Part 4: Explanations for obedience.

• Agentic State: This is when a person believes that someone else will take responsibility for their own actions. When a person shifts from an autonomous state (the state in which a person believes they will take responsibility for their own actions) to the agentic state, called an Agentic Shift. Therefore, agency theory is the idea that people are more likely to obey when they are in the agentic state as they do not believe they will suffer the consequences of those actions. This is because they believe that they are acting on behalf of their agent.
• Legitimacy of authority – This describes how credible the figure of authority is. People are more likely to obey them if they are seen as credible in terms of being morally good/right, and legitimate (i.e. legally based or law abiding). This is why students are more likely to listen to their parents or teachers than other unknown adults...
• ...In Milgram’s study, the people saw the experimenter as legitimate as they knew he was a scientist and therefore is likely to be knowledgeable and responsible - this is called expert authority. This authority was legitimate (justified) because the researcher held the highest position within the social hierarchy of the experimental scenario.
• Situational factors – These include the appearance of the authority figure, location and proximity (and the role of buffers). A person is more likely to obey someone wearing a uniform as it gives them a higher status and a greater sense of legitimacy. It was found that obedience was much higher when the experimenter wore a lab coat as opposed to normal clothes (65%-20%). However, demand characteristics were particularly evident in this condition, with even Milgram admitting that many participants could see through this deception...
• ...A person is more likely to obey someone in a location linked to higher status and legitimacy. Milgram’s study was conducted at a prestigious American university (Yale), and so obedience was greater than in a variation of the study conducted in a rundown office (65%-47.5%). This is because the prestigious nature of specific locations demand obedience from participants as well as potentially increasing the trust that they place in the researchers...
• ...A person is more likely to obey when they are less able to see the negative consequences of their actions and are in closer proximity to the authority figure. This is because it increases the pressure to obey and decreases the pressure to resist. In Milgram’s study, obedience was higher when the experimenter was in the same room (62.5%) as the participant as opposed to being in a different room and speaking over the phone e.g. the remote instruction condition (20.5% obedience levels).
• (+)Agentic state and legitimacy of authority theories can be used to successfully explain several real-life examples of obedience towards destructive authority figures. Kilham and Mann put forward the example of the My Lai Massacres, whereby thousands of American soldiers pillaged through Vietnamese villages and murdered civilians...
• ...This can be explained in terms of agent state theory, where the soldiers were simply obeying orders from their Generals and so shifted responsibility for their actions onto them. This authority was legitimate (justified) due to their high position within the Army’s social hierarchy ranks. Therefore, this suggests that both theories are valid explanations of obedience.
• (-)Some researchers have suggested that the participants did not acknowledge the electric shocks as real. For example, Gina Perry reviewed the interview tapes and found that a significant number of participants raised questions about the legitimacy of the electric shocks...
• ...However, quantitative data gathered by Milgram directly suggested that 70% of participants believed that the shocks were real - these findings appear plausible when considering that 100% of the females used in Sheridan and King’s study administered real electric shocks to puppies. This suggests that although the findings were certainly surprising, they were also likely to be accurate.
• (+)Strength of Milgram's research into situational variables affecting conformity is that other studies have demonstrated influence if these on obedience. Bickman (1974) conducted a field experiment where 3 confederates dressed differently (guard uniform, milkman outfit, jacket & tie) and asked people to perform tasks (clean litter). People twice as likely to obey the guard than the J&T, thus a powerful effect on obedience.
• (-)Low population validity - Milgram's study consisted of American males thus not representative of all people. results about location affecting obedience may not be able to be generalised to the behaviours of others such as females or people from other countries (low external validity).
• (+)Cross-cultural replications - Milgram's findings have been replicated in other cultures. Meeus et al (1986) studied obedience in Dutch participants. Ordered to say stressful things in an interview, to a confederate, desperate for a job. 90% obeyed. Also the person giving the orders was not present (change to the proximity) obedience decreased dramatically.
