Outline and evaluate one or more explanations of obedience (16 marks)
AO1: Agentic state
The agentic state is a mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our
behaviour because we believe ourselves to be acting for an authority figure i.e as an agent.
The opposite of the agentic state is the autonomous state, where an individual is acting
according to their own principles and having a sense of responsibility for their actions. The
shift from autonomy to agency is known as the agentic shift. This happens when one
perceives someone else as a figure of authority due to their position in the social hierarchy.
People stay in the agentic state despite wanting to leave due to binding factors as it allows
the person to ignore their own damaging effects, reducing their anxiety level. For example,
shifting responsibility to the victim or denying any damage has been done.
AO1: Legitimacy of authority
Legitimacy of authority refers to how genuine the authority figure seems and how much
status they have (this can be affected by context e.g. uniform, building etc). Most people
accept that people in authoritative positions can exercise their social power over others, as it
helps society function more smoothly. However, history has shown that powerful leaders,
such as Hitler, can use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes and this ‘destructive
authority’ was shown in Milgram’s study when the experimenter used prods to order the
participants to behave in ways that went against their conscience.
AO3: Agentic state
Milgram varied his study to give orders over the phone rather than in the same room.
Obedience declined from 62.5% to 20%. This suggests that the ppts were in the
autonomous state and put the responsibility onto themselves, rather than when the orders
were given in closer proximity (shift to an agentic state).
Another of Milgram's variations: where an additional confederate administered an electric
shock on behalf of the teacher. In this variation obedience rose from 65% to 92.5% of ppts
giving the full 450 volts. This supports the agentic state explanation, as the teacher was able
to shift his responsibility onto the other confederate, allowing him to deny personal
responsibility, which made him more likely to obey.
Agentic shift doesn't explain why ppts didn't obey, and only focused on why they did. In
Hofling's study, nurses should've felt high levels of anxiety by understanding their role in a
destructive process, but this was not the case. This suggests that an agentic state can only
argue some situations of obedience.
AO3: Legitimacy of authority
Kham and Mann showed that many countries differ in the degree to which people are
traditionally obedient to authority. They replicated Milgram's study in Australia and found
only 16% of ppts went all the way to max voltage. Thus, in some countries it is accepted that
authority figures can demand obedience from individuals much more than others and reflects
differences in the ways societies are structured. This cross-cultural research also supports
the validity of the explanation.
AO1: Agentic state
The agentic state is a mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our
behaviour because we believe ourselves to be acting for an authority figure i.e as an agent.
The opposite of the agentic state is the autonomous state, where an individual is acting
according to their own principles and having a sense of responsibility for their actions. The
shift from autonomy to agency is known as the agentic shift. This happens when one
perceives someone else as a figure of authority due to their position in the social hierarchy.
People stay in the agentic state despite wanting to leave due to binding factors as it allows
the person to ignore their own damaging effects, reducing their anxiety level. For example,
shifting responsibility to the victim or denying any damage has been done.
AO1: Legitimacy of authority
Legitimacy of authority refers to how genuine the authority figure seems and how much
status they have (this can be affected by context e.g. uniform, building etc). Most people
accept that people in authoritative positions can exercise their social power over others, as it
helps society function more smoothly. However, history has shown that powerful leaders,
such as Hitler, can use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes and this ‘destructive
authority’ was shown in Milgram’s study when the experimenter used prods to order the
participants to behave in ways that went against their conscience.
AO3: Agentic state
Milgram varied his study to give orders over the phone rather than in the same room.
Obedience declined from 62.5% to 20%. This suggests that the ppts were in the
autonomous state and put the responsibility onto themselves, rather than when the orders
were given in closer proximity (shift to an agentic state).
Another of Milgram's variations: where an additional confederate administered an electric
shock on behalf of the teacher. In this variation obedience rose from 65% to 92.5% of ppts
giving the full 450 volts. This supports the agentic state explanation, as the teacher was able
to shift his responsibility onto the other confederate, allowing him to deny personal
responsibility, which made him more likely to obey.
Agentic shift doesn't explain why ppts didn't obey, and only focused on why they did. In
Hofling's study, nurses should've felt high levels of anxiety by understanding their role in a
destructive process, but this was not the case. This suggests that an agentic state can only
argue some situations of obedience.
AO3: Legitimacy of authority
Kham and Mann showed that many countries differ in the degree to which people are
traditionally obedient to authority. They replicated Milgram's study in Australia and found
only 16% of ppts went all the way to max voltage. Thus, in some countries it is accepted that
authority figures can demand obedience from individuals much more than others and reflects
differences in the ways societies are structured. This cross-cultural research also supports
the validity of the explanation.
