obedience - situational explanations Flashcards
agentic state definition
a mental state where we feel no personal responsibility of our behavior because we believe ourselves to be acting for an authority figure. this frees us from the demands of our consciouses and allows us to obey even a destructive authority figure
legitimacy of authority definition
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
Massacre at My Lai - potential evidence for agentic state and legitimacy of authority
-war crime at My Lai in 1968 during Vietnam war. as many as 504 unarmed civilians were killed by American soldiers
-soldiers blew up buildings, burned the village to the ground and killed all the animals
-only one soldier face charges and was found guilty
-his defence was the same as the Nazi officers in the Nuremberg trials and that he was only doing his duty following orders
what was Milgram’s interest in obedient sparked by -agentic state
trail of Eichmann in 1961 for war crimes
Eichmann crime and defence -agentic state
was in charge if the Nazi death camps and his defence was he was only obeying orders
what did Eichmann defence of only obeying orders lead to Milgram proposing - agentic state
obedience to destructive authority occurs because a person does not take responsiblity for their actions they believe they are acting for someone else as an agent
what does the agent (person) feel when they obey -agentic state
moral strain (high anxiety) as realise what they are doing is wrong, but feels powerless to disobey
agentic state summary
they believe they are acting for someone else an agent. will fell moral strain but powerless to disobey
autonomous state
autonomy means to be independent or free. so a person in an autonomous state is free to behave according to their won principles and feels a sense of responsibilty for their own actions
agentic shift
shift from autonomous state to agentic state
when does agentic shift occur
Milgram 1974 suggested it occurs when a person perceives someone else as an authority figure. the authority figure has greater power because they have a higher position in a social hierarchy. in most social groups, when one person is in charge others defer to the legitimate authority of this person and shift from autonomy to agency
many in Milgram’s experiment wanted to stop but felt powerless to do so and remained in agentic state, why…
binding factors
binding factors
aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and therefore reduce the moral strain
Milgram’s suggestion for strategies that individuals use - binding factors
-shifting responsibility to victim
-denying the damage they were doing to the victims
how are most societies structured - legitimacy of authority
hierarchical way
what does a hierarchical structure mean - legitimacy of authority
people in certain positions hold authority over the rest of us such as parents, teachers, police, bouncers. the authority they yield is legitimate as it is agreed by society. most of us except authority figures have been allowed to exercise social power over others because this allows society to function smoothly
consequence of legitimacy of authority
some people are granted power to punish others. we generally agree the police and courts are granted power to punish wrongdoers. so we are willing to give up some of our independence and hand control of our behaviour over to people we trust to exercise their authority appropriately. we learn acceptance of legitimate authority in childhood, from parents initially and then teachers and adults generally
when do problems arise with legitimate authority
when it becomes destructive
destructive authority in history - legitimacy of authority
shown too often that charismatic and powerful leaders (such as Hitler and Stalin) can use legitimate powers for destructive purposes, ordering people to behave in ways that are cruel and dangerous
destructive authority Milgram’s study - legitimacy of authority
when the experimenter used prods to order participants to behave in ways that went against their consciences
strength of agentic state as a situational explanation for obedience - research support
-Milgram’s own studies support the role of agentic state in obedience
-most of Milgram’s participants resisted giving the shocks at some point and often asked the experimenter questions about the procedure. one of these was ‘who is responsible of Mr Wallace (the learner) is harmed?’ when experimenter replied ‘I’m responsible’, the participants often went through with the procedure quickly with no further objections –> shows that once participants perceived they were no longer responsible for their own behaviour they acted more easily as the experimenter’s agent, as Milgram suggested
limitation of agentic state as a situational explanation for obedience - a limited explanation
-one limitation of the agentic shift is it does not explain many research findings about obedience
-For example, it does not explain the findings of Steven Rank and Cardell Jacobson’s
(1977) study. They found that 16 out of 18 hospital nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor to administer an excessive drug dose to a patient. The doctor was an obvious authority figure. But almost all the nurses remained autonomous, as did many of Milgram’s participants.
–>This suggests that, at best, the agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience.
evaluation of agentic state as a situational explanation for obedience - obedience alibi revisited
-Mandel 1998 described one incident in the second world war involving German Reserve Police Battalion 101. these men shot many civilians in a small town in Poland, despite not having direct orders to do so (they were told they could be assigned to other duties if they preferred) so they behaved autonomously
strength of legitimacy of authority for a situational explanation of obedience - explains cultural differences
-many studies show that countries differ in the degree to which people are obedient to authority. for example, Kilham and Mann 1974 found only 16% of Australian women went all the way to 450v in milgram-style study. Mantell 1971 found a very different figure for German participants- 85%.–> this shows that, in some cultures, authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience from individuals. this reflects the way that different societies are structured and how children are raised to perceive authority figures
