Situational Explanations Flashcards
define agentic state
mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour
because we believe that we are 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
define legitimacy of authority
explanation of obedience suggesting we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us
this authority is justified (legitimate) by the individuals position of power within social hierarchy
what was Milgram’s initial interest in obedience sparked from?
the trial of Adolf Eichmann in 1961, for war crimes
what had Eichmann done?
he had been in charge of Nazi death camps and his defence was that he was only obeying orders
from this what did Milgram propose?
that obedience to destructive authority occurs because a person does not take responsibility
instead they believe they are acting for someone else, they are an ‘agent’
what is an ‘agent’?
someone who acts for or in place of another
they experience high anxiety - moral strain- when they realise what they are doing is wrong
but they feel powerless to disobey
what is the opposite of the agentic state?
the autonomous state
what does autonomy mean?
it means to be independent and free
how does a person in an autonomous state act?
they are free to behave according to their own principles and feel a sense of responsibility for their own actions
what is the agentic shift?
it is the shift from the autonomy to ‘agency’
what did Milgram 1974 suggest this happens when?
he suggested that this occurs when a person perceives someone else as an authority figure
the authority figure has greater power because they have a higher position in social hierarchy
what happens in most social groups if one person is in charge ?
others defer to the legitimate authority of this person and shift form autonomy to agency
what did Milgram observe his participants doing?
that many wanted to stop but felt powerless to do so
what did Milgram wonder?
he was unsure why the participants remained in an agentic state
what are binding factors?
aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore / minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour
and so reduce the moral strain they are feeling
what were the number of strategies that Milgram suggested the participants used?
shifting responsibility to the victim (he was a foolish volunteer) or denying the damage they were doing to the victim
how are most societies structured?
in a hierarchical way -
means that certain positions hold authority over the rest of us (e.g. teachers, parents, police, bouncers)
the authority they have is legitimate in the sense that it is agreed by society
most of us accept that authority figures have to be allowed to be exercised as this allows society to function smoothly
what is a consequence of the legitimacy of authority?
some people are granted the power to punish people
generally, we agree that the police and courts have the power to punish wrongdoers
so we are willing to give up some independence and to hand control of our behaviour over to people we trust
what has history shown about destructive authority?
that charismatic and powerful leaders such as Stalin and Hitler can use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes
ordering poeple to behave in dangerous cruel ways
how was destructive authority used in Milgram’s study?
the experimenter used prods to order participants to behave in ways that went against their consciences
what is a strength of the role of the agentic state in obedience?
Milgram’s own studies support the role of the agentic state in obedience
most of his participants resisted shocks at some point
and often asked the experimenter ‘who is responsible if Mr Wallace is harmed’
when the experimenter replied saying ‘I am’ , participants often went through with the procedure quickly with no further objections
what does this show?
that once participants perceived that they were no longer responsible for their own behaviour, they acted more easily as the experimenter’s agent , as Milgram suggested
what is a limitation to the research of obedience?
the agentic shift doesn’t explain many research findings about obedience
what is an example of this?
it does not explain the findings of STEVEN RANK and CARDELL JACOBSON’S 1977 study
they found that 16 out 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
so what did this suggest?
that at best, the agentic shift can only account for some situations
what did David Mandel 1998 do?
he described one incident in the second world war involving German Police Battalion 101
these men shot many civilians in a small town in Poland - despite not having direct orders to do so
they behaved autonomously
what is a strength of the legitimacy explanation?
it is useful account of cultural differences in obedience
what do many studies show?
that countries differ in the degree to which people are obedient to authority
for example - Wesley Kilham and Leon Mann 1974 found that 16% of Australian women went up to 450 volts in a Milgram style study
however, what did David Mantell 1971 find?
he found that for German participants it was 85% of participants who went up to 450 volts
so what does this show?
that in some cultures, it is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience from individuals
this reflects the ways that different societies are structured and how children are raised to perceive authority figures
what is another limitation for explaining legitimacy?
legitimacy cannot explain instances of disobedience in a hierarchy where the legitimacy of authority is clear and accepted
this includes the nurses in Rank and Jacobson’s study .
most of them were disobedient despite working in a rigidly hierarchical authority structure
also how does this link to Milgram’s study?
a significant minority of Milgram’s participants disobeyed despite recognising the experimenter’s scientific authority
suggesting that some people may be more /less obedient that others
it is possible that innate tendencies to obey/ disobey have a greater influence on behaviour than the legitimacy of an authority figure
