Social-Psychological Factors of Obedience

• milgram (1973) proposed the concept of an?

  • agentic state, to explain why people are prepared to go against their conscience and do as they are told even if it causes them considerable distress.
• what are the 2 distinct modes of social consciousness (milgram)?

  autonomous state & agentic state
• autonomous state?

  state in which we act according to our own conscience and we feel responsible for our actions.

  • in this state, the vast majority of people behave decently towards others.
• agentic state?

  state in which we are no longer independent but according to instructions from someone else.

  • when in this state, people justify their behaviour by saying that they acted that way because they were instructed to do so.
• people do what when confronted w/an authority figure?

  • move from the autonomous state into the agentic state.
• what is the shift from autonomy to agency called?

  the agentic shift.
• if we obey an order that goes against out conscience, we are likely to experience?

  moral strain, which results when we have to do something we believe to be immoral in order to function as an agent of authority.

  • although people in such a situation may want to stop, they feel unable to do so due to binding factors, aspects of the situation that allow a person to minmise the damaging effects of their behaviour.
• strength of agentic shift theory (evaluation):

  theory is supported by several studies.

  • milgram's own research demonstrated how the majority of ordinary people will follow instructions, even when they are acting against conscience.
  • blass and schmitt (2001)- found people who saw milgram's study blamed the experimenter indicating that they believed the p's were agents of authority.
• another strength of agentic shift theory (evaluation):

  • explanation is also supported by many historical events which demonstrate that as a result of social pressure normal people can act in a callous and inhumane way.
• weakness of agentic shift theory (evalusation):

  • on the negative side, there are alt. reasons why people obey an authority figure.
  • it could be due to personality rather than the situation.
  • in addition, agency theory can't explain why some people disobey as was shown by a 1/3 of the p's in the original milgram study.
• is there any research evidence supporting the idea of legitimate authority?

  • blasch and schmitt (2001)- supported concept of legitimate authority by showing students a film of the milgram exp and finding they blamed the experimenter, not teacher, for harm caused to the learner.
  • students argued experimenter, a scientist, held legitimate power, explaining why p's felt obligated to obey.
  • study provided empirical support for legitimate authority.
• a limited explanation- what does agentic shift fail to explain?

  agentic shift does not appear to be inevitable.

  • rank and jacobsen (1977)- study found that 89% of nurses failed to obey orders from a doctor who asked them to administer an overdose of valium.
  • shows that despite the doctors being an obvious source of authority, vast majority remained autonomous therefore doesn't explain disobedience.
• are there any cultural differences in how authority is recognised as legitimate? does this support the theory?

  • kilham and mann (1974)- found only 16% of australians went to the top of the voltage scale, whereas montell (1971) found 85% of germans did.
  • supports legitimacy of authority as diff societies are structured differently + children are socialised to perceive authority in diff ways.
• the obedience alibi revisited- how does the incident described by mandel (1998) challenge te agentic state explanation?

  • described german police in WWII who killed civillians even though they could refuse.
  • this challenges agentic state as people weren't following orders.
• real-life crimes of obedience- what strength of the legitimacy of authority theory is explained here? what can it help to explain?

  • legitimacy of authority explains events like the my lai massacre, where soldiers obeyed destructive orders.
  • this shows real-world application + strengthens the theory.
• agency theory- situational factor:

  milgram believed that people have 2 ways of acting:

  • autonomous
  • agentic
• autonomous (agency theory)- situational factor:

  they direct their own behaviour, and take responsibility for the consequences. this is more likely to occur when we are socially isolated.
• agentic (agency theory)- situational factor:

  they allow someone else to direct their behaviour and assume that responsibility passes to that person.
• famous example of agency theory (situational factor):

  • the nuremburg trial; nazi guards (namely adolph eichmann) were put on trial and asked why they behaved as they did.
  • one guard said he was not to blame because he was just doing what he was told and therefore should be held accountable.
  • we act agentically when a situation demands it.
• legitimacy of the authority- "they have the right" (situational factor):

  • we are more likely to obey someone who we deem to be a legitimate authority figure and credible.
  • factors, e.g. being in a lab, wearing uniform, etc. can all affect their credibility.
  • we use social cues to inform us about someone's credibility and status.
  • those who are able to punish us hold coercive power.
  • people who have specialist knowledge hold expert power.
• proximity (situational factor):

  • the distance that you have between you and the consequences of your actions can act as a buffer.
  • the bigger the distance, the more likely you are to obey.
  • e.g. if you were asked to press the button to release weapons of mass destruction onto another country, you would find this easier thanks asking you to pull the trigger of a gun.
  • milgram demonstrated how the proximity of the victim (learner) and the proximity of the authority figure can influence our obedience.
• gradual commitment/slippery slope (situational factor):

  • if you commit yourself to a course of action it's difficult to later change your mind. you have agreed to a social contract which is difficult to break as it goes against social norms.
  • often starts off as something small and becomes a 'slippery slope' as the intensity increases.
  • e.g. it's likely that the nazi guards were asked to perform normal prison guard duties, i.e. keeping control of the Jews. however, as time went on, the guards were asked to do more and more which eventually culminated in them having to take part in the execution of thousands of people.
  • this can also be known as foot-in-the-door method of persuasion.
• justifying obedience (situational factor):

  • people are more willing to surrender their freedom of action, i.e. become agentic, if they believe that it's for a justifiable cause.
  • e.g. nazi germans were influenced by nazi propoganda and were told that Jews were a danger and therefore their actions could be justified.
• social norms (situational factor):

  • we are highly influenced by social norms.
  • therefore we are more likely to go along w/an order if we deem this to be relevant to the situation and therefore in the context of a social norm.
  • if we are ordered to do something which isn't relevant to that situation and therefore not a social norm, we are less likely to obey the order.
  • e.g. a teacher asking you to tuck in your shirt in at school is a 'social norm' whereas if they asked you the same thing whilst in town at the weekend, you're less likely to obey.
• what does history show us?

  that legitimate authority can be destructive when the authority is used wrongly.