The confederate was of the opinion that the nature of noncompliance was
also different in the role authority condition. While in the fire fighter’s uniform,
the confederate felt eight
of
the nine subjects who did not comply would have
complied if they would have had change. For example, one woman said, “I’m
really sorry that
I
can’t, but
I
only have one dime and
I
need to make an impor-
tant phone call.” The confederate stated that subjects’ responses in the role

508
BRAD
J.
BUSHMAN
authority condition sounded more sincere.
Also,
none of the subjects ques-
tioned the confederate in the role authority condition, even though fire fighters
have nothing to do with parking meter violations.
Perceived authority is apparently an important variable influencing compli-
ance. These findings suggest that those holding authoritative positions have a
great responsibility, especially when making requests of others.
References
Bickman,
L.
(1971). The effects of social status on the honesty of others.
Bickman,
L.
(1974). The social power
of
a uniform.
Journal
of
Applied Social
Borden, R.J. (1975). Witnessed aggression: Influence
of
an observer’s sex and
values on aggressive responding.
Journal
of
Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy,
31,567-573.
Emswiller, T., Deaux,
K.,
&
Willits, J.E. (1971). Similarity, sex, and requests
for small favors.
Journal
of
Applied Social Psychology,
1,284-291.
Joseph,
N.,
&
Alex,
N.
(1972). The uniform:
A
sociological perspective.
Amer-
ican Journal
of
Sociology,
77,7 19-730.
Raymond, B.J.,
&
Unger, R.K. (1971). Effect
of
deviant and conventional
attire on cooperation [Summary]
.
Proceedings
of
the 79th Annual Conven-
tion
o
f
the American Psychological Association,
6,357-358.
Suedfeld, P., Bochner,
S.,
&
Matas,
C.
(1971). Petitioner’s attire and petition
signing by peace demonstrators: A field experiment,
Journal
of
Applied
So-
cial Psychology,
l, 278-283.
Zimbardo,
P.
(Chair). (1971).
Freaks, hippies and voters: The effect
of
deviant
dress and appearance on political persuasion process.
Symposium conducted
at the meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, New York City.
Journal
of
Social Psychology,
85,87-92.
Psychology,
4,47-6 1.