1.5: Obedience Flashcards
Discuss 2 explanations for obedience (16 marks).
One explanation for obedience is the authoritarian personality.
Another explanation for obedience is situational variables.
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Or, what else could I do?
Or, I could do:
- The agentic state
- Legitimacy of authority
Discuss 2 explanations for obedience (16 marks).
One explanation for obedience is the authoritarian personality.
Another explanation for obedience is situational variables.
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Or, I could do the agentic state and legitimacy of authority.
One explanation for obedience is the agentic state.
What is the agentic state?
The agentic state is a mental state where an individual feels no personal responsibility for their behaviour, because they believe themselves to be acting for an authority figure (as their agent), which makes them de-individuated, as they lose their sense of individuality
Discuss 2 explanations for obedience (16 marks).
One explanation for obedience is the authoritarian personality.
Another explanation for obedience is situational variables.
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Or, I could do the agentic state and legitimacy of authority.
One explanation for obedience is the agentic state.
The agentic state is a mental state where an individual feels no personal responsibility for their behaviour, because they believe themselves to be acting for an authority figure (as their agent), which makes them de-individuated, as they lose their sense of individuality.
What does this do?
This:
1. Frees them from the demands of their conscience
2. Allows them to obey even a destructive authority figure
,but an agent is not unfeeling, as they experience high anxiety (moral strain) when they realise that what they are doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey
Discuss 2 explanations for obedience (16 marks).
One explanation for obedience is the authoritarian personality.
Another explanation for obedience is situational variables.
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Or, I could do the agentic state and legitimacy of authority.
One explanation for obedience is the agentic state.
The agentic state is a mental state where an individual feels no personal responsibility for their behaviour, because they believe themselves to be acting for an authority figure (as their agent), which makes them de-individuated, as they lose their sense of individuality.
This frees them from the demands of their conscience and allows them to obey even a destructive authority figure, but an agent is not unfeeling, as they experience high anxiety (moral strain) when they realise that what they are doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey.
What is the opposite of being in an agentic state?
The opposite of being in an agentic state is being in an autonomous state
Discuss 2 explanations for obedience (16 marks).
One explanation for obedience is the authoritarian personality.
Another explanation for obedience is situational variables.
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Or, I could do the agentic state and legitimacy of authority.
One explanation for obedience is the agentic state.
The agentic state is a mental state where an individual feels no personal responsibility for their behaviour, because they believe themselves to be acting for an authority figure (as their agent), which makes them de-individuated, as they lose their sense of individuality.
This frees them from the demands of their conscience and allows them to obey even a destructive authority figure, but an agent is not unfeeling, as they experience high anxiety (moral strain) when they realise that what they are doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey.
The opposite of being in an agentic state is being in an autonomous state, where
The opposite of being in an agentic state is being in an autonomous state, where an individual is free to behave according to their own principles and therefore feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions
Discuss 2 explanations for obedience (16 marks).
One explanation for obedience is the authoritarian personality.
Another explanation for obedience is situational variables.
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Or, I could do the agentic state and legitimacy of authority.
One explanation for obedience is the agentic state.
The agentic state is a mental state where an individual feels no personal responsibility for their behaviour, because they believe themselves to be acting for an authority figure (as their agent), which makes them de-individuated, as they lose their sense of individuality.
This frees them from the demands of their conscience and allows them to obey even a destructive authority figure, but an agent is not unfeeling, as they experience high anxiety (moral strain) when they realise that what they are doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey.
The opposite of being in an agentic state is being in an autonomous state, where an individual is free to behave according to their own principles and therefore feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions.
The shift from autonomy to ‘agency’
The shift from autonomy to ‘agency’ is called the agentic shift
Discuss 2 explanations for obedience (16 marks).
One explanation for obedience is the authoritarian personality.
Another explanation for obedience is situational variables.
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Or, I could do the agentic state and legitimacy of authority.
One explanation for obedience is the agentic state.
The agentic state is a mental state where an individual feels no personal responsibility for their behaviour, because they believe themselves to be acting for an authority figure (as their agent), which makes them de-individuated, as they lose their sense of individuality.
This frees them from the demands of their conscience and allows them to obey even a destructive authority figure, but an agent is not unfeeling, as they experience high anxiety (moral strain) when they realise that what they are doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey.
The opposite of being in an agentic state is being in an autonomous state, where an individual is free to behave according to their own principles and therefore feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions.
The shift from autonomy to ‘agency’ is called the agentic shift and Milgram (1974)
The shift from autonomy to ‘agency’ is called the agentic shift and Milgram (1974) suggested that is occurs when a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority, who has greater power because of their position in a social hierarchy
Discuss 2 explanations for obedience (16 marks).
One explanation for obedience is the authoritarian personality.
Another explanation for obedience is situational variables.
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Or, I could do the agentic state and legitimacy of authority.
One explanation for obedience is the agentic state.
The agentic state is a mental state where an individual feels no personal responsibility for their behaviour, because they believe themselves to be acting for an authority figure (as their agent), which makes them de-individuated, as they lose their sense of individuality.
This frees them from the demands of their conscience and allows them to obey even a destructive authority figure, but an agent is not unfeeling, as they experience high anxiety (moral strain) when they realise that what they are doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey.
The opposite of being in an agentic state is being in an autonomous state, where an individual is free to behave according to their own principles and therefore feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions.
The shift from autonomy to ‘agency’ is called the agentic shift and Milgram (1974) suggested that is occurs when a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority, who has greater power because of their position in a social hierarchy.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, the agentic state is a limited explanation of obedience
Discuss 2 explanations for obedience (16 marks).
One explanation for obedience is the authoritarian personality.
Another explanation for obedience is situational variables.
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Or, I could do the agentic state and legitimacy of authority.
One explanation for obedience is the agentic state.
The agentic state is a mental state where an individual feels no personal responsibility for their behaviour, because they believe themselves to be acting for an authority figure (as their agent), which makes them de-individuated, as they lose their sense of individuality.
This frees them from the demands of their conscience and allows them to obey even a destructive authority figure, but an agent is not unfeeling, as they experience high anxiety (moral strain) when they realise that what they are doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey.
The opposite of being in an agentic state is being in an autonomous state, where an individual is free to behave according to their own principles and therefore feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions.
The shift from autonomy to ‘agency’ is called the agentic shift and Milgram (1974) suggested that is occurs when a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority, who has greater power because of their position in a social hierarchy.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, the agentic state is a limited explanation of obedience.
Why is this?
This is because the agentic shift doesn’t explain many research findings
Discuss 2 explanations for obedience (16 marks).
One explanation for obedience is the authoritarian personality.
Another explanation for obedience is situational variables.
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Or, I could do the agentic state and legitimacy of authority.
One explanation for obedience is the agentic state.
The agentic state is a mental state where an individual feels no personal responsibility for their behaviour, because they believe themselves to be acting for an authority figure (as their agent), which makes them de-individuated, as they lose their sense of individuality.
This frees them from the demands of their conscience and allows them to obey even a destructive authority figure, but an agent is not unfeeling, as they experience high anxiety (moral strain) when they realise that what they are doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey.
The opposite of being in an agentic state is being in an autonomous state, where an individual is free to behave according to their own principles and therefore feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions.
The shift from autonomy to ‘agency’ is called the agentic shift and Milgram (1974) suggested that is occurs when a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority, who has greater power because of their position in a social hierarchy.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, the agentic state is a limited explanation of obedience.
This is because the agentic shift doesn’t explain many research findings.
Example
For example, it does not explain why some of the participants did not obey (humans are social animals and are involved in social hierarchies and therefore should all obey)
Discuss 2 explanations for obedience (16 marks).
One explanation for obedience is the authoritarian personality.
Another explanation for obedience is situational variables.
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Or, I could do the agentic state and legitimacy of authority.
One explanation for obedience is the agentic state.
The agentic state is a mental state where an individual feels no personal responsibility for their behaviour, because they believe themselves to be acting for an authority figure (as their agent), which makes them de-individuated, as they lose their sense of individuality.
This frees them from the demands of their conscience and allows them to obey even a destructive authority figure, but an agent is not unfeeling, as they experience high anxiety (moral strain) when they realise that what they are doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey.
The opposite of being in an agentic state is being in an autonomous state, where an individual is free to behave according to their own principles and therefore feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions.
The shift from autonomy to ‘agency’ is called the agentic shift and Milgram (1974) suggested that is occurs when a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority, who has greater power because of their position in a social hierarchy.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, the agentic state is a limited explanation of obedience.
This is because the agentic shift doesn’t explain many research findings.
For example, it does not explain why some of the participants did not obey (humans are social animals and are involved in social hierarchies and therefore should all obey).
What does it also not explain?
It also does not explain the findings from Hofling et al.’s study
Discuss 2 explanations for obedience (16 marks).
One explanation for obedience is the authoritarian personality.
Another explanation for obedience is situational variables.
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Or, I could do the agentic state and legitimacy of authority.
One explanation for obedience is the agentic state.
The agentic state is a mental state where an individual feels no personal responsibility for their behaviour, because they believe themselves to be acting for an authority figure (as their agent), which makes them de-individuated, as they lose their sense of individuality.
This frees them from the demands of their conscience and allows them to obey even a destructive authority figure, but an agent is not unfeeling, as they experience high anxiety (moral strain) when they realise that what they are doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey.
