social psychological explanations

• social psychological explanations are concerned with influences of others on individuals behaviour
• there are 2 theories for social psychological explanations

  • agentic state/theory
  • legitimacy theory/ legitimacy of authority
• milgram had an interest in obedience from trial of eichmann (was in charge of nazi death camps) for war crimes during second world war
• milgram proposed agentic theory - when we act as an agent (representative) of someone in authority we find it easy to deny personal responsibility for our actions (just doing our job + following orders)
• milgram said people have 2 ways of acting

  • autonomous state
  • agentic state
• autonomous state is when individuals direct their own behaviour + take responsibilities for own consequences
• agentic state allow someone to direct their behaviour - pass responsibility to other
• people move from autonomous state into agentic state when confronted with authoritative figure
• shift from autonomous state to agentic state - agentic shift
• if we obey an order that goes against out conscience we are likely to experience moral strail (results when we have to do something we believe is immoral to function as agent of authority)
• research support for agentic shift

  • milgrams own study demonstrated how majority of people will follow instructions even when they are acting against their conscience - ptts would continue to electric shock the 'learners' even when they knew that the shocks were lethal
• legitimacy of authority - suggests we are more likely to obey people who we perceive have authority over us. authority justified by individuals position of power within a social hierarchy
• kelman and hamilton suggest 3 main factors to explain obedience

  • legitimacy of system
  • legitimacy of authority within system
  • legitimacy of demand/orders given
• legitimacy = belief that rule, institution/leader has right to govern
• legitimacy of system

  • concerns extend to which 'body' is legitimate source of authority (government/army/school)
• legitimacy of authority in the system

  • power individuals hold to give orders because of their position in system - linked with status and hierarchy
• legitimacy of demand/orders given

  • extent to which order is perceived to be legitimate area for authority figure
• destructive authority - history has shown powerful leaders (hitler) can use legitimate powers for destructive purposes

  • destructive authority shown in milgrams study when experiment used 'prods' to order ptts to behave in ways that went against their conscience - told to continue delivering electric shocks
• evaluation points for social psychological explanations of obedience

  • support for agentic state
  • limited applicability (oversimplified)
  • support for legitimacy of authority
• support for agentic state being eval point for social psychological explanations

  • milgrams own study can be seen as supporting agentic theory
  • during milgrams experiment ptts generally stopped giving shocks and asked experimenter about procedure (e.g. who is responsible if learner is harmed)
  • after being told that experimenter was responsible and not themselves as the teacher - ptts completed procedure without objection
  • shows once ptt perceived they were no longer responsible for harm they were causing they acted more easily - more willing to be destructive
• limited applicability (oversimplified) as eval point

  • theory is not supported by real world events - example - researcher described how members of german battalion murdered civilians without directly ordered to do so - given choice so proceeded to kill (because they CHOSE to kill they were acting autonomously)
  • possible other reasons such as hatred/racism also played role in their actions
  • suggests milgrams explanation of agentic state is oversimplified claims behaviour is result of single factor (acting as agent of destructive activity)
• support for legitimacy of authority as eval point

  • tarnow provided support through study of aviation (flight) accidents where flight crew actions were significant factor
  • example - second officer claimed although he noticed the captain taking a risky approach he said nothing - assumed captain must know what he was doing
  • researcher found excessive dependence on captains authority/expertise
  • provides support regarding impact of presence of legitimate authoritative figure - heightens validity of theory