The issue : Cialdini states that figures who are perceived to have an authoritative position (either by appointment, dress or education) can more easily influence actions and decisions than a non-authoritative person.
Major strength: This section explores several different types of authority. The type of trust placed within medical doctors and those with educated backgrounds is surprisingly similar to those with appreciate “fashion”. Most of the examples provided (i.e. doctor, professor, security guard) would be experiences the reader to could identify with and consider the theory.
Major weakness: For this section, Chaldini begins with a bit of a scare tactic regarding the Milgram study. The issue of authority to commit horrible acts is implied but never fully addressed in relation to the real world. This case doesn’t feel like it is fully explored and is an outlier from the rest of the examples due to its serious nature.
Underlying assumption: Individuals will be easily persuaded by those they perceive to have authority and will be less likely to question their actions. Even if they do question the morality of their actions, they will still complete the assigned task.
Provocative questions:
Are we more likely to question authority now that we have access to more information? For example, does my ability to access WebMD, Wikipedia and scholarly texts reduce how likely I am to trust the information presented to me by doctors and educators?
How does this idea of authority relate to elected or appointed officials?
If I post a review on a website (such as Amazon or TripAdvisor), am I declaring myself an expert and should the public trust my opinion?
What modern symbols do we associate with authority and what symbols do we use against authority?