The Psychology of Imposing Rules
The Psychology of Imposing Rules
By Ana and Sofia Milosevic (Y 13)
"Be home by ten."
"Finish everything on your plate."
"Have your homework done by Monday."
At some point in our lives, we've all had to abide by certain rules imposed on us by other people, whether it was our parents or our teachers. As frustrating as it can be to have to complete an essay by a certain time, to have a curfew when hanging out with friends, or to have to do chores instead of playing video games, rules are enforced for a reason.
But what are rules?
Rules can be defined as two different things. Firstly, they're 'a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct or procedure within a particular area of activity'. In simpler terms, rules are behavioral guidelines for various things. Within the family, rules serve to teach children right from wrong. If rules are broken, the children face consequences, which may include punishment. You may be grounded for breaking your curfew. Your phone may be confiscated if your parents believe you spend too much time on social media. These consequences are intended to discourage you from repeating this supposedly 'bad' behavior.
But do rules really help teach us right from wrong? Or do they simply teach us how to avoid punishment?
This relates to the second definition of rules and the psychology behind imposing them. Rules can also be defined as 'control or dominion over an area or people', relating to greater ideas of authority and obedience. Obedience refers to compliance with commands given by an authority figure, and according to Stanley Milgram's famous study on the topic, people have a strong tendency to comply with authority figures and follow rules set by them.
Milgram's study involved assigning each of his forty research subjects into the role of a 'teacher', with a decoy playing as their 'learner'. They were then told that they were to help the learner learn a list of word pairs, giving them a small shock each time they made a mistake. They were instructed to increase shock level for every mistake the learner made until they reached a dangerously high voltage. The setup of the experiment was based on the rule that subjects had to follow the commands of the experimenter, who encouraged subjects to complete the experiment according to instruction and continue administering shocks even when reaching dangerous levels. The learner was actually just a decoy working together with the experimenter; he never received any real shocks but pretended to be in pain when the shocks were administered.
Prior to the study, professionals predicted that only 1-3% of subjects wouldn't stop giving shocks even when they reached damaging levels, that only a pathological psychopath would do so. However, 65% of subjects carried on giving shocks.
So, are the majority of people psychopaths?
Most likely, no. Though it may seem surprising, the study found that this response is the result of our innate human instinct to follow rules and commands, especially those imposed on us by an authority figure. This can be used in the discussion of a variety of topics related to obedience and rules, ranging from why we complete our chores when we'd rather be binge-watching TV shows, to justifications of acts of genocide committed in World War II.
Does this mean that when following rules, we're not actually distinguishing right from wrong, but simply following this human tendency to obey authority?
Though rules can be important, we must also be aware of our own principles, those of kindness, respect, safety, consideration for others, and so on. If parents act towards children the way they want their children to act towards others, the children will adopt these principles without the necessity of rules. If you want to be treated with respect, you treat others with respect and thus get the same treatment in return, without the need for control or commands. If we get the chance we should exercise these principles over exercising authority, then maybe we can consider ourselves closer to the impressive minority of Milgram's experiment, that went against their own human nature to ensure they caused no harm to another human being.