Situational Explanations of Obedience

• Define 'agentic state'

  A mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour because we believe ourselves to be acting for an authority figure, i.e. as their agent. This frees us from the demands of our conscience and allows us to obey even a destructive authority figure. The change from an autonomous state to an agentic state is known as agentic shift. An agent is not unemotional, they experience great anxiety and moral strain when they realise they are doing something wrong, however feel powerless to disobey.
• Define 'autonomous state'


  The opposite of an agentic state. A person in an autonomous state is free to behave in line with their own principles and values and feel a sense of responsibility for their actions. Milgram (1974) suggested that an agentic shift occurs when a person perceives someone else as an authority figure. The authority figure is higher in the social hierarchy, so others defer to their legitimate authority.
• Define 'binding factors'

  These are aspects of a situation that allow the person to minimise or ignore the damaging implications of their behaviour, therefore reducing the moral strain that they experience. Milgram suggested that people use strategies in order to reduce the moral strain. This could include shifting responsibility to a victim or denying the damage they were doing to victims.
• Evaluating agentic theory: Research support

  - Milgram's own studies support his agency theory.

  - Most of Milgram's participants resisted at some point, and often asked questions about the procedure. For example, 'Who is responsible if Mr Wallace is harmed?' to which the Experimenter replied 'I'm responsible'.

  - After the reply, participants often went through the procedure quickly whith no further objections.

  - This shows that when participants perceived that they were no longer responsible for their behaviour, they acted more easily as the Experimenter's agent, as Milgram's agentic theory would suggest.
• Evaluating agentic theory: A limited explanation

  - A limitation is that it doesn't explain many research findings about obedience.

  - Rank and Jacobson's (1977) findings are not explained. They found that 16/18 nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor to administer a lethal dose of drug to a patient.

  - The doctor was the authority figure in this situation, however a vast majority of the nurses remained in an autonomous state rather than undergoing an agentic shift.

  - This suggests that, at best, the agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience.
• Evaluating agentic theory: Obedience alibi

  - Mandel (1998) described one incident in WW2 involving the German Reserve Police Battalion 101.

  - The men shot many civilians in a small town in Poland despite not having direct orders to do so - they behaved autonomously.
• Define and explain 'legitimacy of authority'

  - An explanation for obedience which suggests that we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us. This authority is justified by the individual's position in the social hierarchy.

  - The authority that certain people in society hold is seen as legitimate as it is agreed by society. Most of us accept that authority figures need to be permitted to exercise social power over others as it allows society to function smoothly.

  - Legitimacy of authority means that some are given the power to punish wrongdoers. To do this, we give up some of our independence and hand control over our behaviour to authority figures who we trust to exercise their authority appropriately.

  - Acceptance of legitimacy of authority is generally learnt in childhood when taught by parents and then extends to teachers and adults generally.
• Explain destructive authority

  - Charismatic and powerful leaders are able to utilise their legitimate power and authority for destructive purposes, and order people to behave in dangerous and cruel ways.

  - Destructive authority was pronounced in Milgram's study when the Experimenter used prods to order participants to behave in ways that opposed their consciences.
• Evaluating legitimacy of authority: Explains cultural differences

  - A strength of this explanation is that it is a useful account of cultural differences in obedience. Kilham and Mann (1974) found that only 16% of Australian women went to the maximum 450V in a Milgram-esque study.

  - However, Mantell (1971) found 85% of his German participants went to the highest voltage.

  - This shows that in some cultures, authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate by individuals. This reflects the way that different societies are structured and how children are raised to perceive authority figures.
• Evaluating legitimacy of authority: Cannot explain all (dis)obedience


  - A limitation is that the explanation doesn't explain examples of disobedience in a hierarchy where legitimacy of authority is accepted.

  - This includes the nurses in Rank and Jacobson's (1977) study; most were disobedient despite working in a rigid hierarchal structure.

  - A small proportion of Milgram's participants also disobeyed despite recognsing the Experimenter's legitimate authority.

  - This suggests that some people may just be more or less obedient than others (dispositional factors). It is possible that innate tendencies to obey or disobey have a greater influence on behaviour than legitimacy of authority.
• Evaluating legitimacy of authority: Real-world crimes of obedience


  - Rank and Jacobson (1977) found that nurses were prepared to disobey a legitimate authority.

  - But, Kelman and Hamilton (1989) argue that a real world crime of obedience (the My Lai massacre) can be understood in terms of the hierarchal power of the US Army.

  - Commanding officers operate within a more rigid and legitimate authority than hospital doctors and have a greater power to punish.