The opposite of being in an agentic state is being in an autonomous state, where an individual is free to behave according to their own principles and therefore feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions.
The shift from autonomy to ‘agency’ is called the agentic shift and Milgram (1974) suggested that is occurs when a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority, who has greater power because of their position in a social hierarchy.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, the agentic state is a limited explanation of obedience.
This is because the agentic shift doesn’t explain many research findings.
For example, it does not explain why some of the participants did not obey (humans are social animals and are involved in social hierarchies and therefore should all obey).
It also does not explain the findings from Hofling et al.’s study, why?
It also does not explain the findings from Hofling et al.’s study, because the agentic shift explanation predicts that as the nurses handed over responsibility to the doctor, they should have shown levels of anxiety similar to Milgram’s participants, as they understood their role in a destructive process, but this was not the case
Discuss 2 explanations for obedience (16 marks).
One explanation for obedience is the authoritarian personality.
Another explanation for obedience is situational variables.
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Or, I could do the agentic state and legitimacy of authority.
One explanation for obedience is the agentic state.
The agentic state is a mental state where an individual feels no personal responsibility for their behaviour, because they believe themselves to be acting for an authority figure (as their agent), which makes them de-individuated, as they lose their sense of individuality.
This frees them from the demands of their conscience and allows them to obey even a destructive authority figure, but an agent is not unfeeling, as they experience high anxiety (moral strain) when they realise that what they are doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey.
The opposite of being in an agentic state is being in an autonomous state, where an individual is free to behave according to their own principles and therefore feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions.
The shift from autonomy to ‘agency’ is called the agentic shift and Milgram (1974) suggested that is occurs when a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority, who has greater power because of their position in a social hierarchy.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, the agentic state is a limited explanation of obedience.
This is because the agentic shift doesn’t explain many research findings.
For example, it does not explain why some of the participants did not obey (humans are social animals and are involved in social hierarchies and therefore should all obey).
It also does not explain the findings from Hofling et al.’s study, because the agentic shift explanation predicts that as the nurses handed over responsibility to the doctor, they should have shown levels of anxiety similar to Milgram’s participants, as they understood their role in a destructive process, but this was not the case.
Therefore, what?
Therefore, at best, the agentic state explanation can only accounts for some situations of obedience, making other explanations of obedience, such as legitimacy of authority, much more valid
Discuss 2 explanations for obedience (16 marks).
One explanation for obedience is the authoritarian personality.
Another explanation for obedience is situational variables.
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Or, I could do the agentic state and legitimacy of authority.
One explanation for obedience is the agentic state.
The agentic state is a mental state where an individual feels no personal responsibility for their behaviour, because they believe themselves to be acting for an authority figure (as their agent), which makes them de-individuated, as they lose their sense of individuality.
This frees them from the demands of their conscience and allows them to obey even a destructive authority figure, but an agent is not unfeeling, as they experience high anxiety (moral strain) when they realise that what they are doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey.
The opposite of being in an agentic state is being in an autonomous state, where an individual is free to behave according to their own principles and therefore feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions.
The shift from autonomy to ‘agency’ is called the agentic shift and Milgram (1974) suggested that is occurs when a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority, who has greater power because of their position in a social hierarchy.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, the agentic state is a limited explanation of obedience.
This is because the agentic shift doesn’t explain many research findings.
For example, it does not explain why some of the participants did not obey (humans are social animals and are involved in social hierarchies and therefore should all obey).
It also does not explain the findings from Hofling et al.’s study, because the agentic shift explanation predicts that as the nurses handed over responsibility to the doctor, they should have shown levels of anxiety similar to Milgram’s participants, as they understood their role in a destructive process, but this was not the case.
Therefore, at best, the agentic state explanation can only accounts for some situations of obedience, making other explanations of obedience, such as legitimacy of authority, much more valid.
Second AO3 PEEL paragraph
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Another limitation of the agentic state explanation is that there is research evidence to show that the behaviour of the Nazis cannot be explained in terms of authority and an agentic shift
Discuss 2 explanations for obedience (16 marks).
One explanation for obedience is the authoritarian personality.
Another explanation for obedience is situational variables.
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Or, I could do the agentic state and legitimacy of authority.
One explanation for obedience is the agentic state.
The agentic state is a mental state where an individual feels no personal responsibility for their behaviour, because they believe themselves to be acting for an authority figure (as their agent), which makes them de-individuated, as they lose their sense of individuality.
This frees them from the demands of their conscience and allows them to obey even a destructive authority figure, but an agent is not unfeeling, as they experience high anxiety (moral strain) when they realise that what they are doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey.
The opposite of being in an agentic state is being in an autonomous state, where an individual is free to behave according to their own principles and therefore feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions.
The shift from autonomy to ‘agency’ is called the agentic shift and Milgram (1974) suggested that is occurs when a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority, who has greater power because of their position in a social hierarchy.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, the agentic state is a limited explanation of obedience.
This is because the agentic shift doesn’t explain many research findings.
For example, it does not explain why some of the participants did not obey (humans are social animals and are involved in social hierarchies and therefore should all obey).
It also does not explain the findings from Hofling et al.’s study, because the agentic shift explanation predicts that as the nurses handed over responsibility to the doctor, they should have shown levels of anxiety similar to Milgram’s participants, as they understood their role in a destructive process, but this was not the case.
Therefore, at best, the agentic state explanation can only accounts for some situations of obedience, making other explanations of obedience, such as legitimacy of authority, much more valid.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Another limitation of the agentic state explanation is that there is research evidence to show that the behaviour of the Nazis cannot be explained in terms of authority and an agentic shift.
Example
For example, Mandel (1998) described one incident involving German Reserve Police Battalion 101, where men obeyed the orders to shoot civilians in a small town in Poland.
This was despite the fact that they did not have direct orders to do so, as they were told they could be assigned to other duties if they preferred
Discuss 2 explanations for obedience (16 marks).
One explanation for obedience is the authoritarian personality.
Another explanation for obedience is situational variables.
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Or, I could do the agentic state and legitimacy of authority.
One explanation for obedience is the agentic state.
The agentic state is a mental state where an individual feels no personal responsibility for their behaviour, because they believe themselves to be acting for an authority figure (as their agent), which makes them de-individuated, as they lose their sense of individuality.
This frees them from the demands of their conscience and allows them to obey even a destructive authority figure, but an agent is not unfeeling, as they experience high anxiety (moral strain) when they realise that what they are doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey.
The opposite of being in an agentic state is being in an autonomous state, where an individual is free to behave according to their own principles and therefore feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions.
The shift from autonomy to ‘agency’ is called the agentic shift and Milgram (1974) suggested that is occurs when a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority, who has greater power because of their position in a social hierarchy.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, the agentic state is a limited explanation of obedience.
This is because the agentic shift doesn’t explain many research findings.
For example, it does not explain why some of the participants did not obey (humans are social animals and are involved in social hierarchies and therefore should all obey).
It also does not explain the findings from Hofling et al.’s study, because the agentic shift explanation predicts that as the nurses handed over responsibility to the doctor, they should have shown levels of anxiety similar to Milgram’s participants, as they understood their role in a destructive process, but this was not the case.
Therefore, at best, the agentic state explanation can only accounts for some situations of obedience, making other explanations of obedience, such as legitimacy of authority, much more valid.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Another limitation of the agentic state explanation is that there is research evidence to show that the behaviour of the Nazis cannot be explained in terms of authority and an agentic shift.
For example, Mandel (1998) described one incident involving German Reserve Police Battalion 101, where men obeyed the orders to shoot civilians in a small town in Poland.
This was despite the fact that they did not have direct orders to do so, as they were told they could be assigned to other duties if they preferred.
As
As the men of Police Battalian 101 were not ordered to murder civilians, this directly challenges the agentic state explanation for obedience, because it cannot explain obedience in all circumstances
Discuss 2 explanations for obedience (16 marks).
One explanation for obedience is the authoritarian personality.
Another explanation for obedience is situational variables.
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Or, I could do the agentic state and legitimacy of authority.
One explanation for obedience is the agentic state.
The agentic state is a mental state where an individual feels no personal responsibility for their behaviour, because they believe themselves to be acting for an authority figure (as their agent), which makes them de-individuated, as they lose their sense of individuality.
This frees them from the demands of their conscience and allows them to obey even a destructive authority figure, but an agent is not unfeeling, as they experience high anxiety (moral strain) when they realise that what they are doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey.
The opposite of being in an agentic state is being in an autonomous state, where an individual is free to behave according to their own principles and therefore feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions.
The shift from autonomy to ‘agency’ is called the agentic shift and Milgram (1974) suggested that is occurs when a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority, who has greater power because of their position in a social hierarchy.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, the agentic state is a limited explanation of obedience.
This is because the agentic shift doesn’t explain many research findings.
For example, it does not explain why some of the participants did not obey (humans are social animals and are involved in social hierarchies and therefore should all obey).
It also does not explain the findings from Hofling et al.’s study, because the agentic shift explanation predicts that as the nurses handed over responsibility to the doctor, they should have shown levels of anxiety similar to Milgram’s participants, as they understood their role in a destructive process, but this was not the case.
Therefore, at best, the agentic state explanation can only accounts for some situations of obedience, making other explanations of obedience, such as legitimacy of authority, much more valid.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Another limitation of the agentic state explanation is that there is research evidence to show that the behaviour of the Nazis cannot be explained in terms of authority and an agentic shift.
