Agency Theory of Obedience (Edexcel A-Level Psychology): Revision Notes
Agency Theory of Obedience
Background to the theory
Stanley Milgram designed influential obedience studies to investigate behaviour under conditions that might explain atrocities during Nazi control of Germany. Historians at the time suggested Nazi soldiers possessed an inherent personality defect making them more obedient to orders. Milgram was unconvinced by this explanation.
Influenced by Hannah Arendt's writings (1963) on Nazi lieutenant Adolf Eichmann, Milgram developed an alternative perspective. Arendt described Eichmann as an uninspired official with a mild-mannered nature, rather than the monster assumed. This led Milgram to investigate whether ordinary individuals could be instructed to harm others.
Milgram's obedience experiments used healthy participants to determine if they would comply with an authority figure and administer electric shocks to an innocent confederate (a person assisting with the study). His findings demonstrated that people are capable of complying with demands from someone in authority, even when this involves hurting another person.
Using this as a foundation, Milgram proposed that extreme obedience must serve an evolutionary or societal function.
Evolution of obedience
Milgram observed that human society is hierarchical, organised with ranked levels of authority. Many people occupy lower positions whilst fewer individuals hold higher positions with instruction-giving power. He proposed this hierarchy likely developed through evolution for survival purposes. Societies adopting hierarchical organisation survived, whilst those without perished.
This hierarchical social organisation requires a stabilising function to create social order and harmony within the group. Obedience within this structure is necessary to maintain it. Without obedience, challenges to social order would emerge, resulting in chaos and societal breakdown.
Humans are naturally predisposed to be obedient, similar to our innate capacity for language. Exposure to authority figures within family and education systems nurtures this preparedness through socialisation.
Socialisation refers to the process by which we learn the rules and norms of society through socialising agents, such as teachers and parents. These primary socialisers employ a system of rewards and punishments to encourage obedience and discourage dissent in young children. Sanctions and rewards are institutional features within educational and legal systems, performing a substantial role in ensuring we develop as subordinates within society.
Agency and autonomy
The two states
Within hierarchical structures of social groups, a mechanism must ensure obedience. Milgram proposed humans exist in two different states: autonomy and agency.
The Two States of Human Behaviour:
Autonomy describes acting according to one's own free will. In an autonomous state, a human acts following their own volition.
However, when given instruction by an authority figure, the human switches to an agentic state of mind, where they perceive themselves as acting as an agent for the authority figure.
Agency refers to when one acts as an agent for another. In the agentic state, individuals view themselves as instruments carrying out another person's wishes, rather than directing their own actions.
Moral strain
Milgram observed many participants in his obedience studies experienced moral strain when instructed to harm another person. Moral strain describes experiencing anxiety because you are asked to do something that contradicts your moral judgement. This occurs when people are requested to do something they would not choose themselves, feeling it is immoral or unjust.
The moral strain produces discomfort in the individual and, in extreme circumstances, generates anxiety and distress. This anxiety emerges as the individual contemplates dissent and considers behaving in a manner contradicting what they have been socialised to do.
Relief from moral strain
The shift into an agentic state of mind relieves moral strain. The individual displaces the accountability for the situation onto the authority figure, removing their sense of culpability for their actions. This displacement of responsibility is the only method to relieve moral strain. Dissent to authority can also produce relief once an individual has removed themselves from the situation.
The agentic shift does not imply the individual approves of their actions or lacks awareness of consequences. Rather, they feel the responsibility lies with the authority figure who issued the orders.
Wider issues: nature vs nurture
Milgram attempted to establish that obedience was not a dispositional trait (nature), as historians suggested, but a consequence of the situation in which a person finds themselves (environment). Drawing on Arendt's writings (1963), he characterises obedience as an ingrained behaviour established through socialisation.
This behaviour manifests when we are exposed to authority figures under certain environmental conditions conducive to compliance, such as closeness and status of the authority figure.
Evaluation
Supporting evidence
Milgram's first obedience experiment demonstrated that 65 per cent of participants were willing to obey an authority figure and potentially seriously harm an innocent confederate. This provides evidence for agency theory because participants showed overt signs of moral strain (anxiety) when given an order. When debriefed, many reported their behaviour was the responsibility of the experimenter, and that they had not wanted to do it. This demonstrates the concept of displacement of responsibility.
Real-Life Application: The My Lai Massacre
During the Vietnam War, a small village called My Lai was approached by American soldiers instructed to shoot the occupants suspected of being Vietcong soldiers. Lieutenant Calley instructed his division to enter the village and shoot, despite no return of fire. American soldiers massacred elderly men, women and children in the village that day after being ordered by Calley.
In his court martial following the incident, Calley claimed to be just following orders. This justification has been cited in many real-life cases of atrocities and offers support for agency theory involving a displacement of responsibility.
Research Evidence: Hofling et al. (1966) Hospital Study
Hofling et al. staged a study in a hospital setting. A stooge doctor telephoned a nurse working on a ward late at night, requesting she administer twice the daily dose of a drug to a patient. Against hospital policy, the stooge doctor informed the nurse that she would sign the prescription later.
Results: A total of 21 out of 22 nurses followed the doctor's orders and attempted to give the medication to the patient. Several nurses justified their behaviour as being a result of the hierarchy of authority at the hospital. This supports agency theory because the majority of nurses displaced their personal responsibility.
Weaknesses
Limitation: Individual Differences
A weakness of agency theory is that it does not explain individual differences – why some people obey and some do not. Disobedience and dissent can occur for many reasons, such as:
- Personality type
- Gender
- Situation
This indicates that obedience is a more complex process than agency theory explains.
Another weakness is that the concepts of autonomy and, particularly, agency are difficult to define and measure. Agency describes a state of mind that, according to Milgram, is switched to when given an order by an authority figure. This concept represents an internal mental process that cannot be directly measured, only inferred from agent behaviour.
Similarly, there is no direct evidence for the evolutionary basis of obedience. We cannot go back into our evolutionary past and study the development of obedience, nor can we dig up archaeological evidence for this type of behaviour. However, as similar hierarchical systems exist in animal groups, such as primates, with similar sanctions for disobedience, it can be inferred that it has evolved to serve some form of survival function for social groups.
Agency theory does not explain motivational issues behind obedience. French and Raven (1959) identified five bases of power said to motivate and influence behaviour:
- Legitimate power
- Reward power
- Referent power
- Expert power
- Coercive power
These factors are said to provide a better explanation of obedience, and certainly provide a better explanation for Milgram's findings from his experiments.
Key Points to Remember:
- Agency theory proposes that humans can exist in two states: autonomy (acting on free will) and agency (acting as an agent for authority)
- Moral strain occurs when people are ordered to do something that contradicts their moral judgement, causing anxiety and distress
- Shifting to an agentic state relieves moral strain by displacing responsibility onto the authority figure
- Evidence supports the theory: 65% obedience in Milgram's study, real-life examples (My Lai massacre, Hofling's hospital study)
- Weaknesses include failure to explain individual differences, difficulty measuring internal states, and lack of explanation for motivational bases of power