Obedience - situational explanations: agentic state/legitimacy of authority

Question 1

AO1 - agentic shift

Answer 1

= mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour as we believe we are acting for an authority figure
- acting for someone else = ‘agent’ –> feels moral strain
- opposite of autonomous state = agentic state
^^ shift = agentic shift - Milgram (1974) said it occurs if someone perceives someone else as an authority figure (higher in social hierarchy)
- binding factors = aspects of the situation which allow the person to ignore/minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour & reduce ‘moral strain’

Question 2

AO1 - legitimacy of authority

Answer 2

= explanation for obedience that suggests we’re more likely to obey people we perceive to have higher authority over us eg. parents, teachers, police officers etc.
- agreed by society that authority figures are allowed to exercise social power over others –> some can punish
- destructive authority = charismatic/popular leaders (eg. Hitler) use power for destructive purposes

Question 3

strength of agentic state - milgram’s own studies support (research support)

Answer 3

E: most participants resisted shocks at some point & often asked questions eg. asking who’s responsible for harming the learner where the experimenter replied they are, they continued the procedure without question (no moral strain/agent)
T: shows one participants perceived they’re lack of responsibility, the acted more easily as the experimenter’s agent

Question 4

limitation of agentic state - agentic shift doesn’t explain many research findings on obedience

Answer 4

E: eg. not explain findings of Rank & Jacobson’s (1977) study where they found 16/18 hospital nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor to administer an excessive drug dose to a patient (doctor = authority figure) but almost all remained autonomous
T: suggest the agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience

Question 5

strength of legitimacy of authority - useful account of cultural differences in obedience

Answer 5

E: many studies show that countries differ regarding obedience - eg. Kilham & Mann (1974) found 16% of Aus women went to 450V but Mantell (1971) found it different for German participants - 85%.
T: shows how, in some cultures, authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate & able to demand obedience - reflects how different societies are structured & raising of children to perceive authority figures

Question 6

weakness of legitimacy of authority - cannot explain all instances of disobedience in hierarchies where legitimacy of authority is clear/ accepted

Answer 6

E: includes nurses in the Rank & Jacobson’s study (nurses/fatal dose) how most were disobedient despite working in strict hierarchal structure. a significant minority of Milgram’s participants also disobeyed despite the Experimenter’s legitimate authority.
T: suggest some people are more/less obedient than others

Question 7

strength of legitimacy of authority - can be used/applied to real-world crimes of obedience

Answer 7

• Kelman & Hamilton (1989) argued real-world crime of obedience (eg. Mai Lai Massacre) can be understood in terms of the power hierarchy of the US army - commanding officers = higher