Obedience- social-psychological factors Flashcards
Obedience- social-psychological factors
list
Agentic state
Legitimacy of authority
Agentic state
-a mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour
-as we believe we are acting as an agent for an authority figure
└=can obey even a destructive authority figure
└still experience moral strain (high anxiety)
Autonomous state
-opposite of being in an agentic state
- feel a sense of responsibility for own actions as
- an individual is free to behave according to their own principles
Agentic shift
- agentic shift: shift from autonomy to agency
- Milgram (1974) suggested this occurs when a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority (high power as high position in social hierarchy)
Binding factors
-explains why an individual remains in an agentic state
-allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour
=reduce the moral strain they are feeling
└e.g.shifting responsibility onto the victim and denying damage they are doing to the victims
agentic state
strengths
Research support
-Blass and Schmitt (2011)
-showed a film of milgrams study
-students said experimenter was responsible for harm to learner
└due to legitimate authority (as he was on top of the hierarchy) and expert authority (because he was a scientist)
Legitimacy of authority
-an explanation for obedience which suggests we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us
(have higher position of power in social hierarchy)
Destructive authority
-powerful leaders (e.g. Hitler, starlin) have used their powers for destructive purposes
└ordering people to act in cruel and dangerous ways
- in milgrams study
- experimenter used prods to order participants to behave in ways that went against their consciences
Agentic state
Limitations
Summary
Limited explanation - Hofling et al
Obedience alibi - mandel (1998)
Agentic state
Limitations
Limited explanation
- agentic shift doesn’t explain many of the research findings
- doesn’t explain why some participants didn’t obey
-doesn’t explain findings from Hofling et als study
└nurses didnt show distress as predicted from Milgrams study
└agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience
Agentic state
Limitations
Obedience alibi
-behaviour of nazis cannot be explained in terms of authority and agentic shift
-mandel (1998)
└men in german reserve police battalion 101 obeyed orders to shoot a small town in poland
└despite the fact they didn’t have direct orders to do so, could have been assigned other duties if preferred
Legitimacy of authority
Strengths
Summary
Real life crimes of obedience - Kelman and Hamilton (1989)
Cultural differences - Kilham and Mann (1974), Mantell (1971)
Legitimacy of authority
Strengths
Real life crimes of obedience
-can help explain how obedience can lead to real life war crimes
-Kelman and Hamilton (1989)
└argue that the my lai massacre (1968) during the vietman war can be understood in terms of hierarchy of the US army
└504 unarmed civilians were killed by American soldiers, women gang raped and animals killed
└only one soldier faced charger and was found guilty- Lt William Calley- he said he was doing his duty and only following orders (same as Nazi officers defence at Nuremberg trials)
Legitimacy of authority
Strengths
Cultural differences
-studies account for cultural differences in obedience, show that countries differ in the degree to which people are traditionally obedient to authority
-replications of milgrams procedure in different countries:
-Kilham and Mann (1974)
└Australia: 16% of participants went to top of voltage scale
└Mantell (1971)
└Germany: 85% of participants went to top of voltage scale
└reflects the way that different societies are structured and how children are raised to perceive authority figures
└supportive findings from cross cultural research increase validity of the explanation
