Theories of obedience, including agency theory and social power theory.
An agentic state is when an individual carries out the orders of an authority figure and acts as their agent, with little personal responsibility. In Milgram’s original experiment, the participants were told that the experimenter had full responsibility and therefore they could act as an agent, carrying out the experimenter’s orders. If the participants were told that they were responsible, it is possible that Milgram would have obtained very different results.
Milgram argued that people operate in one of two ways when faced with social situations. Individuals can act autonomously and choose their behaviour, or they can enter an agentic state, where they carry out orders of an authority figure and do not feel responsible for their actions. When a person changes from autonomous state to an agentic state, they have undergone an agentic shift.
In Milgram’s original experiment 65% of participants administered the full 450 volts and were arguably in an agentic state. However, in one variation of Milgram’s experiment and additional confederate administered the electric shocks on behalf of the teacher. In this variation the percentage of participants who administered the full 450 volts rose dramatically, from 65% to 92.5%. This variation highlights the power of shifting responsibility (agentic shift), as these participants were able to shift their responsibility onto the person administering the electric shocks and continue obeying orders because they felt less responsible. Therefore, the ability to enter an agentic state increases the level of obedience, as the level of personal responsibility decreases.
Supporting evidence comes from Milgram’s (1963) study which showed that 65% of his participant behaved agentically and shocked the learner to 450 volts.
Agency theory can be applied to explain the acts of genocide like the Holocaust in which the soldiers behaved agentically and blindly obeyed without question and murdered millions of Jews.
Charismatic leadership (House, 1976) suggests that it is the traits of the leader that are important in gaining obedience and not just the presence of the authority figure as agency theory suggests.
Milgram’s agency theory does not consider individual differences in personality therefore it is an incomplete explanation of what influences a person to obey.
One power base in social power theory is that leaders hold referent power, as they often have attractiveness, worthiness and/or a right to respect
Leaders may be seen to have and expert power from their skill and knowledge of a specific area.
Deindividuation occurs when people are part of a large crowd and they lose self-awareness and accountability so commit destructive acts that they normally would not.
Agency theory suggests that people give up their free will and follow the orders of an authority figure.
Deindividuation can explain behaviour in crowds at the time of fighting and conflict which is supported by Festinger et al, so may be more appropriate than social power theory.
Milgram (1963) provides evidence to show that individuals follow authority figures although he does not fully explain whole group behaviour.
Social power theory can be applied to society as soldiers in the Holocaust may have perceived their officers to have legitimate power as the officers were in an appointed position of authority therefore ensuring obedience from the soldiers to carry out their orders.
Coercive power requires surveillance otherwise power decreases and group leaders may not always be present to monitor their members, so social power theory cannot explain all aspects of group behaviour.
Social power theory as studied by French and Raven (1959) is difficult to operationalise therefore cannot always be measured accurately, so it may not be supported by reliable evidence.
French and Raven claim that obedience is influenced by the type of power the authority figure possesses which is not the only explanation of obedience. Alternatively, Milgram’s (1963) agency theory suggests that being in an agentic state and giving up free will to an authority figure will make a person obedient.
Define the following types of power. (a) Coercive power (1) (b) Expert power (1) (c) Legitimate power (1) January 2017
Identify which type of social power has the largest spread of scores in Table 1. (1) January 2018
Justify Social Power using reasons. (2) January 2019
Explain one weakness of social power theory. (2) January 2019
Describe ‘agentic state’. (2) October 2019
Describe, using agency theory, why the nurses may have followed the instructions to administer incorrect medication for patients. (2) January 2017
Justify, using social power theory, two reasons why Marco reached these conclusions. (2) January 2019
Explain one weakness of social power theory. (2) January 2019
Describe the term ‘agentic state’ as used within agency theory. (2) October 2019
Explain two strengths of agency theory. (4) October 2019
Explain one strength and one weakness of social power theory. (4) January 2020
Explain one strength and one weakness of agency theory. (4) October 2016
Explain how effective agency theory is in accounting for obedience to authority. (4) June 2016
Explain two strengths of agency theory. (4) October 2019
Evaluate social power theory as an explanation of obedience. (8) June 2017
Evaluate agency theory as an explanation of obedience. (8) June 2018
Assess whether social power theory is a complete explanation of obedience. (8) October 2018
Evaluate how effectively social power theory can explain group behaviour. (12) October 2016
Evaluate how effectively agency theory could be used to support Nisa and Tobin’s findings. (12) January 2018