



































 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 117-132) 
 

Authority and Conformity:  
Does it Deter or Motivate Deviance in a Work Setting? 

 
 

Nestor Parada 
Department of Sociology 

California State University, Los Angeles 
 
 

Traditionally, sociological theories are concerned with criminal behavior 
being traced to ones socioeconomic status, race, and gender.  Other 
theoretical frameworks also mention the distribution of wealth and 
resources as factors inherently linked to the motivation of criminal 
behavior.  However, most of these theories fail to describe the role of 
authoritative figures in affecting people’s behavior.  This paper will 
discuss how individuals are influenced by authoritative figures and their 
own rational choice to commit acts of deviance.  Questions included in 
this research assess whether or not people would execute orders at the 
behest of their superiors. Overall, this research proposal looks to examine 
the role of authoritative figures in influencing people’s ability to make 
decisions and behave in a certain way. 
 
 

INTRODUCTION 
 
1There are numerous social forces that 
are responsible for cultivating deviance 
in society, such as psychological, 
economic, and structural changes.  
Therefore, for every behavior type, there 
are many explanations providing insight 
as to why deviance occurs and why it is 
apparent in many societies.  For 
instance, functionalists examine the role 
of criminal behavior as being necessary 
for society to function as a whole.  In 

                                                           
Nestor Parada is a graduate student in the 
Department of Sociology. His paper was 
originally submitted to SOC. 580 Criminology 
Seminar, taught by Dr. Sharon Oselin in Winter 
2011. 

other words, the sanctioning of behavior 
considered detrimental to the larger 
society is able to self-regulate and deter 
deviance.  As a result, society 
normalizes criminal behavior because it 
is functional for the preservation of the 
status quo (Durkheim in Traub & Little 
Eds. 1999).  This perspective offers the 
explanation that criminal behavior 
evolves with society, and the meaning of 
these behaviors is to redefine themselves 
with the changes in time.  To some 
extent, the functionalist perspective does 
provide some motivational factors 
regarding why people continuously defy 
social norms. 

Another theory that tries to 
explain the emergence of crime and 
deviance in society is the social 
disorganization theory, which links 



AUTHORITY AND CONFORMITY IN A WORK SETTING by Nestor Parada 118 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 117-132) 
 

social environments as being responsible 
for generating criminal behavior.  For 
instance, these communities are 
characterized as a “crude rural-urban 
comparison of rates of dependency, 
crime, divorce, and deviance, suicide, 
and vice have shown these problems to 
be more severe in the cities, especially 
the largely rapidly expanding industrial 
cities” (Faris and Dunham in Traub & 
Little Eds:74).  Consequently, the lack of 
control in these environments and the 
lack of solidarity among the community 
leads to the breakdown of norms.  One 
of the many limitations of this theory is 
that it neglects to take into consideration 
rational choices that are responsible for 
motivating people’s actions.  An 
important idea to explore is examining 
the ability of people to make decisions 
and how the rewards justify their 
deviation from social norms, as the inner 
motivations of people can propel them to 
perform deviant acts, which  they define 
desirable.  In fact, none of these 
strategies provide any explanations as to 
the effects of conformity and whether or 
not conforming to social norms leads to 
deviance.  For instance, Merton (1934) 
believed conformity is not regarded as 
deviance because people who adhere 
with both the institutional means and the 
culturally prescribed goals have no 
desire to deviate.  However, there are 
other motivational aspects where 
criminal behavior is learned and, 
eventually, becomes rationalized. 

Criminal behavior is not 
biologically transmitted, but rather it is 
learned, rationalized, and committed by 
people who have learned to rationalize 
the behavior based on personal and 
social experiences.  The role of 
authoritative figures is either to deter 

people from engaging in criminal 
behavior by instilling the notion of 
consequence for belligerent behavior or 
to legitimize criminal behavior because 
it provides rewards.  As an example, 
some findings suggest that family 
discipline facilitates conformity 
(Eckhardt 1974).  However, in some 
cases authoritative people promote 
criminal behaviors in others.  With that 
being said, the same rules, morals, and 
ethics which govern society are not 
applicable to all its members.  For 
instance, Sykes and Matza believed that 
individuals learn to neutralize the 
meaning of rules, and certain behaviors 
considered deviant by some might not be 
defined as deviant in the legal system 
(Sykes and Matza in Traub & Little Eds. 
1999).  One could debate that criminal 
behavior is a reflection of the structural 
dynamics, where criminal behavior is 
correlated to socioeconomic status.  In a 
sense, authoritative figures are 
responsible for instilling conformity 
among people in hierarchical structures 
as being the norm.  By acknowledging 
authoritative figures, people rely on 
receiving instructions from people of 
higher status.  By examining conformity 
as one of the essential factors why 
uncontested authority exists, one can 
better understand why people learn to 
accept criminal behavior because of the 
normalization of the acts. 

