Situational explanation Flashcards
Explain the trial of Adolf Eichmann.
In 1961, Adolf Eichmann was on trial for war crimes.
Eichmann was in charge of the Nazi death camps and his defence was that he was only ‘obeying orders’ from Hitler.
Milgram proposed that obedience to destructive authority occurs because a person doesn’t take responsibility.
Instead they believe they are acting for someone else – ‘An Agent’.
21 Nazi officers were put on trial for their lives, for their parts in genocide and crimes against humanity. It was here that the defence of ‘only following orders’ was ruled to be no excuse for committing such crimes, and that the defendants should be held personally responsible for their actions.
What is the agentic state?
A mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour because we believe ourselves to be acting for an authority figure - as their agent. This frees us from the demands of our conscience and allows us to obey even a destructive authority figure.
What is an agentic shift?
When people transition from autonomous to an agentic state.
Milgram (1974) suggested this occurs when a person perceives someone else as an authority figure, deferring their responsibilities.
What is the autonomous state?
This is the opposite to an agentic state.
Autonomous – ‘Autonomy’ meaning independence or free
A person in an autonomous state is free to behave according to their own principles and therefore feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions.
What are binding factors?
Aspects of the situation that allow the person to minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and so reduce moral strain they are feeling.
Give an example of binding factors.
Shifting the responsibility to the victim – ‘he was foolish to volunteer’ or denying the damage they were doing.
What is a strength of the agentic state?
Research support.
Blass and Schmitt (2001) showed the Milgram study to students and asked the same question.
The students all blamed the ‘experimenter’ rather than the participant because the experimenter had legitimate authority and expert authority.
What is a limitation of the agentic shift?
Limited explanation
Agentic shift does not explain many of the findings, like why not all ppts did not obeyed.
Couldn’t be applied to Hofling et al’s study – event though the nurses handed over responsibility to the Dr, they did not show ‘moral strain’.
Suggesting that agentic shift can only account for some situation of obedience.
Define the term legitimacy of authority.
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 an individual in a high position of power.
Explain destructive authority.
Problems arise when legitimate authority becomes destructive, and use their power for destructive purposes, ordering people to behave in ways that are callous, cruel, stupid and dangerous.
How was destructive authority shown in Milgram’s study?
When the Experimenter used prods to order participants to behave in ways that went against their conscience.
What is a strength of the legitimacy explanation?
Useful account for cultural differences in obedience.
Kilham and Mann (1974) replicated Milgram’s procedure in Australia (16%)
Whereas Mantell (1971) found a very different figure in Germany (85%)
In some cultures, authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience.
What is a limitation of the legitimacy explanation?
Limited explanation.
Rank and Jacobson (1977) replicated Hoffling et al.’s study where nurses were told by a doctor to administer an overdose of valium. Most of them were disobedient (2/18 obeyed) despite authority.
Suggesting that legitimacy explanation too can only account for some situation of obedience.