For example, Mandel (1998) described one incident involving German Reserve Police Battalion 101, where men obeyed the orders to shoot civilians in a small town in Poland.
This was despite the fact that they did not have direct orders to do so, as they were told they could be assigned to other duties if they preferred.
As the men of Police Battalian 101 were not ordered to murder civilians, this directly challenges the agentic state explanation for obedience, because it cannot explain obedience in all circumstances.
Another explanation for obedience is legitimacy of authority.
What is legitimacy of authority?
Legitimacy of authority is the degree to which individuals are seen as justified in having power over others and an explanation for obedience which suggests that we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us
Discuss 2 explanations for obedience (16 marks).
One explanation for obedience is the authoritarian personality.
Another explanation for obedience is situational variables.
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Or, I could do the agentic state and legitimacy of authority.
One explanation for obedience is the agentic state.
The agentic state is a mental state where an individual feels no personal responsibility for their behaviour, because they believe themselves to be acting for an authority figure (as their agent), which makes them de-individuated, as they lose their sense of individuality.
This frees them from the demands of their conscience and allows them to obey even a destructive authority figure, but an agent is not unfeeling, as they experience high anxiety (moral strain) when they realise that what they are doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey.
The opposite of being in an agentic state is being in an autonomous state, where an individual is free to behave according to their own principles and therefore feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions.
The shift from autonomy to ‘agency’ is called the agentic shift and Milgram (1974) suggested that is occurs when a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority, who has greater power because of their position in a social hierarchy.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, the agentic state is a limited explanation of obedience.
This is because the agentic shift doesn’t explain many research findings.
For example, it does not explain why some of the participants did not obey (humans are social animals and are involved in social hierarchies and therefore should all obey).
It also does not explain the findings from Hofling et al.’s study, because the agentic shift explanation predicts that as the nurses handed over responsibility to the doctor, they should have shown levels of anxiety similar to Milgram’s participants, as they understood their role in a destructive process, but this was not the case.
Therefore, at best, the agentic state explanation can only accounts for some situations of obedience, making other explanations of obedience, such as legitimacy of authority, much more valid.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Another limitation of the agentic state explanation is that there is research evidence to show that the behaviour of the Nazis cannot be explained in terms of authority and an agentic shift.
For example, Mandel (1998) described one incident involving German Reserve Police Battalion 101, where men obeyed the orders to shoot civilians in a small town in Poland.
This was despite the fact that they did not have direct orders to do so, as they were told they could be assigned to other duties if they preferred.
As the men of Police Battalian 101 were not ordered to murder civilians, this directly challenges the agentic state explanation for obedience, because it cannot explain obedience in all circumstances.
Another explanation for obedience is legitimacy of authority.
Legitimacy of authority is the degree to which individuals are seen as justified in having power over others and an explanation for obedience which suggests that we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us.
This authority
This authority is justified (legitimate) by the individual’s position of power within a social hierarchy
Discuss 2 explanations for obedience (16 marks).
One explanation for obedience is the authoritarian personality.
Another explanation for obedience is situational variables.
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Or, I could do the agentic state and legitimacy of authority.
One explanation for obedience is the agentic state.
The agentic state is a mental state where an individual feels no personal responsibility for their behaviour, because they believe themselves to be acting for an authority figure (as their agent), which makes them de-individuated, as they lose their sense of individuality.
This frees them from the demands of their conscience and allows them to obey even a destructive authority figure, but an agent is not unfeeling, as they experience high anxiety (moral strain) when they realise that what they are doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey.
The opposite of being in an agentic state is being in an autonomous state, where an individual is free to behave according to their own principles and therefore feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions.
The shift from autonomy to ‘agency’ is called the agentic shift and Milgram (1974) suggested that is occurs when a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority, who has greater power because of their position in a social hierarchy.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, the agentic state is a limited explanation of obedience.
This is because the agentic shift doesn’t explain many research findings.
For example, it does not explain why some of the participants did not obey (humans are social animals and are involved in social hierarchies and therefore should all obey).
It also does not explain the findings from Hofling et al.’s study, because the agentic shift explanation predicts that as the nurses handed over responsibility to the doctor, they should have shown levels of anxiety similar to Milgram’s participants, as they understood their role in a destructive process, but this was not the case.
Therefore, at best, the agentic state explanation can only accounts for some situations of obedience, making other explanations of obedience, such as legitimacy of authority, much more valid.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Another limitation of the agentic state explanation is that there is research evidence to show that the behaviour of the Nazis cannot be explained in terms of authority and an agentic shift.
For example, Mandel (1998) described one incident involving German Reserve Police Battalion 101, where men obeyed the orders to shoot civilians in a small town in Poland.
This was despite the fact that they did not have direct orders to do so, as they were told they could be assigned to other duties if they preferred.
As the men of Police Battalian 101 were not ordered to murder civilians, this directly challenges the agentic state explanation for obedience, because it cannot explain obedience in all circumstances.
Another explanation for obedience is legitimacy of authority.
Legitimacy of authority is the degree to which individuals are seen as justified in having power over others and 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 (legitimate) by the individual’s position of power within a social hierarchy.
One of the consequences of this
One of the consequences of this is that some people are granted the power to punish others, for example the police and the courts
Discuss 2 explanations for obedience (16 marks).
One explanation for obedience is the authoritarian personality.
Another explanation for obedience is situational variables.
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Or, I could do the agentic state and legitimacy of authority.
One explanation for obedience is the agentic state.
The agentic state is a mental state where an individual feels no personal responsibility for their behaviour, because they believe themselves to be acting for an authority figure (as their agent), which makes them de-individuated, as they lose their sense of individuality.
This frees them from the demands of their conscience and allows them to obey even a destructive authority figure, but an agent is not unfeeling, as they experience high anxiety (moral strain) when they realise that what they are doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey.
The opposite of being in an agentic state is being in an autonomous state, where an individual is free to behave according to their own principles and therefore feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions.
The shift from autonomy to ‘agency’ is called the agentic shift and Milgram (1974) suggested that is occurs when a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority, who has greater power because of their position in a social hierarchy.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, the agentic state is a limited explanation of obedience.
This is because the agentic shift doesn’t explain many research findings.
For example, it does not explain why some of the participants did not obey (humans are social animals and are involved in social hierarchies and therefore should all obey).
It also does not explain the findings from Hofling et al.’s study, because the agentic shift explanation predicts that as the nurses handed over responsibility to the doctor, they should have shown levels of anxiety similar to Milgram’s participants, as they understood their role in a destructive process, but this was not the case.
Therefore, at best, the agentic state explanation can only accounts for some situations of obedience, making other explanations of obedience, such as legitimacy of authority, much more valid.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Another limitation of the agentic state explanation is that there is research evidence to show that the behaviour of the Nazis cannot be explained in terms of authority and an agentic shift.
For example, Mandel (1998) described one incident involving German Reserve Police Battalion 101, where men obeyed the orders to shoot civilians in a small town in Poland.
This was despite the fact that they did not have direct orders to do so, as they were told they could be assigned to other duties if they preferred.
As the men of Police Battalian 101 were not ordered to murder civilians, this directly challenges the agentic state explanation for obedience, because it cannot explain obedience in all circumstances.
Another explanation for obedience is legitimacy of authority.
Legitimacy of authority is the degree to which individuals are seen as justified in having power over others and 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 (legitimate) by the individual’s position of power within a social hierarchy.
One of the consequences of this is that some people are granted the power to punish others, for example the police and the courts.
In addition, how do we learn acceptance of legitimate authority?
In addition, we learn acceptance of legitimate authority from childhood, from parents initially and then teachers and adults generally
Discuss 2 explanations for obedience (16 marks).
One explanation for obedience is the authoritarian personality.
Another explanation for obedience is situational variables.
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Or, I could do the agentic state and legitimacy of authority.
One explanation for obedience is the agentic state.
The agentic state is a mental state where an individual feels no personal responsibility for their behaviour, because they believe themselves to be acting for an authority figure (as their agent), which makes them de-individuated, as they lose their sense of individuality.
This frees them from the demands of their conscience and allows them to obey even a destructive authority figure, but an agent is not unfeeling, as they experience high anxiety (moral strain) when they realise that what they are doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey.
The opposite of being in an agentic state is being in an autonomous state, where an individual is free to behave according to their own principles and therefore feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions.
The shift from autonomy to ‘agency’ is called the agentic shift and Milgram (1974) suggested that is occurs when a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority, who has greater power because of their position in a social hierarchy.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, the agentic state is a limited explanation of obedience.
This is because the agentic shift doesn’t explain many research findings.
For example, it does not explain why some of the participants did not obey (humans are social animals and are involved in social hierarchies and therefore should all obey).
It also does not explain the findings from Hofling et al.’s study, because the agentic shift explanation predicts that as the nurses handed over responsibility to the doctor, they should have shown levels of anxiety similar to Milgram’s participants, as they understood their role in a destructive process, but this was not the case.
Therefore, at best, the agentic state explanation can only accounts for some situations of obedience, making other explanations of obedience, such as legitimacy of authority, much more valid.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Another limitation of the agentic state explanation is that there is research evidence to show that the behaviour of the Nazis cannot be explained in terms of authority and an agentic shift.
For example, Mandel (1998) described one incident involving German Reserve Police Battalion 101, where men obeyed the orders to shoot civilians in a small town in Poland.
