Social Influence - Agentic State and Legitimacy of Authority Flashcards
Outline Milgram’s Agency Theory (1973).
When people behave on behalf of an external authority, they’re said to be in an agencies state — they act as someone’s agent, rather than taking personal responsibility for their actions.
The opposite of this is behaving autonomously — not following orders.
The theory stated that when we feel we’re acting out the wishes of another person (being their agent), we feel less responsible for their actions.
How does Milgram’s 1973 Agency Theory relate to his study?
What were some binding factors that maintained the agentic state?
The agentic state was encouraged by the experiment’s set-up:
The participants voluntarily entered a social contract (an obligation) with the experimenter to take part and follow the procedure of the study.
Some participants were concerned for the welfare or the learner and asked who would take responsibility if the learner was harmed. When the experimenter took responsibility, often the participants would continue.
Milgram claimed that the following binding factors might have kept his participants in the agentic state:
- Reluctance to disrupt the experiment
(Participants were already paid, so may have felt obliged to continue) - Pressure of the surroundings
(As it took place at Yale, which is prestigious) - Insistence of the authority figure
(If participants hesitated, they were told that they must continue the experiment).
How is Milgram’s Agency Theory supported by his results?
Milgram’s participants often claimed they wouldn’t have gone as far by themselves, but were just following orders.
What is a downfall to Milgram’s Agency Theory (1973)?
Sometimes people resist the pressure to obey authority. This can be because of the situation, or individual differences.
Agency theory doesn’t explain why some people are more likely to exhibit independent behaviour (i.e. resist pressure to conform or obey) than others.
What is meant by ‘agentic shift’?
People start off acting in an autonomous way (thinking for themselves), but then become obedient.
When Milgram’s participants arrived for the experiment they were in an autonomous state, but as soon as they started following orders they underwent an agentic shift, and entered an agentic state.
What is a dispositional explanation for obedience?
The authoritarian personality
Adorno et al (1950)
Outline Adorno et al (1950)’s theory of the authoritarian personality.
Adorno proposed that over-strict parenting results in a child being socialised to obey authority unquestioningly, because they learn strict obedience to their parents.
Adorno expanded on this idea to argue that strict parenting also resulted in prejudice:
- Strict parenting means the child feels constrained, which creates aggression
- But the child is afraid they’ll be disciplined if they express this aggression towards their parents, so instead they’re hostile to people they see as weak or inferior to them — usually minority groups.
Some other identified traits include being conformist and having rigid moral standards.
What is Adorno et al’s ‘F-scale’?
1950
Adorno et al (1950) developed a scale to measure how strongly people express authoritarian traits, called the F-scale.
F stands for fascism.
Individuals with this personality type were rigid thinkers who obeyed authority blindly, saw the world in black and white and enforced strict adherence to social rules and hierarchies.
They found that people who scored high on the F scale tended to haven been raised by parents who used an authoritarian parenting style (including the use of physical punishment).
Evaluation for Adorno’s Authoritarian Personality Theory?
Elms and Milgram (1966) found that participants who scored higher on the F-scale had been willing to administer bigger shocks in Milgram’s experiment.
However, this doesn’t necessarily mean that a strict upbringing or having authoritarian traits causes people to be obedient — other factors such as education could cause both authoritarian traits and obedience.
Also, Milgram found that situational factors like proximity and location had a bigger effect on obedience.
The theory also doesn’t explain how whole societies can become obedient — not everybody has this personality type.
