Explanations for Obedience (AQA AS Psychology)
Revision Note
Written by: Claire Neeson
Reviewed by: Lucy Vinson
Agentic state
Stanley Milgram is one of the most well-known psychology researchers worldwide due to his groundbreaking study of obedience
Milgram’s (1963) work on obedience drew from the idea that people will obey an authority figure if specific situational factors are present, even to the point of harming a stranger who has done them no wrong (known as destructive obedience)
In brief, Milgram's study is as follows:
A sample of American males were recruited (they were naive to the true aim of the study)
In the role of 'Teacher', each participant administered electric shocks (which were fake, although the participants did not know this) to the 'Learner' for every incorrect answer given
An experimenter provided 'prods' to encourage the participants to continue if they raised any objection to the procedure
65% of the participants went all the way to the (fatal) 450 volts
Milgram’s study was based on the concept of agency theory
When an individual is in an agentic state they feel removed from their actions
‘I was just obeying orders’
Examples of the agentic state include:
Opening fire on unarmed civilians because your commander issued the order to do so
The My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War is a good example of extreme violence perpetrated against unarmed villagers by armed soldiers who were told to attack by their captain
Reporting your colleague for making personal calls during office hours as part of your workplace’s directive to identify time-wasters
Ignoring one of your friends because the most popular and powerful person in your group told you to do so
In all of the above examples the individuals who perpetrate the harm can claim deniability and pass any blame onto the person who issued the order
The agentic state allows people to minimise responsibility and guilt about their (negative) actions because they are acting under someone else’s command
The consequences of their actions cannot be held to blame themselves
‘Not my fault; not my decision; not my problem’
The agentic state is made possible by the presence of a legitimate authority figure who has the status/position to issue demands or orders
Social hierarchies stand or fall according to whether people adhere to the norms expected of them in society
The further up the hierarchy someone is, the more they would expect obedience (or at least compliance) from those lower down
Obeying the orders of someone further up the hierarchy means that personal responsibility for actions can be shifted onto them
Being part of a social hierarchy is a binding factor that may contribute to destructive obedience
Milgram's study imposed a moral strain on the participants, so being able to shift responsibility for the shocks to the experimenter allowed them to ease the burden of guilt/shame
Examiner Tips and Tricks
You could be asked to discuss the agentic state as an explanation for obedience which is quite a demanding question.
If this was an 8-mark question you could score 3 marks for AO1 and 5 marks for AO3 which is why it is important to not only describe the agentic state but to evaluate it as well (AO3 is worth 2 marks more than AO1 in this question after all).
Some points you could include in your AO3 evaluation are:
The use of research to support/contradict the explanation e.g. Milgram variations, Bickman, Hofling
The use of real-life examples to illustrate explanations, e.g.My Lai massacre in Vietnam
The theory does not account for instances of disobedience
Obedience may be dispositional rather than situational, e.g. authoritarian personality
The difficulty measuring obedience
Cultural differences in respect for and responses to authority
Legitimacy of authority
An authority figure is anyone who has a legitimate status to issue orders
‘Legitimate’ could be considered in official terms, e.g. police officer, or unofficially, e.g. school bully
If an individual perceives someone to be an authority figure then they are much more likely to obey orders from them than from someone who appears to lack status or authority
As outlined above it is necessary to some extent for social hierarchies to exist
Someone has to be in control and decide how things are run in an office, school, business, country etc.
If no one obeyed and everyone rebelled then (possibly) chaos would follow
For most people, it is a relief to let someone else take charge as this reduces cognitive load and frees up their time to get on with more enjoyable (or mundane) tasks
Research by Bickman (1974) showed that:
People were more likely to obey a confederate dressed as a security guard than when the confederate was dressed as a milkman or in plain clothes
The plain clothes condition resulted in the lowest levels of obedience
Hence, a uniform confers authority, even when it is not a police uniform
Being in charge can be stressful as it brings with it much responsibility but (as seen in Zimbardo's prison experiment) power can corrupt and lead to destructive obedience
Lack of obedience may result in punishment or the withdrawal of social approval which is another binding factor
If someone in authority tells you to do something then you had better do it or risk the consequences
It's often easier to simply obey rather than to question the motivation behind the order
Evaluation of explanations for obedience
Strengths
Agency theory has strong external validity
Examples of agentic state and destructive obedience to an authority figure can be seen in acts of atrocity throughout history, e.g.
the holocaust in Nazi Germany was only made possible by thousands of ordinary people obeying horrific orders and directives from above
the Rwandan genocide turned neighbour against neighbour with destructive, propagandist orders transmitted by a popular radio show
Legitimacy of authority has been supported by research evidence
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
Limitations
Agency theory cannot explain why some people do not obey, even when they would be justified in blaming someone else for their actions
Thus, the theory only offers a situational explanation of obedience rather than a dispositional explanation of obedience
Both of these explanations for obedience are deterministic
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
Last updated:
You've read 0 of your 5 free revision notes this week
Sign up now. It’s free!
Did this page help you?