agency theory and legitimacy of authority (milgram 1974)

agentic state

mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour because we believe ourselves to be acting for an authority figure which frees us from the demands of our conscience and allows us to obey even a destructive authority figure

moral strain

experiencing anxiety, usually because you are asked to do something that goes against your moral judgement but you feel powerless to disobey

autonomous state

opposite of agentic state, individual is free to behave according to their own principles and subsequently feels responsible for their actions

agentic shift

shift from autonomous to agentic state

when does agentic shift occur?

when a person perceives someone else as an authority figure

what are binding factors?

factors which allow the person to minimise the damaging effects of their behaviour therefore it increases the chances of agentic shift

legitimacy of authority

suggests we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us, this authority is legitimate by the individual's position of power within a social hierarchy

empirical support

milgram's own baseline study: some teachers asked who was responsible if the learner was harmed and when the experimenter said it was their responsibility, the teacher continued with the procedure without further hesitation

pros of the theory

can explain cross cultural differences in obedienc e.g. only 16% of aussie women were obedient whereas 85% of german women were obedient

limitations of the theory

cannot explain all disobedience, in ww2 a german battallion shot civilians in poland despite not having direct orders from their superiors to do so (david mendel 1998)

studies which limit the theory

rank and jacobson 1977: 16 out of 18 nurses remained autonomous when asked to give the medicine to the patient even though the doctor was a clear figure of authority