Obedience: Social-psychological factors

• Agentic state

  We feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour as we are acting on behalf of an authority figure. The shift from autonomy from agency is called 'agentic shift'
• Autonomous

  Opposite of agentic. Free to behave according to their own principles and are personally responsible for their actions.
• SITUATIONAL explanations of Obedience

  -Agentic and Autonomous state

  -Legitimacy of authority
• Binding factors 


  Aspects of situations that cause the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and thus reduced the 'moral strain' they are feeling.
• Legitimacy of authority 


  We are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us (e.g. police allowed to punish as due to the law/hierarchy)
• Destructive authority 


  Figures are able to use their legitimate power for destructive purposes and can order people to behave in callous ways. Destructive authority was clearly on show in Milgram's study when the experimenter used prods to order ppts to behave in certain ways.
• Negatives for Situational explanations for obedience (ST)

  -Limited explanation: the agentic shift doesn't explain why some of the ppts did *not* obey.

  -Agentic shift does not explain the findings from Holfing et al. It predicts that the nurses handed over responsibility to the doctor and experienced similar levels of anxiety. This was not the case.
• Negatives for Situational explanations for obedience (ST)

  -Cultural differences for Legitimacy of authority: Kilham and Mann (1974) replicated Milgram's procedure. Only 16% of ppts reached 450v

  However Mantell (1971) German ppts 85% reached 450v

  -Reflects that reactions to obedience varys across cultures and can't be generalised
• Positives of situational explanations for obedience

  Research support: Blass and Schmitt (2001) showed a film of Milgram's study to students and asked them to identify who felt responsible for the harm to the learner. Students blamed the 'experimenter' rather than the ppt and also indicated the responsibility was due to legitimate authority (top of the hierarchy) and expert authority.

  Therefore supporting idea, as LOA causes obedience
• Strength of both explanations in terms of real world app? (AO3)

  Mai Lai Massacre

  • The soldiers at Mai lai accepted that Lieutenant Calley was entitled to expect their obedience due to his power as an authority figure over the soldiers and his power to punish soldiers for disobeying
  • He defended his actions by saying he was only following orders (may link to agentic state)
  • This may result in developing our understanding of why many soldiers may have obeyed (presence of a legitimate authoritarian individual) and how to prevent such crimes in the future , such as exercise education to help individuals challenge authority when orders may go against morals, instead of obeying mindlessly
• Strength of LOA as an explanation? Cultural differences (AO3)

  • Many studies show that countries differ in the degree to which people are traditional obedient
  • Kilham and Mannfound from their Australian replication 16% went to 450v
  • whilst Mantell’s German replication had 85%
  • Therefore suggests that authority is more likely to be accepted in some cultures more than others and may reflect how different societies are structured
  • strength as LOA  as it reinforces how people are socialized from a young age to respect authority figures differently depending on background
• Agentic shift as a limited explanation (AO3)

  • agentic shift cannot account or explain why participants did not obey
  • Suggested humans are social animals involved in social hierarchies and therefore should all obey
  • In terms of Holfing’s study, explanation would predict that the nurses would have shown similar levels of anxiety to Milgram’s ppts due to the role they had in a morally wrong situation, however this was not the case
  • Therefore a limited explanation as it can only account for some situations of obedience
  • calls into question its validity as an explanation