Obedience : situational explanations

• The two explanations

  1. Agentic state
  2. legitimacy of authority
• Agentic state

  Acting on behalf of another person.

  Milgram proposed that 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 foe their actions.
• Autonomous state

  Not an agent

  'Autonomy' means to be independent or free. So a person in an autonomous state behaves accordingly to their principles and feels responsible for their actions.
• Agentic shift

  Moving to agentic state

  The shift from autonomy to being an 'agent' is called the agentic shift. Milgram suggested that this occurs when we perceive someone else as an authority figure. This person has power because of their position in a social hierarchy.
• Binding factors

  Reduce 'moral strain'

  Binding factors are aspects of a situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and reduce the 'moral strain' they feel. Milgram proposed a number of strategies the individual uses, such as shifting the responsibility to the victim or denying the damage they are doing to victims.
• Legitimacy of authority

  Most societies are structured hierarchically. People in certain positions hold authority over the rest of us. The power that authorities weild is legitimate as it is agreed by society. Most of us accept that authority figures should exercise social power over others to allow society to function smoothly. People with legitimate authority have the power to punish others. We give up some independence to people we trust to exercise authority properly. We learn to accept authority in childhood. History has shown that some leaders use legitimate authority destructively
• Evaluation

  One strength is tat the agentic state explanation has research support. Most of Milgram's participants asked the 'experimenter' 'who is responsible if the learner is harmed ?'. When the experimenter replied ' i am responsible' the participants went through the procedure quickly without objecting. This shows participants acted more easily as an agent when they believed they were not responsible for their behaviour.
• Evaluation

  One limitation is that the agentic shift doesn't explain many research findings. Rank and Jacobson found that most nurses disobeyed a doctor's orer to give an excessive drug dose. The doctor was an authority figure but the nurses remained autonomous and did not shift into an agentic state. The same is true for some of Milgram's participants. This shows that agentic shifts can only explain obedience in some situations.
• Evaluation

  One strength is real world crimes of obedience. Research shows that some people disobey legitimate authority as shown in Rank and Jacobson's study. Nurses disobeyed a doctor's order to give an excessive drug dose. The doctor had legitimacy of authority as they are higher in the hierarchy than nurses. However, soldiers at My LAi obeyed their commanding officer which may have been because he had more power to punish them. Therefore, there is some evidence in real world situations that respect for legitimate authority can lead to destructive obedience.
• Evaluation

  One limitation is legitimacy cannot explain all obedience. People may disobey even when they accept that legitimacy of the hierarchical authority structure. For example, most of Rank and Jacobson's nurses were disobedient, as were some of Milgram's participants. This suggests that innate tendencies towards obedience may be more important than legitimacy of authority.