Outline and evaluate one or more explanations of obedience. (16 marks.)
The explanations of obedience concern the influences of others on an individual behaviour,
rather than external factors in the situation. The two explanations of obedience are the
agentic state and legitimacy of authority.
Milgram proposed the agentic theory which means when we act as the agent
(representative) of someone in authority we feel no personal responsibility for our actions
individuals pass responsibility to them, ‘agentic state.’ Whereas the opposite of the agentic
state is the Autonomous state – Autonomy means to be independent so an individual in an
autonomous state direct their own behavior, and take responsibility for their actions. People
move from the autonomous state into the agentic state when confronted with an authority
figure. This person has power because of their social standing and shift from autonomy to
‘agent’ is called the agentic shift. Binding factors are aspects of a situation that allow a
person to minimise and ignore the damaging effect of their behaviour and so reduce ‘moral
strain’ they are feeling. For example- shifting the responsibility to the victim (“he was a fool
anyway.”)
Second explanation of obedience is legitimacy of authority which means that we are more
likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us and this is justified (by the
individual’s position of power within a social hierarchy. One of the consequences of this
legitimacy of authority is that some people are granted the power to punish others. (e.g. the
police and courts punish wrongdoers) and so we to hand over control of our behaviour to
people we trust to exercise our authority. However, History has shown all too often that
powerful leaders, such as Hitler can use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes,
‘Destructive authority’ was shown in Milgram’s study when the experimenter used prods to
order the ppts to behave in ways that went against their conscience.
A strength of the agentic states is there is research to support it. For example, Blass and
Schmitt showed students a film of Milgrams study and asked them to identify who was
responsible for harm to the learner. The found that students blamed the experimenter
rather than the ppts due to the legitimate authority, experimenter being at the top of the
hierarchy and students believing the participants were agents of authority. Therefore, this is
a strength as the students recognised legitimate authority as the cause of obedience
supporting this explanation.
A limitation of the agentic shift is does not explain why some people do not obey. For
example, Hofling et al found that 21 out 22 nurses obeyed to unjustified demands by
doctors according to the agentic shift explanation predicts as the nurses handed
responsibility to the doctor, they should have shown levels of anxiety similar to Milgram.
However, this did not happen. Thus, suggesting the agentic shift can only explain some
situations of obedience.
A strength of legitimacy of authority is that it can explain real life obedience. For example,
Kelman and Hamilton suggest that the Vietnam war is explained by the power hierarchy of
the US army. This is as the army had authority recognised by the US government and law.
Therefore, the solider assumed order given by the hierarchy to be legal even order such as
The explanations of obedience concern the influences of others on an individual behaviour,
rather than external factors in the situation. The two explanations of obedience are the
agentic state and legitimacy of authority.
Milgram proposed the agentic theory which means when we act as the agent
(representative) of someone in authority we feel no personal responsibility for our actions
individuals pass responsibility to them, ‘agentic state.’ Whereas the opposite of the agentic
state is the Autonomous state – Autonomy means to be independent so an individual in an
autonomous state direct their own behavior, and take responsibility for their actions. People
move from the autonomous state into the agentic state when confronted with an authority
figure. This person has power because of their social standing and shift from autonomy to
‘agent’ is called the agentic shift. Binding factors are aspects of a situation that allow a
person to minimise and ignore the damaging effect of their behaviour and so reduce ‘moral
strain’ they are feeling. For example- shifting the responsibility to the victim (“he was a fool
anyway.”)
Second explanation of obedience is legitimacy of authority which means that we are more
likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us and this is justified (by the
individual’s position of power within a social hierarchy. One of the consequences of this
legitimacy of authority is that some people are granted the power to punish others. (e.g. the
police and courts punish wrongdoers) and so we to hand over control of our behaviour to
people we trust to exercise our authority. However, History has shown all too often that
powerful leaders, such as Hitler can use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes,
‘Destructive authority’ was shown in Milgram’s study when the experimenter used prods to
order the ppts to behave in ways that went against their conscience.
A strength of the agentic states is there is research to support it. For example, Blass and
Schmitt showed students a film of Milgrams study and asked them to identify who was
responsible for harm to the learner. The found that students blamed the experimenter
rather than the ppts due to the legitimate authority, experimenter being at the top of the
hierarchy and students believing the participants were agents of authority. Therefore, this is
a strength as the students recognised legitimate authority as the cause of obedience
supporting this explanation.
A limitation of the agentic shift is does not explain why some people do not obey. For
example, Hofling et al found that 21 out 22 nurses obeyed to unjustified demands by
doctors according to the agentic shift explanation predicts as the nurses handed
responsibility to the doctor, they should have shown levels of anxiety similar to Milgram.
However, this did not happen. Thus, suggesting the agentic shift can only explain some
situations of obedience.
A strength of legitimacy of authority is that it can explain real life obedience. For example,
Kelman and Hamilton suggest that the Vietnam war is explained by the power hierarchy of
the US army. This is as the army had authority recognised by the US government and law.
Therefore, the solider assumed order given by the hierarchy to be legal even order such as
