Explanations of Obedience: Agentic State and Legitimacy of Authority
This page discusses two key explanations for obedience: the Agentic State theory and Legitimacy of Authority. It evaluates their strengths and limitations in explaining obedience across different scenarios and cultures.
The Agentic State theory, proposed to explain findings from the Milgram obedience study, suggests that individuals shift from an autonomous state to an agentic state when following orders. However, this theory faces challenges in explaining certain research findings.
Example: In Milgram's study, not all participants obeyed fully, with only 65% administering the maximum 450-volt shock. This contradicts the expectation that all participants would shift to an agentic state.
Highlight: The Rank and Jacobson 1977 study found that 16 out of 18 nurses disobeyed a doctor's orders to administer an excessive drug dose, challenging the Agentic State theory's applicability in real-world scenarios.
The theory also struggles to explain findings from Hofling's study on nurses, where participants did not experience high anxiety as predicted by the Agentic State theory.
Definition: Agentic state refers to a condition where an individual sees themselves as an agent carrying out another person's wishes, rather than being responsible for their own actions.
Legitimacy of Authority as an explanation for obedience offers insights into cultural differences in obedience rates.
Example: Kilham and Mann 1974 replicated Milgram's research in Australia, finding only 16% of participants administered the maximum voltage, while Mantell 1971 found 85% obedience among German participants.
This theory suggests that cultural perceptions of authority and social hierarchies influence obedience levels. However, it has limitations in explaining instances of disobedience within clear hierarchical structures.
Vocabulary: Legitimacy of authority refers to the perceived right of an authority figure to issue commands and expect obedience.
Both theories contribute to our understanding of obedience but have limitations in fully explaining all observed behaviors. The complexity of human obedience suggests that multiple factors, including situational and dispositional explanations, may play a role.
Highlight: The inability of these theories to explain all instances of obedience and disobedience indicates that obedience is a complex phenomenon influenced by various factors, including individual personality traits and specific situational contexts.
