Agentic state & Legitimacy of authority

Define the term ‘Agentic state’.

When someone sees themselves as an agent for carrying out another persons wishes.

Give an example of people who have claimed to be in an agentic state.

In life -

• Holocaust and Nazi Germany, many of the soldiers claimed they were agents for hitler, only doing as he asked.

• Milgram’s study, participants claimed no responsibility for their actions as it was dictated by an authority figure.

Key Points in defining the Agentic State - AO1.

• Not responsible for their own actions.

• Attribute responsibility to someone else.

• Shift the responsibility onto an authority figure.

• A person moves from an autonomous state into an agentic state - this is known as the agentic shift.

What might the participants thoughts look like before entering the agentic state?

• They want to maintain a positive self-image.

• The participant may assess the consequences of their actions and then refrain.

• However once entered into the agentic state, an evaluative concern is no longer relevant.

Define the term ‘Legitimacy of Authority’.

For a person to shift into an agentic state, there must be a perception of a legitimate authority figure. This is someone who has social control over the situation.

Evaluating the agentic state - weaknesses.

• The agentic shift doesn’t explain all of Milgram’s research findings. There are individual differences, some people did not shock the learner, individual differences could have a greater role - link to nAffiliators.

Evaluating the agentic state - strengths.

• Research evidence supports the notion of obedience to a legitimate authority figure. Blass and Schmitt (2001) experiment, a film of Milgram’s study was shown to third party individuals, they were asked to identify who they felt was responsibly for the harm to the learner - the individuals blamed the experimenter not the participant.

• Cultural differences in obedience, a strength of the legitimacy of authority explanation of obedience could explain why many studies show that countries differ in the degree to which people are obedient to authority.

• Real-life obedience, can help to explain how obedience can lead to real-life war crimes. Kelmen and Hamilton (1989) argue that the My Lai massacre can be understood in terms of the power of the hierarchy of the US army.