6. obedience and situational explanations

what are the explanations for obedience

1. agentic state

2. legitimacy of authority

what is the 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 ie as their agent

what does being in the agentic state do

it frees you from the demands of our consciences and allows us to obey even a destructive authority figure

what does an agent feel

they experience a moral strain - they have high anxiety when they realise what they are doing is wrong, but feel powerless to disobey

what is the opposite of the agentic state

an autonomous state

what is the autonomous state

when you are free to behave according to your own principles and feel a sense of responsibility for your actions

what is the agentic shift

agentic shift = shift from autonomy to agency

when does the agentic shift occur

• milgram suggested this occurs when a person perceives someone else as an authority figure

• the authority figure has greater power as they have a higher position in social hierarchywhat

what are binding factors

• reasons why people remain in the agentic state

• they are aspects of the situation allowing a person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and thus reduce the moral strain experienced

binding factor example

being part of a social hierarchy and it can contribute to destructive obedience

• milgrams study imposed a moral strain so being able to shift responsibility for the shocks to the experimenter allowed them to ease the burden of guilt and shame

evaluation of agentic state

• research support

• limited explanation

• behaving autonomously example

• FOR BOTH determinism

research support

• key idea: evidence from milgram’s studies supports the concept of the agentic state in obedience

• supporting evidence: many of milgram’s participants resisted giving shocks and questioned the procedure, but when the experimenter reinforced the fact he would take responsibility, the participants would go through with the procedure with no further objections

• explanation: this supports milgram’s claim that individuals shift responsibility to an authority figure, behaving as the authority’s agent

• application: demonstrates how perceived removal of personal responsibility leads to obedient behavior under authority

limited explanation

• key idea: the agentic state cannot explain all obedience and disobedience

• supporting evidence:

  • Rank and Jacobson (1977): 16 out of 18 nurses disobeyed a doctor’s clear order to administer an excessive drug dose. the nurses remained autonomous, showing disobedience despite the doctor's authority

  • similarly, many of milgram’s participants resisted orders despite the authority figure’s legitimacy.

• explanation: this suggests the agentic state explanation is not universal and only applies to some instances of obedience

• application: highlights the need for other factors, like personality or situational influences, to fully explain obedience

behaving autonomously example

• key idea: real-world cases challenge the agentic state explanation

• supporting evidence: a german police battalion shot civilians in poland during WW2 despite not being directly ordered to do so

• explanation: this shows that individuals can behave autonomously (not in the agentic state) while committing atrocities, suggesting other factors, such as group dynamics or personal motivation, may drive such behaviors

• application: challenges the agentic state as a sufficient explanation for obedience, especially in morally extreme situations

determinism

• both explanations are deterministic

• imply those committing acts of destructive obedience have no control over their actions

• this negates the idea of people as autonomous and able to exercise free will

what is 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 (legitimate) by their position of power within a social hierarchy - society agrees their position

a consequence of legitimate authority

some people are granted the power to punish others

• we generally agree the police and courts have the power to punish wrongdoers - so we are willing to give up some of our independence and to hand our control of our behaviour to people we trust to exercise their authority appropriately

• uniform confers authority even when not police, bickman study

how do we learn legitimacy of authority

we learn acceptance of it from childhood - from parents initially and then teachers and adults generally

what happens when legitimate authority becomes destructive authority

problems arise

• history shows charismatic and powerful leaders (hitler, stalin) can use their legitimate authority for destructive purposes - ordering people to behave in ways which are cruel and dangerous

  
  

milgrams study and destructive authority

destructive authority is clear when the experimenter used prods to order participants to behave in ways that went against their consciences

what happened at My Lai

• the My Lai Massacre was a 1968 attack by US soldiers on unarmed vietnamese civilians, resulting in the deaths of hundreds and widespread atrocities

how does the massacre show both explanations for obedience

• Agentic State: the soldiers at My Lai followed orders from higher-ranking officers, perceiving themselves as agents of authority rather than acting on their own conscience, which led to a shift in responsibility when they joined the army

• Legitimacy of Authority: the army’s hierarchical structure made Lt. Calley’s authority legitimate, with soldiers accepting his commands due to his position and the threat of punishment, leading to obedience to destructive authority at all levels

evaluation of legitimacy of authority

• real world crimes of obedience

• cannot explain all disobedience

real world crimes of obedience

• real world cases support the legitimacy of authority explanatoin

• MY LAI MASSACRE was an attack by US soldiers on unarmed vietnamese civilians resulting in hundreds of deaths where the army’s hierarchal structure made LT. CALLEY’s authority legitimate with soldiers consequently accepting his demands, leading to destructive authority at all levels

• highlights how structured hierarchies can lead to extreme obedience, eg war crimes

cannot explain all disobedience

• key idea: the legitimacy of authority fails to account for instances where individuals disobey legitimate authority

• supporting evidence:

  • Rank and Jacobson’s study showed nurses disobeyed orders from doctors in a hierarchy, despite the doctor's clear authority

  • Milgram’s study: some participants disobeyed the experimenter’s scientific authority.

• explanation: suggests that obedience is influenced by other factors beyond legitimacy, such as individual differences (eg moral values or personality)

• application: indicates that the legitimacy of authority alone cannot fully predict obedience or disobedience in hierarchical contexts.