Investigating the Relationship Between Kernberg's Personality Organization and Obedience to Authority

Introduction

The trial of Adolf Eichmann, one of Hitler's top leaders during World War II, astonished people worldwide regarding human nature. Eichmann sent millions to concentration camps for extermination. To the public, Eichmann's behavior was brutal and evil, but like many others who have committed atrocities under the guise of duty, Eichmann defended himself by claiming he was just following orders (Arendt, 1963). This response sparked a question in Stanley Milgram's mind: if an experimenter instructed participants to administer electric shocks to another person in a laboratory setting, would they comply? (Milgram, 1963).

The experiment was conducted by initially placing an advertisement in a newspaper, calling for volunteers to participate in a psychology experiment to study the effects of punishment on learning and memory. Forty men, aged 20 to 50, volunteered for the experiment. Each participant was paid $4.50 for their participation. They were told that the experiment aimed to measure the impact of electric shocks on learning and memory performance. However, the true objective, hidden from the participants, was to investigate the extent to which they would obey the experimenter's orders. At the start of the experiment, participants were introduced to another participant, who was actually a confederate of the experimenter. The experiment involved two roles: teacher and learner. Roles were assigned through a rigged draw, ensuring the confederate always played the learner. The experimenter, dressed in a gray lab coat, issued the instructions and was portrayed by an actor. Two rooms separated by a common wall were used, one for the learner (with an electric chair) and the other for the teacher and the experimenter with an electric shock generator. The learner was strapped to the chair, with electrodes attached, and given a list of word pairs to memorize. The task was for the learner to recall the word pairs when prompted by the teacher, who would read the first word of each pair and ask the learner to select the correct match from a list of four options. The experimenter instructed the teacher to administer an electric shock for each incorrect response, increasing the shock level with each mistake. The shock generator had 30 switches ranging from 15 to 450 volts. The confederate deliberately gave wrong answers, prompting the teacher to deliver shocks. Although the shocks were fake, the teacher was unaware of this. At 180 volts, the learner began to plead and scream about the pain and claimed to have a heart condition, asking to stop the experiment. When the teacher hesitated to administer shocks, the experimenter used a series of prompts to encourage continuation (O'Leary et al., 1970).

In the end, the results showed that 69% of participants (teachers) obeyed the experimenter's orders and continued to administer the maximum shock level of 450 volts. Milgram's experiment revealed that the answer to whether individuals would harm others under authority is affirmative (Milgram, 1974). Replications of the experiment produced consistent results (Blass, 1991; Kilham & Mann, 1974; Shanab & Yahya, 1977). Methodological replications in 11 countries, including Spain, Austria, Germany, Jordan, South Africa, Scotland, Australia, India, and Puerto Rico, yielded similar results (Blass, 2012). Virtual versions of the experiment also confirmed the findings (Slater et al., 2006; Dambrun & Vatiné, 2010). Studies involving children showed similar obedience patterns (Shanab & Yahya, 1977). Changing the teacher's role to a mediator for delivering shock instructions did not alter obedience levels, and the results were replicated (Kilham & Mann, 1974). Milgram used the theoretical construct of agentic state to explain obedience, suggesting that obedient individuals relinquish personal responsibility and autonomy, becoming agents executing the authority's wishes. This mechanism is evolutionarily advantageous for group acceptance, a necessity for socially living beings (Milgram, 1974). However, this explanation has several weaknesses. Given the agentic state's applicability to all humans, it fails to account for the varying levels of obedience observed in Milgram's studies, where some participants complied with authority while others did not (Reicher et al., 2012). There is no evidence linking obedience or disobedience to the degree of responsibility acceptance (Mantell & Panzarella, 1976). Although Milgram completed his studies in 1962, his detailed account was not published until 1974, highlighting the gap in theory accompanying his empirical data (Elms, 1995). This gap remains unfilled, and no definitive theory exists to explain obedience or defiance (Blass, 2004). The weakest part of Milgram's work is his theoretical explanation of the experimental data (Blass, 2004). Many studies on obedience, following Milgram, have focused primarily on situational factors, while some have examined personality variables as the main research focus (Elms & Milgram, 1966). For example, the first published study examining the relationship between personality and obedience in the Milgram paradigm was by Elms and Milgram, which found that obedient individuals scored significantly higher on the F scale of the MMPI, indicating authoritarianism, although there was no logical or empirical link between the F scale and aggression (Elms & Milgram, 1966). In a study by Zeigler-Hill et al. (2013), individuals most reluctant to obey the experimenter's commands had low levels of neuroticism and experienced negative affect during the experiment. Bègue et al. (2015) found that conscientiousness and agreeableness predicted the intensity of shocks administered to the victim. In Southard's study (2014), conscientiousness significantly correlated with participants' reluctance to obey, with higher conscientiousness linked to lower willingness to comply with the experimenter. Participants who refused to follow the experimenter's instructions in Burger, Girgis, and Manning's study (2011) expressed significantly higher personal responsibility and reluctance to continue than those who followed the instructions.

