psychosocial explanations of obedience

legitimacy of authority

people are more likely to obey people who they perceive to be above them in the social hierarchy.

most societies are structured in a hierarchal way. people are generally raised to be aware of, appreciate that, some people are in certain positions, and thus hold more authority than others. authority is made known by things like uniform.

authority is agreed by society, people allow certain people to exercise some social power over them in order for society to run smoothly. this is learnt during childhood, via the process of socialisation.

problems arise when legit authority is used in a negative way (e.g. to harm others), as shown in Milgram’s study. aka “destructive authority”.

the agentic state

a mental state where a person feels no personal responsibility for their behaviour and actions. they believe themselves to be acting for an authority figure, i.e. as their agent. this frees a person from the demands of their conscience and allows them to obey even destructive authority figures. an individual in the agentic state will still experience anxiety over what they’re doing, but they don’t feel able to disobey orders.

the autonomous state - the opposite of the agentic state. this is when a person is free, and able to act according to their own principles. as a result of this freedom, an individual is responsible for their own actions cuz they feel in control of what they’re doing. they’re not acting on behalf of somebody else.

the agentic shift - moving from an autonomous to an agentic state. Milgram → this occurs when a person sees someone else as a legit figure of authority.

Milgram observed that although many of his pps said they wanted to stop, they seemed unable to cuz they felt powerless. this is due to binding factors (aspects of the situation that allow people to ignore or minimise the damage they’re causing and thus reduce the moral strain). e.g. victim blaming, denial, shifting responsibility. people remain in an agentic state cuz of binding factors.

how does the legitimacy of authority and the agentic state work together?

the first condition needed for an agentic shift is the perception of a legit authority figure

AO3 - strength of the agentic state

Milgram's own studies support the role of the agentic state in obedience.

Most of Milgram's pps resisted giving the shocks at some point, and often asked the experimenter Qs 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 pps often went through the procedure quickly with no further objections.

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

AO3 - limitation of the agentic shift

the agentic shift doesn't explain many research findings about obedience.

e.g. it doesn’t explain the findings of Rank and Jacobson's (1977) study. They found that 16/18 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 pps.

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

AO3 - strength of legitimacy of authority

it’s a useful account of cultural differences in obedience.

Many studies show that countries differ in the degree to which people are obedient to authority. e.g. Kilham and Mann (1974) → only 16% of Australian women went all the way up to 450 volts in a Milgram-style study. but, Mantell (1971) found a very different figure for German pps - 85%.

This shows that, in some cultures, authority is more likely to be accepted as legit 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.

AO3 - limitation of legitimacy of authority

legitimacy can’t 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. Most of them were disobedient despite working in a rigidly hierarchical authority structure. Also, a significant minority of Milgram's pps disobeyed despite recognising the experimenter's scientific authority.

suggests that some people may just be more (or less) obedient than others. It’s possible that innate tendencies to obey or disobey have a greater influence on behaviour than the legitimacy of an authority figure.