Social influence - Milgram's theories Flashcards
What research are Milgram’s theories based off?
Milgram’s research into obedience (his shock experiment) + Bickman (1974) uniform field experiment
What is the agentic state theory?
- It suggests a person obeys and acts on behalf of an authority figure ‘as an agent’: as result, the person feels no personal responsibility for their actions
- People normally operate in an autonomous state where they feel responsible for their actions but in the agentic state, they no longer feel guilt
- To get from autonomous to agentic state, individual undergoes the agentic shift. To begin with they will feel moral strain (two contradictory urges: to obey authority figure or to obey conscience). Once they’re in the agentic state, this feeling will have disappeared
What are binding factors?
They explain why people stay in the agentic state. They’re aspects of the situation that allow the individual to ignore or minimise damaging effect of their behaviour and reduce moral strain
Example of agentic state in Milgram’s study?
When ppts. were reminded they had responsibility for their actions, almost none were prepared to obey. In contrast, ppts. who had refused to continue actually went on if the experimenter took responsibility
What is a strength of the theory of agentic state? - Empirical evidence suggesting perceived responsibility did shift to the experimenter
===> Blass and Schmitt (2001) showed students video of experiment, and they thought experimenter was responsible. Supports theory of authority figure despite teacher carrying out shocks. Ppts. said experimenter had legitimate authority as he was at top of hierarchy and had expert authority as a scientist. Increases validity of theory
What is a limitation of the theory of the agentic state? - Can’t explain all situations of obedience
===> In Milgram’s study, 35% of ppts. didn’t follow instructions to shock the learner up to the lethal 450V, suggesting some other factors must be involved otherwise the figure would have been 100% - dispositional factors are likely involved. Also, theory doesn’t explain the lack of moral strain seen by nurses in Hofling et al (1966) experiment, as theory suggests nurses would have shown levels of anxiety which wasn’t the case. Can be argued that agentic state theory can only be used to explain some situations of obedience and requires caution to generalise
What is the legitimacy of authority theory?
Suggests individuals are more likely to follow orders when they’re given from a person who has genuine authority, which can be legally or morally accepted.
What can legitimacy of authority figures be increase by?
Uniform and the fact they’re able to punish others
How do societies support legitimacy of authority figures?
Societies are hierarchical and people accept others have more/different/stronger responsibilities. Children are socialised from a young age to be more (or less) responsive to authority figures, and generally this allows society to function
What other aspects can legitimacy of authority refer to?
Setting (location) or system - e.g an institution
What is meant by destructive authority?
Charismatic and powerful leaders can use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes. Milgram represented this with the prods
What is a strength of the legitimacy of authority theory? - Useful real-life application to explain war crimes
===> Kelman and Hamilton (1989) suggest My Lai massacre of 1968, where US soldiers killed 500 inhabitants of Vietnamese village said they were obeying Lieutenant William Calley’s orders, can be understood in terms of US army power hierarchy and William Calley as legitimate authority figure. Act of mass murder demonstrates that people will blindly obey orders from an individual with higher perceived authority and proves it has practical value in real life
What is a strength of the legitimacy of authority theory? - Can explain why different cultures have different views towards obedience
===> Kilham and Mann (1974) replicated study in Australia and only 16% went up to lethal 450V, compared to Milgram’s 65% in USA and Mantell’s 85% in Germany. Cross-cultural comparison shows that different societies demonstrate different levels of obedience as they socialise children to be more (or less) obedient to authority figures. Helps explain different results and how societies impact the legitimacy of authority