Social conditioning from parents 
and educational institutions ultimately 
prepare people to obey authority because 
they have been prepared to comply.  
Symbolic interactions with others are 
vital in the learning process where 
people assume roles and, eventually, 
perform and replicate the activities they 
had previously learned, thus reinforcing 



AUTHORITY AND CONFORMITY IN A WORK SETTING by Nestor Parada 119 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 117-132) 
 

the behavior.  In other words, the 
meaning of the interaction and the 
understanding of the behavior becomes a 
legitimized form of human action 
(Sandstrom et al. 2006).  The power 
dynamics in the relationship between 
people of higher status and those of 
lower status has an effect in instilling 
conformity or deviation on to others.  In 
many cases, the exercise of power is 
used as a coercive tactic to gain 
compliance and, more importantly, the 
application of “threats” or possibly a 
“reward” makes people perform tasks 
(Willer et al. 1997).  Therefore, people, 
who obtain power over those in lower 
status positions, can coerce others to 
perform activities for the approval and 
rewards they would gain from those 
authority figures.  The exchange of 
rewards themselves could vary based on 
the given situation.  The exchange itself 
is motivated by the possibility of gaining 
acknowledgment or positive 
reinforcement, which subordinates gain 
from their interaction with superiors.  
Another explanation why subordinates 
adhere to authority is because of fear of 
retribution from their superiors.  For 
instance, authority figures such as 
parents and other influential adults 
establish “values and roles” for youth to 
follow (Sandstrom et al. 2006).  

Authoritative figures can 
maintain their control of subordinates by 
exerting punitive behavior not in 
accordance with their valued norms..  
Authoritative figures can either deter or 
promote criminal behavior.  In a sense, 
authoritative figures instill inner 
constraint mechanisms that deter people 
from committing deviant acts.  However, 
those authoritative figures also have the 
ability to control and shape people’s 

behavior.  In some cases, the 
“attachment” to others demonstrates that 
relationships are control mechanisms 
directing people’s behavior.  For 
instance, “Attachment to parents is the 
most obvious source of social control, 
particularly among youth” (Kubrin et al. 
2009:170).  The strength of authoritative 
figures in life is influential enough to 
exert power over others.  Perceptions 
about fear and punishment when social 
norms are violated can deter people from 
engaging in behavior that will bring 
upon them negative sanctions, however, 
on the other hand, influential authority 
figures have the capability to alter 
people’s behavior and force them to 
conform. 

This paper will describe the 
theoretical effectiveness of the social 
learning, rational choice, and control 
theories in explaining the role of 
authoritative figures, as they influence 
action that lead to deviance.  The main 
implications behind this research is to 
demonstrate that predispositions of fear 
drive people’s desire to conform to 
authority, and that people’s inability to 
challenge authority reinforces the 
strength of authoritative figures.  Thus, 
the purpose of this research is to provide 
an analysis of a psychological problem 
and how it is examined socio-
psychologically. 

 
SOCIAL LEARNING  
 

In many ways, authoritative 
figures influence people’s behavior, 
while having the ability to have others 
execute orders for them.  The exercise of 
power is defined as the act of achieving 
and accomplishing ones subjective goals 
(Kelman 1958).  People are conditioned 



AUTHORITY AND CONFORMITY IN A WORK SETTING by Nestor Parada 120 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 117-132) 
 

to adhere to hierarchy and comply with 
people of higher status.  The social 
learning theory is applicable to explain 
how people learn deviance from 
interaction with others.  This framework 
illustrates deviance as being reflective of 
the authoritative structure and people 
then abandon their principles to satisfy 
the interests of their superiors.  The 
strength of authority is sociologically 
relevant because the exercise of power 
between superior and subordinate is 
applicable in many settings such as 
work, school, and almost every other 
aspect of social life.  The dynamics of 
the relationship between people is 
brought about by mutual interests and 
exchanges.  Whether or not authority is 
taken by force or gained by charisma, it 
remains an influential force in the 
development of social learning, and 
replication of the behavior is a product 
of the multiple interactions with the 
people of authority.  As a result, the 
behavior is a product of social 
interactions. 

In a sense, influential 
authoritative figures have the ability to 
govern others to legitimize their 
principles and convince people that their 
actions are correct.  Another definition 
of power is having the ability to modify 
people’s beliefs and attitudes (Willer et 
al. 1997).  As Zimbardo asserted, “The 
power of authorities is demonstrated not 
only in the extent to which they can 
command obedience from followers, but 
also in the extent to which they can 
define reality and alter habitual ways of 
thinking and actions”(2007:283).  This 
demonstrates that people of higher 
authoritative status can validate their 
actions because of their ability to create 
their own perception of reality, which in 

return validates and reinforces their 
power.  The same figures of authority 
can either sanction crime or legitimize 
the criminal behavior. 

