Social Influence- Obedience: Social- Psychological Factors Flashcards
What are the explanations for obedience?
Agentic state
Legitimacy of authority
Legitimacy of Authority
-suggests that we are more likely to obey a person who has a higher position or status in a social hierarchy because they have more authority and are therefore classed as legitimate. For example, parents, teachers and police officers, all have some kind of authority over us. Their authority is legitimate in the sense that it is agreed by society and it is accepted that they are allowed to exercise social power over others because this allows society to function smoothly. Legitimacy is increased by visible symbols of authority, such as uniforms because uniforms convey a sense of legitimacy and authority, increasing obedience rates.
-however, consequently, some people are granted the power to punish others, most of us accept that the police and courts have power to punish wrongdoers. Therefore, we are willing to give up some of our independence and handover control of our behaviour to people that are trusted to exercise their authority appropriately. People learn to accept the legitimacy of authority from childhood, from parents initially and then from teachers and adults generally.
-problems arise when legitimate authority becomes destructive. History has too often shown that charismatic and powerful leaders can use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes, ordering people to behave in ways that are callous, cruel, stupid and dangerous. Destructive authority was very clearly shown in Milgram’s study, when the experimenter used prods to order ps to behave in ways that went against their consciences.
Legitimacy of authority explanation strengths (AO3)
-can be used to explain cultural differences in obedience- countries differ in obedience to authority: only 16% of Australians went to the top of the voltage scale (Kilham and Mann 1874), 85% of German ps did in (Mantel 1971). Authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate in some cultures. This reflects how different societies are structured and children raised to perceive authority figures. This is a strength because the findings from cross-cultural research are supportive which increases the validity of the explanation.
-it can explain real-life obedience- Kelman and Hamilton (1989) suggest the My Lai massacre (Vietnam War) is explained by the power hierarchy of the US army. The army has authority recognised by the US Government and the law. Soldiers assume orders given by the hierarchy to be legal, even orders to kill, rape and destroy villages. This is a strength because the explanation is able to give reasons why destructive obedience is committed.
-research support- Blass and Schmidt (2001) showed students a film of Milgram’s study and asked them to identify who was responsible for harm to the learner. Students blamed the experimenter rather than the ps. This responsibility was due to legitimate authority (the experimenter was top of the hierarchy) but also expert authority (he was a scientist). The students recognised legitimate authority as the cause of obedience. This is a strength because it supports the explanation of the legitimacy of authority.
Agentic State
-suggests that we are socialised from a very young age to follow the rules of society. But in order for this to happen a person needs to surrender some of their free will. An agentic state occurs when an individual carries out the orders of someone else who they perceive as an authority figure and has greater power because of their position in a social hierarchy. They act as their ‘agent’, with little personal responsibility. An agent is not emotionless, they feel high anxiety (‘moral strain’) when they realise that what they are doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey, as Milgram observed that many of his ps spoke as if they wanted to quit but seemed unable to do so.
-he concluded that this was the result of 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’ they are feeling, using strategies such as shifting the responsibility to the victim or denying the damage they were doing to the victims.
-the opposite of an agentic state is an autonomous state. When a person is acting independently. ‘Autonomy’ means to be independent or free. When someone acts in an autonomous way, they are aware of the consequences of their actions and choose voluntarily to behave in certain ways and therefore they feel responsible for their own actions. To shift from autonomy to agency is referred to as the agentic shift and is where a person experiences a diffusion of responsibility.
Agentic State limitations (AO3)
-research to contradict agentic state explanation- Hofling et al (1966) study, according to the explanation nurses should have shown anxiety as they gave responsibility over to the doctor, because they understood their role in a destructive process. However, this was not the case. This is a limitation because it means the agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience.
-a limitation Is the agentic state cannot account for the behaviour of the Nazis. Mandel (1998) described an incident involving German Reserve Police Battalion 101- men shot civilians in a small town in Poland (WWll). They did this even though they were not directly ordered to (they were told they could be assigned other duties). This is a limitation because the Reserve Police were not powerless to disobey and therefore the explanation cannot explain their behaviour.
