2b. Evaluation of the agentic state and legitimacy of authority

What is the strength of agentic state in obedience?

Strength of agentic state in obedience=

• research support

Why is research support a strength of the agentic state in obedience?

Research support is a strength of the agentic state in obedience=

Most of Milgram’s participants resisted giving the shocks at some point and often asked the Experimenter questions about the procedure. One of these was ‘Who is responsible if Mr Wallace (the Learner) is harmed?’ When the Experimenter replied ‘I’m responsible’, the participants often went through the procedure quickly with no further objections.

This shows that once participants perceived they were no longer responsible for their own behaviour, they acted more easily as the Experimenter’s agent, as Milgram suggested.

What is a limitation of the agentic state in obedience?

Limitation of the agentic state in obedience=

• limited explanation

Why is limited explanation a limitation of the agentic state in obedience?

Limited explanation is a limitation of the agentic state in obedience=

One limitation is that the agentic shift doesn’t explain many research findings about obedience.

For example, it does not explain the findings of Steven Rank and Cardell Jacobson’s (1977) study. They found that 16 out of 18 hospital nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor to administer an excessive drug dose to a patient. The doctor was an obvious authority figure. But almost all the nurses remained autonomous, as did many of Milgram’s participants.

This suggests that, at best, the agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience.

Why is agentic state being used to excuse the criminal behaviour a problem?

Another problem is that the agentic state could be used to excuse criminal behaviour.

David Mandel (1998) described one incident in the Second World War involving German Reserve Police Battalion 101. These men shot many civilians in a small town in Poland, despite not having direct orders to do so (they were told they could be assigned to other duties if they preferred), i.e. they behaved autonomously.

This means that the agentic state could not explain their behaviour & may only offer an ‘obedience alibi’ for people with already sadistic personalities

What is one strength of legitimacy authority as an explanation for obedience?

One strength of legitimacy of authority as an explanation for obedience=

• explains cultural differences in obedience

Why is explaining cultural differences in obedience a strength of legitimacy of authority?

One strength of the legitimacy explanation is that it is a useful account of cultural differences in obedience.

Many studies show that countries differ in the degree to which people are obedient to authority. For example, Wesley Kilham and Leon Mann (1974) found that only 16% of Australian women went all the way up to 450 volts in a Milgram-style study. However, David Mantell (1971) found a very different figure for German participants – 85%.

This shows that, in some cultures, authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience from individuals. This reflects the ways that different societies are structured and how children are raised to perceive authority figures.

What is a limitation of legitimacy of authority as an explanation for obedience?

Limitation of legitimacy of authority as an explanation for obedience=

• cannot explain all (dis)obedience

Why is not being able to explain all (dis)obedience a limitation of the legitimacy of authority as an explanation for obedience?

One limitation is that legitimacy cannot explain instances of disobedience in a hierarchy where the legitimacy of authority is clear and accepted.

This includes the nurses in Rank and Jacobson’s study (above). Most of them were disobedient despite working in a rigidly hierarchical authority structure. Also, a significant minority of Milgram’s participants disobeyed despite recognising the Experimenter’s scientifi c authority.

This suggests that some people may just be more (or less) obedient than others (see next spread). It is possible that innate tendencies to obey or disobey have a greater infl uence on behaviour than the legitimacy of an authority fi gure.

How did the My Lai massacre support the legitimacy of authority explanation?

Herbert Kelman and Lee Hamilton (1989) argue that a real-world crime of obedience (the My Lai massacre) can be understood in terms of the power hierarchy of the US Army. Commanding officers (COs) operate within a clearer legitimate hierarchy than hospital doctors and have a greater power to punish.