For instance, those authoritative 
figures that exert power use intimidating 
tactics to restore their role.  Intimidating 
tactics are often applicable in controlling 
people and, by generating fear; people 
eventually comply with the orders of the 
superiors.  As Athens cited, 
“Brutalization is a composite experience 
consisting of three more elemental 
experiences: violent subjugation, 
personal horrification and violent 
coaching” (1992:27).  Essentially, 
authoritative figures have the means to 
instill fear in and also instill conformity 
upon their perceived subordinates.  Once 
again as Athens discussed: 

 
When a subordinate is perceived 
as being disobedient or 
disrespectful, any authority 
figure may exert or threaten to 
exert extreme physical force in a 
brutal attempt to make the 
subordinate obedient and 
respectful….Because authority 
figures use extreme physical 
force for the purpose of bringing 
the conduct of a perceived 
subordinate under their control, 
their use of violence has a strong 
utilitarian flavor to it. (1992:28-
9) 
 

 Subsequently, these authoritative 
figures apply multiple methods to 
legitimize their actions and to neutralize 
previously learned norms.  For instance, 
these forms of conditioning give rise to 
unquestioned authority.  Zimbardo 
claimed, “We can see that this program 



AUTHORITY AND CONFORMITY IN A WORK SETTING by Nestor Parada 121 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 117-132) 
 

utilizes a variety of social psychological 
and motivational principles to assist in 
turning collective hatred and general 
frenzy into a dedicated, seriously 
calculated program of indoctrination and 
training for individuals to become 
youthful living martyrs” (2007:292).  By 
subscribing to this idea, they are 
privileged to be under the leadership of 
these authoritative figures, while 
subordinates assimilate to the ideals 
around them.  This demonstrates that 
people are capable of performing tasks 
that they perceive as beneficial in 
bringing out certain social rewards for 
conforming. 
 
RATIONAL CHOICE 
 

Additionally, people are subject 
to many experiences that teach them the 
motives and the rationalization of their 
authoritative figures.  Individuals are 
conditioned to obey or conform without 
yielding any dismay or disobedience.  
Once people are integrated into a group, 
eventually they learn to “calculate the 
cost and benefits associated with their 
efforts to improve their financial well-
being” (Janowski in Rubington & 
Weinberg Eds. 2008:296).  The rewards 
for performing activities make the 
behavior justifiable, as part of the 
“cognitive mechanisms” and the ability 
to control behavior leads to choices 
people make (Clarke & Cornish 1985).  
In a sense, criminal behavior is 
“learned” with what actions are 
favorable or unfavorable” for the 
individual to pursue (Sutherland & 
Cressey in Traub & Little Eds.1999).  
This reinforces the idea that people who 
find themselves in bureaucratic 
situations are conditioned to refer back 

to the way they rationalize things.  By 
acknowledging the belief in others, 
individuals further disassociate from the 
norms they were taught as being 
traditional.  By disassociating 
themselves from systems of beliefs that 
govern the larger social whole, people 
become detached and further create their 
own ideals of what is favorable or not 
favorable. 

The rational choice theory places 
an emphasis on demonstrating that 
people are responsible for their actions 
because of their ability able to calculate 
the rewards before performing activities.  
As Homans (1964) cited, people 
routinely perform activities because of 
how valuable and how feasible the 
activity is in attaining the rewards.  
Furthermore, individuals rationalize their 
behavior, which drives their desire to 
attain social rewards. 

The legitimization of routine 
activities or the performance of activities 
is taught by interaction with people of 
higher status.  Individuals learn to 
personify the behavior of others, and in 
return people engage in deviant behavior 
because it is successful for them.  In 
addition, “Performance of 
observationally learned behavior is 
influenced by three major types of 
incentive motivators – direct, vicarious, 
and self-produced.  People are more 
likely to adopt modeled strategies 
produced valued outcomes, rather than 
unrewarding or punishing effects” 
(Wood & Bandura. 1989:363).  Once 
people take on criminal roles, they learn 
the “technical, cost-benefit-ration aspect 
of crime: the opportunities for crime 
available in the environment and the risk 
attached to the criminal activity” 
(Downes & Rock Eds. 2007: 209).  



AUTHORITY AND CONFORMITY IN A WORK SETTING by Nestor Parada 122 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 117-132) 
 

Therefore, people engage in deviance 
because of the success achieved from 
performing such activities.  Not only 
does performing criminal behavior 
reinforce the idea that crime is learned, 
but it also validates the notion that crime 
is not reduced to being a psychological 
abnormality if many people in society do 
so. 

