agentic state and Flashcards
Outline the agentic state as an explanation for obedience. Refer to autonomous state and binding factors in your answer.
Milgram found that people involved in atrocities do not take the blame for them.
Feel like the are acting for some else - agent for someone else’s will.
Opposite to agentic state is autonomous state → free to behaviour according to their own principles.
Agentic shift occurs when some perceives someone else as a figure of authority because of their position in the social hierarchy.
Binding factors explain why people remain in an agentic state despite wanting to leave.
These are aspects of the situation that allow people to ignore the damaging effects of their actions e.g. shifting blame to the victim
autonomous state
free to behaviour according to their own principles.
agentic state
A mental state where we feel no personality responsibility for our behaviour because we believe ourselves to be acting for an for an authority figure
example of the agentic state
as their agent this frees us from the demands of our consiuness us to obey even a destructive authorian figure
legitimacy of authority
An explanation for obedience which suggests that we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us. This authority is justified (legitimate) by the individual’s position of power within a social hierarchy.
Agentic shift occurs
Agentic shift occurs when some perceives someone else as a figure of authority because of their position in the social hierarchy. Binding factors explain why people remain in an agentic state despite wanting to leave.
Outline the legitimacy of authority as an explanation for obedience. Refer to destructive obedience in your answer.
Most societies are structured in a hierarchical way - people in certain positions hold authority over us. The authority is legitimate - accepted by society and allows society to function smoothly. This legitimacy of authority means that some people are granted to permission to punish other - which is accepted by most and learnt from a young age. Problems arise when the legitimate authority becomes destructive - as has been seen through history on numerous occasions. Destructive authority was clearly seen in Milgram’s study when experimenters used prods to make ppts behave in ways that went against their conscience.
Outline some research support for the agentic state.
Blass & Schmidt (2001) showed a clip of Milgram’s study to ppts. Ppts stated that the harm done to the learner was the experimenter’s fault and the responsibility was due to the legitimacy of authority - the experimenter is at the top of the hierarchy and also an expert. Legitimacy of authority is given as a reason for obedience, supporting this explanation.
Explain why the agentic state offers only a limited view on obedience.
Does not explain some research findings showing that people did not obey. Humans are all involved in social hierarchies and so all should obey.
The agentic shift also does not explain findings from Hofling’s study, where nurses did not show any levels of anxiety (unlike in Milgram’s study) despite being aware of their role of the destruction.
This suggests the agentic state can only explain some cases of obedience but not all of them.
Explain how the behaviour of the soldiers from battalion 101 challenges the idea of the agentic state.
Mandel (1998) described one incident in the Second World War where a battalion of soldiers obeyed orders to shoot civilians in a small village in Poland, despite not having been given the order to do so directly (They were given a choice to opt out and be assigned different duties). The soldiers murdered with having been ordered to do so. There was no agentic shift, as they did not see themselves as acting on behalf of a higher authority They were acting of their own accord, out of hatred and prejudice. This is a different explanation, compared to the single minded explanation given by Milgram in which obedience is due to the agentic shift.
Outline how cross cultural research has supported the idea of the legitimacy of authority.
The explanation gives a useful account of cultural differences in obedience.
Kilham & Mann found in Australia only 16% went to 450v, whereas in Germany Mantell found an 86% obedience.
This shows how in some cultures authority is more likely to seen as legitimate and accepted. This reflects the different ways in which societies are structured and how children are raised to accept authority - supportive cross cultural findings increase ecological validity of the explanation.
