Social-Psychological factors
Agentic State
Milgram wanted to understand why so many of his participants administered the full 450-volt shock. In an everyday situation, we are said to be acting in an autonomous state. This means that we are acting independently or freely. Milgram’s agency theory (1973) suggests that we can move from this autonomous state and shift to an agentic state.
The agentic state is when we act on behalf of another person, usually an authoritative figure. We feel little to no responsibility for our actions and therefore give little consideration to the consequences of our actions. This could involve obeying destructive authority figures and causing harm to others.
Milgram suggested some binding factors that kept participants in this agentic state and reduced the personal accountability of their actions. Some participants identified with the experiment and did not want to disrupt it, so they continued with the instructions from the researchers. This may have also been influenced by the fact that the participants had already been paid, and therefore they almost felt they had an obligation to continue with the demands. The location of the experiment may have also had an impact on participants as they may have seen the “authority” as more legitimate due to the fact that the experiment was conducted at a prestigious university.
Legitimacy of Authority
We may also obey due to the natural societal hierarchies that, in general, we agree to. There are specific jobs or roles in society that we would recognize as having authority, such as our parents, police, teachers, and so on. This perceived authority is recognized as the role involves the individual being a source of knowledge or legal power. Parents, teachers, and police officers are likely to punish if orders are not obeyed, and therefore, we are more likely to obey.
We see the legitimacy of authority in Milgram’s study as the experiment was conducted in a prestigious university. Participants would have regarded the experimenter in the grey lab coat as an authoritative figure and therefore obeyed. When the experiment was repeated in a different location or with a “member of the public” or over the phone, this questions the legitimacy of authority and therefore the rates of obedience fell.
Legitimacy of authority has the power to be very destructive, as we have seen in history, and therefore it is important to understand why people obey and to minimize the chances of individuals taking advantage of their status in society.
Social-Psychological Factors – Strengths
Milgram interviewed his participants following his experiment. Many agreed that they would not have gone as far if they were in the room themselves. The experimenter, with his insistence they continue, forced the agentic shift, and participants felt that he would take responsibility for their actions as he had given the order to continue with the four prods. This is further supported by variations of Milgram’s study and the decrease in levels of obedience when the level of accountability increased and/or the legitimacy of authority was questioned.
Blass and Schmidt (2001) showed clips of Milgram’s experiment to their students. They then questioned them on who they thought was to blame. Students blamed the experimenter as they believed he had authority in the situation.
There is also research that supports the legitimacy of authority. Bickman (1974) designed an experiment that involved a confederate dressed up as either a milkman, security guard, or a member of the public. The confederate would ask members of the public passing by to pick up some litter. The level of obedience was greater for the security guard as they are higher in the societal hierarchy with respect to authority.
Social-Psychological Factors – Limitations
Agentic state and legitimacy theory have been used to help explain destructive authority, such as the Mai Lai Massacre. However, some psychologists argue these theories may be used as an alibi and should not try to diminish the responsibility of people’s actions in such extreme cases. For instance, Mandel (1998) described a German Reserve Police Battalion shoot civilians even though they were not explicitly ordered to do so.
Although these theories can shed light on why some people obey, they are limited in scope. They fail to account for individuals who act autonomously or for those who defy authority.