Obedience - Social Psychology

• When in a social situation, we can exist in two different states: Autonomous state Or Agentic state.
• Autonomous state: The person believes that they have control over their own actions and that they are responsible for their behaviour (less likely to obey).
• Agentic state: The person believes that they are acting on behalf of another person (an authority figure) and that responsibility for their actions is attributed to the authority figure (more likely to obey).
• A shift, called the agentic shift, can occur between the autonomous state people are usually in, to an agentic state where a person believes they are acting as someone else.
• The agentic state allows a person to obey orders which may be very different from their usual behaviour and may not necessarily align with their own moral compass. Thus, this explanation could explain why normal people can become involved in terrible atrocities, such as the Holocaust.
• A person in the agentic state no longer views themselves as responsible for their own actions, but instead shifts the responsibility to the authority figure.
• Milgram argues that the agentic shift can only be achieved if the person believes in the legitimacy of the authority.
• The person must believe that the authority figure is competent enough to make the decisions and give out orders.
• People are more likely to obey a person wearing a uniform than the same person wearing plain clothes.
• Milgram found that people were more likely to obey an individual wearing a grey lab coat because this added to their legitimacy.
• When an order conflicts with our ideas about what is right and wrong, then we experience moral strain.
• Moral strain can be experienced as a feeling of distress that occurs because we want to obey the authority figure but also follow our conscience.
• To reduce moral strain, Milgram argued that people use defence mechanisms, particularly denial. For example, if ordered to hurt someone they may try to deny that they are causing any actual harm.
• Once the individual has shifted to the agentic state, their experience of moral strain is greatly reduced because the individual no longer sees their actions as being their own and shifts the responsibility to the authority figure.
• Obeying can be attractive because it reduced the feeling of conflict and of moral strain.
• Since society follows a hierarchy with leaders at different levels, it means that society runs more smoothly when people obey.
• By acting on behalf of another person, it allows the individual to do actions that benefit society rather than those they want to do. For example, the rule of raising your hand to ask a question makes it easier for the teacher but it may not be what you want to do.
• CON: It does not explain why we still obey an authority figure when they are not present. For example, we obey the law when there are no police present.
• CON: It does not explain how 35% of Milgram’s participants did not obey. They showed individual differences, and so personality differences may explain reasons why we obey.
• SPT stands for Social Power Theory.
• One of the fundamental aspects of social interaction is that some individuals have more influence than others. This is known as Social power.
• Social Power: The ability of a person to create conformity or obedience even when the people being influenced may attempt to resist those changes.
• Those in authority have power over their subordinates, e.g., bosses have power over their workers.
• Power refers to the process of social influence itself—those who have power are those who are most able to influence others.
• Reward Power: The ability to give things that others want, eg. increase salary, verbal praise.

  However, the leader may not have as much control over the rewards as they would like, so may lose their power.
• Coercive Power: The ability to dispense punishments, e.g. being fired, bullied or sent to your room.

  However, this causes upset and can be abusive.
• Legitimate Power: Authority that comes from a belief on the part of those being influenced that the person has a legitimate right to demand obedience, eg. a president, a policeman.

  However, people are influenced by your position, not by you, so if you lose your position, you lose your power.
• Referent Power: Influence based on charisma, charm and attraction to, or respect for the power-holder. The subordinates identify with the authority figure, eg. social media influencers.

  However, you don't always have to do anything to hold this power, so you may abuse it, eg. someone who is popular, but not honest.
• Expert Power: Power that comes from others’ beliefs that the power-holder possesses superior skills and abilities, eg. they are experts in a subject you want to know more about.

  This is one of the best types of power.
• Informational Power: This is where those in authority carefully explain to others why the changed behaviour is preferable which leads to acceptance of the change.

  However, this may not work for those who feel they know more.
• PRO: This framework is helpful for leaders who understand it as they can become more effective. It can also help others to spot a ́good ́ or ́bad ́ leader.
• PRO: The theory can be used to explain behaviour in society. Eg. holocaust soldiers had legitimate power so were obeyed, Tik Tokkers with many followers have referent power.
• CON: However, SPT ignores individual differences of personality. Individuals with an internal locus of control may be more likely to dissent as they take more personal responsibility for their actions regardless of perceived power.
• CON: However, social power theory ignores the fact that an authority figure is less powerful when there are many people. It is thought that their power is ‘diffused’ between everyone.
• Milgram (1963) AIM:

  Milgram wanted to investigate the extent to which individuals would follow orders from

  an authority figure if it was apparent that the actions would cause harm.
• Milgram‘s aim was operationalised (made specifically clear) by how high a voltage a participant would shock someone else with when ordered to by an authority figure.
• Milgram (1963) PROCEDURE:

  Forty adult males replied to a paid advertised study on the effect of punishment on learning.
• Milgram (1963) PROCEDURE:

  The participant and the confederate drew lots to see who would be the ‘learner’ and who would be the ‘teacher’. However, this scenario was rigged so that the participant would always be the teacher.
• Milgram (1963) PROCEDURE:

  The teacher watched the learner being strapped to a chair and having the electrodes attached and was then taken to another room where they could no longer see the learner and where the generator was kept.
• Milgram (1963) PROCEDURE:

  The teacher was given a shock of 45V to show that the generator worked and was instructed to give electric shocks of increasingly high voltage whenever an incorrect response was given.