situational explanations of obedience

situational explanation of obedience- agentic state

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

situational explanation of obedience- legitimacy of authority

an explanation for obedience which suggests we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us, this authority is justified by the individuals position of power within a social hierarchy

what was Milgram's theory of agentic state?

• he proposed that when we don't have to take responsibility for our actions, we're more likely to obey

• destructive authority refers to power being used to harm others, Milgram said this was powerful as the person didn't feel they would be held responsible for their actions and believe they are acting for someone else, playing the role of 'agent', they're in an agentic state

• people in an agentic state feel extreme anxiety, moral strain, when they realise what they're doing is wrong and feel they can't disobey

autonomous state

the opposite of being in an agentic state, being independent or free to make choices, someone in an autonomous state is free to act however they like and feel responsible for their actions

agentic shift

• the shift from autonomous state to an agentic state

• Milgram (1974) said this shift happens when someone receives an order from someone they see authority figure, this authority figure has a higher position in the social hierarchy and often the power to punish

what are binding factors?

• Milgrams participants often said they wanted to stop the study but felt powerless to do so (agentic state), aspects of the situation allow someone to ignore or minimise the damage their behaviour may cause (binding factors)

• this reduces the moral strain the feel, participants used tactics like shifting the blame to the learner (volunteer) or researcher (who is reponsible)

• once a person enters an agentic state, what keeps them in it: social etiquette, participant would need to breech a commitment, feel arrogant and rude, binded to obedience

how did Milgram's study show destructive authority?

experimenter used prods to order participants to obey, demonstrating destructive authority as he used his legitimate authority for harmful purposes where people would continue to follow and obey

strength of situational explanations of obedience- research support, Tarnow (2000)

• explored aviation accidents using data from a US national transportation safety board, covered all serious US aircraft accidents from 1978 to 1990 where a black box was available and flight crew actions contribute to the crash

• he found excess dependence of the captains authority and expertise, one officer claimed he noticed the pilot taking a risky approach but assumed he must know what he is doing

• supports his idea of legitimacy of authority

strength of situational explanations of obedience- research support, Milgram

• Milgram’s findings support the agentic state

• most participants resisted obeying at some point, asking the experimenter about the procedure, one asked who is responsible if Mr Wallace was harmed, when the experimenter said he was responsible, the participant carried on with the procedure

• once participants thought they weren't responsible for their behaviour, they would happily obey (acting as an agent)

weakness of situational explanations of obedience- limited explanation

• agentic shift can't explain many research findings, eg Rank & Jacobson (1977) their nurse study found that 16 of 18 nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor

• the doctor was an obvious authority figure but most nurses remained autonomous and didn’t shift into an agentic state, the same is true for some of Milgram’s participants

• the agentic shift can't account for every situation of obedience

weakness of situational explanations of obedience- obedience alibi

• Mandel (1998) explored an incident in WW2 involving a German reserve police battalion, soldiers murdered Polish civilians without being ordered to

• no element of acting as agents, they acted autonomously as they had a choice to be assigned elsewhere

• suggests the agentic shift may not be required for destructive obedience

strength of situational explanations of obedience- explains cultural differences

• research shows countries differ in how obedient people are to authority

• eg Kilham & Mann (1974) only 16% of Australian women obeyed and went up to 450V, Mantell (1971) 85% of German participants went up to 450V

• shows in some cultures, authority is more likely to be seen as legitimate and lead to obedience, likely due to how children are taught to perceive authority figures

weakness of situational explanations of obedience- can't explain all obedience

• disobedience in a hierarchy with clear authority isn't explained

• the nurses in Rank and Jacobson's study disobeyed despite being aware of the rigid hospital hierarchy, Milgram's participants who disobeyed did so even though they recognised the experimenters scientific authority

• some people may just be more or less obedient than others due to innate tendencies, may be more important than legitimacy of authority

strength of situational explanations of obedience- real world crimes of obedience

• research shows some people disobey legitimate authority eg Rank & Jacobson found nurses would disobey a legitimate authority of a doctor

• Kelman & Hamilton (1989) found soldiers My Lai massacre, real world crime of obedience, obeyed their CO, can be understood due to the power hierarchy of the US Army and their power to punish

• some real world evidence that respect for legitimate authority can lead to destructive obedience