Situational explanations eval

Question 1

Real-world crimes of obedience

Answer 1

The nurses in Rank and Jacobson’s (1977) study disobeyed the legitimate authority of a hospital doctor. They remained autonomous and did not shift into an agentic state.
On the other hand, a commanding officer (CO) in the US Army has legitimate authority because it is recognised by the government, the law and wider society. This means the CO has the power to issue orders and is entitled to expect them to be obeyed. S/he also has the power to punish anyone who disobeys.
This is accepted by soldiers because they exist within a structured power hierarchy in which the CO is superior to them. The hierarchy is the basis of the CO’s authority. So soldiers assume orders should be followed because they stem from legitimate authority, even when those orders cause a brutal massacre of civilians as they did at My Lai.
This supports the idea that respect for legitimate authority can lead to blind and destructive obedience.

Question 2

Research support

Answer 2

One strength is that Milgram’s own studies support the role of the 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 if Mr Wallace (the Learner) is harmed? When the Experimenter replied I’m responsible, the participants often went through the procedure quickly with no further objections.
This 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.

Question 3

A limited explanation

Answer 3

One limitation is that the agentic shift doesn’t 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. Ths 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.

Question 4

Obedience alibi revisited

Answer 4

David 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), i.e. they behaved autonomously.
Consider: As the men of Battalion 101 were not ordered to murder civilians, how does their behaviour challenge the agentic state explanation?

Question 5

Explains cultural differences

Answer 5

One strength of the legitimacy explanation is that it is a useful account of cultural differences in obedience.
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 only 16% of Australian women went all the way up to 450 volts in a Milgram-style study. However, David 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 ways that different societies are structured and how children are raised to perceive authority figures

Question 6

Cannot explain all (disobedience

Answer 6

One limitation is that 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 (above). Most of them were disobedient despite working in a rigidly hierarchical authority structure. Also, a significant minority of Milgram’s participants disobeyed despite recognising the Experimenter’s scientific authority.
This suggests that some people may just be more (or less) obedient than others (see next spread). It is possible that innate tendencies to obey or disobey have a greater influence on behaviour than the legitimacy of an authority figure.