 
AUTHORITY/ CONFORMITY 
 
 Authoritative figures are those 
people of higher social status who have 
the ability to define morality within a 
given context.  As an example, parents 
assume the role of being authoritative 
figures to their children.  To elaborate, 
“Primary socialization refers to the 
process by which children learn to 
become mature, responsible members of 
society….Secondary socialization, by 
contrast, refers to more a specific formal 
training that individuals experience 
throughout their lives, such as learning 
how to drive, learning how to parent, or 
learning an occupation” (Sandstrom et 
al. 2006:58).  In many ways, the social 
conditioning of people has an effect 
towards how they perform routine 
activities.  The consequences for 
performing the activities are essentially 
the same in both the home and the 
workplace setting.  Both situations 
consist of people having to adhere to the 
rules of people of higher status because 
of fear of punishment for not performing 
activities that represent their rule.  In a 
work setting, authoritative figures are 
bosses and the subordinates are their 
employees.  In both situations, those in 
subordinate positions are coerced into 
complying with those people of higher 
status.  Conformity is a product of the 

fear and authoritative pressure being 
placed on the individual to follow social 
norms.  

Fedlman (2003) argued that 
people who assume authority roles for 
the most part “redirect” their hostility 
towards others they characterize as being 
“weak” or “inferior.”  In a sense, 
domination is taken by force.  The 
process in which authority takes control 
of others is often by force.  The exercise 
of power in praxis is operationalized as 
the “ability to mobilize resources for the 
achievement of individual or collective 
goods” (Feldman. 1973: 640).  Their 
rationale motivates their necessity for 
controlling others, which in return ranks 
authoritative figures as instructors and 
entrepreneurs of the people they 
perceive as subordinates.  The 
differences in socialization, education, 
and social experiences have an effect on 
how authoritative figures perceive those 
people they dominate (Feldman 2003). 
In addition, the conflict emerges when 
force is tactically used to diminish the 
role of the person.  Not only is the 
person dehumanized, but the dominant 
party is able to pressure or coerce the 
person into conforming to expectations.  
The initial response to authority is fear, 
which usually is a reaction to threats 
brought forth by the pressure of 
conformity or severe consequences 
(Feldman 2003).  Kelman (1958) 
described three processes in which 
individuals learn how to obey from 
figures of authority.  First, he elaborated 
that “compliance” is when a person 
adopts the learned behavior because he 
or she gains rewards and avoids 
punishment from the people of the 
group.  Second, the person “identifies” 
himself as being a member of that group 



AUTHORITY AND CONFORMITY IN A WORK SETTING by Nestor Parada 123 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 117-132) 
 

and learns to conform to the expectations 
of the group.  Third, individuals 
“internalize” and learn to modify their 
value system after the group.  Not only 
do people learn to imitate behavior, but 
they also assume the same attitudes of 
the people around them (Sutherland & 
Cressey in Traub & Little Eds 1999).  
This exemplifies that people are learning 
and are instrumental in pleasing 
authoritative figures and others they 
perceive as being in a higher status. 

Forced compliance gives 
authoritative figures the reasoning to 
legitimize their rules, regulations, and 
systematic beliefs.  By incorporating 
beliefs, individuals ultimately comply 
because conforming to the idea is in 
their best self-interests.  However, if 
people inherently defy these rules, they 
would be subjected to antagonism by 
authority.  In other words, “They do 
things that give them satisfaction and a 
sense of self-worth, and refrain from 
behaving in ways that violate their moral 
standards.  Moral agency is thus 
exercised through the constraint of 
negative self-sanctions for conduct that 
violates one’s moral standards, 
combined with the support of positive 
self-sanctions for conduct to personal 
moral standards” (Osofsky et al. 2005).  
These forms of psychological 
conditioning are not just restricted to 
individuals, but are applicable to 
observing bureaucratic organizations 
which have their own set of beliefs.  The 
application of power being used as a 
mechanism of status and authority has 
the ability to alter people’s ability to 
make wise decisions.  Subsequently, by 
conforming to the influence of authority, 
people are made to feel that complying 
is the norm.  Whether the behavior is 

criminal or not, people eventually 
comply with their superiors.  On an 
individual level, people comply with 
authority because they are convinced 
that not complying is a deviant act.  In 
some cases, the “power relations” 
determine the kind of interaction 
between those considered subordinates 
and superiors (Gariner 1973).  Despite 
the power relations between the 
authority and subordinate, individuals 
gradually rationalize the rewards from 
performing deviant behavior. 

