Obedience: situational explanations

• What are the two situational explanations for obedience?

  Agentic state and legitimacy of authority.
• Why did Milgram say obedience to destructive authority occurs?

  Because a person doesn't take responsibility but instead believe themselves to be acting for someone else, ie as their agent.
• What is an 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 frees us from the demands of our consciences and allows us to obey even a destructive authority figure.
• What is the opposite of being in an agentic state?

  Being in an autonomous state- meaning to be independent and free to behave according to your own principles, with a sense of responsibility for your own actions.
• What is the shift from autonomy to agency called? When did Milgram suggest this 'shift' occurs?

  Agentic shift. Milgram suggested that this occurs when someone perceives someone else as an authority figure. The authority figure has greater power because they have a higher position in the social hierarchy.
• What are binding factors?

  Milgram observed that many of his participants said that they wanted to stop but seemed powerless to do so. The answer is bindings factors- aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and thus reduce the 'moral strain' that they're feeling.
• What is legitimacy of authority?

  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.
• Why do most of us accept authority figures should be allowed to exercise social power over others?

  Because this allows society to function smoothly.
• What is a consequence of legitimacy authority?

  Some people are granted the power to punish others- we generally agree that the police and courts have the power to punish wrong doers. So we are willing to give up some of our independence and to hand control of our behaviour over to people we trust will exercise authority appropriately.

  We learn acceptance of legitimate authority from childhood, from parents initially and then teachers and adults generally.
• When do problems arise with legitimacy of authority? When was destructive authority obvious in Milgrams study?

  When it becomes destructive. History has shown powerful and charismatic leaders e.g Hitler can use their legitimate power for destructive purposes, ordering people to behave in ways that are cruel and dangerous. Destructive authority was obvious in Milgrams study, when the experimenter used prods to order participants to behave in ways that went against their consciences.
• AO3: strength, real world explainations- How have Milgram's findings on legitimacy of authority been used to explain The My Lai Massacre?

  A strength to Milgram's findings on legitimacy of authority is that they have been used to explain the notorious war crime at My Lai in the 1960s during the Vietnam war. Unarmed civilians were killed by American soldiers. Women were gang-raped and people were shot down as they emerged from their homes with their hands in the air. Only one soldier faced charges and was found guilty, his defence was that he was only doing his duty by 'following orders.' Those giving the orders had a clear legitimate hierarchy and so soldiers willingly followed orders.
• AO3: strength, research support. How do Milgrams own studies support the role of agentic state in obedience?

  Most of Milgram's participants resisted giving the shocks at some point and often asked the Experimenter questions about the procedure, one being 'who is responsible if Mr Wallace (the learner) is harmed?' When the experimenter replied 'I am responsible,' the participants went through the procedure and asked no further objections. This shows that once the participants perceived they were no longer responsible for their own behaviour, they acted more easily as the experimenter agent, as Milgram suggested.
• AO3: limitation, limited explanation. Give an example of when the agentic shift explanation for obedience can not explain research findings about obedience?

  The agentic shift explanation does not explain the findings of Rank and Jacobson's study on obedience. They found that 16 out of 18 hospital nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor to administer an excessive drug dose to a patient. The doctor was an obvious authority figure, yet almost all the nurses remained autonomous. This suggests that the agentic shift can only account for some explanations of obedience.
• AO3: limitation, limited explanation. Legitimacy cannot explain instances of disobedience in a hierarchy where the legitimacy of authority is clear and accepted. Give examples of this?

  In Rank and Jacobsons 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 Experimenters scientific authority. This suggests that some people may just be more or less obedient than others. It is possible that the innate tendencies to obey or disobey have a greater influence on behaviour than the legitimacy of an authority figure.