obedience

• Agentic state

  When someone acts on behalf of another person
• Obedience to destructive authority

  Occurs because a person becomes an 'agent' – someone who acts for or in place of another
• In an agentic state

  A person feels NO personal responsibility for their actions
• Autonomous state

  Not an agent, a person behaves according to THEIR OWN principles and feels responsible for their actions
• Agentic shift

  Moving from autonomy to being an 'agent'
• We perceive someone as an authority figure

  This person has power because of their position in the social hierarchy, which leads to the agentic shift
• Binding factors

  Aspects of a situation that allow the person to ignore or minimize the damaging effect of their behaviour – reduce the 'moral strain' they feel
• Binding factors

  • Shifting the responsibility to the victim or denying the damage they are doing to victims
• Agentic state- research support

  • most of Milgram's participants asked the 'experimenter' who is responsible if learner is harmed, and when told the experimenter is responsible, the participant went through the procedure quickly without objecting. shows participants acted more easily as an agent - acting in place of the experimenter - when they believed they were not responsible for their behaviour
• Agentic shift- doesnt explain many research findings

  1977, Rank and Jacobson found that most nurses disobeyed a doctor's order to give an excessive drug dose, the doctor was an authority figure but the nurses remained autonomous and did not shift into the agentic state. also some of Milgram's participants remained autonomous - did not obey. shows the agentic shift can only explain obedience in some situations
• limitation of agentic shift -

  The men of Battalion 101 did not have direct orders to shoot civilians, yet they performed the massacre, behaving autonomously. this suggests the agentic shift is not necessary for destructive behaviour
• Legitimacy of authority

  We obey people further up the social hierarchy, as most societies are structured hierarchically and people in certain positions hold authority over the rest
• Authorities have legitimacy

  The power the authorities wield is legitimate because it is agreed by society, and the majority of people accept that authority figures should exercise social power over others to allow society to function adequately/smoothly
• We hand control over to authority figures

  People with legitimate authority have the power to punish others, and we give up some independence to people we trust to exercise authority properly, which we learn to accept during childhood
• History has shown that some leaders (Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot) use legitimate authority destructively, ordering people to behave in cruel dangerous ways
• One strength is legitimacy ...

  • Can explain cultural differences in obedience to authority. research shows that countries differ in obedience to authority e.g. 16% of Australian women (Kilham and Man 1974) obeyed vs 85% of German participants (Mantell 1971). this shows that authority is more likely seen as legitimate in some cultures reflecting unbringings.
• Legitimacy- limitation - cannot explain all disobedience

  people may disobey even when they accept the legitimacy of the hierarchical authority structure, e.g. Rank and Jacobson's nurses were disobedient to doctors, and some of Milgram's participants. this suggests that innate tendencies towards disobedience may be more important than legitimacy of authority.
• Research shows that some people disobey legitimate authority, e.g. nurses disobeying doctor even though he was higher in the social hierarchy, but soldiers at My Lai obeyed their commanding officer (maybe he had more power to punish than a doctor - Kelman and Hamilton 1989). therefore there is some evidence in real-world situations suggesting respect for legitimate authority can lead to destructive obedience