Situational explanations of obedience Flashcards
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, i.e, as their agent
this frees us from the demands of our consciences and allows us to obey even a destructive authority figure
for example, eichmann (1961) who was on trial for war crimes, defenced that he only obeying orders
what is the autonomous state
the opposite of being in an agentic state
a person in an autonomous state is free to behave according to their own principles and feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions
the shift from autonomy to ‘agency’ is called the agentic shift
milgram (1974) suggested that this occurs when someone perceives someone as an authority figure, based on legitimacy of authority
what are binding factors
milgram observed that many of his participants said they wanted to stop but seemed powerless, he wondered why they remained in an agentic state
the answer is binding factors, which are aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and thus reduce the ‘moral strain’ feeling
what is 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 as legitimate by the individual’s position of power within a social hierarchy
what is destructive authority
problems arise when legitimate authority becomes destructive, such as Hitler and Stalin who abused their powers for destructive purposes, ordering people to behave in cruel ways
in milgram’s study, destructive authority is demonstrated when the experimenter uses prods to order participants to behave in ways against their own consciences
how does milgram’s studies support the role of the agentic state in obedience (strength)
most of milgram’s participants resisted giving the electric shock at some point and often asked questions
when the experimenter revealed he would be responsible for the harm, the participants often went through with the procedure quickly
this shows that once participants perceived they were no longer responsible for their own behaviour, they acted more easily in the agentic state
how doesn’t the agentic shift explain research findings about obedience (limitation)
rank and jacobson (1977) found that 16/18 hospital nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor, an obvious authority figure, to administer an excessive drug dose to a patient
almost all nurses remained autonomous, as did many of milgram’s participants
this suggests that the agentic shift is a limited explanation and can only account for some situations of obedience
how does the legitimacy of authority explanation explain cultural differences (strength)
many studies show that countries differ in the degree to which people are obedient to authority
kilham and mann (1974) found only 16% of australian women went up to 450 v, however mantell (1971) found that 85% of german participants obeyed up to 450 v
this shows that, in some cultures, authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience from individuals, this reflects how different societies are structured
how does legitimacy not explain all instances of disobedience (limitation)
in a hierarchy where the legitimacy of authority is clear and accepted, e.g., rank and jacobson’s study, the nurses were mostly disobedient despite working in a rigidly hierarchal authority structure
some of milgram’s participants still disobeyed despite recognising the experimenter’s scientific authority
this suggests that some people may be more or less obedient than others, innate tendencies may have a greater influence on behaviour
