The Importance of Milgram’s Experiment for Aviation Chain of Command
Did you know that political views can influence a crew’s execution of a captain’s decisions?
This article explores the mechanisms of obedience and the factors that shape followers’ behavior.
The Psychology of Obedience
Humans are evolutionarily programmed to follow authority, especially in high-stress or life-threatening situations. This tendency often benefits us, as leaders typically have more experience, knowledge, or power, and following them usually leads to better results and group cohesion. However, blindly following authority can have serious consequences.
Stanley Milgram’s famous experiment demonstrated this phenomenon. Under the direction of an authority figure, participants were instructed to administer increasingly painful electric shocks to others. The results revealed that most people obeyed commands, even when they conflicted with their moral values, common sense, or the law (Milgram, 1963, https://www.simplypsychology.org/milgram.html).
Repeated iterations of Milgram’s experiment confirmed the same conclusion: people predominantly obey authority figures, even when they personally disagree with the orders.
Real-life Consequences of Blind Obedience
The dangers of blind obedience are not just theoretical. History provides many real-life examples, particularly in aviation and other high-risk environments. Here are few examples, without exploring all the contributing factors:
- Korean Air Flight 801 (1997) – Crash at Nimitz Hill – crew compliance with incorrect captain decisions (https://www.faa.gov/lessons_learned/transport_airplane/accidents/HL7468)
- Avianca Flight 052 (1990) – Fuel exhaustion crash – first officer’s failure to communicate fuel emergency to ATC assertively (“mitigated speech”) (https://www.faa.gov/lessons_learned/transport_airplane/accidents/AVA052)
- KLM and PanAm Crash (1977) – Tenerife disaster resulting from miscommunication and deference to captain’s authority (https://asn.flightsafety.org/asndb/329179)
- Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster (1986) – Engineers obeyed unsafe orders and continued the test of reactor, being aware it is out of the protocol (https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accident.aspx)
- British Midland Flight 92 (1989) – Pilots turned off the right engine due to malfunction, several cabin crew noticed that the unburnt fuel was igniting from the left engine, but the information was not passed to the pilots as crew assumed pilots were aware of the situation. (https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/4-1990-boeing-737-400-g-obme-8-january-1989)
- Polish Air Force Flight 101 (2010) – Pilot reluctance to challenge authority contributed to the Smolensk disaster (https://www.gov.pl/documents/905843/1047987/140011FinalReportAnnexes.pdf)
Why Do We Obey?
So what makes us so easily follow the orders of our superiors and authorities, who, after all, are only human and also make mistakes?
Milgram’s research suggests that people underestimate their susceptibility to authority. At the declarative level, we believe that we would behave differently and are surprised by the obedience of others. It turns out, however, that we usually do not realize how much we are influenced by these certain factors:
1. Situational Factors
People comply with unjust orders more often when situation meets such features:
- Ambiguity: When the situation is unclear, individuals defer to authority figures.
- Novelty: Unfamiliar scenarios increase reliance on hierarchical guidance.
- Urgency: Limited time to think critically reduces resistance to authority.
- High Responsibility: Individuals feel less accountable, assuming the superior “knows better” (Zimbardo, Heroic Imagination Project, https://heroicimagination.org/).
2. Cultural Influences
Social upbringing affects our propensity to obey. Geert Hofstede’s research on cultural dimensions highlighted that societies with a high Power Distance Index (PDI) exhibit greater deference to authority. Additionally, dimensions such as Individualism- Collectivism, and Uncertainty Avoidance play roles in shaping obedience. (Hofstede, 1970, https://www.hofstede-insights.com/models/national-culture/)
“Hofstede’s findings contributed to the attempts of reducing power distance in the cockpit – how often employees are being afraid to express disagreement with the managers? was the question asked by aviation experts, asking first officers in their dealings with captains.” (Malcolm Gladwell, Outliers).
Furthermore, Bob Altemeyer (1981) found that individuals with authoritarian right-wing tendencies were more obedient, while those on the political left displayed higher levels of dissent (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359694001_Altemeyer_Right-Wing_Authoritarianism_1981).
3. Personality Traits
While Milgram speculated that personality influences obedience, experiments failed to prove this conclusively. However, later studies found slight correlations between obedience and:
- Locus of control (external locus correlates with higher obedience)
- Empathy levels (lower empathy increases obedience)
- Big Five Traits: Conscientiousness and agreeableness show weak correlations (Burger, 2009, https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0014407).
4. Personal Experience
The previous success or failure of a follower can affect his or her mood and confidence in following authority. Even seemingly unimportant events from the day before may influence the execution of orders, such as the feedback received from a colleague.
5. Authority Perception
The level of trust and likability of an authority figure affects compliance. Unconscious biases also play a role in determining whether subordinates question or challenge authority (Doliński & Grzyb, 2017, https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2017-43938-001).
The Role of Training in Reducing Blind Obedience
Research suggests that situational factors outweigh individual traits when predicting obedience. As Philip Zimbardo emphasized, “Situations matter more than personality when it comes to behavior, especially in unfamiliar scenarios”.
Thus, proper Crew Resource Management (CRM) training is critical. By using case studies and “black swan” scenarios, aviation professionals can better prepare for unpredictable challenges.
How Can We Reduce Pathological Obedience?
Is Assertiveness training the answer? Crew practicing structures like ASIT will definitely support and equip with a strategy. However surprisingly, research has shown that assertiveness training does not significantly reduce obedience to authority.
“Assertiveness training increases the certainty of beliefs regarding the ability to oppose authority, but it does not change actual behaviours at all” (D. Doliński, T. Grzyb 2017, Posłuszni).
That makes us believe leader training is crucial. Here are some best practices for aviation leaders to foster critical thinking and prevent blind obedience:
- Encourage first-name communication, even (or maybe especially) when there is a large difference in age or experience in the crew.
- Find time to get to know each other and build rapport – especially if the crew is multicultural (in the 44% of accidents, two pilots have never flown together before, so they are not comfortable with each other)
- Use Threat and Error Management (TEM) scenarios during briefings to discuss potential challenges and mitigation strategies.
- Acknowledge fatigue openly – share in which situations you may need additional support of your crew, especially if you’ve been working for a few days and you start to feel tired (in the 52% of accidents, pilot has been awake for 12 hours or more).
- Explicitly invite feedback – say “If you see me doing something stupid, please react and let me know. I make errors like everyone else” – It may sound innocent to you, but it can be a game changer if you make a mistake, because your subordinates may think that you are doing it consciously and do not dare to point it out to you.
- Use shared decision making – before sharing your opinion, ask the least experienced person in the crew for their opinion and only then ask those with more experience or position. This simple rule works and allows you to learn uninfluenced opinions of team members.
- Explain why some rules/procedures were introduced – understanding the context of your decisions will reduce following them blindly and will increase your team’s trust
- Use operational debriefing – after any critical situation take time to discuss with your crew how it was perceived by them and what are their learnings
Call to Action: Finding the Balance
How can we find the right balance between necessary obedience and critical thinking in aviation? Join the discussion and share your insights!