• (+)High control - Milgram uses the experimental method so therefore has high control over extraneous variables (e.g. instructions given to participants and appearance of experimenter) and can establish cause and effect. Researcher can be more confident that its the IV (experimenter wearing a unform or not) thats causing the DV (number of participants who gave learner electric shock of 450v). Uniform affecting obedience are not being impacted by confounding variables and thus are internally valid.
• ...Even Milgram himself admitted that the use of a ‘normal citizen’ recognised that this situation was so contrived. Therefore, decreased obedience in this condition may have been due to the participants behaving according to their expectations and so the results were affected by demand characteristics.
• (-)Ignores dispositional factors - Milgram's research may not be a complete explanation for obedience. Mandel (1998) argues that it offers an excuse or 'alibi' for vile behaviour. In his view, its offensive to survivors of the Holocaust to suggest that Nazis were simply obeying orders. Also, Milgram ignores dispositional factors (personality) implying the Nazis were victims of situational factors beyond their control...
• ... Research suggested obedience could be influenced by having an authoritarian personality formed due to harsh parenting. Middendorp et al (1990) found participants with lower levels of education tend to be more obedient.
• (+)Milgram put forward two explanations as to why 65% of his participants in his original study went up to 450v - Agentic state and legitimacy of authority theories can be used to successfully explain several real-life examples of obedience towards destructive authority figures - Kilham and Mann put forward the example of the My Lai Massacres, whereby thousands of American soldiers pillaged through Vietnamese villages and murdered civilians...
• ...This can be explained in terms of agent state theory, where the soldiers were simply obeying orders from their Generals and so shifted responsibility for their actions onto them. This authority was legitimate (justified) due to their high position within the Army’s social hierarchy ranks. Therefore, this suggests that both theories are valid explanations of obedience.
• Evaluation of AS: (+) Research support - Strength of agentic state explanation of obedience is that most of Milgram's participants often asked who will be responsible for potential harm on the learners to which the experimenter replied they would be, then the participants continued with no further objections, acting more easily as the experimenter's agent.
• (+)Agentic state explanation is supported by Hofling's research - 22 nurses were asked to administer a double dosage of an unknown drug by a phone call of an unknown doctor. Suggests that they were in the agentic state, attributing the responsibility to the authority. Thus Milgram's conclusion along with the agentic state are valid explanations.
• (-)Contradictory evidence - Rank et al (1997) found that 16/18 disobeyed orders from doctor to administer an excessive drug dose, they remained autonomous as did Milgram's participants. Thus agentic state can only account for some situations of obedience.
• (-)Failure to explain a gradual transition - People shift back and forth between an autonomous and agentic state, fails to explain gradual, irreversible transition that Lifton (1986) found in his study of German doctors working in Auschwitz, going from caring professionals to vile individuals. Staub (1989) suggests rather than an agentic shift, its the experience of committing evil acts over a long period that changes people.
• (-)Cruelty: Limitation as common belief of social scientists that the situation was used for some to express their sadistic impulses thus agentic state invalid for all.
• (+)Legitimacy of Authority supported by Milgram: Lab coat, 65% gave up to 450v but in variation normal clothes had it drop to 20% believing individual does not have necessary credentials. Valid for obedience.
• (-)Low ecological validity: Unfamiliar controlled environment conducting an artificial task. Difficult to generalise results to real life e.g. following orders from your boss (low external validity).
• (+)Research support: Tarnow (2000) found excessive dependant on captain's instructions, with sometimes tragic consequences in aviation industry, thus can be generalised to real life.
• (+)Explains cultural differences: Many studies show that countries differ in degree to which people are obedient to authority. Kilham and Mann (1974) found only 16% female Australians issued 450v, However, Mantell (1971) found 85% for Germans.
• (-)Can't explain all obedience: Rank et al (1977) found 16/18 nurses disobeyed and in Milgram too as they recognised experimenter's scientific authority, suggesting these tendencies play a greater role.