Some studies have shown no relationship between obedience and personality dimensions. For example, Burger (2009) found no significant correlation between empathetic concern or desire for control and obedience. Similarly, Bocchiaro, Zimbardo, and Van Lange (2012) found no personality correlates with obedience or disobedience.

Individual differences in obedience are evident, as both obedience and disobedience occur in most studies under the same situational and stimulus conditions. Therefore, efforts to identify personality correlates of obedience and disobedience aim to explain individual differences in responses to authority systematically (Blass, 2012). Descriptive and dimensional models have been used to predict destructive obedience, yet clinical observations have not found strong links between the Five-Factor Model and personality disorders or aggression (Widiger & Costa, 2013). These models have failed to adequately associate personality traits with personality disorders and aggression (Livesley, 1998). Psychoanalysts have long considered aggression as more than just a learned behavior, viewing it as one of the fundamental biological forces (Freud, 1995). Contemporary psychoanalysts have examined the psychological structures and patterns related to aggression, considering it both in the formation of psychological structures and as a consequence (Kernberg, 2009; Caligor, 2010). Kernberg introduced a psychoanalytic model of personality, the Personality Organization, which addresses the deep psychological dynamics in personality disorders, including repetitive patterns of violence and victimization (Kernberg, 1967). This model focuses on the underlying personality structure behind observable behaviors or motivations (Kovács et al., 2021). Many researchers in psychoanalysis have examined the relationship between Personality Organization and aggression, though few empirical studies exist (Caligor, 2010; Kernberg, 2009; Stern et al., 2010; Lenzenweger et al., 2001). Some studies have found links between Kernberg's Personality Organization and aggression and impulse control issues (Lenzenweger et al., 2001). Numerous studies indicate a relationship between Personality Organization and personality disorders, which are strongly associated with aggression. For instance, there is a link between Borderline Personality Disorder and Kernberg's Personality Organization (Kovács et al., 2021; Skodol et al., 2002). Various studies have confirmed the connection between Borderline Personality Disorder and aggression (Martino et al., 2015; Sarkar, 2019; Baumann et al., 2020).

Thus, this study aimed to identify the link between psychoanalytic perspectives and Stanley Milgram's experimental framework on obedience to authority using Kernberg's Personality Organization Inventory. Therefore, this study's objective was to investigate the relationship between Kernberg's Personality Organization and obedience to authority.

Methods and Materials

This research is fundamental in nature and utilizes a mixed-methods approach (qualitative-quantitative). In the qualitative section, the statistical population included all undergraduate psychology students at the Islamic Azad University, Kermanshah Branch, in the 2022-2023 academic year. A convenience sampling method was used, selecting a class of 30 psychology students as the sample, considering that the authority or university professor participating in the experiment was from the psychology department. The sample size was chosen based on Milgram's study, which ranged from 20 to 40 participants. The inclusion criterion was that participants had no prior knowledge of Milgram's experiment, hence second-semester psychology students were selected. The research instrument for this phase was a semi-structured interview, with questions guided and asked until theoretical saturation was achieved, influenced by Kernberg's personality theory. Data from the interviews were analyzed using MAXQDA 2022 through coding, and categorization was based on thematic analysis. Validity was checked via respondent validation. To ensure coding accuracy and confirm the reliability of the findings, a second evaluator was used to recode the findings, resulting in the removal of one code out of eleven. Cohen's kappa coefficient formula in SPSS version 26 was used to confirm reliability, with a resulting agreement level of 0.62, indicating 62% agreement between evaluators in coding. In the quantitative section, the entire statistical population, given its small size, was selected as the research sample. SPSS version 26 was used for data analysis, and Spearman's nonparametric test was used to calculate the correlation between obedience (a binary and nominal variable) and Kernberg's Personality Organization components.

