lesson 08 - agentic state and legitimacy of authority

define agentic state

we fail to take responsibility because we believe we are acting on behalf of an authority figure

requires presence of an authority figure - mental state where we don't feel responsible for our actions

define autonomous state

we feel free of other influences and so take personal responsibility for our actions

define agentic shift

we switch from autonomous to agentic because we perceive someone else is an authority figure to be obeyed. buffers keep us in an agentic state - they allow us to minimise the consequences of our actions and reduce moral stain

people may remain in the agentic state if the situation makes it difficult for you to stop obeying due to binding factors (feeling an obligation to continue to obey) and buffers (protecting yourself from seeing the consequences of your actions)

define legitimate authority

some people have positions or authority because they have been entrusted by society with certain powers

define destructive obedience

we may behave in cruel ways if the legitimate authority orders us to do something destructive

theory support - Hofling et al

arranged for an unknown doctor to telephone 22 nurses and ask each of them (on their own) to administer an overdose of an unfamiliar drug. 21 out of 22 nurses obeyed without question.

theory limitation - Rank and Jacobson

replicated Hofling’s nurses study but changed some aspects to make it more realistic. for example, being given an order over the phone was unusual, as was to be asked to administer an unknown drug. Instead, the nurses were told in person by a doctor they knew to give an overdose of Valium (an anti-anxiety drug familiar to the nurses). the nurses were able to discuss this with each other and only 2 out of 18 obeyed. 

theory limitation - external country validity

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

theory support - Milgram

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 the learner is harmed?’ when the experimenter replied, ‘i’m responsible’, the participants often went through the procedure quickly with no further objections