Do the right thing! A study on social representation of obedience and disobedience

The present research is aimed at investigating through a mixed-method approach the dimensions underlying the psychosocial constructs of obedience, disobedience and the relations between them. To this end, we consider the attitudes toward (dis)obedience being socially constructed, and we chose the theory of social representations (Abric, 2003; Moscovici, 1961) as the theoretical framework of this study.The data, collected on a sample of 190 individuals, allowed us to define these social objects, reducing both their complexity and polysemy.Obedience and disobedience were both seen by research participants as context-dependent behaviours, neither positive nor negative, per se. Also, both related to the concept of authority (individuals, institutions, and society). However, while obedience was mostly considered an uncritical response to laws, social norms or physical authorities, disobedience was defined as an active, conscious line of conduct. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.     

Authority relationships between obedience and disobedience

Recent episodes of public dissent (such as the demonstrations against G8 policies) raise the issue of the psychological processes triggered in obeying and disobeying the authority. Even if obedience to authority is an important aspect of social life and it plays a key role in maintaining social order, the concept of obedience has been studied in social psychology mainly in terms of its destructive aspects. Besides, most of the studies have overlooked the role of disobedience in the authority relationship. Disobedience may be conceived of as a protest that undermines the legitimacy of the authority or it can represent an instrument for controlling the legitimacy of the authority's demands, becoming a factor protecting against authoritarianism. In this article, a new perspective on the study of the relationship between the individual and the authority is put forward, considering obedience and disobedience as parallel concepts, each having constructive and destructive aspects.     

The triadic legitimacy model: Understanding support to disobedient groups

In a social-psychological perspective, many scholars have argued that disobedience plays a significant role in avoiding the degeneration of the authority into autocracy and in promoting social change. In particular, the tripolar model (minority-majority-population) proposed by Mugny (1982) emphasized the role of the population for the stability or the progress of every society. Authority may indeed preserve the status quo only on the grounds of its influence on a large population. Likewise, protesters may achieve social change only by influencing and involving a large part of the population in their struggles. In understanding why people decide to join a protest, the aim of this article is to integrate Kelman and Hamilton's (1989) analysis of legitimacy with the tripolar model on social influence. The model we propose – namely the triadic legitimacy model (TLM) – explains the dialectic between social stability and social change by considering both authority's and disobedient groups' legitimacies.     

Disobeying an Illegitimate Request in a Democratic or Authoritarian System

Crimes of obedience in the form of illegal or immoral acts committed in response to orders from authority occur in many contexts. In particular, under some circumstances of threats, people can easily accept restrictions upon democratic procedures. Recent studies have underlined the role of legitimacy in understanding the authority relationship and the importance of evaluating the legitimacy of the request rather than the legitimacy of the authority in preventing the rise of authoritarianism. The purpose of this study was to verify if people respond differently when an illegitimate request is put forward by a democratic or an authoritarian authority. The results on 224 subjects confirmed that people tend to be more obedient when they perceive authorities as democratic, notwithstanding the legitimacy of their requests.