Blass and Schmitt shared a film of Milgram’s experiment to students
Asked to identify who they felt was responsible for the harm to the teacher
Found that students blamed the experimenter rather that the responsibility was due to legitimate authority or expert authority
Supports agentic state as participants in MiIgram’s study were only obeying commands from an authority figure and felt that they had to continue to do so
Agentic State AO3 - Conflicting evidence
Mandel described an accident involving the German Reserve Police Battalion 101 where men obeyed orders to shoot civilians despite the fact they did not have direct orders to do so - they were told they could have been assigned to other duties if they wished
Behaviour suggests they acted individually and did not engage in agentic shift due to legitimacy of authority as Milgram suggested
Legitimacy of authority
Most societies structured in a hierarchal way - some members have legitimate authority agreed by society
Learn via socialisation thatwe will be accepted if we obey those with authority over us
Trust those in power and feel their status is fair
Willing to surrender some of our independence to authoirty figures as we trust them to exercise their power appropriately
Destructive authority - When power is used for destructive purposes (ex. experimenter using prods in Milgram’s experiment)
LOA AO3 - Real life application
In Mei Lei Massacre and the Holocaust soldiers obeyed their commanding officers as they had the power to punish
Evidence that respect for legitimate authority can lead to destructive obedience
LOA AO3 - Cultural differences
16% of Australian women and 85% of Germans obeyed in Milgram’s experiment
Shows that authority is legitimate in some cultures and how children are raised to perceive authority figures
What is one origin of the Authoritarian Personality (AP)?
Milgram and Elms conducted a follow up study using participants who took part in Milgram’s original study - completed F scale
Found that there were significant differences between obedience and disobedient participants that were consistent with the idea of AP
Ex. Disobedient reported being less close to fathers in childhood and obedient saw authority figure more admirable than learner
Empirical evidence for the AP
AP AO3 - Counterpoint for research support
Highly unlikely than 65% of participants who obeyed all had AP
Milgram founds some differences in the characteristics of AP and characteristics of obedient participants
Ex. many fully obedient participants reported having a very good relationships with parents and not being raised under strict parenting
Suggests not all obedient participants had an AP and therefore there are other explanations of obedience
AP AO3 - Limited explanation
Unlikely a whole nation possessed the exact same personality
In pre-war Germany millions of individuals displayed obedient and anti-sematic behaviour despite having different personalities
Adorno’s theory is limited and social identity theory is a better explanation meaning Germans identified with anti-sematic Nazi states and scapegoated the Jews