social-psychological factors in obedience

what is the agency theory?

when an individual moves from an autonomous state to an agentic state (agentic shift) they are passing responsibility to the authority figure and take no responsibility for their actions

what is the autonomous state?

where a person is free to behave according to their own principles so feels a sense of responsibility for their actions

what is the agentic state?

where a person behaves as an agent for an authority figure by obeying their orders so lose a sense of responsibility for their actions

what are binding factors?

aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and therefore reduce the ‘moral strain’ they’re feeling

what is legitimacy of authority?

the idea that people are more likely to obey orders from individuals who are perceived to have rightful power to give orders due to their position in the social hierarchy

what does destructive authority refer to?

the act of complying with an authority figure’s orders that results in harm, injury or other negative outcomes for innocent people/society

what are the strengths and weaknesses of social-psychological factors in obedience?

strengths:

• real world application for agency theory

• supporting research for agency theory

weaknesses:

• agentic shift is a limited explanation

• cultural differences when Milgram’s study replicated

real world application for agency theory

• during the Mai Lai Massacre in during the Vietnam war, 504 innocent unarmed civilians were killed by American soldiers

• people were shot, soldiers blew up buildings, burned villages and killed all animals

• only one soldier however faces charges and was found guilty - a Lieutenant

• his defence was that he was following orders from authority figures above him - he was in the agentic state so took no responsibility

• explanation therefore has high ecological validity

supporting research for agency theory

• researchers showed a film of Milgram’s study to students and asked them to identify who they felt was responsible for harm to learner

• they blamed the experimenter rather than the participant

• students indicated the responsibility was due to legitimate authority as the experimenter was at the top of the hierarchy in that situation

• therefore recognised legitimate authority as the cause of obedience, increasing credibility of explanation

agentic shift is a limited explanation

• agentic shift doesn’t explain why some of the participants didn’t obey in Milgram’s experiment

• agentic shift would predict that everyone would obey as humans are involved in social hierarchies but not all participants administered shocks

• therefore explanation can only account for some situations of obedience

• we have to question how far we can generalise the explanation

cultural differences when Milgram’s study replicated

• researchers in Australis replicated Milgram’s experiment and found only 16% of participants went to max voltage

• researchers in Germany also replicated and found 85% went to max voltage

• shows in some cultures, authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to obedience than in others

• reflects ways cultures are structured and how children are raised to perceive authority