This was despite the fact that they did not have direct orders to do so, as they were told they could be assigned to other duties if they preferred.
As the men of Police Battalian 101 were not ordered to murder civilians, this directly challenges the agentic state explanation for obedience, because it cannot explain obedience in all circumstances.
Another explanation for obedience is legitimacy of authority.
Legitimacy of authority is the degree to which individuals are seen as justified in having power over others and 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 (legitimate) by the individual’s position of power within a social hierarchy.
One of the consequences of this is that some people are granted the power to punish others, for example the police and the courts.
In addition, we learn acceptance of legitimate authority from childhood, from parents initially and then teachers and adults generally.
What has history too often shown?
History has too often shown that charismatic and powerful leaders (such as Stalin and Hitler) can use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes, ordering people to behave in ways that are callous, cruel, stupid and dangerous
Discuss 2 explanations for obedience (16 marks).
One explanation for obedience is the authoritarian personality.
Another explanation for obedience is situational variables.
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Or, I could do the agentic state and legitimacy of authority.
One explanation for obedience is the agentic state.
The agentic state is a mental state where an individual feels no personal responsibility for their behaviour, because they believe themselves to be acting for an authority figure (as their agent), which makes them de-individuated, as they lose their sense of individuality.
This frees them from the demands of their conscience and allows them to obey even a destructive authority figure, but an agent is not unfeeling, as they experience high anxiety (moral strain) when they realise that what they are doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey.
The opposite of being in an agentic state is being in an autonomous state, where an individual is free to behave according to their own principles and therefore feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions.
The shift from autonomy to ‘agency’ is called the agentic shift and Milgram (1974) suggested that is occurs when a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority, who has greater power because of their position in a social hierarchy.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, the agentic state is a limited explanation of obedience.
This is because the agentic shift doesn’t explain many research findings.
For example, it does not explain why some of the participants did not obey (humans are social animals and are involved in social hierarchies and therefore should all obey).
It also does not explain the findings from Hofling et al.’s study, because the agentic shift explanation predicts that as the nurses handed over responsibility to the doctor, they should have shown levels of anxiety similar to Milgram’s participants, as they understood their role in a destructive process, but this was not the case.
Therefore, at best, the agentic state explanation can only accounts for some situations of obedience, making other explanations of obedience, such as legitimacy of authority, much more valid.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Another limitation of the agentic state explanation is that there is research evidence to show that the behaviour of the Nazis cannot be explained in terms of authority and an agentic shift.
For example, Mandel (1998) described one incident involving German Reserve Police Battalion 101, where men obeyed the orders to shoot civilians in a small town in Poland.
This was despite the fact that they did not have direct orders to do so, as they were told they could be assigned to other duties if they preferred.
As the men of Police Battalian 101 were not ordered to murder civilians, this directly challenges the agentic state explanation for obedience, because it cannot explain obedience in all circumstances.
Another explanation for obedience is legitimacy of authority.
Legitimacy of authority is the degree to which individuals are seen as justified in having power over others and 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 (legitimate) by the individual’s position of power within a social hierarchy.
One of the consequences of this is that some people are granted the power to punish others, for example the police and the courts.
In addition, we learn acceptance of legitimate authority from childhood, from parents initially and then teachers and adults generally.
History has too often shown that charismatic and powerful leaders (such as Stalin and Hitler) can use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes, ordering people to behave in ways that are callous, cruel, stupid and dangerous.
Third (first) AO3 PEEL paragraph
The third (first) AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for legitimacy of authority as an explanation of obedience
Discuss 2 explanations for obedience (16 marks).
One explanation for obedience is the authoritarian personality.
Another explanation for obedience is situational variables.
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Or, I could do the agentic state and legitimacy of authority.
One explanation for obedience is the agentic state.
The agentic state is a mental state where an individual feels no personal responsibility for their behaviour, because they believe themselves to be acting for an authority figure (as their agent), which makes them de-individuated, as they lose their sense of individuality.
This frees them from the demands of their conscience and allows them to obey even a destructive authority figure, but an agent is not unfeeling, as they experience high anxiety (moral strain) when they realise that what they are doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey.
The opposite of being in an agentic state is being in an autonomous state, where an individual is free to behave according to their own principles and therefore feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions.
The shift from autonomy to ‘agency’ is called the agentic shift and Milgram (1974) suggested that is occurs when a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority, who has greater power because of their position in a social hierarchy.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, the agentic state is a limited explanation of obedience.
This is because the agentic shift doesn’t explain many research findings.
For example, it does not explain why some of the participants did not obey (humans are social animals and are involved in social hierarchies and therefore should all obey).
It also does not explain the findings from Hofling et al.’s study, because the agentic shift explanation predicts that as the nurses handed over responsibility to the doctor, they should have shown levels of anxiety similar to Milgram’s participants, as they understood their role in a destructive process, but this was not the case.
Therefore, at best, the agentic state explanation can only accounts for some situations of obedience, making other explanations of obedience, such as legitimacy of authority, much more valid.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Another limitation of the agentic state explanation is that there is research evidence to show that the behaviour of the Nazis cannot be explained in terms of authority and an agentic shift.
For example, Mandel (1998) described one incident involving German Reserve Police Battalion 101, where men obeyed the orders to shoot civilians in a small town in Poland.
This was despite the fact that they did not have direct orders to do so, as they were told they could be assigned to other duties if they preferred.
As the men of Police Battalian 101 were not ordered to murder civilians, this directly challenges the agentic state explanation for obedience, because it cannot explain obedience in all circumstances.
Another explanation for obedience is legitimacy of authority.
Legitimacy of authority is the degree to which individuals are seen as justified in having power over others and 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 (legitimate) by the individual’s position of power within a social hierarchy.
One of the consequences of this is that some people are granted the power to punish others, for example the police and the courts.
In addition, we learn acceptance of legitimate authority from childhood, from parents initially and then teachers and adults generally.
History has too often shown that charismatic and powerful leaders (such as Stalin and Hitler) can use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes, ordering people to behave in ways that are callous, cruel, stupid and dangerous.
The third (first) AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for legitimacy of authority as an explanation of obedience. Example
For example, Blass and Schmitt (2001) showed a film of Milgram’s study to students and asked them to identify who they felt was responsible for the harm to the learner, Mr Wallace.
The students blamed the ‘experimenter,’ rather than the participant.
The students also indicated that the responsibility was due to legitimate authority (because the experimenter was at the top of the hierarchy and therefore had legitimate authority), but also due to expert authority (because he was a scientist)
Discuss 2 explanations for obedience (16 marks).
One explanation for obedience is the authoritarian personality.
Another explanation for obedience is situational variables.
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Or, I could do the agentic state and legitimacy of authority.
One explanation for obedience is the agentic state.
The agentic state is a mental state where an individual feels no personal responsibility for their behaviour, because they believe themselves to be acting for an authority figure (as their agent), which makes them de-individuated, as they lose their sense of individuality.
This frees them from the demands of their conscience and allows them to obey even a destructive authority figure, but an agent is not unfeeling, as they experience high anxiety (moral strain) when they realise that what they are doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey.
The opposite of being in an agentic state is being in an autonomous state, where an individual is free to behave according to their own principles and therefore feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions.
The shift from autonomy to ‘agency’ is called the agentic shift and Milgram (1974) suggested that is occurs when a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority, who has greater power because of their position in a social hierarchy.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, the agentic state is a limited explanation of obedience.
This is because the agentic shift doesn’t explain many research findings.
For example, it does not explain why some of the participants did not obey (humans are social animals and are involved in social hierarchies and therefore should all obey).
It also does not explain the findings from Hofling et al.’s study, because the agentic shift explanation predicts that as the nurses handed over responsibility to the doctor, they should have shown levels of anxiety similar to Milgram’s participants, as they understood their role in a destructive process, but this was not the case.
Therefore, at best, the agentic state explanation can only accounts for some situations of obedience, making other explanations of obedience, such as legitimacy of authority, much more valid.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Another limitation of the agentic state explanation is that there is research evidence to show that the behaviour of the Nazis cannot be explained in terms of authority and an agentic shift.
For example, Mandel (1998) described one incident involving German Reserve Police Battalion 101, where men obeyed the orders to shoot civilians in a small town in Poland.
This was despite the fact that they did not have direct orders to do so, as they were told they could be assigned to other duties if they preferred.
As the men of Police Battalian 101 were not ordered to murder civilians, this directly challenges the agentic state explanation for obedience, because it cannot explain obedience in all circumstances.
Another explanation for obedience is legitimacy of authority.
Legitimacy of authority is the degree to which individuals are seen as justified in having power over others and 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 (legitimate) by the individual’s position of power within a social hierarchy.
One of the consequences of this is that some people are granted the power to punish others, for example the police and the courts.
In addition, we learn acceptance of legitimate authority from childhood, from parents initially and then teachers and adults generally.
History has too often shown that charismatic and powerful leaders (such as Stalin and Hitler) can use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes, ordering people to behave in ways that are callous, cruel, stupid and dangerous.
The third (first) AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for legitimacy of authority as an explanation of obedience.
For example, Blass and Schmitt (2001) showed a film of Milgram’s study to students and asked them to identify who they felt was responsible for the harm to the learner, Mr Wallace.
The students blamed the ‘experimenter,’ rather than the participant.
The students also indicated that the responsibility was due to legitimate authority (because the experimenter was at the top of the hierarchy and therefore had legitimate authority), but also due to expert authority (because he was a scientist).
