agency theory

• autonomous state

  where you can choose how you want to behave - you have to take responsibility for the consequences of your own choices
• agentic shift

  making the judgement of whether their authority is legitimate - if authority is legitimate, we change from an autonomous state to agentic state undergoing agentic shift
• agentic state


  following the instructions of an authority figure whether a person agrees with them or not - they believe the consequences of their actions lie with the authority figure
• moral strain

  if your beliefs and actions don't align, you feel moral strain - if the strain is great enough you will disobey
• binding factor

  factors that lead you to listen to the authority figure - if binding factors are greater than moral strain, person would still listen
• strength

  • agency theory has supporting research evidence
  • milgrams experiment showed that 100% of participants would administer 300V shock as a punishment when ordered to. when interviewed, after debriefing, participants reported that behaviour was responsibility of the experimenter, that they didnt want to continue
  • supports AT agentic state as participants displaced responsibility on authority
• strength

  • evidence to support agentic shift in real life happens
  • hofling (et al 1966) supports agentic state where doctor would tell nurses to administer an overdose of a drug to a patient. 21/22 complied with doctors orders before being asked to stop. behaviours justified due to a need to follow hierarchy order in hospital
  • proves people would follow a person of authority in a real life place so AT applicable to real life
• weakness

  • research evidence that doesn't support AT
  • rank and jacobsen (1977) found 16/18 nurses refused to administer the overdose of valium to patients which a physician ordered. knowledge of the drugs effect and exposure to people along with high self esteem among nurses contributed to non-compliance to doctors physicians orders
  • shows different factors such as knowledge and communication affect obedience - AT not considered
• weakness

  • AT cannot explain obedience completely
  • in milgrams original study, 65% of participants gave 450V shock and 35% did not. suggests human behaviour is more complex than thought of. in burgers study, desire for control affects the extent people would obey as personality traits may be involved in obedience rates
  • suggests AT does not account for personality affecting obedience