Kernberg's Personality Organization Inventory: This study used the 37-item form of Kernberg's Personality Organization Inventory (Lenzenweger et al., 2001). The factorial structure of this inventory includes three dimensions: reality testing, lower-level defenses, and identity integration. In Kernberg's Personality Organization model, the sum of these three factors indicates overall personality vulnerability. In Iran, the factorial structure and validity of this questionnaire were examined by Al Behbahani and Mohammadi (2007). Reliability coefficients for the total inventory and the dimensions of lower-level defenses, identity integration, and reality testing were 0.90, 0.82, 0.68, and 0.91, respectively.

Findings and Results

The sample characteristics of the study revealed that out of 30 participants, 10 were male and 20 were female. All participants were undergraduate students, with 28 individuals in the age range of 20-28 years (93.3%), 1 individual in the age range of 29-36 years (3.3%), and 1 individual in the age range of 37-44 years (3.3%).

During the open coding process, 131 primary codes were generated from the 30 conducted interviews. These were then subjected to an initial classification of the data. The categories derived from open coding were merged based on orientations, appropriateness, nature, and semantic load, resulting in two main categories: obedience and disobedience, and eight conceptual categories or subcategories titled: guilt, internal conflict, adherence to internal values, lack of internal conflict, respect for authority, desire for authority, trust in authority, and fear of punishment. Each of these dimensions is explained below.

Factors of Disobedience to Authority

Internal Conflict: According to Table 1, internal conflict with a frequency of 21 codes was the most significant factor in disobeying authority's request. Internal conflict refers to a state where participants saw themselves at a crossroads, needing to choose between following the authority's request to reject a loan application and their personal judgment that the applicant was eligible for the loan, which ultimately led to disobedience. For example, Participant 1 said: "I wanted to reject it but couldn’t do it. I felt it was not right to reject it."

Guilt: The second factor with a frequency of 17 codes was guilt, reported by participants 2, 3, 6, 7, 14, 16, 17, 19, 22, 23, 25, 29, and 30. This internal feeling was described as guilt or remorse, causing participants to consider the applicant’s condition and disobey the authority’s request. For instance, Participant 16 said: "Something inside me wouldn’t let me reject it; I felt it would harm them."

Adherence to Internal Values: The third factor with a frequency of 3 codes was adherence to internal values, reported by participants 1, 2, and 3. They initially disagreed with the authority’s request, considering it unethical and based their decision on internal moral values rather than external stimuli. For example, Participant 3 said: "This request was contrary to ethics and justice."

Factors of Obedience to Authority

Lack of Internal Conflict: The most significant reason for obedience, with a frequency of 32 codes, was a lack of internal conflict. Participants 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 20, 21, 24, 26, and 28 did not consider the applicant’s conditions and focused solely on the authority’s request. In some cases, even the applicant’s information was distorted to make them appear ineligible. For instance, Participant 9 said: "According to the interview checklist, they met the conditions, but because you said so, I marked the checks the other way."

Desire for Authority: The second reason for obedience, with a frequency of 22 codes, was the authority's request itself. Most responses about the reason for obedience referred to the authority’s request. This was similar to Adolf Eichmann’s explanation at the Nuremberg Trials: "I was just following orders".

Respect for Authority: Respect for authority, with a frequency of 17 codes, was another reason for obedience from the perspective of participants 7, 8, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 22, 23, 27, and 30. Some participants mentioned that disobeying the authority or teacher would be disrespectful and might upset the authority. For example, Participant 13 said: "I didn’t want you to be upset with me."

Trust in Authority: Trust in authority, with a frequency of 13 codes, was another reason for obedience. Participants 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 18, 20, and 23 considered the authority as reliable and deemed their request logical. For example, Participant 8 said: "I trusted you and considered you logical, so I followed your request."

Fear of Punishment: Fear of punishment, with a frequency of 3 codes, was the least frequent reason for obedience and was mentioned by participants 11, 12, and 27, who feared punishment from the authority. For example, Participant 11 said: "I was afraid that you would be upset if I didn’t reject it and would deduct marks from me at the end of the term."

In the second part of the experiment, before interviewing each participant with the second applicant, the authority (class instructor) asked participants to reject the applicant’s request, while the applicant was presented in a manner that made them eligible for the loan. Out of 30 participants, 25 obeyed the authority’s request and rejected the applicant’s request. After completing the interviews, 9 participants who had initially obeyed the instructor’s orders reconsidered and requested the approval of the loan application.

