Evaluation Of Explanations For Obedience

Question 1

Milgram argues ppts acted with obedience due to being in agentic state; as when questioned experimenter accepts responsibility for harm to learner.

Answer 1

The scientist has legitimate authority in the university. Obedience dropped when uniform replaced with clothes ( reduced legitimacy of authority); obedience also dropped when orders by telephone which made less likely to stay in agentic state.

Question 2

However, there are many methodological flaws.

Answer 2

Shock generator lacks mundane realism.
Lacks ecological validity.
Gender bias.
Orne and Holland (1968)

Question 3

35% resisted the authority figure, this can’t be explained by situation factors of agentic state and legitimacy of authority, as each ppt had same experience.

Answer 3

Adorno’s dispositional ‘authoritarian personality’ theory acknowledges willingness to obey differes.

Question 4

Legitimacy of authority has been supported by research evidence

Answer 4

Blass & Schmitt (2001) showed a film of Milgram’s original obedience study to students and asked them to identify who they felt was responsible for the harm to the learner
The students blamed the experimenter rather than the participant, stating that it was the experimenter was both the legitimate authority and the expert authority (i.e. a scientist).
The above finding shows that the legitimacy of authority is a valid concept when discussing destructive obedience

Question 5

Both of these explanations for obedience are deterministic

Answer 5

They imply that those who commit acts of destructive obedience have no control over their actions
The above observation negates the idea of people as autonomous and able to exercise free will