High
Respect for legitimate authority, tradition, and the roles that keep order matters to you. You see honouring structure — chains of command, institutions, hard-won customs — as part of what keeps a society functioning rather than as mere obedience. You're the person who keeps the process intact when others would improvise around it, and who understands that some rules exist for reasons that aren't obvious until they're gone. The trade-off is that deference can slow you to question power that has gone wrong: when an authority is genuinely failing, the same respect that usually serves you can keep you loyal to a structure past the point it deserves it.
Moderate
You respect authority and tradition where they've earned it, but you don't treat order as sacred. A rule with a good reason gets your support; a rule that's just old, or just convenient for whoever made it, gets your scrutiny. You can work within a hierarchy without worshipping it and question one without wanting to burn it down. This makes you a stabilising but not blind member of any institution. The cost is that strict traditionalists may find you too willing to challenge how things are done, while strict anti-authoritarians may find you too comfortable with structure — you back order on its merits, not on principle.
Low
You question hierarchy and inherited custom rather than defer to them. 'Because that's the rule' or 'because that's how it's always been' doesn't move you; you want to know what a rule is for, and you judge it on its merits, not its pedigree. This makes you a real check on bad authority and a source of overdue change — you'll challenge the process everyone else quietly resents. The trade-off is that not all structure is arbitrary: some rules encode lessons that aren't visible from where you stand, and reflexively resisting order can clash with the very institutions whose coordination you rely on. Knowing which rules to keep matters as much as knowing which to break.