Tuesday 14th January 2025
Milgram's study
Moral strain = A state of mental discomfort or anxiety experienced in the agentic
state when a person's actions conflict with their own personal authority.
SODA:
S - Supporting evidence:
A strength of Milgram's agency theory is that it is supported by his 1963 study. In this
study he found that 100% of participants would administer a shock of 300v to a
confederate as a punishment for making a mistake on a word learning task and 65%
would go right up to 450v, beyond the shock labelled ‘danger, extreme shock’.
This is important because it clearly supports Milgram’s suggestion that in the face of
legitimate authority people are highly likely to carry out orders, despite high levels of
moral strain.
O - Opposing evidence:
However, Gina Perry (2012) questioned the internal validity of this evidence saying
that participants saw through the deception. She examined recently released
evidence from Yale university archives of his study. This evidence reveals that many
participants questioned whether the shocks were real. This new evidence shows that
across all of Milgram's variation studies more than 60% of participants disobeyed the
experimenter. This reinterpretation of Milgram's data leaves agency theory in
question.
D - Differing view:
A weakness of the theory is that an agentic shift doesn't appear to be inevitable.
Steven Rank and Cardell Jacobson’s (1977) study with nurses found that 16 out of
18 (89%) nurses failed to obey orders from a doctor who asked them to administer
an overdose of valium. This shows that despite the doctors being an obvious source
of authority, the vast majority of the sample remained autonomous. This qualitative
data demonstrates that the nurses did consider themselves responsible for their
actions.
A - Application:
Milgram maintained that when binding factors outweigh moral strain, obedience will
follow. This principle has been applied in a variety of military strategies devised to
ensure soldiers follow orders without question by reducing moral strain. One
example is the euphemisms such as ‘collateral damage’ (unintentional deaths of
civilians in pursuit of a legitimate military target) and dehumanising language used to
refer to the enemy. This shows how an authority figure’s communication can
minimise moral strain, ensuring that soldiers remain in the agentic state, even when
Milgram's study
Moral strain = A state of mental discomfort or anxiety experienced in the agentic
state when a person's actions conflict with their own personal authority.
SODA:
S - Supporting evidence:
A strength of Milgram's agency theory is that it is supported by his 1963 study. In this
study he found that 100% of participants would administer a shock of 300v to a
confederate as a punishment for making a mistake on a word learning task and 65%
would go right up to 450v, beyond the shock labelled ‘danger, extreme shock’.
This is important because it clearly supports Milgram’s suggestion that in the face of
legitimate authority people are highly likely to carry out orders, despite high levels of
moral strain.
O - Opposing evidence:
However, Gina Perry (2012) questioned the internal validity of this evidence saying
that participants saw through the deception. She examined recently released
evidence from Yale university archives of his study. This evidence reveals that many
participants questioned whether the shocks were real. This new evidence shows that
across all of Milgram's variation studies more than 60% of participants disobeyed the
experimenter. This reinterpretation of Milgram's data leaves agency theory in
question.
D - Differing view:
A weakness of the theory is that an agentic shift doesn't appear to be inevitable.
Steven Rank and Cardell Jacobson’s (1977) study with nurses found that 16 out of
18 (89%) nurses failed to obey orders from a doctor who asked them to administer
an overdose of valium. This shows that despite the doctors being an obvious source
of authority, the vast majority of the sample remained autonomous. This qualitative
data demonstrates that the nurses did consider themselves responsible for their
actions.
A - Application:
Milgram maintained that when binding factors outweigh moral strain, obedience will
follow. This principle has been applied in a variety of military strategies devised to
ensure soldiers follow orders without question by reducing moral strain. One
example is the euphemisms such as ‘collateral damage’ (unintentional deaths of
civilians in pursuit of a legitimate military target) and dehumanising language used to
refer to the enemy. This shows how an authority figure’s communication can
minimise moral strain, ensuring that soldiers remain in the agentic state, even when
