Obedience :Situational Explanations Flashcards
what are teh two situational explanations
agentic state
legitimacy of authority
what was milgram interst in obedience sparked by
adolf eichmann in 1961 for war crimes
eichmann had been in charge of
nazi death camps
what was eichmann defence for being in charge od nazi death camps
he was only obeying orders
eichmann defence lead to milgram proposing the idea that-
obedience to destructive authority occurs as
as person doesnt take responsbility
instead they belieive they are acting for someone else - i.e agent
agent is
someone who acts for/in place of another
an agent isn’t an
unfeeling puppet
agents experience what when tehy realise what theyre doin is wrong
but
high anxiety
feel pwoerless to disobey
opposite of agentic state is
autonomous state
autonomy means
being indepdnendt or free
a person in autonomus state is
free to to behave according to own prinicples
what do autonomus people feel about their own actions
sense of repsomsibility
shift from autonomy to agency is called
agentic shift
milgram proposed agentic shift occurs when a person percieves
someone else as authority figure
authority figures have greater power becuase
hint: hierachy
got higher position in social hierachy
in most socila groups when one person is in charge what do the others do 2 marks
defer to the legitimate authority of this person
and shift from autonomy to agency
what did milgram observe about pt in shock xp
many of them wanted to stop but seemed powerless to do so
why did pt remain in agentic state
binding factors
what are binding factors 3 marks
aspects of teh situation
allowing the person to minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour
and thus reduce moral strain therye feeling
what are the 2 startegies milgram proposed indisviduals use (binding factords?)
shifting responsibility to victim - he was foolish to vokunteer
denying damage they were doing to the victims
agentic state definition
5 marks
mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour
as we believe acting for an authority figure
freeing us from demands of our conscience and allows us to obey even destructive authority figures
most societes structured in a
hierachal way
hierachy means people in certain positions …
hold authority over the rest of us
give example of authortity figure
parent
teacher
police
authority certain figures wield is legitimate in the sense that
it is agreed by society
what do most of us acept in society about authroity figures
have to be allowed to excersise social power over otehrs
why do most of us accept authority figures have to be allowed to exercise social power over others
allows society to function smoothly
a consequence of legitimacy of authoruty is
some people granted pwoer to punish others
we generally agree that who has got power to punish wrong doers
police and court
we are willing to give up some independence and to hand control of our behaviour over to people who
we trust to excersise their authority appropriatley
where do we learn acceptance of legitimacy of authority from
childhood , from parents initially and then teachers and adults generally
define legitimacy of authority
expl of obedience suggesting were more likely to obey people who we percieve to have authority over us
this authority is legitimate by authority position of power in social hierarchy
problems arise when in LOA
When it becomes destructive
history has shown us too often that
charismatic and powerufl leaders such as hitelr can use power for destructive purposes
ordering people to behave in cruel and and dangerous ways
when was destructive authority obcious in milgram study
experimetner used prods to order pt to behave in ways that went against their consciences
STRENGHT AS - RESEARCH SUPPORT
Milgram own x x role of AS in obedience
most pt x giving shocks at some point and x experimetner questions about x
e.g who x if learner is x, experimetner replied x x and they proceeded without x x
showing once pt x they were no longer x for own behaviour they acted more x as exp x as milgrma suggested x his x
Milgram own studies supprot role of AS in obedience
most pt resisted giving shocks at some point and asked experimetnerquestions about procedure
e.g who responsible if learner is harmed experimetner replied i am and they proceeded without further bjections
showing once pt percieved they were no longer responsible for own behaviour they acted more easily as exp agent as milgrma suggested validating his thoery
LIMITAITON AS - LIMITED EXPLANATION
Doesnt explain many x findings about x
e.g study whihc x/x nurses x orders from a doctor to admin x dosage to a pt
doctors x an x figre
but most nurses remained x as did many of milgram pt
suggesting at x agentic shift can only acount for x situations of obedience x his x
Doesnt explain many research findings about obedience
e.g study whihc 16/18 nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor to admin excessive dosage to a pt
doctors obviously an authority figre
but most nurses remained autonomous as did many of milgram pt
suggesting at best agentic shift can only acount for some situations of obedience limiting his explanation
a03 - describes rather than explains obedience
Another problem is that the theory x
rather than x obedience. For example,
the theory states people obey because they are
agents of authority, but it doesn’t actually state
x the agentic shift takes x and what the
x involved are or how it could be
x. Therefore this makes it x to
carry out x to test the x, which
x its x.
Another problem is that the theory describes
rather than explains obedience. For example,
the theory states people obey because they are
agents of authority, but it doesn’t actually state
HOW the agentic shift takes place and what the
processes involved are or how it could be
measured. Therefore this makes it harder to
carry out research to test the theory, which
weakens its validity.
STRENGTH OF LOA - EXPLAINS CULTURAL DIFF
it’s a useful account of cultural diff in obedience
many studies show x differ in x to which people obedient to authority
e.g researchers found only x% of x women went up to x volts in a x style study
but another researcher found diff figure for german pt x%
showing in some cultures x is likely to be accepted as x and entitiled to demand x from individuals
this x ways that x societies are x and how children are raised to x authoruty figures
it’s a useful account of cultural diff in obedience
many studies show countries differ in degree to which people obedient to authority
e.g researchers found only 16% of aussie women went up to 450 volts in a milgram style study
but another researcher found diff figure for german pt 85%
showing in some cultures authority is likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitiled to demand obedience from individuals
this reflects ways that diff societies are structured and how children are raised to percieve authoruty figures
a03 - loa - other explanatinos may be more effective
A problem is that other explanations may be more x in explaining x people obey.
For instance,
x x (also known as the ‘foot in the door technique’) suggests that once people obey to
a x, seemingly x request, they then find it x x to refuse to carry out more x
x x. Therefore we cannot x that having a x authority figure is the only
reason that people x.
A problem is that other explanations may be more effective in explaining why people obey. For instance,
gradual commitment (also known as the ‘foot in the door technique’) suggests that once people obey to
a trivial, seemingly harmless request, they then find it more difficult to refuse to carry out more serious
escalating requests. Therefore we cannot assume that having a legitimate authority figure is the only
reason that people obey.
Legitimacy of Authority can explain x x x : Kelman and x (1989) suggest the x x
Massacre is explained by the x x of the US Army. The army has
x recognised by the US x and the x. Soldiers assume orders given by the hierarchy
to be x – even orders to x, x and destroy x. The legitimacy explanation is x to give
x why destructive obedience is x.
Legitimacy of Authority can explain real-life obedience: Kelman and Hamilton (1989) suggest the My Lai
Massacre (during the Vietnam War) is explained by the power hierarchy of the US Army. The army has
authority recognised by the US Government and the law. Soldiers assume orders given by the hierarchy
to be legal – even orders to kill, rape and destroy villages. The legitimacy explanation is able to give
reasons why destructive obedience is committed.