The students
The students recognised legitimate authority as the cause of the participants’ obedience, which shows that legitimacy of authority is a valid explanation of obedience
Discuss 2 explanations for obedience (16 marks).
One explanation for obedience is the authoritarian personality.
Another explanation for obedience is situational variables.
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Or, I could do the agentic state and legitimacy of authority.
One explanation for obedience is the agentic state.
The agentic state is a mental state where an individual feels no personal responsibility for their behaviour, because they believe themselves to be acting for an authority figure (as their agent), which makes them de-individuated, as they lose their sense of individuality.
This frees them from the demands of their conscience and allows them to obey even a destructive authority figure, but an agent is not unfeeling, as they experience high anxiety (moral strain) when they realise that what they are doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey.
The opposite of being in an agentic state is being in an autonomous state, where an individual is free to behave according to their own principles and therefore feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions.
The shift from autonomy to ‘agency’ is called the agentic shift and Milgram (1974) suggested that is occurs when a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority, who has greater power because of their position in a social hierarchy.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, the agentic state is a limited explanation of obedience.
This is because the agentic shift doesn’t explain many research findings.
For example, it does not explain why some of the participants did not obey (humans are social animals and are involved in social hierarchies and therefore should all obey).
It also does not explain the findings from Hofling et al.’s study, because the agentic shift explanation predicts that as the nurses handed over responsibility to the doctor, they should have shown levels of anxiety similar to Milgram’s participants, as they understood their role in a destructive process, but this was not the case.
Therefore, at best, the agentic state explanation can only accounts for some situations of obedience, making other explanations of obedience, such as legitimacy of authority, much more valid.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Another limitation of the agentic state explanation is that there is research evidence to show that the behaviour of the Nazis cannot be explained in terms of authority and an agentic shift.
For example, Mandel (1998) described one incident involving German Reserve Police Battalion 101, where men obeyed the orders to shoot civilians in a small town in Poland.
This was despite the fact that they did not have direct orders to do so, as they were told they could be assigned to other duties if they preferred.
As the men of Police Battalian 101 were not ordered to murder civilians, this directly challenges the agentic state explanation for obedience, because it cannot explain obedience in all circumstances.
Another explanation for obedience is legitimacy of authority.
Legitimacy of authority is the degree to which individuals are seen as justified in having power over others and 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 (legitimate) by the individual’s position of power within a social hierarchy.
One of the consequences of this is that some people are granted the power to punish others, for example the police and the courts.
In addition, we learn acceptance of legitimate authority from childhood, from parents initially and then teachers and adults generally.
History has too often shown that charismatic and powerful leaders (such as Stalin and Hitler) can use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes, ordering people to behave in ways that are callous, cruel, stupid and dangerous.
The third (first) AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for legitimacy of authority as an explanation of obedience.
For example, Blass and Schmitt (2001) showed a film of Milgram’s study to students and asked them to identify who they felt was responsible for the harm to the learner, Mr Wallace.
The students blamed the ‘experimenter,’ rather than the participant.
The students also indicated that the responsibility was due to legitimate authority (because the experimenter was at the top of the hierarchy and therefore had legitimate authority), but also due to expert authority (because he was a scientist).
The students recognised legitimate authority as the cause of the participants’ obedience, which shows that legitimacy of authority is a valid explanation of obedience.
Fourth (second) AO3 PEEL paragraph
The fourth (second) AO3 PEEL paragraph is that A further strength of the legitimacy of authority explanation of obedience is that it is a useful account of cultural differences in obedience
Discuss 2 explanations for obedience (16 marks).
One explanation for obedience is the authoritarian personality.
Another explanation for obedience is situational variables.
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Or, I could do the agentic state and legitimacy of authority.
One explanation for obedience is the agentic state.
The agentic state is a mental state where an individual feels no personal responsibility for their behaviour, because they believe themselves to be acting for an authority figure (as their agent), which makes them de-individuated, as they lose their sense of individuality.
This frees them from the demands of their conscience and allows them to obey even a destructive authority figure, but an agent is not unfeeling, as they experience high anxiety (moral strain) when they realise that what they are doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey.
The opposite of being in an agentic state is being in an autonomous state, where an individual is free to behave according to their own principles and therefore feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions.
The shift from autonomy to ‘agency’ is called the agentic shift and Milgram (1974) suggested that is occurs when a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority, who has greater power because of their position in a social hierarchy.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, the agentic state is a limited explanation of obedience.
This is because the agentic shift doesn’t explain many research findings.
For example, it does not explain why some of the participants did not obey (humans are social animals and are involved in social hierarchies and therefore should all obey).
It also does not explain the findings from Hofling et al.’s study, because the agentic shift explanation predicts that as the nurses handed over responsibility to the doctor, they should have shown levels of anxiety similar to Milgram’s participants, as they understood their role in a destructive process, but this was not the case.
Therefore, at best, the agentic state explanation can only accounts for some situations of obedience, making other explanations of obedience, such as legitimacy of authority, much more valid.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Another limitation of the agentic state explanation is that there is research evidence to show that the behaviour of the Nazis cannot be explained in terms of authority and an agentic shift.
For example, Mandel (1998) described one incident involving German Reserve Police Battalion 101, where men obeyed the orders to shoot civilians in a small town in Poland.
This was despite the fact that they did not have direct orders to do so, as they were told they could be assigned to other duties if they preferred.
As the men of Police Battalian 101 were not ordered to murder civilians, this directly challenges the agentic state explanation for obedience, because it cannot explain obedience in all circumstances.
Another explanation for obedience is legitimacy of authority.
Legitimacy of authority is the degree to which individuals are seen as justified in having power over others and 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 (legitimate) by the individual’s position of power within a social hierarchy.
One of the consequences of this is that some people are granted the power to punish others, for example the police and the courts.
In addition, we learn acceptance of legitimate authority from childhood, from parents initially and then teachers and adults generally.
History has too often shown that charismatic and powerful leaders (such as Stalin and Hitler) can use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes, ordering people to behave in ways that are callous, cruel, stupid and dangerous.
The third (first) AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for legitimacy of authority as an explanation of obedience.
For example, Blass and Schmitt (2001) showed a film of Milgram’s study to students and asked them to identify who they felt was responsible for the harm to the learner, Mr Wallace.
The students blamed the ‘experimenter,’ rather than the participant.
The students also indicated that the responsibility was due to legitimate authority (because the experimenter was at the top of the hierarchy and therefore had legitimate authority), but also due to expert authority (because he was a scientist).
The students recognised legitimate authority as the cause of the participants’ obedience, which shows that legitimacy of authority is a valid explanation of obedience.
The fourth (second) AO3 PEEL paragraph is that A further strength of the legitimacy of authority explanation of obedience is that it is a useful account of cultural differences in obedience. Why is this?
This is because much research/many studies show that countries differ in the degree to which people are traditionally obedient to authority
Discuss 2 explanations for obedience (16 marks).
One explanation for obedience is the authoritarian personality.
Another explanation for obedience is situational variables.
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Or, I could do the agentic state and legitimacy of authority.
One explanation for obedience is the agentic state.
The agentic state is a mental state where an individual feels no personal responsibility for their behaviour, because they believe themselves to be acting for an authority figure (as their agent), which makes them de-individuated, as they lose their sense of individuality.
This frees them from the demands of their conscience and allows them to obey even a destructive authority figure, but an agent is not unfeeling, as they experience high anxiety (moral strain) when they realise that what they are doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey.
The opposite of being in an agentic state is being in an autonomous state, where an individual is free to behave according to their own principles and therefore feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions.
The shift from autonomy to ‘agency’ is called the agentic shift and Milgram (1974) suggested that is occurs when a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority, who has greater power because of their position in a social hierarchy.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, the agentic state is a limited explanation of obedience.
This is because the agentic shift doesn’t explain many research findings.
For example, it does not explain why some of the participants did not obey (humans are social animals and are involved in social hierarchies and therefore should all obey).
It also does not explain the findings from Hofling et al.’s study, because the agentic shift explanation predicts that as the nurses handed over responsibility to the doctor, they should have shown levels of anxiety similar to Milgram’s participants, as they understood their role in a destructive process, but this was not the case.
Therefore, at best, the agentic state explanation can only accounts for some situations of obedience, making other explanations of obedience, such as legitimacy of authority, much more valid.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Another limitation of the agentic state explanation is that there is research evidence to show that the behaviour of the Nazis cannot be explained in terms of authority and an agentic shift.
For example, Mandel (1998) described one incident involving German Reserve Police Battalion 101, where men obeyed the orders to shoot civilians in a small town in Poland.
This was despite the fact that they did not have direct orders to do so, as they were told they could be assigned to other duties if they preferred.
As the men of Police Battalian 101 were not ordered to murder civilians, this directly challenges the agentic state explanation for obedience, because it cannot explain obedience in all circumstances.
Another explanation for obedience is legitimacy of authority.
Legitimacy of authority is the degree to which individuals are seen as justified in having power over others and 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 (legitimate) by the individual’s position of power within a social hierarchy.
One of the consequences of this is that some people are granted the power to punish others, for example the police and the courts.
In addition, we learn acceptance of legitimate authority from childhood, from parents initially and then teachers and adults generally.
History has too often shown that charismatic and powerful leaders (such as Stalin and Hitler) can use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes, ordering people to behave in ways that are callous, cruel, stupid and dangerous.
The third (first) AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for legitimacy of authority as an explanation of obedience.