*p < .05, **p < .01

According to Table 3, there is a significant positive correlation between obedience and the components of personality, specifically lower-level defenses, reality testing, and personality organization, at the 99% confidence level and 1% error rate. This indicates that participants who disobeyed authority had lower scores in personality vulnerability. Additionally, the table shows that there is no significant correlation between identity integration and obedience.

Discussion and Conclusion

The aim of the present study was to examine the relationship between Kernberg’s Personality Organization and obedience to authority and to explain the reasons for obedience to authority through both quantitative and qualitative methods. In the quantitative phase, correlation test results indicated that the components of Kernberg’s Personality Organization, reality testing, and lower-level defenses, as well as the overall personality organization score, had a significant positive correlation with obedience or disobedience to authority's request. These findings are consistent with studies (Burger et al., 2011; Elms & Milgram, 1966; Zeigler-Hill et al., 2013) that linked obedience with personality components, while other studies (Milgram, 1963; Bocchiaro et al., 2012) considered environmental and social factors. Many studies on obedience show that both obedience and disobedience occur simultaneously depending on the situation and stimulus (Blass, 2012). This suggests that an interactive model between personality components and environmental stimuli determines individual responses to authority's orders.

Kernberg (2009) views personality as a psychological structure with stable, repetitive, and predictable patterns activated in various situations, categorized into healthy, neurotic, borderline, and psychotic levels based on maturity and health. Personality components determine human reactions to environmental stimuli. In healthy and neurotic organizations, the formation of the superego creates a reflective space between environmental stimuli and responses, with decisions based on moral values aimed at preventing harm to others. Conversely, in borderline and psychotic organizations, behavior and decision-making are focused on personal security, with reflection replaced by rapid action and self-centeredness. In this study, participants who disobeyed authority had lower overall personality organization scores, leading to internal conflict when considering the applicant’s conditions and ultimately disobeying authority based on internal values. They cited internal factors like guilt, adherence to ethics, and internal conflict as reasons for disobedience, consistent with Zeigler-Hill et al. (2013) and Bègue et al. (2015), who found negative affect and conscientiousness related to reluctance to obey. Other studies also found a relationship between low personality organization levels and aggression, impulse control issues, and self-centered behavior (Látalová & Praško, 2010; Martino et al., 2015).

Low-level defenses were another factor correlated with obedience. Freud (1920/1995) considered the frequency of defense mechanisms as a key variable in understanding personality, pathology, and adaptation, a hypothesis supported by extensive research (Vaillant, 2000). Defense mechanisms range from high-level defenses, indicating personality growth and psychological security, to low-level defenses, shaping an individual's relationship with an insecure world for survival (Drapeau et al., 2011). In this study, obedient participants used more low-level defenses, focusing on personal security and relationship with the authority rather than the applicant’s conditions. This aligns with studies linking low-level defenses to aggression (Martino et al., 2015; Sarkar, 2019).

Reality testing, which reflects unaltered interaction with the surrounding world, was another component where obedient participants showed more impairment. Low reality testing indicates an insecure connection with the world based on internal anxiety and needs. Obedient participants scored lower in reality testing than disobedient ones, focusing solely on personal conditions during decision-making. This aligns with the qualitative findings where obedient participants cited fear of punishment and fulfilling authority’s desires, not experiencing conflict between authority’s request and applicant’s conditions.

To answer Milgram’s fundamental question, whether individuals are willing to harm others to obey authority, the study suggests that personality organization’s impairment predisposes individuals to aggression. Individuals with impaired personality organization have lower agency and autonomy and less resistance to harming others. Conversely, those with less personality impairment experience higher agency and consider the victim’s conditions, deciding to disobey authority. Therefore, variations in obedience and disobedience cannot be solely explained by environmental stimuli; rather, the interaction between environmental and personality stimuli determines individual responses to authority’s orders.

One limitation is the small number of studies addressing this topic. Additionally, the sample was limited to students, which might not generalize to other populations. Another limitation is the potential fatigue of respondents due to the two-phase study, possibly affecting their responses to interviews and questionnaires.

Authors’ Contributions

All authors have contributed significantly to the research process and the development of the manuscript.

Declaration

In order to correct and improve the academic writing of our paper, we have used the language model ChatGPT.

Transparency Statement

Data are available for research purposes upon reasonable request to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our gratitude to all individuals helped us to do the project.

Declaration of Interest

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Funding

According to the authors, this article has no financial support.

Ethical Considerations

In this research, ethical standards including obtaining informed consent, ensuring privacy and confidentiality were observed.