In everyday life, authority bias can manifest in situations where people unquestioningly trust and follow the recommendations or decisions of individuals in positions of authority, such as teachers, doctors, police officers, managers, or field experts. Subtle symbols of authority, such as a person’s title (Dr, PhD, MD) or job title (CEO or Director), can immediately influence how we perceive the opinions and judgments of that individual. 

One area where this effect often manifests is in the realm of medical decision-making. Imagine yourself visiting the doctor for a minor health issue. During the consultation, they recommend that you take a course of medication and make some small changes to your diet for the next month. You listen to every word the doctor says and diligently follow their orders. It never crosses your mind to check whether the information you’ve been given is correct or if it’s the right treatment for you. Most of the time, it is unquestionably correct to follow the medical advice of doctors. However, sometimes, their appearance of authority can make us blindly accept their recommendations, even if it would be wise to seek a second opinion or speak up regarding our additional symptoms.

Authority bias has a profound influence on how we receive, perceive, and act upon information in all aspects of life. This cognitive bias can subtly guide individual judgments, decisions, and actions based on the perceived authority of those delivering the message, regardless of the information they deliver.  

When individuals encounter someone with authority, their elevated trust in the messenger leads to a greater acceptance and internalization of the information they convey. Conversely, a lack of authority can trigger skepticism, causing individuals to discount or dismiss an individual’s message, irrespective of its intrinsic value. Under the influence of authority bias, the person’s authority becomes the message itself. That is, we find it difficult to detach the content of the message from the status of the person delivering it. 

While relying on authorities is necessary and efficient in many cases—such as visiting the doctor—it becomes problematic when it leads to uncritical acceptance of information, blind obedience, and resistance to change. It’s crucial for individuals to be aware of this bias and its effect on our decision-making and, when appropriate, critically evaluate the information we receive. Balancing trust in authority with a healthy amount of skepticism can lead to better-informed and well-rounded decision-making.

Authority bias has a profound effect on who we listen to and who we don’t. In larger systems such as social groups, organizations, and societies, this bias can influence collective decision-making processes, the way information is disseminated, and the overall social dynamics within a system. 

Workplace power dynamics

As the example of Dr. Turner and Lisa demonstrates, within organizations Authority bias can impact how information is perceived among employees. Leaders or experts who are viewed as credible or high-status may have more influence on organizational decisions and strategies, potentially leading to important contributions from less authoritative employees being overlooked. This social influence over other people is referred to as expert power. 

Authority bias can also contribute to another psychological phenomenon called groupthink, where group members prioritize harmony and consensus over critical thinking and independent decision-making. In situations where there’s a strong leader, a high level of group cohesion, and pressure to make the ‘right’ decision, individuals may defer to the opinions of authority figures to avoid conflict or dissent. 

Hiring and recruitment

The effects of authority bias can also have a significant impact on hiring and recruitment practices. In part due to authority bias, people involved in hiring tend to prioritize candidates referred by people in positions of authority. This can perpetuate inequalities in the workforce, as people who have powerful connections are more likely to land leadership positions, making it difficult for those without authoritative backgrounds to break into impactful roles.

Not only that but when authority figures are actively involved in the hiring process, their opinions can disproportionately affect the final decision. Consider an HR department at a large tech firm looking to fill an open position. If someone from senior management decides to sit in on an interview, their opinion of the candidate will likely sway the hiring team simply because they hold a position of authority. In fact, one study found that people are more likely to racially discriminate against candidates when it is condoned by a legitimate authority figure than by someone without authority.⁷

Authority bias in the legal system

Similar systemic consequences of authority bias show up in the legal system. Consider how jury trials often call on expert witnesses to explain technical evidence to the jury. Because of authority bias, jurors tend to give more weight to expert testimony than of lay people, especially when they display symbols of authority—even something as simple as wearing glasses or carrying a briefcase can influence how jurors judge the credibility of an expert.¹⁷ 

This is a problem because expert witnesses may not be as objective as they seem. Although these experts are supposed to be neutral to the case, research shows that they tend to be biased in favor of the side that brought them to the stand, emphasizing details or findings that support “their side.”¹⁸ As a result of authority bias, the jury may be more likely to accept the biased report of the expert witness, weakening the objectivity of the judicial system.

