Evaluation for agentic state and legitimacy of authority Flashcards
Research support
Blass and Schmitt Showed a film of Milgram’s study to students and asked them who they felt was responsible for the harm to the learner. They blamed the experimenter and indicated that the responsibility was due to the legitimate authority ( experimenter was top of the hierarchy) but also due to experimenter authority( he was scientist). This supports the legitimacy of authority explanation as students recognised that legitimate authority as the cause of the obedience.
A limited explanation
Agentic state
agentic shift doesn’t explain why some participants did not obey. The agentic shift also doesn’t explain the findings from Hofling et al study. The nurses handing over responsibility to doctors should have shown similar anxiety levels to Milgram’s ppts as they understood their role in destructive behaviour. But they didn’t. This is a problem as at best the agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience.
Cultural differences
legitimacy of Authority
Many studies show that countries differ in the degree to which people are traditionally obedient to authority. For example Kilham and Mann replicated Milgram’s study in Australia and found that 16% gave the highest Voltage shock. Mantell did the same thing in Germany where 85% gave the highest voltage of shock. This shows that authority is more likely accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience in some cultures. This reflects different societal structures and ways children are raised to perceive authority figures. Such supportive findings from Cross cultural research increase validity of the explanation
The obedience of Alibi revisited
limitation
research evidence shows behaviour of Nazis cannot be explained in terms of authority and agentic shift. Mandel described the events of the German reserve police battalion 101 and said that the German soldiers obeyed orders to shoot civilians despite being told they didn’t have to. This challenges the agentic state because the soldiers did not see themselves as agents as they acted autonomously out of hatred, prejudice and racism. This is a problem as the Milgram says such behaviour is the result of a single factor – acting as the agent of a destructive authority.
Real life crimes of obedience (strength for legitimacy)
Kelman and Hamilton argue that the My Lai massacre can be understood in terms of the power hierarchy of the US. This is a strength because the explanation has practical applications. There is the possibility that it could help us to understand how to prevent such crimes in the future. This could be done by helping people, perhaps through education, to challenge legitimate authority rather than obeying it mindlessly.
Can use AP to prove why its a better exp than agentic state and LOA
ahhhaha