For example, Blass and Schmitt (2001) showed a film of Milgram’s study to students and asked them to identify who they felt was responsible for the harm to the learner, Mr Wallace.
The students blamed the ‘experimenter,’ rather than the participant.
The students also indicated that the responsibility was due to legitimate authority (because the experimenter was at the top of the hierarchy and therefore had legitimate authority), but also due to expert authority (because he was a scientist).
The students recognised legitimate authority as the cause of the participants’ obedience, which shows that legitimacy of authority is a valid explanation of obedience.
The fourth (second) AO3 PEEL paragraph is that A further strength of the legitimacy of authority explanation of obedience is that it is a useful account of cultural differences in obedience.
This is because much research/many studies show that countries differ in the degree to which people are traditionally obedient to authority.
Example
For example, Kilham and Mann (1974) replicated Milgram’s procedure in Australia and found that only 16% of their participants went all the way to the top of the voltage scale
Discuss 2 explanations for obedience (16 marks).
One explanation for obedience is the authoritarian personality.
Another explanation for obedience is situational variables.
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Or, I could do the agentic state and legitimacy of authority.
One explanation for obedience is the agentic state.
The agentic state is a mental state where an individual feels no personal responsibility for their behaviour, because they believe themselves to be acting for an authority figure (as their agent), which makes them de-individuated, as they lose their sense of individuality.
This frees them from the demands of their conscience and allows them to obey even a destructive authority figure, but an agent is not unfeeling, as they experience high anxiety (moral strain) when they realise that what they are doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey.
The opposite of being in an agentic state is being in an autonomous state, where an individual is free to behave according to their own principles and therefore feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions.
The shift from autonomy to ‘agency’ is called the agentic shift and Milgram (1974) suggested that is occurs when a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority, who has greater power because of their position in a social hierarchy.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, the agentic state is a limited explanation of obedience.
This is because the agentic shift doesn’t explain many research findings.
For example, it does not explain why some of the participants did not obey (humans are social animals and are involved in social hierarchies and therefore should all obey).
It also does not explain the findings from Hofling et al.’s study, because the agentic shift explanation predicts that as the nurses handed over responsibility to the doctor, they should have shown levels of anxiety similar to Milgram’s participants, as they understood their role in a destructive process, but this was not the case.
Therefore, at best, the agentic state explanation can only accounts for some situations of obedience, making other explanations of obedience, such as legitimacy of authority, much more valid.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Another limitation of the agentic state explanation is that there is research evidence to show that the behaviour of the Nazis cannot be explained in terms of authority and an agentic shift.
For example, Mandel (1998) described one incident involving German Reserve Police Battalion 101, where men obeyed the orders to shoot civilians in a small town in Poland.
This was despite the fact that they did not have direct orders to do so, as they were told they could be assigned to other duties if they preferred.
As the men of Police Battalian 101 were not ordered to murder civilians, this directly challenges the agentic state explanation for obedience, because it cannot explain obedience in all circumstances.
Another explanation for obedience is legitimacy of authority.
Legitimacy of authority is the degree to which individuals are seen as justified in having power over others and 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 (legitimate) by the individual’s position of power within a social hierarchy.
One of the consequences of this is that some people are granted the power to punish others, for example the police and the courts.
In addition, we learn acceptance of legitimate authority from childhood, from parents initially and then teachers and adults generally.
History has too often shown that charismatic and powerful leaders (such as Stalin and Hitler) can use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes, ordering people to behave in ways that are callous, cruel, stupid and dangerous.
The third (first) AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for legitimacy of authority as an explanation of obedience.
For example, Blass and Schmitt (2001) showed a film of Milgram’s study to students and asked them to identify who they felt was responsible for the harm to the learner, Mr Wallace.
The students blamed the ‘experimenter,’ rather than the participant.
The students also indicated that the responsibility was due to legitimate authority (because the experimenter was at the top of the hierarchy and therefore had legitimate authority), but also due to expert authority (because he was a scientist).
The students recognised legitimate authority as the cause of the participants’ obedience, which shows that legitimacy of authority is a valid explanation of obedience.
The fourth (second) AO3 PEEL paragraph is that A further strength of the legitimacy of authority explanation of obedience is that it is a useful account of cultural differences in obedience.
This is because much research/many studies show that countries differ in the degree to which people are traditionally obedient to authority.
For example, Kilham and Mann (1974) replicated Milgram’s procedure in Australia and found that only 16% of their participants went all the way to the top of the voltage scale.
On the other hand,
On the other hand, Mantell (1971) found a very different figure for German participants – 85%
Discuss 2 explanations for obedience (16 marks).
One explanation for obedience is the authoritarian personality.
Another explanation for obedience is situational variables.
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Or, I could do the agentic state and legitimacy of authority.
One explanation for obedience is the agentic state.
The agentic state is a mental state where an individual feels no personal responsibility for their behaviour, because they believe themselves to be acting for an authority figure (as their agent), which makes them de-individuated, as they lose their sense of individuality.
This frees them from the demands of their conscience and allows them to obey even a destructive authority figure, but an agent is not unfeeling, as they experience high anxiety (moral strain) when they realise that what they are doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey.
The opposite of being in an agentic state is being in an autonomous state, where an individual is free to behave according to their own principles and therefore feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions.
The shift from autonomy to ‘agency’ is called the agentic shift and Milgram (1974) suggested that is occurs when a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority, who has greater power because of their position in a social hierarchy.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, the agentic state is a limited explanation of obedience.
This is because the agentic shift doesn’t explain many research findings.
For example, it does not explain why some of the participants did not obey (humans are social animals and are involved in social hierarchies and therefore should all obey).
It also does not explain the findings from Hofling et al.’s study, because the agentic shift explanation predicts that as the nurses handed over responsibility to the doctor, they should have shown levels of anxiety similar to Milgram’s participants, as they understood their role in a destructive process, but this was not the case.
Therefore, at best, the agentic state explanation can only accounts for some situations of obedience, making other explanations of obedience, such as legitimacy of authority, much more valid.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Another limitation of the agentic state explanation is that there is research evidence to show that the behaviour of the Nazis cannot be explained in terms of authority and an agentic shift.
For example, Mandel (1998) described one incident involving German Reserve Police Battalion 101, where men obeyed the orders to shoot civilians in a small town in Poland.
This was despite the fact that they did not have direct orders to do so, as they were told they could be assigned to other duties if they preferred.
As the men of Police Battalian 101 were not ordered to murder civilians, this directly challenges the agentic state explanation for obedience, because it cannot explain obedience in all circumstances.
Another explanation for obedience is legitimacy of authority.
Legitimacy of authority is the degree to which individuals are seen as justified in having power over others and 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 (legitimate) by the individual’s position of power within a social hierarchy.
One of the consequences of this is that some people are granted the power to punish others, for example the police and the courts.
In addition, we learn acceptance of legitimate authority from childhood, from parents initially and then teachers and adults generally.
History has too often shown that charismatic and powerful leaders (such as Stalin and Hitler) can use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes, ordering people to behave in ways that are callous, cruel, stupid and dangerous.
The third (first) AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for legitimacy of authority as an explanation of obedience.
For example, Blass and Schmitt (2001) showed a film of Milgram’s study to students and asked them to identify who they felt was responsible for the harm to the learner, Mr Wallace.
The students blamed the ‘experimenter,’ rather than the participant.
The students also indicated that the responsibility was due to legitimate authority (because the experimenter was at the top of the hierarchy and therefore had legitimate authority), but also due to expert authority (because he was a scientist).
The students recognised legitimate authority as the cause of the participants’ obedience, which shows that legitimacy of authority is a valid explanation of obedience.
The fourth (second) AO3 PEEL paragraph is that A further strength of the legitimacy of authority explanation of obedience is that it is a useful account of cultural differences in obedience.
This is because much research/many studies show that countries differ in the degree to which people are traditionally obedient to authority.
For example, Kilham and Mann (1974) replicated Milgram’s procedure in Australia and found that only 16% of their participants went all the way to the top of the voltage scale.
On the other hand, Mantell (1971) found a very different figure for German participants – 85%.
What does this show?
This shows that in some cultures, authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience from individuals
Discuss 2 explanations for obedience (16 marks).
One explanation for obedience is the authoritarian personality.
Another explanation for obedience is situational variables.
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Or, I could do the agentic state and legitimacy of authority.
One explanation for obedience is the agentic state.
The agentic state is a mental state where an individual feels no personal responsibility for their behaviour, because they believe themselves to be acting for an authority figure (as their agent), which makes them de-individuated, as they lose their sense of individuality.
This frees them from the demands of their conscience and allows them to obey even a destructive authority figure, but an agent is not unfeeling, as they experience high anxiety (moral strain) when they realise that what they are doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey.
The opposite of being in an agentic state is being in an autonomous state, where an individual is free to behave according to their own principles and therefore feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions.
The shift from autonomy to ‘agency’ is called the agentic shift and Milgram (1974) suggested that is occurs when a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority, who has greater power because of their position in a social hierarchy.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, the agentic state is a limited explanation of obedience.
This is because the agentic shift doesn’t explain many research findings.
For example, it does not explain why some of the participants did not obey (humans are social animals and are involved in social hierarchies and therefore should all obey).
It also does not explain the findings from Hofling et al.’s study, because the agentic shift explanation predicts that as the nurses handed over responsibility to the doctor, they should have shown levels of anxiety similar to Milgram’s participants, as they understood their role in a destructive process, but this was not the case.