Authority figures shaping public opinion

In the realm of media and public discourse, authority bias can play a significant role in shaping public opinion. Individuals who are perceived as authoritative and credible often have a substantial impact on how information is received and accepted by the broader population. This can be potentially dangerous for society when fake news, or beliefs that are damaging to certain populations, are shared by trusted figures. For example, the viral myth that 5G towers were life-threatening and could potentially cause COVID-19 was supposedly sparked by scientifically baseless claims made by a Belgian medical doctor during a newspaper interview.¹

At other times, authority figures can help maintain social order and cohesion, especially in times of crisis or uncertainty. During the Second World War, the British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, was regarded by many as a figure who united the country to work together for victory.² From rallying the public to act in times of crisis to maintaining day-to-day order and compliance with laws, our sense of duty to authority—especially positions of formal authority—plays a crucial role in social control. When people respect and follow the guidance of authority futures, it contributes to a sense of stability and order within communities, organizations, and societies.

Authority bias is believed to arise from a combination of evolutionary, psychological, and social factors ingrained in human cognition. However, while this cognitive bias has been applied across various fields, the exact mechanisms and processes behind why we tend to value expert opinions haven’t been thoroughly explored.

Socialization and cognitive shortcuts

From a young age, individuals are socialized to respect and obey authority figures, such as parents, teachers, and law enforcement. As American psychologist Stanley Milgram wrote, ‘the first twenty years of the young person’s life are spent functioning as a subordinate element in an authority system.’ Over time, this ingrained respect for authority becomes a cognitive shortcut, or heuristic, to help simplify and speed up decision-making processes. In many situations, people don’t have the time or resources to thoroughly research every decision, so they defer to the expertise of those they consider authoritative. 

This tendency reduces the amount of cognitive energy we expend on decision-making, lightening our cognitive load and leaving more mental resources available for decisions that we cannot defer to others. Once someone with legitimate authority gives us an order, we can stop the exhausting process of deliberating over our options. Think back to how simple life was when your parents made most of your decisions for you—what to eat, what to wear, when to leave for school, etc. Now that you’re an adult deferring some of your decisions to people of authority reduces cognitive overload in the same way, ultimately making life a little easier.

Psychological security and deferred responsibility

Moreover, our innate need for certainty and security is often satisfied when we have implicit trust in the opinions and judgments of authority figures. Thanks to our social and psychological instincts, there’s an ingrained comfort that comes with trusting and following authority. The tendency of individuals to defer to authority figures also provides relief from the psychological consequences of decision-making, absolving at least some of our personal responsibility. This can be especially appealing when making difficult decisions with a high level of risk. For example, imagine you have to decide whether to undergo a risky medical procedure. Deferring this decision to align with the recommendations of a doctor not only relieves you from making this difficult decision, but it also relieves you (psychologically) from potential blame or fault if something goes wrong.

Authority bias as an adaptive mechanism

From an evolutionary psychology perspective, living in hierarchical societies may have conferred survival advantages, where individuals learned to rely on leaders for guidance and protection. In such societies, following the instructions of leaders or authority figures may have provided certain advantages, such as better survival or living conditions. Therefore, the inclination to trust and obey authority may be deeply ingrained in human psychology. 

Cognitive biases working together

Authority bias can be impacted and strengthened by other cognitive biases. Confirmation bias, for example, describes our tendency to notice, focus on, and give greater weight to evidence that fits with our existing beliefs. So, if an authority figure provides you with information that resonates with what you already believe, your inclination to trust that information may increase further. For example, research shows that we assign more authority to financial advisors when they say things that confirm our existing opinions.19 As such, confirmation bias can cause us to place even more trust in the opinions of experts when these experts tell us what we want to hear.

The halo effect may also reinforce our tendency to trust authority figures. Under this phenomenon, positive impressions of people, brands, or products in one area can positively influence our feelings or opinions. If we have a positive impression of an authority figure, we’re more likely to feel positively about the information they share.

The availability heuristic further influences the implications of authority bias. This bias describes our tendency to prioritize information that comes to mind quickly when making decisions, causing us to overestimate the likelihood of events that stand out in our memory. Because information received from authority figures tends to be more memorable, we often give disproportionate weight to statements made by people in positions of power. For example, suppose your mayor gives a speech about an increase in burglaries in your neighborhood. The mayor’s report is likely to stand out in your memory, so you might overestimate the likelihood of being targeted yourself, even if actual crime statistics show a very minor increase in risk.

