Download sample_answers_agency_theory1

Year 12 Psychology Sample Answers
Social Psychology
Describe the Milgram’s Agency Theory of Obedience (4)
You need to present a concise précis of the theory and this should be illustrated with one example
taken from psychological research ideally. The example should be kept short as it is worth no more
than one mark.
Milgram coined the term ‘agentic state’ to explain the obedience seen in his famous experiments
whereby 65% of Pps followed orders to administer electric shocks upto 450 V to a stranger in a
supposed experiment about learning. Milgram believed that the Pps were acting purely as ‘agents’,
on behalf of the authority figure, ‘the experimenter’, and absolved themselves of their moral
responsibility to protect the learner , Mr Wallace. Under any other circumstances they would not
have behaved in this way as it conflicts with the basic social norm of not harming others, however in
the agentic state we are not guided by personal norms but by the orders of the authority figure.
He explained that this may involve an element of moral strain as the participants own moral code
conflicts with the behaviour that they find themselves enacting.
He described that certain aspects of the social situation such as the perception of real or imagined
authority bring about the agentic shift from the autonomous state whereby the individual feels
responsible for the consequences of his or her behaviour and makes decisions according to his or
her own freewill rather than actions being determined by one’s place in the social hierarchy.
Milgram explained that the agentic state has its origins in the socialisation process, whereby
obedience becomes associated with rewards in infancy and this is further reinforced in the school
years, leading to unquestioning obedience in adulthood.
He also explained that obedience can be seen as having survival value and that natural selection
favours those creatures who fit into the social hierarchy and this explains why the behaviour was so
prevalent in his studies.
Describe two strengths of this theory (4)
Strength 1: One strength of this theory is that is supported by a fairly reliable raft of research
evidence including the findings of Milgram’s own obedience studies.
He found that obedience decreased in certain situations for example when the plight of the learner
was made more apparent; agency theory would predict this as participants would be more likely to
revert to the autonomous state as they were unable to ignore the consequences of their actions since
the physical and psychological distance between them was eliminated.
Similarly when the experimenter’s authority was reduced by the study happening in a less prestigious
setting, obedience also went down and this too can be explained as participants are less likely to make
the agentic shift when the source of the authority is more ambiguous.
Strength 2: A further strength of this theory is that it has been applied in the real world and used to
help people to resist destructive obedience in the face of potentially malevolent authority figures and
also as a defence in the courtroom to demonstrate to the jury the power of the social situation in
compelling people to do things that are against their own will.
The studies and the theory have inspired generations of psychology students to remain autonomous
when they feel they may be being asked to do something that goes against their own moral code of
conduct.
The theory appears in business and ethics textbooks as a reminder of the importance of being aware of
the consequences of one’s actions and remaining alert to one’s own power to resist orders.
It was also used in a South African courtroom as a defence which eventually saved 9 defendants from
the death penalty in a case where someone was murdered as a result of mob action. Whether one
agrees with the outcome or not, this is a strength of the theory as it allowed people to take a different
perspective on the idea of freewill and determinism as regards the power of social circumstances.
Strength 3
The theory is able to explain real world scenarios such as ...

Abuse by American soldiers of Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib jail

The actions of Nazi war criminals such as Adolf Eichmann, during the ‘Final Solution’