Therefore, at best, the agentic state explanation can only accounts for some situations of obedience, making other explanations of obedience, such as legitimacy of authority, much more valid.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Another limitation of the agentic state explanation is that there is research evidence to show that the behaviour of the Nazis cannot be explained in terms of authority and an agentic shift.
For example, Mandel (1998) described one incident involving German Reserve Police Battalion 101, where men obeyed the orders to shoot civilians in a small town in Poland.
This was despite the fact that they did not have direct orders to do so, as they were told they could be assigned to other duties if they preferred.
As the men of Police Battalian 101 were not ordered to murder civilians, this directly challenges the agentic state explanation for obedience, because it cannot explain obedience in all circumstances.
Another explanation for obedience is legitimacy of authority.
Legitimacy of authority is the degree to which individuals are seen as justified in having power over others and 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 (legitimate) by the individual’s position of power within a social hierarchy.
One of the consequences of this is that some people are granted the power to punish others, for example the police and the courts.
In addition, we learn acceptance of legitimate authority from childhood, from parents initially and then teachers and adults generally.
History has too often shown that charismatic and powerful leaders (such as Stalin and Hitler) can use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes, ordering people to behave in ways that are callous, cruel, stupid and dangerous.
The third (first) AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for legitimacy of authority as an explanation of obedience.
For example, Blass and Schmitt (2001) showed a film of Milgram’s study to students and asked them to identify who they felt was responsible for the harm to the learner, Mr Wallace.
The students blamed the ‘experimenter,’ rather than the participant.
The students also indicated that the responsibility was due to legitimate authority (because the experimenter was at the top of the hierarchy and therefore had legitimate authority), but also due to expert authority (because he was a scientist).
The students recognised legitimate authority as the cause of the participants’ obedience, which shows that legitimacy of authority is a valid explanation of obedience.
The fourth (second) AO3 PEEL paragraph is that A further strength of the legitimacy of authority explanation of obedience is that it is a useful account of cultural differences in obedience.
This is because much research/many studies show that countries differ in the degree to which people are traditionally obedient to authority.
For example, Kilham and Mann (1974) replicated Milgram’s procedure in Australia and found that only 16% of their participants went all the way to the top of the voltage scale.
On the other hand, Mantell (1971) found a very different figure for German participants – 85%.
This shows that in some cultures, authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience from individuals.
What does this reflect?
This reflects the ways that different societies are structured and how children are raised to perceive authority figures
Discuss 2 explanations for obedience (16 marks).
One explanation for obedience is the authoritarian personality.
Another explanation for obedience is situational variables.
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Or, I could do the agentic state and legitimacy of authority.
One explanation for obedience is the agentic state.
The agentic state is a mental state where an individual feels no personal responsibility for their behaviour, because they believe themselves to be acting for an authority figure (as their agent), which makes them de-individuated, as they lose their sense of individuality.
This frees them from the demands of their conscience and allows them to obey even a destructive authority figure, but an agent is not unfeeling, as they experience high anxiety (moral strain) when they realise that what they are doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey.
The opposite of being in an agentic state is being in an autonomous state, where an individual is free to behave according to their own principles and therefore feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions.
The shift from autonomy to ‘agency’ is called the agentic shift and Milgram (1974) suggested that is occurs when a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority, who has greater power because of their position in a social hierarchy.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, the agentic state is a limited explanation of obedience.
This is because the agentic shift doesn’t explain many research findings.
For example, it does not explain why some of the participants did not obey (humans are social animals and are involved in social hierarchies and therefore should all obey).
It also does not explain the findings from Hofling et al.’s study, because the agentic shift explanation predicts that as the nurses handed over responsibility to the doctor, they should have shown levels of anxiety similar to Milgram’s participants, as they understood their role in a destructive process, but this was not the case.
Therefore, at best, the agentic state explanation can only accounts for some situations of obedience, making other explanations of obedience, such as legitimacy of authority, much more valid.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Another limitation of the agentic state explanation is that there is research evidence to show that the behaviour of the Nazis cannot be explained in terms of authority and an agentic shift.
For example, Mandel (1998) described one incident involving German Reserve Police Battalion 101, where men obeyed the orders to shoot civilians in a small town in Poland.
This was despite the fact that they did not have direct orders to do so, as they were told they could be assigned to other duties if they preferred.
As the men of Police Battalian 101 were not ordered to murder civilians, this directly challenges the agentic state explanation for obedience, because it cannot explain obedience in all circumstances.
Another explanation for obedience is legitimacy of authority.
Legitimacy of authority is the degree to which individuals are seen as justified in having power over others and 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 (legitimate) by the individual’s position of power within a social hierarchy.
One of the consequences of this is that some people are granted the power to punish others, for example the police and the courts.
In addition, we learn acceptance of legitimate authority from childhood, from parents initially and then teachers and adults generally.
History has too often shown that charismatic and powerful leaders (such as Stalin and Hitler) can use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes, ordering people to behave in ways that are callous, cruel, stupid and dangerous.
The third (first) AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for legitimacy of authority as an explanation of obedience.
For example, Blass and Schmitt (2001) showed a film of Milgram’s study to students and asked them to identify who they felt was responsible for the harm to the learner, Mr Wallace.
The students blamed the ‘experimenter,’ rather than the participant.
The students also indicated that the responsibility was due to legitimate authority (because the experimenter was at the top of the hierarchy and therefore had legitimate authority), but also due to expert authority (because he was a scientist).
The students recognised legitimate authority as the cause of the participants’ obedience, which shows that legitimacy of authority is a valid explanation of obedience.
The fourth (second) AO3 PEEL paragraph is that A further strength of the legitimacy of authority explanation of obedience is that it is a useful account of cultural differences in obedience.
This is because much research/many studies show that countries differ in the degree to which people are traditionally obedient to authority.
For example, Kilham and Mann (1974) replicated Milgram’s procedure in Australia and found that only 16% of their participants went all the way to the top of the voltage scale.
On the other hand, Mantell (1971) found a very different figure for German participants – 85%.
This shows that in some cultures, authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience from individuals.
This reflects the ways that different societies are structured and how children are raised to perceive authority figures.
Such supportive findings
Such supportive findings from cross-cultural research increase the validity of the legitimate of authority explanation of obedience
Discuss 2 explanations for obedience (16 marks).
One explanation for obedience is the authoritarian personality.
Another explanation for obedience is situational variables.
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Or, I could do the agentic state and legitimacy of authority.
One explanation for obedience is the agentic state.
The agentic state is a mental state where an individual feels no personal responsibility for their behaviour, because they believe themselves to be acting for an authority figure (as their agent), which makes them de-individuated, as they lose their sense of individuality.
This frees them from the demands of their conscience and allows them to obey even a destructive authority figure, but an agent is not unfeeling, as they experience high anxiety (moral strain) when they realise that what they are doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey.
The opposite of being in an agentic state is being in an autonomous state, where an individual is free to behave according to their own principles and therefore feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions.
The shift from autonomy to ‘agency’ is called the agentic shift and Milgram (1974) suggested that is occurs when a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority, who has greater power because of their position in a social hierarchy.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, the agentic state is a limited explanation of obedience.
This is because the agentic shift doesn’t explain many research findings.
For example, it does not explain why some of the participants did not obey (humans are social animals and are involved in social hierarchies and therefore should all obey).
It also does not explain the findings from Hofling et al.’s study, because the agentic shift explanation predicts that as the nurses handed over responsibility to the doctor, they should have shown levels of anxiety similar to Milgram’s participants, as they understood their role in a destructive process, but this was not the case.
Therefore, at best, the agentic state explanation can only accounts for some situations of obedience, making other explanations of obedience, such as legitimacy of authority, much more valid.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Another limitation of the agentic state explanation is that there is research evidence to show that the behaviour of the Nazis cannot be explained in terms of authority and an agentic shift.
For example, Mandel (1998) described one incident involving German Reserve Police Battalion 101, where men obeyed the orders to shoot civilians in a small town in Poland.
This was despite the fact that they did not have direct orders to do so, as they were told they could be assigned to other duties if they preferred.
As the men of Police Battalian 101 were not ordered to murder civilians, this directly challenges the agentic state explanation for obedience, because it cannot explain obedience in all circumstances.
Another explanation for obedience is legitimacy of authority.
Legitimacy of authority is the degree to which individuals are seen as justified in having power over others and 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 (legitimate) by the individual’s position of power within a social hierarchy.
One of the consequences of this is that some people are granted the power to punish others, for example the police and the courts.
In addition, we learn acceptance of legitimate authority from childhood, from parents initially and then teachers and adults generally.
History has too often shown that charismatic and powerful leaders (such as Stalin and Hitler) can use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes, ordering people to behave in ways that are callous, cruel, stupid and dangerous.
The third (first) AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for legitimacy of authority as an explanation of obedience.
For example, Blass and Schmitt (2001) showed a film of Milgram’s study to students and asked them to identify who they felt was responsible for the harm to the learner, Mr Wallace.
The students blamed the ‘experimenter,’ rather than the participant.
The students also indicated that the responsibility was due to legitimate authority (because the experimenter was at the top of the hierarchy and therefore had legitimate authority), but also due to expert authority (because he was a scientist).
The students recognised legitimate authority as the cause of the participants’ obedience, which shows that legitimacy of authority is a valid explanation of obedience.