Understanding authority bias is crucial because it sheds light on the factors that influence how we process information and make decisions. At its worst, authority bias can trick us into trusting erroneous information just because someone with perceived or actual authority delivers it. This can lead us to disregard more accurate information provided by a non-expert with fewer credentials. At its best, authority bias can be a potent tool for communicating important information to large groups of people, such as during health emergencies or natural disasters.  

For individuals, knowledge of authority bias can be empowering as it enables them to take more control over their judgments and decision-making. Moreover, in the age of misinformation and disinformation, understanding authority bias can help individuals discern reliable sources from potentially biased or inaccurate information. 

In group situations, acknowledging authority bias and its impact can create environments that value diverse and evidence-based decision-making. Cultivating a greater sense of responsibility among individuals by encouraging people to take accountability for their decisions—rather than deferring to those in positions of power—can also encourage more ethical decision-making, as people are less likely to blindly follow unethical suggestions made by people in power. This understanding is particularly important in fostering responsible leadership, maintaining societal trust, and challenging institutional power imbalances.

The motto of The Royal Society, an independent scientific academy of the UK, is ‘Nullius in verba,’ which translates as ‘take nobody’s word for it’. The expression was chosen by the society’s founding fellows in 1660 as a warning to withstand the domination of authority and to verify all statements with facts and experimentation. Over four hundred years later, this advice is helpful when overcoming authority bias. 

Detach the authority figure from the content

The most important step in avoiding authority bias is detaching the person delivering the information from the actual content itself. Strive to focus on the content of the message rather than being unduly influenced by the messenger’s authority or status. 

The following example illustrates the importance of critically assessing the information. During the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, a special interest group made up of doctors and other healthcare professionals named ‘Doctors for the Truth’ grew in influence across many European countries, spreading false information and lies to their large communities of followers.⁶ The group organizers leveraged their status as healthcare professionals to increase their influence and impact.

Detach yourself from the authority figure

Pioneering research by Professor Stanley Milgram (see below) on authority bias suggests that people are much more likely to defy an authority figure if they are not physically in the same room as them. Similarly, detaching yourself mentally from an authority figure by convincing yourself that they aren’t unquestionably legitimate can also reduce the effect of this bias.⁷ 

Seek out alternative perspectives and sources

Actively seeking out diverse sources of information and considering alternative perspectives can also help to counteract the tendency to favor messages from authoritative figures. When presented with a perspective from an authority figure, take the time to gather further information on the topic or listen to other opinions. Seek the opinions of experts rather than defaulting to the opinions of people who dominate social hierarchies. Engaging in critical thinking and regular fact-checking can enhance the likelihood of making well-informed decisions.

How do you know if someone is succumbing to authority bias?

There are a couple of clues that will reveal if you (or someone you know) is falling for authority bias, including:

• Accepting statements from people of authority without questioning them, even when evidence is lacking.
• Not considering other perspectives or viewpoints.
• Being more likely to engage in unethical behavior because it’s encouraged by an authority figure.
• Automatically agreeing with the decisions of authority figures, even if these decisions go against one’s own morals or judgments.

Note that there’s an important difference between showing blind obedience to authority figures and believing the opinions of experts who have earned our trust. It’s completely rational to believe statements from doctors and scientists as these professionals have the education and experience to demonstrate their expertise. While critically evaluating the claims of experts is still important for rational decision-making, placing our trust in them is often justified—and sometimes required. Authority bias occurs when we accept information solely because it comes from someone with perceived authority.

Interestingly, some people tend to lean in the opposite direction. Rather than a tendency to accept the statements of people in positions of power, some people respond to authority figures with automatic distrust. Let’s explore this more closely.

What is the opposite of authority bias?

The opposite of authority bias is a blanket distrust of people in positions of power. In stark contrast to authority bias, this involves the belief that statements made by authority figures are inherently wrong or misleading, leading people to reject their claims almost automatically. Some experts suggest this tendency is rooted in the belief that authority figures are primarily motivated by self-interests.²⁰ It may also stem from experiences where people have abused their power. You can likely think up several examples of historic events where leaders have used their positions to encourage unethical or harmful behavior.

While some healthy skepticism is important for avoiding authority bias, aggressive skepticism can harm society. For example, climate and vaccine skepticism is not just about questioning a few people in positions of authority but outright rejecting the scientific consensus. As always, balance is key. It’s good to question experts, but we must also foster a certain level of trust to evaluate their statements fairly.

