Separate the symbols of authority (a title, a uniform, a badge, a confident tone, an official-looking letterhead) from the fact of authority, and check the fact through a source the claimant does not control before you comply.

How to do it

1. 1Notice what you are actually responding to. Titles, uniforms, lanyards, jargon, case numbers, and an impatient manner are all cheap to fake; they are evidence that someone wants to be treated as an authority, not that they are one.
2. 2Ask two questions, in order. Is this person who they say they are? If so, does their authority actually cover this request? A real doctor has no standing on your investments, and a real police officer cannot order you to withdraw cash.
3. 3Check identity through the institution, not the individual: call the agency, company, or department on a published number and ask whether this person works there and whether the visit, call, or letter is genuine. Badge numbers and employee IDs read out by the claimant verify nothing on their own.
4. 4Ask for the request in writing, through the institution's normal channel. Genuine authorities have paperwork, reference numbers that the switchboard can look up, and no objection to delay.
5. 5At a door or a secure entrance, keep the person outside while you check. In a workplace, escort or refer unknown visitors to reception regardless of how senior or how hurried they seem.
6. 6Once verified, cooperate fully and without resentment. The point is to put checking before trust, not to withhold trust.

When to use it

• •Someone at the door, on the phone, or by email claims to represent the police, a court, a regulator, a utility, a bank, or your own IT department.
• •A person with apparent seniority or credentials asks you to skip a normal procedure "just this once".
• •An expert, real or claimed, offers confident advice outside the field in which they are qualified.
• •A request arrives with official trappings and a deadline but without any way to confirm it that the sender did not supply.

Counters

Evidence and how strong it is

That people defer to the trappings of authority is one of the better-supported findings in social psychology, though the classic studies need their caveats. Milgram (1963, 1974) found high rates of compliance with an experimenter's instructions; the work has been criticized on ethical and methodological grounds (Perry 2013), but a partial replication with modern safeguards found comparable compliance up to the point tested (Burger 2009). Bickman (1974) showed in field experiments that passers-by complied far more often with arbitrary requests from a man in a guard's uniform than from the same man in ordinary clothes. Hofling et al. (1966) reported that most nurses in a field study prepared to give an excessive dose on the telephoned order of an unknown "doctor", although Rank and Jacobson (1977) did not replicate this when nurses were familiar with the drug and free to consult colleagues, which is itself an argument for verification and consultation. Cialdini (2007) synthesizes this literature and makes the distinction used here between being an authority and merely displaying its symbols. Evidence for the countermeasure is indirect: it follows from the mechanism and is standard practitioner doctrine in security (Mitnick & Simon 2002), but it has not been tested as an intervention in randomized trials.

1. Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. Harper & Row
   The original obedience experiments showing high compliance with instructions from an apparent authority.
2. Burger, J. M. (2009). Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today?. American Psychologist, 64(1), 1-11
   A partial replication under modern ethical constraints finding compliance rates comparable to Milgram's up to the 150-volt point.
3. Bickman, L. (1974). The social power of a uniform. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 4(1), 47-61
   Field experiments showing that a uniform alone sharply increased compliance with arbitrary requests.
4. Hofling, C. K., Brotzman, E., Dalrymple, S., Graves, N., & Pierce, C. M. (1966). An experimental study in nurse-physician relationships. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 143(2), 171-180
   Field study in which most nurses prepared to follow a telephoned order from an unknown doctor; cited together with the later failure to replicate under conditions allowing consultation.
5. Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion (rev. ed.). Harper Business
   Synthesis of the authority literature and the distinction between genuine authority and its easily counterfeited symbols.
6. Mitnick, K. D., & Simon, W. L. (2002). The Art of Deception: Controlling the Human Element of Security. Wiley
   Practitioner case narratives of impersonated authority and the recommendation to verify identity and authorization through independent channels.