The fourth (second) AO3 PEEL paragraph is that A further strength of the legitimacy of authority explanation of obedience is that it is a useful account of cultural differences in obedience.
This is because much research/many studies show that countries differ in the degree to which people are traditionally obedient to authority.
For example, Kilham and Mann (1974) replicated Milgram’s procedure in Australia and found that only 16% of their participants went all the way to the top of the voltage scale.
On the other hand, Mantell (1971) found a very different figure for German participants – 85%.
This shows that in some cultures, authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience from individuals.
This reflects the ways that different societies are structured and how children are raised to perceive authority figures.
Such supportive findings from cross-cultural research increase the validity of the legitimate of authority explanation of obedience.
Fifth (third) AO3 PEEL paragraph
The fifth (third) AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Another strength of the legitimacy of authority explanation is that it can help explain how obedience can lead to real-life war crimes
Discuss 2 explanations for obedience (16 marks).
One explanation for obedience is the authoritarian personality.
Another explanation for obedience is situational variables.
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Or, I could do the agentic state and legitimacy of authority.
One explanation for obedience is the agentic state.
The agentic state is a mental state where an individual feels no personal responsibility for their behaviour, because they believe themselves to be acting for an authority figure (as their agent), which makes them de-individuated, as they lose their sense of individuality.
This frees them from the demands of their conscience and allows them to obey even a destructive authority figure, but an agent is not unfeeling, as they experience high anxiety (moral strain) when they realise that what they are doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey.
The opposite of being in an agentic state is being in an autonomous state, where an individual is free to behave according to their own principles and therefore feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions.
The shift from autonomy to ‘agency’ is called the agentic shift and Milgram (1974) suggested that is occurs when a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority, who has greater power because of their position in a social hierarchy.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, the agentic state is a limited explanation of obedience.
This is because the agentic shift doesn’t explain many research findings.
For example, it does not explain why some of the participants did not obey (humans are social animals and are involved in social hierarchies and therefore should all obey).
It also does not explain the findings from Hofling et al.’s study, because the agentic shift explanation predicts that as the nurses handed over responsibility to the doctor, they should have shown levels of anxiety similar to Milgram’s participants, as they understood their role in a destructive process, but this was not the case.
Therefore, at best, the agentic state explanation can only accounts for some situations of obedience, making other explanations of obedience, such as legitimacy of authority, much more valid.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Another limitation of the agentic state explanation is that there is research evidence to show that the behaviour of the Nazis cannot be explained in terms of authority and an agentic shift.
For example, Mandel (1998) described one incident involving German Reserve Police Battalion 101, where men obeyed the orders to shoot civilians in a small town in Poland.
This was despite the fact that they did not have direct orders to do so, as they were told they could be assigned to other duties if they preferred.
As the men of Police Battalian 101 were not ordered to murder civilians, this directly challenges the agentic state explanation for obedience, because it cannot explain obedience in all circumstances.
Another explanation for obedience is legitimacy of authority.
Legitimacy of authority is the degree to which individuals are seen as justified in having power over others and 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 (legitimate) by the individual’s position of power within a social hierarchy.
One of the consequences of this is that some people are granted the power to punish others, for example the police and the courts.
In addition, we learn acceptance of legitimate authority from childhood, from parents initially and then teachers and adults generally.
History has too often shown that charismatic and powerful leaders (such as Stalin and Hitler) can use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes, ordering people to behave in ways that are callous, cruel, stupid and dangerous.
The third (first) AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for legitimacy of authority as an explanation of obedience.
For example, Blass and Schmitt (2001) showed a film of Milgram’s study to students and asked them to identify who they felt was responsible for the harm to the learner, Mr Wallace.
The students blamed the ‘experimenter,’ rather than the participant.
The students also indicated that the responsibility was due to legitimate authority (because the experimenter was at the top of the hierarchy and therefore had legitimate authority), but also due to expert authority (because he was a scientist).
The students recognised legitimate authority as the cause of the participants’ obedience, which shows that legitimacy of authority is a valid explanation of obedience.
The fourth (second) AO3 PEEL paragraph is that A further strength of the legitimacy of authority explanation of obedience is that it is a useful account of cultural differences in obedience.
This is because much research/many studies show that countries differ in the degree to which people are traditionally obedient to authority.
For example, Kilham and Mann (1974) replicated Milgram’s procedure in Australia and found that only 16% of their participants went all the way to the top of the voltage scale.
On the other hand, Mantell (1971) found a very different figure for German participants – 85%.
This shows that in some cultures, authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience from individuals.
This reflects the ways that different societies are structured and how children are raised to perceive authority figures.
Such supportive findings from cross-cultural research increase the validity of the legitimate of authority explanation of obedience.
The fifth (third) AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Another strength of the legitimacy of authority explanation is that it can help explain how obedience can lead to real-life war crimes. Example
For example, Kelman and Hamilton (1989) argue that the My Lai massacre, where all the animals and over 500 civilians were killed by American soldiers, even as they emerged from their homes with their hands in the air, can be understood in terms of the power hierarchy of the US Army
Discuss 2 explanations for obedience (16 marks).
One explanation for obedience is the authoritarian personality.
Another explanation for obedience is situational variables.
3 situational variables that can affect obedience are proximity, location and uniform.
Or, I could do the agentic state and legitimacy of authority.
One explanation for obedience is the agentic state.
The agentic state is a mental state where an individual feels no personal responsibility for their behaviour, because they believe themselves to be acting for an authority figure (as their agent), which makes them de-individuated, as they lose their sense of individuality.
This frees them from the demands of their conscience and allows them to obey even a destructive authority figure, but an agent is not unfeeling, as they experience high anxiety (moral strain) when they realise that what they are doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey.
The opposite of being in an agentic state is being in an autonomous state, where an individual is free to behave according to their own principles and therefore feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions.
The shift from autonomy to ‘agency’ is called the agentic shift and Milgram (1974) suggested that is occurs when a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority, who has greater power because of their position in a social hierarchy.
The first AO3 PEEL paragraph is that However, the agentic state is a limited explanation of obedience.
This is because the agentic shift doesn’t explain many research findings.
For example, it does not explain why some of the participants did not obey (humans are social animals and are involved in social hierarchies and therefore should all obey).
It also does not explain the findings from Hofling et al.’s study, because the agentic shift explanation predicts that as the nurses handed over responsibility to the doctor, they should have shown levels of anxiety similar to Milgram’s participants, as they understood their role in a destructive process, but this was not the case.
Therefore, at best, the agentic state explanation can only accounts for some situations of obedience, making other explanations of obedience, such as legitimacy of authority, much more valid.
The second AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Another limitation of the agentic state explanation is that there is research evidence to show that the behaviour of the Nazis cannot be explained in terms of authority and an agentic shift.
For example, Mandel (1998) described one incident involving German Reserve Police Battalion 101, where men obeyed the orders to shoot civilians in a small town in Poland.
This was despite the fact that they did not have direct orders to do so, as they were told they could be assigned to other duties if they preferred.
As the men of Police Battalian 101 were not ordered to murder civilians, this directly challenges the agentic state explanation for obedience, because it cannot explain obedience in all circumstances.
Another explanation for obedience is legitimacy of authority.
Legitimacy of authority is the degree to which individuals are seen as justified in having power over others and 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 (legitimate) by the individual’s position of power within a social hierarchy.
One of the consequences of this is that some people are granted the power to punish others, for example the police and the courts.
In addition, we learn acceptance of legitimate authority from childhood, from parents initially and then teachers and adults generally.
History has too often shown that charismatic and powerful leaders (such as Stalin and Hitler) can use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes, ordering people to behave in ways that are callous, cruel, stupid and dangerous.
The third (first) AO3 PEEL paragraph is that there is research support for legitimacy of authority as an explanation of obedience.
For example, Blass and Schmitt (2001) showed a film of Milgram’s study to students and asked them to identify who they felt was responsible for the harm to the learner, Mr Wallace.
The students blamed the ‘experimenter,’ rather than the participant.
The students also indicated that the responsibility was due to legitimate authority (because the experimenter was at the top of the hierarchy and therefore had legitimate authority), but also due to expert authority (because he was a scientist).
The students recognised legitimate authority as the cause of the participants’ obedience, which shows that legitimacy of authority is a valid explanation of obedience.
The fourth (second) AO3 PEEL paragraph is that A further strength of the legitimacy of authority explanation of obedience is that it is a useful account of cultural differences in obedience.
This is because much research/many studies show that countries differ in the degree to which people are traditionally obedient to authority.
For example, Kilham and Mann (1974) replicated Milgram’s procedure in Australia and found that only 16% of their participants went all the way to the top of the voltage scale.
On the other hand, Mantell (1971) found a very different figure for German participants – 85%.
This shows that in some cultures, authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience from individuals.
This reflects the ways that different societies are structured and how children are raised to perceive authority figures.
Such supportive findings from cross-cultural research increase the validity of the legitimate of authority explanation of obedience.
The fifth (third) AO3 PEEL paragraph is that Another strength of the legitimacy of authority explanation is that it can help explain how obedience can lead to real-life war crimes. For example, Kelman and Hamilton (1989) argue that the My Lai massacre, where all the animals and over 500 civilians were killed by American soldiers, even as they emerged from their homes with their hands in the air, can be understood in terms of the power hierarchy of the US Army. What does this show?
This shows that the legitimacy of authority explanation of obedience has useful real world application
