Obedience- Situational explanations

• 2 situational explanations for obedience

  • Agentic state
  • Legitimacy of authority
• Agentic state

  • A mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour because we believe ourselves to be acting for an authority figure.
  • This free use from the demands of our conscience and allows us to obey even a destructive authority figure.
• How does the Agentic state lead to a lack of responsibility taken?

  • When we perceive someone to be higher up the social hierarchy than use, we are likely to act as an agent for them, believing that it is not our responsibility but instead we are simply following orders.
  • We might feel a sense of anxiety or moral strain if what we are doing is wrong, but we are powerless as we are in a lower position in the social hierarchy.
• Autonomous state

  • This is a state where we are independent and have free will over our actions and where the person sees themselves responsible for their own actions.
• Agentic shift


  The transition between an autonomous state to an Agentic state.

  This shift occurs when you are ordered by an authority figure, due to great power they have as a result of their position in the social hierarchy.
• Binding factors

  • These are aspects of a situation which allows an individual to either ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and thus reduce moral strain they are feeling and reduces personal responsibility.
  • These factors help bind individuals to obedience
  • E.g Milgram original study- could shift responsibility to the learner e.g saying the learner was foolish to take part or denying damage they have caused.
• Research support

  • Milgram’s own studies support the role of the agentic state in obedience.
  • Milgram’s participants had resisted giving the shocks at some point and often asked the experimenter questions about the procedure. One of these was ‘who is responsible if the learner is harmed?‘ The experimenter replied with I’m responsible.
  • The participants often went through with the procedure quickly with no further objections.
  • This demonstrates that once participants perceived they were no longer responsible for their own behaviour they acted more easily as the experimenters

  agent.
• Obedience alibi

  • Research evidence to show the behaviour of Nazi’s cannot be explained in terms of agentic shift.
  • Mandel described an incident involving the German Reserve Police Battalion 101 where men were not given direct orders to shoot civilians yet they did.
  • According to evidence above there was no Agentic shift because they did not see themselves as acting as the agents of higher authority. They were given the choice, so they acted autonomously out of hatred, prejudice and racism.
  • Suggests that the Agentic shift is not required for destructive behaviour.
• Legitimacy of authority

  • An explanation of obedience which suggests that we are more likely to obey people we perceive to have authority over us.
  • This authority is justified by the individuals position of power within the social hierarchy.
• How does legitimacy of authority explain cultural differences?

  • Studies have shown countries differ in the degree to which people are obedient to authority. For example, Kilham and Mann, found that only 16% of Australian women went all the way up to 450v in Milgram-style study. However Mantell, German participants which was 85%
  • Studies have allowed us to identify that in some cultures, authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience from individuals.
  • this reflects the way in which different societies are structured
• Why can the legitimacy of authority explanation not explain all disobedience?

  • Cannot explain disobedience where legitimacy of authority is clear and expected.
  • A minority of Milgram’s participants disobeyed despite recognising the experimenters scientific authority.
  • This shows that some people may be more or less obedient than others.
  • Therefore it is possible that some innate tendencies to obey or disobey have a greater influence on behaviour than the legitimacy of authority figure.
• How does the legitimacy of authority explanation explain real life war crimes?

  • For example, the holocaust can be understood in terms of the power hierarchy in the German Army.
  • This means the explanation has practical applications. If legitimacy of authority is a useful explanation of real life war crimes, then there is the possibility that it could help us to understand how to prevent such crimes in the future. This could be done by helping people, perhaps through education, to challenge legitimate authority rather than obeying it mindlessly.
  • Allows us to tackle destructive authority