Situational Explanation

• Agency theory states that people will obey an authority when they believe the authority will take responsibility for the consequences of their actions
• Agency theory explains that people obey authority when the authority figure takes responsibility for their actions
• The agentic state is a mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour because we believe ourselves to be acting for an authority figure, i.e. as their agent. This frees us from the demands of our consciences and allows us to obey even a destructive authority figure.
• The legitimacy of authority is an explanation for obedience which suggests that we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us. This authority is justified (legitimate) by the individual's position of power within a social hierarchy.
• An agent is not an unfeeling puppet; they experience high anxiety ('moral strain') when they realise that what they're doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey.
• 𝘼𝙐𝙏𝙊𝙉𝙊𝙈𝙊𝙐𝙎 𝙎𝙏𝘼𝙏𝙀:

  The opposite of being in an agentic state.

  'Autonomy' means to be independent or free, so a person in an autonomous state is free to behave according to their own principles, and feels a sense of responsibility for their actions.

  The shift from autonomy to 'agency' is called the agentic shift. Milgram (1974) suggested that this occurs when a person perceives somebody else as an authority figure. The authority figure has greater power because they have a higher position in the social hierarchy.
• The shift from autonomy to 'agency' is called the agentic shift. Milgram (1974) suggested that this occurs when a person perceives somebody else as an authority figure. The authority figure has greater power because they have a higher position in the social hierarchy.
• 'Autonomy' means to be free and independent.
• 𝘽𝙄𝙉𝘿𝙄𝙉𝙂 𝙁𝘼𝘾𝙏𝙊𝙍𝙎:

  Milgram observed that many of his participants said they wanted to stop but felt powerless to do so. They remained in the agentic state due to binding factors - aspects of the situation that allow a person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and thus reduce the 'moral strain' they are feeling.

  Milgram proposed a number of strategies that the individual could use, such as shifting the responsibility to the victim ("he was foolish to volunteer") or denying the damage they were doing to the victims.
• 𝙇𝙀𝙂𝙄𝙏𝙄𝙈𝘼𝘾𝙔 𝙊𝙁 𝘼𝙐𝙏𝙃𝙊𝙍𝙄𝙏𝙔:

  Most societies are structured hierarchically, meaning that some people have authority over others. The authority they wield is legitimate in the sense that it is agreed upon by society, and are therefore entitled to exercise social power.

  The consequence of this legitimacy of authority is that some people are granted the power to punish others. We generally accept that the police and courts have the power to punish wrongdoers, so we are willing to hand control of our behaviour to people we trust to exercise their authority properly.
• We learn acceptance of legitimate authority from our childhood, from parents initially, and then teachers and adults generally.
• 𝘿𝙀𝙎𝙏𝙍𝙐𝘾𝙏𝙄𝙑𝙀 𝘼𝙐𝙏𝙃𝙊𝙍𝙄𝙏𝙔:

  Problems arise when legitimate authority becomes destructive. History has often shown that charismatic and powerful leaders (e.g. Hitler and Stalin) can use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes, ordering people to behave in ways that are cruel and dangerous.

  Destructive authority was evident in Milgram's study when the Experimenter used prods to order participants to behave in ways that went against their moral consciences.
• Agentic State:

  The soldiers on the ground at My Lai took their orders from their commanding officer, Lt Calley. He took his orders from higher-ranking officers in other locations. All could deny personal responsibility for their behaviour because they perceived themselves to be acting as agents of a higher authority. They were not following the dictates of their own consciences, so were not in an autonomous state where they could behave freely and independently. This agentic shift occurred when the soldiers joined the army.
• Legitimacy Of Authority:

  The army is a perfect example of an extremely structured hierarchy, in which power increases with rank. The officer who ranks above has the power to punish failure to obey. Their authority is made legitimate by the law and government. The soldiers at My Lai accepted that Lt Calley was entitled to expect their obedience because of his position in the army's hierarchy and his power to punish them. Lt Calley's attitude to his commanding officer would have been identical, and so on up the chain of command. The outcome was obedience to destructive authority at every level.
• Max refuses to obey his sister because he doesn't recognise the legitimacy of her authority within the hierarchy of their family. However, he does recognise his dad's authority as legitimate because society assigns authority to parents over children. He obeys the instruction to tidy his room. Max may think that his dad's usual choice of white processed bread is unhealthy, but he obeys the order to get some because he is acting as his dad's agent. Setting aside his personal responsibility allows him to behave against his better judgement - the agentic shift.
• 𝙀𝙑𝘼𝙇𝙐𝘼𝙏𝙄𝙊𝙉𝙎 𝙊𝙁 𝙏𝙃𝙀 𝘼𝙂𝙀𝙉𝙏𝙄𝘾 𝙎𝙏𝘼𝙏𝙀:

  1. research support (Milgram)
  2. a limited explanation (Rank and Jacobson)
  3. obedience alibi (Mandel)
• 𝗔.𝗦:

  𝟭. 𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗘𝗔𝗥𝗖𝗛 𝗦𝗨𝗣𝗣𝗢𝗥𝗧:

  One strength is that Milgram's own studies support the role of the agentic state in obedience.

