Obedience: social-psychological factors

• The agentic state is a mental state where individuals feel no personal responsibility for their behaviour. This is because individuals see themselves as an agent for carrying out another person’s instructions, shifting responsibility for their actions to the authority figure.

  • This reduced sense of personal accountability allows individuals to perform actions they might otherwise find unacceptable.
• The autonomous state is when an individual is free to behave ​in accordance with their own moral principles and therefore feels a responsibility for their own actions.
• The shift from the autonomous state to the agentic state is called the agentic shift, often triggered by the presence of a legitimate authority figure.

  • Example: In Milgram’s study, participants shifted to the agentic state when the experimenter took responsibility for the outcomes, leading them to continue administering shocks despite their discomfort.
• Legitimacy of authority is an explanation for obedience which suggests that we are more likely to obey people we perceive to have authority over us.

  • This authority is justified by the individual's position of power within a social hierarchy or symbols of authority e.g. uniform.
• Individuals obey legitimate authority figures because they are seen as essential for maintaining order and structure in society.

  • Example: In Milgram’s study, the experimenter was perceived as a legitimate authority figure due to their association with Yale University and their lab coat, which symbolized scientific expertise. This legitimacy encouraged participants to follow their instructions, even when the task seemed unethical.
• Binding factors are aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and thus reduce the 'moral strain' they are feeling.
• A strength is its ability to explain obedience in real-world scenarios. For example, Lifton (1986) used the legitimacy of authority to explain the lethal experiments carried out on prisoners at Auschwitz, where Doctors obeyed orders to harm prisoners. The Doctors saw their commanding officers as legitimate authorities and felt obligated to follow their instructions, regardless of the moral consequences. This demonstrates its practical applications in understanding obedience in military contexts and highlights the dangers of unquestioned obedience to authority figures in positions of power.
• A strength is research evidence. In Milgram’s study, participants expressed discomfort about giving shocks but continued, believing the experimenter was responsible. This supports the agentic state, where responsibility is shifted to an authority figure. Similarly, Blass and Schmitt (2001) found that people watching a film of Milgram’s study blamed the experimenter, not the participant, for the harm caused. This highlights how individuals act under the direction of authority, supporting the agentic state explanation.
• A limitation is that it can be seen as reductionist, as it oversimplifies obedience by focusing solely on situational factors and ignoring dispositional ones, such as personality. Some participants in Milgram’s study resisted obedience to the authority figure, suggesting individual differences play a role. Research into the authoritarian personality (Adorno et al., 1950) suggests that dispositional factors, such as upbringing and personality traits also influence obedience. Therefore, while the agentic state is a useful explanation, it does not provide a complete account of why people obey.