The brutal treatment of Albanian footballers by Serbian police who were their friends and
neighbours and knew they were not terrorists
These points will be elaborated in the key issue for this topic.
Weaknesses of the theory:
Weakness 1
The theory could be said to be unfalsifiable meaning that it is difficult for the findings of cross cultural
research to prove the theory wrong.
For example, the theory would suggest that we should expect differing levels of obedience across
different cultures since some cultures may be more permissive and may reward children for being
independent and making their own choices, whereas other cultures may be more authoritarian and
expect children to adhere more rigidly to strict rules. The theory would suggest that the more
permissive culture should have lower obedience and that cultural difference will be observed. If such
differences were not observed and all cultures appeared in fact rather similar (despite differing child
rearing practices) the theory would also predict this outcome, since it says that obedience has survival
value and thus obedience will be a probably outcome in all cultures.
Falsifiability is the hallmark of a high quality theory and Milgram’s theory does not meet this criteria.
Weakness 2
The theory does not explain effectively why certain authority figures command higher levels obedience
than others. For example 900 people committed suicide by drinking poison when ordered to do so by
cult leader Jim Jones, however he did not have any real legitimate authority as Milgram suggests is
necessary to make the agentic shift. Other theories of obedience such as Social Power Theory (French
and Raven, 1959) are better placed to explain this type of phenomena as the theory recognises that
power need not be legitimate, it can also come from expert knowledge or charisma (referent power).
Weakness 3
The theory does not effectively explain why some people find it easier to resist obedience than others.
For example 35% of the original sample of 40 men refused to continue at 300 volts and agency theory
has little to say about the shift back to the autonomous state.
Other theories of obedience such as the authoritarian personality theory of Adorno, (1950) are better
placed to explain why some people are more obedient than others and this theory suggests that it has
to do with experiences in infancy relating to a harsh style of upbringing which creates feelings of
aggression and hostility towards the parents which cannot be expressed due to fear.
In later life this is expressed through highly conventional and obedient behaviour. Adorno says that
authoritarianism can be measured using a questionnaire called the Fscale and would predict that
people obtaining high score of this scale would also be highly obedient in Milgram’s studies. Since this
theory is better able to explain some of the research data, this weakens the validity of Milgram’s
theory as a comprehensive explanation of obedience.
Evaluate Milgram’s agency theory
Milgram’s agency theory is supported by his own research studies where he demonstrated that the
majority of pps would make the shift from autonomy to agency when confronted with an authority
figure and commit acts of blind/destructive obedience. He also further support his theory when he
explored the range of social factors which influence the probability of a person making the agentic
shift. For example he found that obedience fell when the experimenter no longer wore the lab coat
and also when the experiments was conducted in the down town are of Bridgeport an this suggests that
as perceived authority decreases so does the probability of making the agentic shift. Similarly, when
the participants own freewill and autonomy is highlighted by role models who behave in a way which
defies the experimenter, obedience also fell significantly.
However, one problem with using Milgram’s research to support the theory is that much of it as
conducted upon American males suggesting that the theory may be androcentric and ethnocentric.
However, replications have been conducted in many cultures and also with women with similar results.
Also the studies conducted by MIlgram took place in under usual and artificial laboratory circumstances
and it is possible that participants behaviour was also unnatural and therefore the study lacks evidence
from ecologically valid studies. This said, in a field experiment involving deception, Hofling (1966)
showed that obedience was as high as 95% when nurses were asked to administer a double dose of an
unlicensed drug by an unknown doctor, thus breaking multiple hospital rules and therefore going
against what they personally knew to be the expected standard of behaviour. This suggests that the
nurses were in the agentic state and despite a questionnaire which indicated that most nurses believed
that they would defy the doctor in similar circumstances, when actually in this situation the nurses in
this study did not, they blindly followed orders, without even apparently suffering much overt moral
strain.
So it would seem that Milgram’s theory is supported by studies which are both reliable and valid. The
theory also has useful real life applications in that it can explain atrocities such as those that occurred
in the Rwandan genocide, where neighbours killed each other because they were ordered to do so by
authority figures in the Interhamwe, and Abu Ghraib where American soldiers abused Iraqi prisoners.
The theory can also be sued to educate people about the need to be self-aware in situations where we
feel that we are in a position of lesser authority and to remember that authority figures sometimes
may try to abuse their authority and lead us to do things that we may later regret.
Finally, it should be noted however that agency theory doe little to explain why some individuals are
less likely to make the agentic shift than others even when they have been socialised in similar
societies. Adorno’s (1950) authoritarian personality theory is better equipped to explain why for
example 35% of people did not go to 450 Volts in the Milgram experiment as he says that experiences
within the family during early childhood care responsible for creating highly obedient personality
types. This theory does not have as much evidence to support it as Milgram as the studios tend to be
correlational since childhood experiences cannot be controlled however, it does do a better job of
explaining obedience rather than merely describing it.
Finally agency theory does not explain why some authority figures achieve greater levels of obedience
than others and other theories have been shown to be more effective in explaining such findings, e.g.
the charismatic leadership theory, which explains that a range of individual factors relating to the
authority figure are important determinants of compliance and obedience.