Social influence: Agentic state and legitimacy of authority

Question 1

What is an agentic state?

Answer 1

A mindset which allows us to carry out orders from an authority figure, even if they conflict with our personal sense of right and wrong.

Question 2

What is legitimate of authority?

Answer 2

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 (legitimate) by the individual’s position of power within a social hierarchy.

Question 3

What are the 2 explanations for obedience?

Answer 3

Agentic state

Legitimacy of authority

Question 4

Why does obedience occur in the agentic state?

Answer 4

Obedience may occur because people see themselves as ‘agents of authority’ and blindly carry out orders without questioning them.

Question 5

What is the agentic shift?

Answer 5

Most of the time in our daily lives we act autonomously (under our own free will). When a person is placed in a social hierarchy, and take orders from authority, we defer to the person in charge and shift responsibility to them. This is the agentic shift.

Question 6

What is a binding factor?

Answer 6

Aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effects of their actions.

Question 7

How do variations of Milgram’s study support the agentic shift?

Answer 7

This variation highlights the power of shifting responsibility (agentic shift), as these participants were able to shift their responsibility onto the person administering the electric shocks and continue obeying orders because they felt less responsible.

Question 8

How does the agentic state have support from the participants themselves?

Answer 8

Milgram reported that many of his participants admitted during the debriefing they knew what they were doing was wrong (and the obvious distress they showed supported this). However, they continued to obey, which suggests they were in an agentic state and felt they had to obey the orders of higher-ranked authority.

Question 9

How is the agentic state a limited explanation?

Answer 9

• The agentic state explanation cannot account for the considerable number of participants who showed defiance in the Milgram study and did not continue to the maximum voltage. Presumably all people in society are subject to social hierarchies and therefore all should have obeyed.
• Moreover the agentic shift cannot explain the findings from the Hofling nurses study as there was distance between the nurses and the authority figure (orders were issued over the phone) so levels of defiance should have been higher.

Question 10

How do authorities gain their legitimacy?

Answer 10

The authority they wield is legitimate as it’s been agreed by society - most people accept authority figures exercise social power over others.

Question 11

How does legitimacy of authority link to Milgram’s study?

Answer 11

In Milgram’s study, the participants saw the experimenter as a legitimate authority figure due to the fact that the experimenter was dressed in a white lab coat, was called a professor etc all these factors helped the participants to judge the experimenter as having legitimate authority and therefore saw this individual as someone they should listen to and obey. Not obeying this individual could lead to punishment.

Question 12

What is a consequence of legitimate authority?

Answer 12

Some people are granted power to punish others - we give up some independence to people we trust will use authority appropriately.

Question 13

A03: Agentic state

Answer 13

+ RLA
- Agentic state of just plain cruelty
- Criticism from Lofton

Question 14

A03: RLA

Answer 14

The theory has been successfully applied to real-life events. The massacre at My Lai in 1968 during the Vietnam War included 504 unharmed civilians being shot by American soldiers, gang rape and burning buildings. The one soldier who was in charge and found guilty told the court that he had only been following orders. Just as the Nazi officers behind the Holocaust had claimed.

Question 15

A03: Agentic state or just plain cruelty

Answer 15

Plain cruelty might explain obedience better than an agentic shift. Milgram’s participants may have used the situation to express their sadistic tendencies. The SPE results support this as guards inflicted escalating cruelty to prisoners, even though there was no authority figure telling them to do this. This shows it may not be agentic control which causes obedience, instead it may be certain aspects of human nature.

Question 16

A03: Criticism from Lifton

Answer 16

There is an argument against the agentic state explanation. This is because within Milgram’s experiment when participants considered the experimenter a legitimate authority figure, they underwent an agentic shift. However, Lifton found that doctors at Auschwitz showed a gradual and irreversible transition from caring professionals to individuals who carried out evil acts. Therefore carrying out evil actions over time may change people’s behaviour more than a sudden and reversible agentic shift, thereby the agentic state explanation does not account for all types of obedience reducing its validity.

Question 17

A03: Legitimacy of authority

Answer 17

+ Supporting evidence
+ Explains cultural differences

Question 18

A03: Supporting evidence

Answer 18

There is supporting evidence from Bushman. Bushman (1988) found that when a female researcher was dressed in a police-style uniform and told passers-by to give a change to a male researcher for a parking meter 72% of people obeyed. When dressed as a business executive obedience rates were 48% and obedience rates for a beggar were 52%. This suggests that the uniform gave the ‘police officer’ legitimate authority. Therefore this concludes, people, listen and follow those with authority

Question 19

A03: Explains cultural differences

Answer 19

A strength of the legitimacy of authority explanation is that it explains cultural differences found in obedience levels. Kilham and Mann (1974) replicated Milgram’s procedure in Australia and found only 16% gave the maximum level of shock. Mantell however found that 85% of Germans were willing to give the maximum shock. This suggests that in some countries/cultures authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and to demand obedience from individuals due to how societies are structured.