SOCIAL INFLUENCE: Milgram's Study - Social-Psychological Factors

Question 1

When did Milgram propose the idea of an agentic state

Answer 1

In 1973, M proposed the concept of an agentic state to explain why ppl are prepared to go against their conscience & do as they are told even if it causes them considerable distress. (aka Milgram’s Agency Theory)
- He suggested there are 2 distinct modes of social consciousness
(aut & agentic)

Question 2

What is the autonomous state

Answer 2

state in which ppl act independently according to their own conscience. And therefore feel a sense of responsibility for their own actions
- in this state, most ppl behave decently towards others

Question 3

What is the agentic state

Answer 3

a mental state in which we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour bc we are no longer independent but act according to orders from an authority figure (carrying out another person’s wishes as their agent).
This frees us from the demands of our consciences & can cause us to obey even a destructive authority figure
- when in this state, ppl justify their behaviour by stating they acted that way due to being instructed to

Question 4

what is the agentic shift

Answer 4

the shift from the AUTONOMOUS state into the AGENTIC state when confronted w an authority figure.
This shift from autonomy to ‘agency’ is called the agentic state

Question 5

What is moral strain

Answer 5

If we obey an order that goes against our conscience, we are likely to experience moral strain.
It is caused when we have to do smth we believe to be immoral in order to function as an agent of authority

Question 6

What are binding factors

Answer 6

Although ppl in morally straining situations may want to stop, they feel unable to do so due to BINDING FACTORS - aspects of the situation that allow a person to minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour

Question 7

Evaluation: how is Milgram’s theory supported

Answer 7

• Milgram’s own research demonstrated how the majority of ordinary ppl will follow instructions even when they are acting against conscience.
• Blass & Schmitt (2001) found that ppl who saw Milgram’s study blamed the experimenter indicating that they believed the participants were agents of authority.
• The explanation of M’s theory is supported by many historical events which demonstrates that as a result of social pressure, ordinary ppl can act in a callous/inhumane way

Question 8

Evaluation: against M’s theory, other reasons why people obey an authority figure

Answer 8

Could be due to personality rather than the situation. In addition, agency theory cannot explain why some ppl disobey as was shown by 1/3 of participants in og Milgram study

Question 9

What is legitimacy of authority

Answer 9

An explanation for obedience which suggests that we are more likely to obey ppl who we perceive to have authority over us. This authority is justified by the individual’s position of power within a social hierarchy, which is respected by ppl usually bc it implies knowledge/legal power. Granted the power to punish others, we give up independence & hand control of our behaviour to this figure whom we trust

Question 10

Binding factors of Milgram’s study?

Answer 10

• reluctance to disrupt the experiment: participants had already been paid, so may have felt obliged to continue
• pressure of the surroundings: exp took place in prestigious uni, making experimenter seem like a legitimate authority
• insistence of the authority figure: if participants hesitated, they were told they had to continue the exp

Question 11

Binding factors in milgram’s study (social etiquette separately)

Answer 11

social etiquette regulates our behaviour. In Milgram’s study, they agreed to take part in the exp. They would therefore have to beach the commitment made. Fear of appearing arrogant/rude if breaking away from exp may have stopped them

Question 12

How did legitimacy of authority affect Milgram’s study

Answer 12

Participants entered the laboratory w the expectation someone would be in charge

Question 13

How does self-image affect the agentic shift

Answer 13

• Once ppl move into the agentic state, worrying abt their own image is no longer as relevant
• They see the action as no longer being their responsibility or reflections of their own self-image
• links to Mai Lai Massacre

Question 14

What is the My Lai Massacre and example of

Answer 14

Destructive authority

Question 15

How is the My Lai Massacre an example of destructive authority

Answer 15

• American soldiers killed 500 villagers
• Lieutenant William Calley ordered them to do this
• He accepted no guilt & blamed it on his commanding officer

Question 16

Evaluation: research support for legitimate authority

Answer 16

Blass and Schmitt (2001),
- students who were shown a vid of Milgram’s experiment, blamed the experimenter, rather than the teacher
- responsibility is due to legitimate authority - top of the hierarchy. The experimenter was seen as a expert scientist

Question 17

Evidence against the agentic shift & real-life obedience

Answer 17

Milgram claimed ppl shift between autonomous & agentic state
- Evidence against this: doctors in the concentration camps in Auschwitz carried out vile/lethal experiments on victims
- carrying out acts of evil over extended periods of time can change the way ppl think & feel

Question 18

Evaluation of Milgram’s study: cultural differences

Answer 18

Kilman and Mann (1974) - replication of Milgram’s study
- Australia –> 16%
- Germany –> 85%
In some cultures, authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate & entitled to demand obedience. This increases the validity of the explanation

Question 19

Limited explanation for the agentic shift

Answer 19

Does it explain why some ppl did not obey?
The agentic shift explanation predicts that the nurses at Hofling et al. handed over resp to the doctor & they should’ve shown levels of anxiety similar to Milgram’s, as they understood their role in the destructive process, but they did not

Question 20

What keeps people in the agentic state

Answer 20

Social etiquette and not going against social conventions

Question 21

Evaluation of Milgram’s Agency Theory

Answer 21

• There’s lots of experimental evidence to support the Agency Theory: Milgram’s participants often claimed they wouldn’t have gone as far by themselves, but were just following orders
• Sometimes ppl resist the pressure to obey authority. This can be bc of the situation or individual differences. Agency Theory doesnt explain why some ppl are more likely to exhibit independent behaviour & resist than others

Question 22

The Authoritarian Personality can also explain obedience

Answer 22

Adorno’s theory of the Authoritarian Personality is a DISPOSITIONAL explanation of obedience. Adorno et al. (1950) proposed that over-strict parenting results in a child being socialised to obey authority unquestioningly.

Adorno et al defined the collection of traits they thought resulted from over-strict parenting as the ‘Authoritarian Personality’. As well as aggression to ppl of perceived lower status, and blind obedience, the traits included being conformist & having rigid moral standards

Question 23

Who proposed the Authoritarian Personality

Answer 23

Adorno in 1950

Question 24

What did Adorno also argue that strict parenting caused

Answer 24

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 theyre hostile to ppl they see as weak/inferior to them - usually minority groups

Question 25

Wear is the F-scale

Answer 25

Adorno et al (1950) developed a scale to measure how strongly ppl express authoritarian traits, called the ‘F-scale’

This research began shortly after the end of WWII - Adorno’s team were trying to find out if there are characteristics of individuals which could explain the persecution of Jews & other minority groups by the Nazis in 1930-40s

Question 26

Evaluation of Adorno’s Authoritarian Personality Theory

Answer 26

Elms & Milgram (1966) found that participants who scored higher on the F-scale (so had more authoritarian traits) had been willing to administer bigger shocks in M’s exp
- NEGATIVE: this doesnt necessarily mean that a strict upbringing or having authoritarian traits causes ppl to be obedient - other factors sa education could cause both a. traits & obedience
- NEGATIVE: the theory doesnt explain how whole societies can become obedient - not everyone has this personality type