Obedience: Situational Explanations

• What happens when orders come from a figure of authority?

  We can deny personal responsibility
• What do we become when we follow orders from authority?

  Agents of an external authority
• What are the two opposing sets of demands in Milgram's claim about obedience?

  The external authority and internal authority
• What is the agentic state?

  Feeling no personal responsibility for behavior
• What is an autonomous state?

  Having autonomy over one's actions
• What is the agentic shift?

  The shift from autonomous state to agentic state
• What are binding factors?

  Aspects that allow ignoring moral strain
• What did Milgram observe about participants in his experiment?

  Many wanted to stop but felt powerless
• Why did participants stay in an agentic state during Milgram's experiment?

  Due to binding factors
• What does research support indicate about the agentic state in obedience?

  • Milgram’s studies support the agentic state
  • Participants resisted shocks but continued when not responsible
  • Perception of no responsibility led to obedience
• What is a limitation of the agentic shift explanation?

  It doesn't explain all obedience findings
• What did Rank & Jacobson (1977) find about nurses and obedience?

  16 out of 18 nurses disobeyed orders
• What is the legitimacy of authority?

  Obeying justified authority in social hierarchy
• How do we learn to obey authority figures?

  Through socialization and acceptance
• What is destructive authority?

  Power used for destructive purposes
• What is destructive obedience?

  Obedience that harms others
• How did the experimenter display destructive authority in Milgram's experiment?

  By encouraging the teacher to continue shocks
• What did participants demonstrate when they acted against their conscience in Milgram's experiment?

  Destructive obedience
• How does the legitimacy explanation account for cultural differences in obedience?

  • Kilham & Mann (1974): 16% Australian women obeyed
  • Mantell (1971): 85% German participants obeyed
  • Authority perceived as legitimate varies by culture
• What limitation does the legitimacy of authority have regarding disobedience?

  It can't explain disobedience in clear hierarchies
• AO3 - What is a strength for the Agentic State?

  Research Support

  • Milgram’s own studies support the role of the agentic state in obedience
  • Most of Milgram’s participants resisted giving the shocks at some point and asked the Experimenter who was responsible and once he claimed responsibility the procedure continued without further objection
  • This shows that once participants percieved they were not responsible for their actions, they acted more easily as the Experimenter’s agent
• AO3 - What is a limitation for the Agentic State?

  A Limited Explanation

  • The agentic shift doesn't explain many research findings about obedience
  • Rank & Jacobson (1977) found that 16/18 nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor to administer an excessive drug dose to a patient
  • This suggests that the agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience
• AO3 - What is a strength for the Legitimacy of Authority?

  Explains Cultural Differences

  • The legitimacy explanation is a useful account of cultural differences in obedience
  • Kilham & Mann (1974) found that only 16% of Australian women went all the way to 450V in a Milgram-style study, yet Mantell (1971) found that it was 85% for German participants
  • This shows that authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate in some cultures and are entitled to demand obedience from individuals
• AO3 - What is a limitation for the Legitimacy of Authority?

  Can Not Explain All Disobedience

  • Legitimacy can not explain disobedience in a hierarchy where the legitimacy of authority is clear and accepted
  • In Rank & Jacobson (1977), most nurses were disobedient despite working in a rigidly hierarchical authority structure
  • This suggests that some people may just be more or less obedient than others