SOCIAL- PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS
Milgram proposed one social-psychological explanation for obedience is the agentic state. In
an agentic state the person feels no personal responsibility for their action, they are acting on
the behalf of another person. The autonomy is when a person behaves accordingly to their
own principle and feels responsible for their own actions. The shift from autonomy to agent is
called the agentic shift. Therefore the agency theory is that people are more likely to obey
when they are in an agentic state as they do not believe they will suffer the consequences of
those actions. Binding factors are aspects that allow the person to minimize the damaging
effect of their behavior and reduce moral strain they feel. Milgram proposed a number of
strategies the individual uses such as shifting the blame to the victim. Another social-
psychological explanation for obedience is legitimacy of authority. Most societies have
hierarchal structure so people in higher positions may exercise their social power over others
such as teachers and parents. People are more likely to obey them if they are seen as morally
right and legitimate, however, a consequence of this legitimacy of authority is that some
authority figures are granted the power to punish others. Most of us accept that the police and
the courts have the power to punish wrongdoers so we are willing to give up some of our
independence and hand control of our behavior over to people we trust to exercise their
authority appropriately.
A strength is that agentic state is that it has research support. Blasts and Schmidt showed
students a film of Milgram’s study and asked them to identify who was responsible for harm
to the learner. Students blamed the ‘experimenter’ rather than the participant. This
responsibility was due to legitimacy as the experimenter was top of the hierarchy. The
students recognized legitimate authority as the cause of obedience, supporting this
explanation.
A limitation is the agentic state cannot account for the behavior of the Nazis. Mandel
described German Reserve Police Battaion 101 - men shot civilians in a small town in
Poland. They did this even though they were not directly ordered to. This challenges the
agentic state explanation because the Reserve police were not powerless to disobey.
Legitimacy of authority is useful account of cultural differences in obedience. Countries
differ in obedience to authority. Authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate in some
cultures. This reflects how different societies are structures and children raised to perceive
authority figures. For example, only 16% of Australians went to the top of the voltage scale
whereas 85% of German participants did. Supportive findings from cross-cultural research
increase the validity of the explanation.
A strength is that legitimacy of authority can explain real life obedience. Kerman and
Hamilton suggest that the Vietnam war is explained by the hierarchy of the US Army. The
army has authority recognized by the US government and the law. Soldiers assume orders
given by the hierarchy to be legal such as to kill, rape and destroy villages. The legitimacy of
authority explanation is able to give reasons why destructive obedience is possible.
Milgram proposed one social-psychological explanation for obedience is the agentic state. In
an agentic state the person feels no personal responsibility for their action, they are acting on
the behalf of another person. The autonomy is when a person behaves accordingly to their
own principle and feels responsible for their own actions. The shift from autonomy to agent is
called the agentic shift. Therefore the agency theory is that people are more likely to obey
when they are in an agentic state as they do not believe they will suffer the consequences of
those actions. Binding factors are aspects that allow the person to minimize the damaging
effect of their behavior and reduce moral strain they feel. Milgram proposed a number of
strategies the individual uses such as shifting the blame to the victim. Another social-
psychological explanation for obedience is legitimacy of authority. Most societies have
hierarchal structure so people in higher positions may exercise their social power over others
such as teachers and parents. People are more likely to obey them if they are seen as morally
right and legitimate, however, a consequence of this legitimacy of authority is that some
authority figures are granted the power to punish others. Most of us accept that the police and
the courts have the power to punish wrongdoers so we are willing to give up some of our
independence and hand control of our behavior over to people we trust to exercise their
authority appropriately.
A strength is that agentic state is that it has research support. Blasts and Schmidt showed
students a film of Milgram’s study and asked them to identify who was responsible for harm
to the learner. Students blamed the ‘experimenter’ rather than the participant. This
responsibility was due to legitimacy as the experimenter was top of the hierarchy. The
students recognized legitimate authority as the cause of obedience, supporting this
explanation.
A limitation is the agentic state cannot account for the behavior of the Nazis. Mandel
described German Reserve Police Battaion 101 - men shot civilians in a small town in
Poland. They did this even though they were not directly ordered to. This challenges the
agentic state explanation because the Reserve police were not powerless to disobey.
Legitimacy of authority is useful account of cultural differences in obedience. Countries
differ in obedience to authority. Authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate in some
cultures. This reflects how different societies are structures and children raised to perceive
authority figures. For example, only 16% of Australians went to the top of the voltage scale
whereas 85% of German participants did. Supportive findings from cross-cultural research
increase the validity of the explanation.
A strength is that legitimacy of authority can explain real life obedience. Kerman and
Hamilton suggest that the Vietnam war is explained by the hierarchy of the US Army. The
army has authority recognized by the US government and the law. Soldiers assume orders
given by the hierarchy to be legal such as to kill, rape and destroy villages. The legitimacy of
authority explanation is able to give reasons why destructive obedience is possible.
