Authoritarian Sociopathy: Part 2: Power and Deception

By Davi Barker This was originally posted at Examiner.com. Comments on the original are appreciated.

In Part One we discussed the Milgram Experiment, which showed that 65% of otherwise psychologically healthy people will electrocute another person to death if a scientist in a lab coat tells them to, and the Stanford Prison Experiment which showed that otherwise psychologically healthy people can completely internalize a sadistic personality in less than 36 hours if immersed in an environment that incentivizes cruel behavior.

Ethical guidelines written after these experiments made them illegal to repeat. But there are still a handful of more recent studies that examine the psychology of power and authority. Because of the new limitations these new experiments are not as dramatic as the previous ones, but the implications of their results are no less startling.  In this series we’ll be discussing experiments that study the psychological effect of authority on honesty, compassion and integrity.

Power and Deception:
Dana Carney, a professor at Columbia University, conducted an experiment intended to discover whether “leaders” and “subordinates” experience the same physiological response to lying. She found that power not only makes lying easier, but pleasurable.

Participants from diverse backgrounds were subjected to a personality test that identified them as “leaders” or “subordinates.” In reality the selection was random, but the fake test allowed them believe their assignment was somehow deserved. Those randomly designated as “leaders” were placed in a large office with an executive desk and given an hour of busy work. Those randomly designated as “subordinates” were placed in a small windowless cubical and given an hour of busy work. After this they engaged in a 10 minute mock negotiation over compensation.

After the mock negotiation half the “leaders” and half the “subordinates” were offered a crisp hundred dollar bill if they could lie to the experimenter in the closing interview and convince him that they didn’t have it. The experimenter did not know who had it and who didn’t.

For most people lying elicits negative emotions, cognitive impairment, physiological stress, and nonverbal behavioural cues, all of which can be measured. Video of the interviews were reviewed to identify behavioural cues, such as fidgeting or increasing the rate of speech. Saliva samples were tested for increases in the stress hormone cortisol. Tests of reaction time were conducted on the computer to demonstrate cognitive impairment. And a mood survey assessed participants emotional states during the experiment.

By every measure liars from the “subordinate” class exhibited all the indicators of deception. They reported negative emotions, demonstrated cognitive impairment, increased stress levels and exhibited behavioral cues associated with lying. Liars from the “leader” class exhibited the exact opposite. By every measure they were indistinguishable from truth-tellers. In fact it was discovered that they enjoyed reduced levels of stress, increased cognitive function and reported positive emotions. Only “subordinates” reported feeling bad about lying.

Professor Carney speculates that authority could have a similar impact on other unethical behavior with similar physiological responses, such as cheating, stealing, exploitation, reckless behavior and even political corruption. She concludes, “Power will lead to increases in intensity and frequency of lying.”

In other words lying comes easier, and may even be inherently more pleasurable, to those in a position of authority, even fake authority. Also, positions of authority not only attract dishonest people, but actually incentivize dishonesty in people. So, going back to the Stanford Prison Experiment, being a prison guard not only induces cruel and sadistic behavior, but also makes it easier to lie to cover it up. Returning to the Milgrim Experiment, being in a position of subordination induces a willingness to follow unethical orders, but also being in a position of authority may make it easier, even pleasurable, to give unethical orders in the first place.

Stay tuned for Part 3 on compassion and Part 4 on integrity.