Milgram's Social Psychological Explanation for Obedience - Agentic State and Legitimacy of Authority

Question 1

Outline the agentic state as an explanation for obedience

Answer 1

• Proposed by Milgram
• Two distinct modes of social consciousness: Autonomous state and Agentic state
• Autonomous state = We act on our own conscience and we feel responsible for our actions, we feel more independent and happy
• Agentic state = We are no longer independent but act according to instructions from someone else, people feel like they have no responsibility for and no control of their actions
• People move from the autonomous state to the agentic state when confronted with an authority figure –> this is the agentic shift
• If we obey an order that goes against our conscience, we are likely to experience moral strain –> we have to do something we believe is immoral in order to function as an ‘agent’ of authority
• Although people may want to stop, binding factors reduce their moral strain –> aspects which minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour (e.g. the use of prods in Milgram’s study)

Question 2

Outline legitimacy of authority as an explanation for obedience

Answer 2

• Proposed by Milgram
• ‘Those who are seen to be in a position of control due to their hierarchy within a specific social situation’
• Required for someone to enter the agentic state
• Authorities are seen as legitimate if: society agrees on their social status and power over others (police officer)
  they represent a respected institution (criminal justice system)
  they wear a well-known/recognised and respected uniform (police uniform)
• When legitimate authorities use their power and social status for evil purposes (i.e. make people do cruel things) they become destructive authorities

Question 3

What are two strengths of the social psychological explanations for obedience?

Answer 3

1.) Real world application for both social-psychological explanations: In the My Lai massacre soldiers were instructed to wipe out a village (where they had intel that the enemy was) through any means necessary. However, when the soldiers arrived at the village the enemy was not there yet they brutally murdered every person in the village and as many as 504 people were killed. This suggests that the soldiers may have been in the agentic state where they felt no responsibility for what they did and therefore no remorse, as the only person who was charged for this was William Calley, who said “I was only following orders.” Therefore asing social-psychological factors to explain examples of obedience to destructive authority in the real-world adds validity to the explanations.

2.) There is support for legitimacy of authority from research evidence: Tarnow did a review of aviation accidents between 1978 and 1990 where a black box showed the crew had excessive dependence on the captain’s authority and even when they thought that he made a risky approach, they did not confront him about it. 19 of the 37 accidents investigated has “lack of monitoring errors,” meaning that the crew saw the captain as a legitimate authority figure and even though they thought he did something wrong, they knew he was an expert in the field and was socially above them in that field so they did not say anything. Therefore Tarnow’s research adds validity to legitimacy of authority as an explanation for obedience and highlights the need to teach people about the dangers of blindly trusting authority

Question 4

What are two limitations of the social psychological explanations for obedience?

Answer 4

1.) Some people use the agentic state as an excuse for cruel and sadistic behaviour: Milgram’s participants acted as “agents” for the experimenter who was a legitimate authority figure, however in Zimbardo’s “Stanford Prison Study” the guards (participants) acted aggressive and cruel to the prisoners (who were also participants) without actively being told to do so, therefore the agentic state cannot be used to explain obedience in all people so it is incomplete and a less valid explanation

2.) The agentic state provides people with an obedience alibi: This is an alibi used to excuse unacceptable behaviour and simply say that you were in the agent state and therefore did not have control of your actions, when in actuality you do have control of your actions, this is dangerous because it means criminals might use this alibi to be excused of their crimes and therefore the agentic state can potentially excuse the harmful behaviour of people which undermines society’s views on morality and the criminal justice system