The first, and perhaps most famous, study on authority bias was conducted in 1961 by Professor Stanley Milgram at Yale University.⁸ In the wake of World War II and the Nuremberg Trials, Milgram wanted to understand why people obey the orders of authority figures when they are involved in performing harmful acts that conflict with their conscience. Although Milgram never referred to the term ‘authority bias’, his work laid the foundations for future research on the topic. 

In his experiment, Milgram recruited 40 male participants to act as ‘teachers’ while another group of confederates (research actors) acted as ‘learners’. The teachers asked the learners a series of questions and when they got an answer wrong, the teachers were told to administer an electric shock to the learner who was sitting in another room. Each time the learner got an answer wrong, the teacher was told to move the shock generator up one level higher so that the more questions the learner got wrong, the higher the voltage they received. 

As the experiment proceeded, the teachers could hear the learners groaning in pain and pleading for the study to stop. Despite believing that they were causing significant harm to the other person, 65% of the participants completed the experiment and administered shocks at the highest level (450 volts). What the participants didn’t know was that the shock generator was fake and that the learners were actors simulating their pain. 

Milgram proposed several theories for why the participants continued to obey the researcher’s instructions, including the perceived status of Yale University, a belief that the learners volunteered for the study, and a desire not to disobey the experimenter.  

Despite its ground-breaking findings on people’s willingness to obey authority figures, Milgram’s controversial experiment raised ethical concerns about the psychological harm inflicted upon the participants and the deception involved in the methodology. Many of the participants showed physical signs of distress, such as sweating, trembling, and stuttering, and three had full-blown seizures during the study.⁹ 

A decade later, in his book Obedience and Authority,¹⁰ Milgram applied his findings to the Nuremberg Trials, and in particular, the Nazi official Adolf Eichmann who was one of the major organizers of the Holocaust. In light of his experiment, Milgram questioned whether Eichmann and his million accomplices were just following orders, or whether they truly believed that what they were doing was correct. 

In your home right now, you probably have at least one, if not several, products that use authority bias as part of their marketing campaign. Phrases such as ‘dermatologist approved’, ‘clinically proven’, or ‘9 out of 10 dentists recommend’ can be found on the labels of almost every healthcare-related product on the market. Even the clothes worn by actors in adverts, such as lab coats or official uniforms, can impact how audiences interact with a product. 

Endorsements from trustworthy and authoritative figures can have a significant impact on customer choices and purchasing behavior.³ Testimonials from experts can help boost sales because the credibility of the individual influences how the product information is received and evaluated by potential customers. We are more likely to buy something if we know it is considered safe and effective by the people who supposedly know best. 

But how do we know if these claims are true? Using authoritative figures or organizations to help sell products can have drawbacks if misused, such as when misleading endorsements or exaggerated claims compromise the trust between consumers and the brand. In 2014, baby food brand Gerber was fined for falsely advertising that its ‘Good Start Gentle Formula’ could protect infants from developing allergies and using the phrase ‘FDA-approved health claim’ on its packaging.⁴

In recent years, we have come to trust AI and its capabilities in both our personal and professional lives. A survey conducted by NordVPN in 2023 found that 75% of American users trusted the factual correctness of OpenAI’s ChatGPT.⁵ In many workplaces, AI is seen as a credible and reliable tool for increasing productivity and efficiency among employees. In fact, AI is now used as a device for fighting disinformation shared by authority figures. Live debates between presidential candidates, for example, can now be fact-checked in real-time using AI tools. 

However, with our increasing reliance on ChatGPT and other Generative AI (GAI) comes the risk that we view these systems as a higher authority, which is all-knowing. Unlike traditional internet search engines, where users can sift through and cross-validate thousands of sources and perspectives, GAI filters these results for us depending on the prompt we give it. When this occurs on a society-wide scale, our dependence on one source of information can lead to consensus and the marginalization of other ideas and opinions.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, countless recommendations on preventing or combating the virus circulated widely on social media and in the news. Every week, the public was inundated with health advice from experts, non-experts, and influencers. One particularly controversial moment came from then-President Donald Trump during a daily briefing in April 2020.