  Most of Milgram's participants resisted giving shocks at some point and asked the Experimenter questions about the procedure. One of these was "Who is responsible if Mr. Wallace is harmed?". When the Experimenter replied "I'm responsible", the participants often went through the procedure quickly and without further objections.

  This shows that once participants perceived they were no longer responsible they acted more easily as the Experimenter's agent.
• 𝗔.𝗦:

  𝟮. 𝗟𝗜𝗠𝗜𝗧𝗘𝗗 𝗘𝗫𝗣𝗟𝗔𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡:

  One limitation is that the agentic shift doesn't explain many research findings about obedience.

  It does not explain the findings of Rank and Jacobson's (1977) study of hospital nurses. They found that 16 out of 18 nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor to administer an excessive drug dose to a patient, even though the doctor was an obvious authority figure. Almost all of the nurses remained autonomous.

  This suggests that, at best, the agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience.
• 𝗔.𝗦:

  𝟯. 𝗢𝗕𝗘𝗗𝗜𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘 𝗔𝗟𝗜𝗕𝗜:

  Mandel (1998) described how members of a German police battalion murdered Polish civilians without being directly ordered to. They did not see themselves as agents of a higher authority. Instead, they were given a choice, so acted autonomously. They had many reasons for doing so – hatred, prejudice, racism etc. This is a different picture from Milgram's oversimplified one, in which such behaviour is due to a single factor – acting as the agent of a destructive authority.

  This suggests that the agentic shift is not required for destructive behaviour.
• 𝗟.𝗢.𝗔:

  𝟭. 𝗘𝗫𝗣𝗟𝗔𝗜𝗡𝗦 𝗖𝗨𝗟𝗧𝗨𝗥𝗔𝗟 𝗗𝗜𝗙𝗙𝗘𝗥𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘𝗦:

  One strength is that it is a useful account of cultural differences in obedience.

  Many studies show that cultures differ in the degree to which people are obedient to authority. For example, Kilham and Mann (1974) found that only 16% of Australian women went up to 450V in a Milgram-style study. However, Mantell (1971) found this figure to be 85% for German participants.

  This shows how authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate in some cultures, reflecting the ways that different societies are structured.
• 𝗟.𝗢.𝗔:

  𝟮. 𝗡𝗢𝗧 𝗔𝗟𝗟 (𝗗𝗜𝗦)𝗢𝗕𝗘𝗗𝗜𝗘𝗡𝗖𝗘:

  One limitation is that disobedience in an obvious hierarchy cannot be explained.

  This includes the nurses in Rank and Jacobson's (1977) study - most of them were disobedient despite working in a rigidly hierarchical authority structure. Also, a significant minority of Milgram's participants disobeyed despite recognising the authority of the Experimenter.

  This suggests that innate tendencies to obey or disobey may have a greater influence on behaviour than the legitimacy of an authority figure.
• 𝗟.𝗢.𝗔:

  𝟮. 𝗥𝗘𝗔𝗟-𝗪𝗢𝗥𝗟𝗗 𝗖𝗥𝗜𝗠𝗘𝗦:

  Rank and Jacobson (1977) found that nurses were prepared to disobey a legitimate authority (a doctor).

  Kelman and Hamilton (1989) argue that a real-world crime of obedience (the My Lai massacre) can be understood in terms of the power hierarchy of the US Army. Commanding officers operate within a clearer legitimate hierarchy than hospital doctors and have a greater power to punish.

  This supports the idea that respect for legitimate authority can lead to blind and destructive obedience.
• Blaming the victim for being given electric shocks was a binding factor in Milgram's study.
• Legitimacy of authority is based on the acceptance that some people have the power to punish others.
• Legitimacy of authority was present in Milgram's study because most participants recognised that the Experimenter was entitled to order them to continue giving shocks.
• Legitimacy of authority. -> Based on hierarchical structuring of society.
• Agentic state. -> Produces anxiety when we realise we are acting destructively on someone else's behalf.
• Binding factor. -> Telling yourself that what you are doing isn't harmful.
• Autonomous state. -> Freedom to act according to one's own conscience.
• We learn from a very early age that parents, teachers and other adults have legitimate authority over us.
• The term 'agentic shift' means we obey because we switch from an autonomous state to being an agent of an authority figure.
• Legitimacy of authority. -> We recognise that some people are entitled to expect obedience because of their position.
• Agentic state. -> We obey others because we do not take personal responsibility for our own actions.
• Binding factors. -> Keep us in an agentic state.
• Agentic shift. -> Switching from an autonomous state to an agentic state.
• Destructive authority. -> Authority uses its legitimacy to order people to perform cruel and barbaric acts.
• Outline what is meant by ‘agentic state’ as an explanation for obedience.

  • when a person acts on behalf of an authority figure/person of higher status
  • the agent feels no personal responsibility/does not feel guilty for their actions
  • the opposite of an autonomous state in which people act according to their own principles