Conformity is validated by the 
“obedience” of the orders transmitted 
from a superior to a subordinate 
(Eckhardt 1974).  However, in a 
hierarchical structure/system people are 
coerced into complying with authority 
because the bureaucracy exerts pressure 
on its subordinates to be part of the 
collective norm where complying is 
considered good for the organization as a 
whole.  For example, people are 
expected to situate their behavior for the 
greater good of the group or organization 
because of the pressure of having to 
satisfy those in hierarchical status 
(Campbell & Mc Cormack 1957).  
Moreover, the pressures of conformity 
undermine the person’s ability to rebel 
or even question authority because of 
simultaneous consequences that could 
either place the person in eminent danger 
or bring forth sanctions which brand the 
person as being detrimental to the 
organization.  In many ways, authority 
reinforces its superiority through 
“legislative decisions” or through the 
“law” as an instrument to assure 
obedience (Campbell & Mc Cormack 
1957).  Therefore, deviance is thus a 
byproduct of the interaction between 
those who learn deviant behavior from 



AUTHORITY AND CONFORMITY IN A WORK SETTING by Nestor Parada 124 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 117-132) 
 

authoritative figures because they either 
punish the behavior or reward the 
behavior.  Either people conform to 
social norms because they benefit from 
conforming to authority or they deviate 
because the authority that they interacted 
with has conditioned them to rationalize 
the rewards of performing the activity.  
Both conformity and deviance are 
interrelated in the sense that both 
behaviors bring forth social rewards.  
Another similarity between conformity 
and deviation is that both are taught 
behaviors. 

 
CONTROL THEORY 
 
 Control theory offers the best 
explanation as to why the pressure of 
conformity makes people adhere to the 
rules of society.  This perspective looks 
at how people have the ability to 
“control impulses and desires” (Kubrin 
et al. 2009: 167).  The strength of 
punishment and retribution of deviant 
acts is what forces people to comply in 
society.  In a sense, compliance is 
brought about by the potential sanctions 
against one’s behavior and, as a result, 
individuals are constrained by the 
strength of the social bonds.  In many 
cases, having attachment to others can 
serve as a deterrent limiting the desire to 
engage in deviance.  Thus, the levels of 
interaction with authoritative figures are 
also responsible for enabling the desire 
to commit deviant acts.  Social learning, 
rational choice, and control theories all 
intersect with the strength of authority 
figures.  People learn to conform to the 
rules from their parents.  People 
rationalize the rules, motives, and 
rewards from performing activities.  The 
response from society to deviant 

behavior is what people have learned 
even before they commit the acts 
themselves.  In many ways, deviance 
occurs when there is an “absence” of 
governing social rules and the lack of 
enforcements of social rules that give 
rise to the opportunity to perform 
deviance (Kubrin et al. 2009).  Authority 
serves as an aspect of social control that 
deters people from deviating from social 
norms regardless of their commonality 
and dominance.  The pressure of 
conforming convinces people that 
acknowledging people of authoritative 
status such as parents, employers, or 
even people with higher status 
automatically gains compliance from 
subordinates. 
 In many cases, social control is 
systematic on a micro and macro level.  
The pressure placed on the individual to 
comply is brought about by the 
punishments associated with deviance.  
People outweigh the cost and benefits 
before performing activities and, at the 
same time, rationalize deviance, but the 
social controls greatly influence people’s 
behavior more than the rewards 
themselves.  In fact, one could argue that 
automatic compliance with authority is 
rationalized to be more beneficial for the 
individual.  Gottfredson and Hirshi 
mentioned that “the impulsive or short 
sighted person fails to consider the 
negative or painful consequences of his 
acts; the insensitive person has fewer 
negative consequences to consider; the 
less intelligent person has fewer negative 
consequences to consider (has less to 
lose)” (Gottfredson and Hirshi in Traub 
& Little: 339).  People rationalize the 
performance and the punishment for 
potential acts that in return reaffirm the 
control that society has over the 



AUTHORITY AND CONFORMITY IN A WORK SETTING by Nestor Parada 125 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 117-132) 
 

individual.  Given the context of the 
behavior, the constraints adequately 
govern and deter people’s impulses to 
engage in the behavior that would bring 
them success.  The idea that authority is 
a beneficial control mechanism ideally 
makes people more conscious of their 
actions.  In many ways, people of higher 
status are primarily responsible for the 
regulation of deviance, but they can 
create their own forms of deviance.  By 
status being used to deter belligerent 
behavior, they can control those 
subordinates to perform their activities. 
 
RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS 
 
 The proposed research 
hypothesis will examine the role of 
authoritative figures as being responsible 
for forcing people to comply and not 
disobey people of authoritative status.  
The social learning theory illustrates that 
people are receptive to knowledge, 
attitudes, and, more importantly, beliefs 
of those people from whom they learn.  
People also learn to assume the role of 
the person that they interact with and, at 
the same time, model their behavior after 
them.  People rationalize the activities 
they were conditioned to perform.  In a 
sense, people learn to perceive that 
activities they are doing as legitimate 
because they have learned to calculate 
the costs and the benefits of performing 
such activities.  In addition, people 
conform to authority because of 
psychological/sociological conditioning 
from people of higher status (parents, 
educators, and employers) and, as a 
result, fail to challenge them. The 
control theory emphasizes how people 
conform to those of higher status in 
society.  The punishment for 

disobedience can vary by any given 
context, but individuals internalize the 
consequences of their actions.  The 
emphasis on adhering to authoritative 
figures obliges people to comply 
because they either gain some benefits 
for complying with those of higher status 
or are fearful of retribution from these 
people.  In a sense, people have been 
conditioned throughout their lifetime to 
acknowledge the status of parents, 
teachers, and seniors, but are never 
taught to question them. 
 This research will look at people 
in the work setting.  It will examine 
whether or not people will commit 
deviance under the leadership of 
someone of higher status in a work 
setting.  In addition, this research will 
also evaluate whether people commit 
acts of deviance because they gain 
rewards for performing deviant acts.  
Not only will this research look at the 
benefits of complying with those of 
higher status, but it will also examine if 
people are fearful of retribution from 
those people they perceive as having 
more status. 
Hypothesis 1:  The benefits of 
complying with authority will cause 
people in a workplace setting to perform 
illegal activities. 
Hypothesis 2:  People comply with 
authoritative figures because they are 
fearful of sanction for not obeying 
instruction. 
 
METHODS 
 
Data Collection: 
 In order to test the hypotheses, a 
survey will be administered at public 
gatherings such as conventions, athletic, 
and cultural events to gain a larger 



AUTHORITY AND CONFORMITY IN A WORK SETTING by Nestor Parada 126 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 117-132) 
 

variety of responses.  The respondents 
are going to be asked questions 
regarding deviant behavior that they 
would be likely to commit in a work 
setting.  Furthermore, the research will 
point out that people have the potential 
to commit deviance under leadership.  
Respondents are not asked their name in 
order to ensure their confidentiality.  By 
distributing this survey to the public, 
there is a larger possibility of gaining an 
equal representation of responses.  In 
addition, this research will demonstrate 
that women are more likely into conform 
and seek the rewards of performing 
illegal activities than men. 
 For the most part, most studies 
examining authority have used 
controlled settings in order to see the 
causal effects of authority.  This research 
will look at the effects of authority on a 
larger scale to see if people are capable 
of carrying out the orders of those 
people in higher status.  Previous 
research has looked at the role of 
unquestioned authority in a controlled 
setting.  This research will attempt to 
look at the role of authority in a work 
setting.  In addition, this research will 
examine unquestioned authority, 
conformity, and deviance on a larger 
scale. 
 
Benefits of Compliance: Key 
Independent Variable 

The central research hypothesis 
is to demonstrate that criminal behavior 
stems from benefits acquired through 
authoritative figures.  The question to be 
asked to respondents is “Do you feel it is 
beneficial to comply with authority in a 
work setting?”  The response categories 
were “Yes, No.”  This is a dichotomous 
variable. (See attached research survey 

question 9) Authority is defined as being 
people that you perceive of higher status 
or those who have the ability to 
command orders and have you carry out 
the orders. 
 
Performed Deviance: Dependent 
Variable 

The dependent variable explores 
the benefits of performing deviant acts. 
This question asks respondents, “Would 
you perform an illegal activity at work if 
you gained a reward for it?”  The 
response categories are, “Strongly 
Agree, Agree, Disagree, & Strongly 
Disagree.”  This is an ordinal variable. 
(See attached research survey question 
13) 
 
Fear & Punishment: Dependent Variable 

The dependent variable examines 
the relationship between benefits of 
compliance and fear/punishment.  This 
question asks respondents, “Would you 
perform illegal activities under the 
supervision of one of your supervisors in 
fear of punishment?”  The response 
categories were, “Strongly Agree, 
Agree, Disagree, & Strongly Disagree.”  
This is an ordinal variable. (See attached 
survey question 11) 
 
Control Variables: 

Age is a variable that will be 
examined because the possibility of the 
change over time could affect people’s 
opinions towards authority.  This is an 
ordinal variable.  The reason why age is 
relevant is because of the potential effect 
of producing different results.  Younger 
respondents may have different opinions 
than those older respondents. 

Race is a variable that will be 
examined because the possibility of 



AUTHORITY AND CONFORMITY IN A WORK SETTING by Nestor Parada 127 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 117-132) 
 

ethnic identification could have an effect 
on people’s opinions towards authority.  
This is a multinomial variable.  This 
variable will be transformed into 
dichotomous variables.  The differences 
in race can produce different responses.  
For instance, one group might be more 
inclined to perform deviant acts under 
conditions where it is in their best 
interests to adhere to authority.   

Gender is a variable that will be 
examined because different genders 
could have differences in opinions 
relating to authority.  This is a 
dichotomous variable.  The differences 
in genders could produce differences in 
income.  One gender could be more 
inclined to commit acts of deviance 
under pressure because of their role. 

