Social-psychological factors

• These explanations focus on how the dynamics of social hierarchies that we find ourselves in influence obedience (social-psychological explanations).
• When in Autonomous state people are free to behave according to their own principles. They tend to feel responsible for their own actions, their behaviour and therefore are aware of the consequences of their behaviour. However when an individual perceives a legitimate authority figure they give up some of their free will and enter into an agentic state
• Agentic state is when a person sees themselves as an agent of the authority figure giving the order. So it's the authority figure who is seen as responsible for the consequences of the individual's actions, rather than themselves, thus increasing the likelihood of obedience. Agents feel high levels of anxiety when they realise that what they are doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey.
• Milgram referred to this process (shifting responsibilties) as an agentic shift. The agency theory thus sees obedience as occurring in hierarchical social systems (different ranks to each other). This normally takes place when a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority. This person has greater power because of their position in the social hierarchy (Milgram 1974). In most circumstances where there is someone in charge, other defer to this person and shift from autonomy to agency.
• Once a person has entered the agentic state, binding factors keep them in this state e.g. threat of losing a job. Binding factors are aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and then reduce the 'moral strain' they are feeling. Milgram proposed that people may shift the responsibility to the victim. The person may feel fear they'll appear rude and these emotions help bind them to obedience.
• Another explanation of obedience is legitimacy to authority. This is when most societies are structured in a hierarchical way. So its someone who is perceived to be in a position of social control within a situation. This is on the basis factors such as uniform, location and proximity. People obey them because they are fulfilling their duty to the social hierarchy by doing so.
• If an authority figures commands are potentially harmful or destructive form then problems arise. For them to be perceived as legitimate they must occur within some sort of institutional structure e.g. military. This doesn't have to be very reputable. History has often shown charismatic and powerful leaders that have used their powers for destructive purposes, ordering people to behave in ways that are callous, cruel,stupid and dangerous.
• Strength- legitimacy of authority

  It gives useful account of cultural differences in obedience. Studies show that countries differ in which people are traditionally obedient to authority. E.g. Kilham and Mann replicated Milgram's procedure in Australia and only 16% of people went to the top of the shock generator, but Mantell found that in Germany 85% did. Reflecting the way societies are structured and how children are raised to perceive authority figures. It can explain differences in cross-cultural differences and it is externally valid.
• Limitation- agentic state

  It can't explain many research findings. E.g. it can't explain why Milgram's ppts didn't obey and it can't explain Hofling et al's study of nurses. The explanation would predict that as the nurses handed over responsibility to the doctor, they should've shown levels of anxiety similar to Milgram's ppts as they understood their role in destructive proves. But this was not the case. So it suggests that the agentic state can only account for some situations of obedience and so it is not a valid explanation of obedience as it is limited.
• Strength: Real world application

  They can be used to explain how obedience can lead to real-life war crimes. E.g. My Lai Massacre (1968) which can be understood in terms of the power hierarchy in the US military. 504 unarmed civilians died, women were gang raped and buildings were blown up, villages burnt to the ground and animals killed. But only one soldier faced charge, Lt William Calley. His defence was that he was only duty by following orders. This supports the external validity of both explanations as they can be used to explain real life cases of obedience.
• Limitation: 'obedience alibi' revisited

  Agentic state explanation is that there is research evidence to show that the behaviour of the Nazis cannot be explained in terms of authority and the agentic shift. Mandel (1998) described one incident involving German Reserve police Battalan 101 where men obeyed the orders to shoot civilians in a small town in Polan. Despite the fact that they did not have direct orders to do so.