Following a presentation by the director of the Department of Homeland Security’s Science and Technology division on research exploring the effects of disinfectants on surfaces, Trump speculated about the possibility of using disinfectants to combat COVID-19. He remarked, “I see the disinfectant that knocks [the virus] out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning?”¹¹ While Trump did not explicitly recommend injecting or ingesting disinfectants, his offhand remarks caused confusion and alarm. He later claimed he was speaking “sarcastically.”^11,15

Despite Trump’s clarification, the immense influence of his position as president meant his words were widely disseminated and, for some, taken literally. Poison control centers in multiple U.S. states reported an uptick in calls from people inquiring about or misusing disinfectants like Lysol.¹² The company even issued a public statement warning against the consumption or injection of their products, underscoring the potential danger of such actions.^12,16

This incident illustrates how a figure in a position of authority, even when speaking speculatively, can significantly shape public perception and behavior. The timing of Trump’s comments—immediately following a scientific presentation—may have lent his musings an unintended air of credibility. For some, the focus was on the messenger rather than critically assessing the impracticality and dangers of his words.^13,15

In the world of business, authority bias often manifests itself as a HiPPO, or ‘Highest Paid Person’s Opinion’. In organizational settings, there is a strong tendency to prioritize the opinions and decisions of the highest-ranking (and often top-paid) individual, usually those who hold top executive positions or have significant authority. It doesn’t matter that these individuals may not be experts in the field or that they don’t have the necessary knowledge; it's their seniority that counts.  

The term HiPPO (of the non-animal kind) was first coined by analyst and entrepreneur Avinash Kaushik in his book Web Analytics: An Hour a Day.¹³ When there’s a HiPPO in the room, their presence has a profound effect on how company decisions are made. According to Kaushik, HiPPOs overrule data, impose on businesses and customers, and stifle discussions about alternative perspectives. Once the opinion of the highest authority is on the table, other voices are shut down, and, in some cases, people fear speaking out. 

While there are instances when the opinion of the highest-ranking person might be the best option, research suggests that, more often than not, this is not the case. A study by the Rotterdam School of Management looked at the overall performance of 349 projects in the video games industry dating back to 1972 and found that projects led by junior managers were more likely to succeed than those managed by senior bosses.¹⁴ 

A company culture of deferring to the HiPPO can lead to suboptimal outcomes when decisions are driven more by hierarchy than by data-driven insights or the expertise of those with relevant knowledge. Under the overwhelming influence of HiPPOs, lower-level employees can feel disempowered and less inclined to contribute their ideas or concerns. This workplace dynamic can stifle innovation and hinder adaptability to changing market conditions. 

What it is

The authority bias describes our tendency to be more influenced by the opinions and judgments of authority figures. This bias can lead people to accept information or follow instructions without critically evaluating the content, simply because it comes from a perceived authority. 

Why it happens

Authority bias is believed to arise from a combination of evolutionary, psychological, and social factors ingrained in human cognition. However, while this cognitive bias has been applied across a range of fields, the exact mechanisms and processes behind why we tend to value expert opinions haven’t been thoroughly explored.

Example 1 – The influence of words during the pandemic

During a daily briefing in April 2020, Donald Trump speculated about the possibility of using disinfectants to combat COVID-19. Although he later claimed his remarks were “sarcastic,” confusion followed. In the days after the briefing, calls to poison centers in a number of US states increased as people misused disinfectants like Lysol. Trump’s position of authority as president had a significant influence on how people received and interpreted his comments.

Example 2 – HiPPOS in the workplace

In the world of business, authority bias often manifests itself as a HiPPO, or ‘Highest Paid Person’s Opinion’. In organizational settings, there is a strong tendency to prioritize the opinions and decisions of the highest-ranking (and often top paid) individuals, usually those who hold top executive positions or have significant authority. The HiPPO phenomenon underscores the pervasive influence of hierarchical structures and authority on decision-making processes. 

How to avoid it

Authority bias can affect judgements and decision-making at both an individual and group level. Strategies for overcoming this bias include detaching yourself from the authority figure, detaching the information from the authority figure, and seeking out diverse perspectives and sources. 

Groupthink

When working as part of a team, we don’t like to rock the boat or stick out like a sore thumb. Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that sees people striving to maintain cohesion and consensus within a group. This is often achieved by looking up to the person with the most authority. Read this article to learn more about groupthink, the people behind it, and case studies illustrating the phenomenon.

The Messenger Effect 

Authority bias is very similar to the messenger effect, a phenomenon where the perceived credibility, expertise, or likeability of the person delivering information influences how we receive, interpret, and act upon that information. Read this article to learn more about what the messenger effect is, why it happens, and how we can avoid it.