Monthly income is a variable that 
will be examined because the differences 
in finances could produce differences in 
opinions to authority.  This is an ordinal 
variable.  The reason why monthly 
income is being examined is because the 
differences in finances could produce 
different responses.  People with fewer 
resources could feel more inclined to 
conform in a work setting.  In a sense, 
people with higher resources might not 
feel obliged to conform or engage in 
illegal activities because it is not in their 
best interests to do so. 

Religion is a control variable that 
will be examined because of the 
differences in religious backgrounds.  
Due to religion being a multinomial 
variable, the variables must be 
transformed into dichotomous variables 
to eliminate bias and not rank religious 
beliefs as being superior or inferior to 
one another.  The differences in religious 
beliefs can have an effect towards how 
they perceive committing deviant acts.  

In some cases, the pressure of 
conformity and having to adhere to 
people of higher status obliges people to 
comply. 

 
ANALYSIS 
 
 The research methods that will 
be used for this research is univariate 
analysis and logistic regression.  
Univariate analysis will look at the mean 
and the standard deviation of the 
variables.  The logistic will analyze the 
regression coefficients and the P-level.  
Regression provides how the 
independent variable affects the 
dependent variable.  This method would 
limit spurious findings and it proves to 
be more accurate in demonstrating the 
relationship between the variables. 
 
UNIVARIATE STATISTICS 
 
 The univariate statistics of the 
key independent variable involves the 
benefits of compliance and the 
dependent variable perform illegal 
activities, are going to be examined.  
The benefits of conforming to authority 
can stem from the acknowledgment that 
people gain from complying with 
authority.  Whether activities being 
performed are legal or illegal, people can 
gain rewards from them.  The reward 
itself from performing activities can 
either be tangible or intangible, but 
people are driven to perform them.  
Also, the univariate statistics will look at 
the frequency distribution of the 
independent variable (benefits of 
compliance) and dependent variable 
(performing illegal activities out of fear 
or punishment). 



AUTHORITY AND CONFORMITY IN A WORK SETTING by Nestor Parada 128 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 117-132) 
 

 The univariate analysis will also 
examine the control variables of, age, 
race, gender, religion and monthly 
income. 
 
LOGISTIC REGRESSION 
 
 The logistic regression analysis 
will be provided for the ordinal 
dependent variable, which is performing 
activities.  The reason why it is a 
suitable analysis is because of the more 
distinct connection between the key 
independent (benefits of compliance) 
and dependent variable (performing 
activities).  The regression will 
demonstrate whether the independent 
variable has a significant effect on the 
dependent variable.  In addition, the 
regression will examine the relationship 
between the key independent variable 
(benefits of compliance) and the 
dependent variable (performing illegal 
activities out of fear or punishment).  
The regression will also demonstrate 
whether the key independent variable 
has a significant effect on the dependent 
variable. 
 The logistic regression will also 
analyze the control variables such as 
age, race, gender, religion, and monthly 
income.  The reason the regression is a 
suitable method is to see if the control 
variables in conjunction with the key 
independent variable have an effect on 
the dependent variable. 
 In short, this research will point 
out the role of authority being 
responsible for cultivating deviance.  
People are intent on satisfying those 
people of higher status even if the 
activities are criminal because of the fear 
of retribution/ punishment for not 
complying.  This research will 

demonstrate that people who comply 
with those of higher status are willing to 
perform illegal activities because it 
would be in their best interest to do so. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



AUTHORITY AND CONFORMITY IN A WORK SETTING by Nestor Parada 129 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 117-132) 
 

REFERENCES 

Athens, Lonnie.  1992.  The Creation of 
Dangerous Violent Criminals. 
Chicago, IL: University of
 Illinois Press. 

Campbell, Donald T. & Thelma H. Mc 
Cormack.  1957.  “Military 
Experience and Attitudes
 Towards Authority.” The 
American Journal of Sociology.  
62 (5): 482-490. 

Clarke, Ronald V. & Derek B. Cornish.  
1985.  “Offenders Decisions: A 
Framework for Research and 
Policy.”  Crime & Justice.  6: 
147-185. 

Downes, David & Paul Rock Eds.  2007.  
Understanding Deviance 5th 
Edition.  New York, NY:
 Oxford University Press. 

Eckhardt, William.  1974.  “A 
Conformity Theory of 
Aggression.”  Journal of Peace 
Research.  11 (1):31-39. 

Feldman, Ronald A.  1973.  “Power 
Distribution, Integration, and 
Conformity in Small Groups.”
 The American Journal of 
Sociology.  79(3):639-644. 

Feldman, Stanley.  2003.  “Enforcing 
Social Conformity: A theory of 
Authoritarianism.”  Political
 Psychology.  24 (1): 41-
74. 

