Milgram's Agency Theory 1973 Flashcards
Milgram’s Agency Theory
Autonomous state
- the autonomous state is a mindset where people behave independently
-make their own decisions on how to behave
- they take responsibility for the consequences of their actions
- in milligrams 1963 study 5 participants entered the autonomous state when at 300v they dropped out and refused to continue
- this is due to them feeling responsible for the learners pain rather than the experiment being responsible
Milgram’s Agency Theory
Agentic Shift
- this is the shift between the autonomous state and the Agentic State
Milgram suggests there are 2 things that must happen for the shift to occur
- the person giving the orders is perceived as being qualified direct other people’s behavior ( they are seen as legitimate)
- the person being ordered about is able to believe the authority figure will accept responsibility for what happens under their orders
Milgram’s Agency Theory
Agentic State
- inthis sate obedience towards a perceived legitimate authority figure is increased
- there is a loss of free will
- the person will carry out orders from the authority figure even if it conflicts with their sense of right and wrong
- they will not accept responsibility for acting on behalf of somebody else (Autho figure must do this)
- they will not accept the consequences of their actions
Milgram’s Agency Theory
moral strain
- this is a state of mental discomfort or anxiety experienced in the agentic state
- where a person’s actions conflict with their morality
Milgram’s Agency Theory
Evidence +
Milgram 1964
Milgram 1963
- agentic state when increasing the voltage by 15v and shocking the learner when they got a question incorrect
- the autonomous state was present for example where at 300v 5 participants refused to continue as they responsible for their actions and the “pain” caused to the learner
- the agenic shift occurred when a total to the 14 participants refused to continue with the experiment after at least increasing the voltage up to 300v. The process of obeying the authority figure to challenging the authority figure is the agentic shift
This shows that the components of agency Theory was present during Milgrams original 1963 study on obedience thus providing evidence to support it
Milgram’s Agency Theory
Evidence -
Rank and Jacobson 1977 nurses valium
An example of evidence against agency Theory is rank and Jacobson (1977)
- 16/18 (89%) of nurses refused to administer an overdose of Valium after a doctor (authority figure) told them to do so
- this is due to the nurses considering themselves responsible for the patient
- this shows that the agenic state isn’t inevitable with an authority figure as the nurses still felt responsible and refused to overdose the patient, offering evidence against Agency Theory
Milgram’s Agency Theory
How good research -
Ginna Perry 2012
Evidence against milgram’s 1963 study found by Gina Perry (2012) reduces the validity of milgram’s study making it poor evidence to support agency theory
- Gina Perry examined recently released archive footage from Yale University showing milgrams 1963 study and its variations
- it was discovered that 60% of all participants in all of milligram studies disobeyed the experimenter reducing the validity of milgram’s conclusions on obedience (meaning its findings may be invalid and useless to support agency theory) and reducing the legitimacy of milgram studies
- this means that milgrams studies are invalid and therefore poor evidence to support agency Theory (which was based off Milgrams (invalid) 1963 study) Questioning the legitimancy and validity of both milgrams studys and Agency theory itself
Milgram’s Agency Theory
How good research +
Rank and Jacobson (1977)
Rank and Jacobson (1977) is an example of good research against agency Theory
- this was a field study and a convert study meaning that the nurses were unaware that they were participating in a study this means that the reactions have high internal validity as there are no demand characteristics as they do not know that they are partaking in a study
- making this good research against agency Theory
Milgram’s Agency Theory
Comparison to Social imapact theory + and -
Bad
- (—) social impact theory unlike agency Theory is more objective as it has a quantitative formula to measure the impact on the target
- Impact on target = function of Strength x Imnediacy x Number of sources
- wall strength is harder to measure agency Theory has no way to definitively measure what state a participant is in nor when the agentic shift occurs
- meaning that social impact theory is a better explanation of obedience and social influence than agency theory due to being objectively measurable and quantifiable
Good
- evidence to support social impact theory is mainly studies such as sedikides and Jackson (1990) which was a field study where social impact theory was used to prevent people from leaning on railings
- however agency Theory has real life examples of it occurring
for example the 2004 Iraq war pictures of inhumane treatment of prisoners which soldiers claims that they were simply following orders - this shows that the soldiers were in the eigenetic state as they believed that they would not be responsible for the actions when committing them and that they blindly followed orders of superiors
- due to real life examples having higher ecological validity than Field studies, agency Theory is a better explanation of obedienc as it has been found to occur in real life settings
while Social impact theory has fewer real life examples.
Milgram’s Agency Theory
Aplications to real life and conclusions
iraq 2004 prisoners and the my lai massacar
Overall agency Theory is a largly plausible Theory explaining obedience which while has evidence against it
It is still a plausible explanation of obedience which has real life examples of its occurring mainly during war
- For example during the Iraq war in 2004 photos of Iraqi prisoners having their rights abused and being treatment inhumanely by US soldiers were revealed
- to which the soldiers claimed that they were following orders meaning that the soldiers were in the agentic state when following the orders of their superiors
- and had the agentic shift when they were given the orders by their superior to mistreat the prisoners
another example is the my lai massacre
- 16 March 1968 during the Vietnam War soldiers of the Charlie company followed orders to slaughter the small innocent Vietnamese village of my lai killing approximately 500 people
- the Charlie company had the agenic shift when the orders came in to “deal with them” and were in the agentic state when carrying out the orders
Milgram’s Agency Theory
order 8mk
Explain theory states and shifts
+ E milgram 63
- H Gina perry 12
- SIT measurable
con its plausable
Ap it explains my lai
12 mk
add rank and jacobsom 77
add r&j 77 feild study covert
add SIT low eco
add 2007 iraq photo explain
if have time
add all of them anyway
