Evaluation of Agentic State and Legitimacy of Authority

Research supports the concepts of agentic state and legitimacy of authority psychology a level AQA. Blass and Schmitt (2001) conducted a study showing students a film of Milgram's experiment, finding that participants blamed the experimenter rather than the subject. This indicates that responsibility was attributed to legitimate authority.

Example: In the Blass and Schmitt study, students recognized legitimate authority as the cause of obedience, supporting the explanation of the agentic state.

However, there are limitations to the agentic state explanation. It doesn't fully explain why some participants in Milgram's study did not obey, despite the presence of authority. Additionally, it fails to account for findings in other studies, such as Hofling et al., where nurses did not show expected levels of anxiety when following a doctor's orders.

Highlight: The agentic state theory has limitations in explaining varied obedience behaviors across different experimental settings.

Legitimacy of authority a level Psychology provides a useful account of cultural differences in obedience. Cross-cultural studies have shown that countries differ in the degree to which people are traditionally obedient to authority.

Example: Kilham and Mann (1974) replicated Milgram's procedure in Australia and found only 16% of participants went to the top of the voltage scale, compared to 85% in Mantell's (1971) German study.

These findings reflect how different societies are structured and how children are raised to perceive authority. The supportive evidence from cross-cultural research increases the validity of the explanation.

Highlight: Cultural differences in obedience highlight the importance of societal structure and upbringing in shaping attitudes towards authority.

Real-Life Applications and Further Considerations

The concepts of agentic state and legitimacy of authority have real-world implications, particularly in understanding war crimes and atrocities. However, research suggests that not all such events can be fully explained by these theories alone.

Example: Mandel (1998) described an incident involving German Reserve Police Battalion 101, where men obeyed orders to shoot civilians in Poland despite not having direct orders to do so.

This example challenges the simplistic view of obedience to authority and suggests that other factors may be at play in real-life situations of extreme obedience.

Kelman and Hamilton (1989) argue that the My Lai massacre can be understood in terms of the power hierarchy of the US Army, demonstrating how legitimacy of authority can lead to real-life crimes of obedience.

Highlight: Real-life examples of obedience-related crimes underscore the complexity of human behavior in hierarchical situations and the limitations of single-factor explanations.

These considerations emphasize the need for a nuanced understanding of obedience that takes into account multiple factors, including individual differences, situational contexts, and cultural influences. This comprehensive approach is crucial for developing a more accurate and applicable model of obedience in psychology.

The Agentic State and Legitimacy of Authority

The agentic state is a crucial concept in explanations of obedience a level Psychology. It occurs when a person shifts responsibility for their actions to someone else, typically a figure of authority. This state is characterized by high levels of anxiety as the individual realizes the implications of their actions.

Definition: The agentic state is when a person doesn't take responsibility for their actions but blames someone else, particularly a figure of authority.

The agentic shift happens when a person perceives another as having higher authority, often due to social hierarchy. In most situations where someone is in charge, others defer to this person, shifting from autonomy to agency.

Vocabulary: Autonomous state refers to being in charge of one's own actions, contrasting with the agentic state.

Legitimacy of authority psychology is another key factor in obedience. Most societies are structured hierarchically, with legitimate authority agreed upon by governments and passed down through generations. This structure can lead to obedience to destructive authority, as seen in historical events like the My Lai massacre.

Example: Hitler's rise to power demonstrates how those with legitimate authority can abuse their position, leading to destructive consequences.

Binding factors Psychology examples include aspects of a situation that allow a person to ignore or minimize the damaging effects of their behavior, thus reducing moral conflict. Milgram proposed that people may shift responsibility to the victim as a binding factor.

Highlight: The concept of binding factors is crucial in understanding how individuals justify or rationalize obedient behavior that may be morally questionable.