Gariner, Maurice.  1973.  “Power and 
Ideological Conformity: A Case 
Study.”  The American
 Journal of 
Sociology.  79 (2): 343-363. 

Homans, George. 1964.  “Bringing Men 
Back In.”  American Sociological 
Review. 29 (6): 809-818. 

Kubrin, Charis E., Thomas D. Stucky, & 
Marvin D. Krohn.  2009. 
Researching Theories of Crime 
and Deviance.  New York, 
NY: Oxford University Press. 

Kelman. Herbert C.  1958.  
“Compliance, Identification, and 
Internalization.”  The Journal of
 Conflict
 Resolution.  2 (1): 51-60. 

Merton, Robert K.  1938. “Social 
Structure and Anomie.”  
American Sociological Review.  
3 (5):672 682. 

Osofsky, Michael J., Albert Bandura, & 
Phillip G. Zimbardo.  2005.  
“The Role of Moral
 Disengagement in the 
Execution Process.”  Law and 
Human Behavior.  29 (4): 371-
393. 

Rubington, Earl. & Martin S. Weinberg 
Eds.  2008.  Deviance: The 
Interactionist Perspective 10th

 Edition. Boston, MA: 
Pearson. 

Sandstrom, Kent L., Daniel D. Martin, & 
Gary Alan Fine.  2006.  Symbols, 
Selves, and Social Reality.
 Los Angeles, CA: 
Roxbury Publishing Company. 

Traub, Stuart H. & Craig B. Little, Eds. 
1999.  Theories of Deviance 5th 
Edition.  Belmont, CA:
 Thompson &Wadsworth. 

Willer, David, Michael J. Lovagila, & 
Barry Makowsky.  1997.  “Power 
& Influence: A Theoretical
 Bridge.  Social Forces. 76 
(2): 571-603. 

 



AUTHORITY AND CONFORMITY IN A WORK SETTING by Nestor Parada 130 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 117-132) 
 

Wood, Robert. & Albert Bandura.  1989.  
“Social Cognitive Theory of 
Organizational Management.” 
Academy of Management.  14(3): 
361-384. 

Zimbardo, Phillip.  2007.  The Lucifer 
Effect: Understanding How 
Good People Turn Evil.  New
 York, NY:  Random 
House. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 



AUTHORITY AND CONFORMITY IN A WORK SETTING by Nestor Parada 131 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 117-132) 
 

APPENDIX 1: 
 

Authority Survey 
 

1. Respondents Age: 
10-19__  20-29__  30-39__  40-49__ 
 50-59__  60-69__ 
70-79__  80- & Over__ 

 
2. Respondent’s gender? 

 
Female__ Male__ 

 
3.  What race do you consider yourself? 

White__  Black__  Other___ 
 

4. Please specify which monthly income from the following category: 
Under $1,000__   $1,000 to 2,999__  $3,000 to 

3,999__  
$4,000to 4,999__   $5,000 to 5,999__  $6,000to 

6,999__  
$7,000to7,999__   $8,000to 8,999__   $9,000 

to 9,999__ 
$10,00 to 10,999 __  $11,000 to 11,999__  $12,000 to 

12,999__ 
 

5. Please identify your religious affiliation: 

Protestant__  Catholic__  Jewish__ Other__ 

 
Given the definition of authority are those people you perceive as having higher status 
and those people who have the ability to administer orders and persuade you perform 
actions. 
 

6. Where you always taught to comply with people of authoritative status? 

Yes__ No__ 

7. Have you ever been intimidated by a person of authority? 

Yes__ No__ 

8. In a work setting, would you ever question your supervisor(s)? 

Yes__ No__ 

9.  Do you believe it is beneficial to comply with authority in a work setting? 



AUTHORITY AND CONFORMITY IN A WORK SETTING by Nestor Parada 132 
 

CALIFORNIA SOCIOLOGY JOURNAL, 2011, VOL. 3 (ISSUE 1: 117-132) 
 

Yes__ No__ 

10. Do you feel that it is beneficial to follow the orders of your supervisor at work? 

Strongly Agree__  Agree__  Disagree__

 Strongly Disagree__ 

11.  Would you perform illegal activities under the supervision of your supervisors in 

fear or punishment? 

Strongly Agree__  Agree__  Disagree__

 Strongly Disagree__ 

12. Would you perform an activity if you gained the rewards for it? 

Strongly Agree__  Agree__  Disagree__

 Strongly Disagree__ 

13. Would you perform an illegal activity at work if you gained a reward for it? 

Strongly Agree__  Agree__  Disagree__

 Strongly Disagree__ 

14. Have you ever performed task(s) that you did not agree with under the orders of a 

supervisor(s)? 

Yes__ No__ 


